Pioneer Bancorp IncMD

MARCH 31, 2024

**1.**NATURE OF OPERATIONS

Pioneer Bancorp, Inc. (the “Company”) is a mid-tier stock holding company whose wholly owned subsidiary is Pioneer Bank (the “Bank”). The Bank, as of March 31, 2024 was a New York State chartered savings bank whose wholly owned subsidiaries are Pioneer Commercial Bank, Anchor Agency, Inc. and Pioneer Financial Services, Inc. On July 17, 2019, the Company became the holding company of the Bank when it closed its stock offering in connection with the completion of the reorganization of the Bank into the two-tier mutual holding company form of organization.

On April 1, 2024, the Bank completed its conversion to a national bank following approval of the conversion by the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (the “OCC”), the regulator of national banks. Following the completion of the conversion, the Bank will operate under the name “Pioneer Bank, National Association” and be subject to the supervision, regulation and examination by the OCC.

The Company provides diversified financial services through the Bank and its subsidiaries, with 23 offices in the Capital Region of New York State. The Company, through its subsidiaries, offers a broad array of deposit, lending, and other financial services to individuals, businesses, and municipalities.

The interim financial data as of March 31, 2024 and for the three and nine months ended March 31, 2024 and 2023, respectively, is unaudited and reflects all normal recurring adjustments that are, in the opinion of management, necessary for a fair presentation of the results for the interim periods presented in conformance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America (“GAAP”). The results of operations for the three and nine months ended March 31, 2024 are not necessarily indicative of the results to be achieved for the remainder of fiscal 2024 or any other period.

These unaudited interim consolidated financial statements should be read in conjunction with the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K, for the year ended June 30, 2023.

**2.**SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES

Principles of Consolidation

The consolidated financial statements include the accounts of the Company, the Bank, and the Bank’s wholly owned subsidiaries. All significant intercompany accounts and transactions have been eliminated in consolidation.

Use of Estimates

The preparation of consolidated financial statements in conformity with GAAP requires management to make estimates and assumptions that affect the reported amount of assets and liabilities and disclosure of contingent assets and liabilities at the date of the consolidated financial statements and the reported amounts of revenues and expenses during the reporting period. Actual results could differ substantially from those estimates. The allowance for credit losses, valuation of securities and other financial instruments, the funded status and expense of employee benefit plans, legal proceedings and other contingent liabilities, and the realizability of deferred tax assets are particularly subject to change.

Reclassifications

Amounts in the prior period’s consolidated financial statements are reclassified whenever necessary to conform to the current period’s presentation.

