PARKE BANCORP INC

The Company’s management evaluated, with the participation of the Company’s Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer, the effectiveness of the Company’s disclosure controls and procedures,(as defined in Rule 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e) under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, (the "Exchange Act")), as of the end of the period covered by this report. Based on that evaluation, the Chief Executive Officer and the Chief Financial Officer concluded that the Company’s disclosure controls and procedures are effective to ensure that information required to be disclosed by the Company in the reports that it files or submits under the Exchange Act is recorded, processed, summarized and reported within the time periods specified in the Securities and Exchange Commission’s (“SEC”) rules and forms.

There were no changes in the Company's internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the Company's last fiscal quarter that have materially affected, or are reasonably likely to materially affect, the Company's internal control over financial reporting.

PART II. OTHER INFORMATION

Absecon Gardens Condominium Association v. Parke Bank Matter

Absecon Gardens Condominium Association v. Parke Bank, One Mechanic Street, et al, Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Atlantic County, Docket No. ATL-L-2321-21. The Company is the successor to the interests of the developer of the Absecon Gardens Condominium project in Absecon NJ. Some of the unit owners have suggested that the Company is responsible for contributions and/or repair for alleged damages purportedly relating to construction. The owners filed a Complaint, alleging that the damages total approximately $1.7 million. The matter is in the early stages of discovery so it is difficult to determine whether that amount accurately reflects the claimed damages, or whether the Company is in any way culpable for the damages. At this time it is too early to predict whether an unfavorable outcome will result. The Company is vigorously defending this matter. In the normal course of business, there are outstanding various contingent liabilities such as claims and legal action, which are not reflected in the financial statements. In the opinion of management, no material losses are anticipated as a result of these actions or claims.

Mori Restaurant LLC v. Parke Bank Matter

On May 20, 2014, Parke Bank (the "Bank") loaned Voorhees Diner Corporation ("VDC") the original principal sum of $1.0 million for purposes of tenant fit out, and operation, of the Voorhees Diner situated at 320 Route 73, Voorhees, New Jersey 08043. VDC leased the Diner property under that certain Lease with Mori Restaurant LLC ("Mori") dated May 20, 2014. In connection with the loan from the Bank and as security therefor, VDC pledged its leasehold interest to the Bank. On March 6, 2015, the loan was modified, and the principal amount of the loan was increased to $1.4 million. On January 8, 2020, the Bank declared VDC in default of its loan obligations. Judgment was entered against VDC and in favor of the Bank, and the court appointed Alan I. Gould, Esquire, as the Receiver for the Voorhees Diner Corporation. Mr. Gould subsequently caused VDC's leasehold interest in the Diner property to be sold at sheriffs sale. The Bank's REO subsidiary, 320 Route 73 LLC, was the successful bidder and took title thereto. Mori Restaurant has filed counterclaims against 320 Route 73 LLC and the Bank for rent allegedly accruing due during the period that the Receiver was in possession of the premises. As to all of Mori Restaurant’s claims, the Bank defendants’ primary, but not exclusive, defense in this matter is that, pursuant to that certain Fee Owner Consent executed by and between Mori Restaurant and the Bank, in November 2014, the lease between VDC and Mori Restaurant was terminated as a matter of law and neither the Bank nor 320 Route 73 LLC have liability to Mori Restaurant under the lease or otherwise. The Bank believes this suit is without merit, denies any and all liability and intends to vigorously defend against this matter.

Other than the foregoing, there were nomaterial pending legal proceedings, other than ordinary routine litigation incidental to the business, to which the Companyor any of its subsidiaries is a party or of which any of their property is the subject.