Adoption of Recent Accounting Pronouncements

Financial Instruments - Credit Losses - Topic 326

In June 2016, the Financial Accounting Standards Board (the “FASB”) issued Accounting Standards Update (“ASU”) 2016-13 to its guidance on “Financial Instruments – Credit Losses (Topic 326): Measurement of Credit Losses on Financial Instruments”. ASU 2016-13 requires credit losses on most financial assets measured at amortized cost and certain other instruments to be measured using an expected credit loss model (referred to as the current expected credit loss model). Under this model, entities will estimate credit losses over the entire contractual term of the instrument (considering estimated prepayments, but not expected extensions or modifications unless reasonable expectation of a troubled debt restructuring exists) from the date of initial recognition of that instrument. The ASU also replaces the current accounting model for purchased credit impaired loans and debt securities. The allowance for credit losses for purchased financial assets with a more-than insignificant amount of credit deterioration since origination (“PCD assets”), should be determined in a similar manner to other financial assets measured on an amortized cost basis. However, upon initial recognition, the allowance for credit losses is added to the purchase price (“gross up approach”) to determine the initial amortized cost basis. The subsequent accounting for PCD financial assets is the same expected loss model described above. Further, the ASU made certain targeted amendments to the existing impairment model for available for sale debt securities. For an available for sale debt security for which there is neither the intent nor a more-likely-than-not requirement to sell, an entity will record credit losses as an allowance rather than a write-down of the amortized cost basis. The amendments in this ASU are effective for the Company for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 2023. An entity will apply the amendments in this ASU through a cumulative-effect adjustment to retained earnings as of the beginning of the first reporting period in which the guidance is effective (that is, a modified-retrospective approach). In November 2018, the FASB issued ASU 2018-19, Codification Improvements to Topic 326, Financial Instruments-Credit Losses, which aligns the implementation date for nonpublic entities’ annual financial statements with the implementation date for their interim financial statements and clarifies the scope of the guidance in the amendments in ASU 2016-13. In April 2019, the FASB issued ASU 2019-04, Codification Improvements to Topic 326, Financial Instruments-Credit Losses, Topic 815, Derivatives and Hedging, and Topic 825, Financial Instruments. ASU 2019-04 clarifies or addresses stakeholders’ specific issues about certain aspects of the amendments in ASU 2016-13 related to measuring the allowance for loan losses under the new guidance. The effective dates and transition requirements for the amendments related to this ASU are the same as the effective dates and transition requirements in ASU 2016-13. In November 2019, the FASB issued ASU 2019-11, Codification Improvements to Topic 326, Financial Instruments-Credit Losses clarifying certain amendments to various provisions of ASU 2016-13 relating to (1) purchased financial assets with credit deterioration, (2) financial assets secured by collateral maintenance agreements, (3) transition relief for troubled debt restructurings, and (4) disclosure relief when the practical expedient for accrued interest receivables is applied.

On July 1, 2023, the Company adopted ASU 2016-13 Financial Instruments – Credit Losses (Topic 326): Measurement of Credit Losses on Financial Instruments, as amended, which replaces the incurred loss methodology with an expected loss methodology that is referred to as the current expected credit loss (“CECL”) methodology. The measurement of expected credit losses under the CECL methodology is applicable to financial assets measured at amortized cost, including loan receivables and held to maturity debt securities. It also applies to off-balance sheet credit exposures (loan commitments, standby letters of credit, financial guarantees, and other similar instruments). In addition, the CECL guidance made changes to the accounting for available for sale debt securities. One such change is to require credit losses to be presented as an allowance rather than as a write-down on available for sale debt securities which management does not intend to sell or believes that it is more likely than not they will be required to sell.

The Company adopted the CECL guidance using the modified retrospective method for all financial assets measured at amortized cost, and off-balance-sheet credit exposures, except for debt securities for which other-than-temporary impairment had been recognized prior to July 1, 2023 for which the Company adopted the CECL guidance using the prospective transition approach. Results for reporting periods beginning after July 1, 2023, are presented under the CECL guidance while prior period amounts continue to be reported in accordance with previously applicable GAAP. The Company recorded a net increase to retained earnings of $507,000 as of July 1, 2023 for the cumulative effect of adopting the CECL guidance. The transition adjustment includes a $2.3 million decrease to the allowance for credit losses, a $1.6 million increase to the allowance for credit losses on unfunded commitments, and a $180,000 impact to the deferred tax assets. The Company did not record an allowance for credit losses on held to maturity and available for sale debt securities on July 1, 2023, as the amount of credit risk was deemed immaterial.

Allowance for Credit Losses on Loans

The CECL approach requires an estimate of the credit losses expected over the life of a loan (or pool of loans). The allowance for credit losses is a valuation account deducted from the amortized cost basis of loans to present the net, lifetime amount expected to be collected on the loans. Expected losses are evaluated and calculated on a collective, or pooled, basis for those loans which share similar risk characteristics. If the loan does not share risk characteristics with other loans, the Company will evaluate the loan on an individual basis. Individually evaluated loans are primarily non-accrual and collateral dependent loans. Loan losses are charged off against the allowance when management believes a loan balance is confirmed to be uncollectible. Expected recoveries do not exceed the aggregate of amounts previously charged-off and amounts expected to be charged-off.

The loan portfolio is segmented at the level at which the Company develops and documents a systematic methodology to determine its allowance for credit losses. Upon adoption of CECL, management revised the manner in which loans were pooled for similar risk characteristics. Management developed the following segments for estimating loss based on type of borrower and collateral which is generally based upon federal call report segmentation and have been combined or subsegmented as needed to ensure loans of similar risk profiles are appropriately pooled: commercial (commercial real estate, commercial and industrial, and commercial construction), residential mortgages, home equity loans and lines, and consumer loans.

Management estimates the allowance for credit losses on loans by using relevant available information, from internal and external sources, related to past events, current conditions, and reasonable and supportable forecasts that affect the collectability of loans. Historical loss experience was considered by the Company for estimating expected credit losses and determined the need to use peer data, with similar risk profiles, to develop and calculate the CECL reserve models.

Historical credit loss experience for the Company and peer losses by loan segments, provide a foundation for estimating an expected credit loss. The observed credit losses are converted to probability of default (“PD”) rate curves through the use of loss given default (“LGD”) risk factors that converts default rates to estimated loss for each loan segment. This is based on industry-level, observed relationships between the PD and LGD variables for each segment. The historical PD curves correspond to economic variables through historical economic cycles, which establishes a quantitative relationship between forecasted economic conditions and loan performance.

Using the historical quantitative relationship between economic conditions and loan performance, management developed a model, using selected external economic forecasts that is highly correlated for each loan segment. These forecasts are then applied over a period that management has determined to be reasonable and supportable. Beyond the period over which management can develop or source a reasonable and supportable forecast, the model will revert to long-term average economic conditions using a straight-line methodology.

The allowance for credit losses on loans is measured on a collective basis, when similar risk characteristics are present, with both a quantitative and qualitative analysis that is applied on a quarterly basis. The respective quantitative reserve for each segment is calculated using a PD/LGD modeling methodology, with segment-specific regression models. The discounted cash flows methodology uses expected credit losses estimated over the effective life of each loan by measuring the difference between the net present value of modeled cash flows and amortized cost basis. Contractual cash flows over the contractual life of the loans are the basis for modeled cash flows, adjusted for modeled defaults and expected prepayments and discounted at the loan-level stated interest rate.

Management applies a qualitative adjustment for each segment as of the consolidated statements of condition date. The qualitative adjustments include limitations inherent in the quantitative model; changes in lending policies and procedures; changes in international, national, regional, and local economic conditions; changes in the nature and volume of the portfolio and terms of loans; the experience, ability and depth of lending management and staff; changes in the volume and severity of past due loans; changes in value of underlying collateral; existence and effect of any concentrations of credit and changes in the levels of such concentrations; and the effect of external factors; such as competition, legal and regulatory requirements.

On a case-by-case basis, the Company may conclude that a loan should be evaluated on an individual basis based on its disparate risk characteristics. When the Company determines that a loan no longer shares similar risk characteristics

with other loans in the portfolio, the allowance will be determined on an individual basis using the present value of expected cash flows or, for collateral-dependent loans, the estimated fair value of the collateral, as applicable.

Allowance for Credit Losses on Unfunded Commitments

The Company estimates expected credit losses over the contractual period in which the Company has exposure to a contractual obligation to extend credit unless that obligation is unconditionally cancellable by the Company. The allowance for credit losses on unfunded commitments exposure is recognized in other liabilities on the consolidated statement of condition and is adjusted by the provision for credit losses on the consolidated statement of operations. The estimate includes consideration of the likelihood that funding will occur and an estimate of expected credit losses on commitments expected to be funded over the estimated contractual life. The probable funding amount by segment is multiplied by the respective reserve percentage calculated in the allowance for credit losses on loans to calculate a reserve on unfunded commitments.

Allowance for Credit Losses on Securities Held to Maturity

The Company is required to utilize the CECL approach to estimate expected credit losses. Management measures expected credit losses on held to maturity debt securities on a collective basis by major security types that share similar risk characteristics. Management classifies the held to maturity debt securities portfolio into the following major security types: Corporate debt securities and municipal obligations. Expected losses are calculated on a pooled basis using a probability of default/loss given default (PD/LGD) model, based on historical credit loss data from a reliable source. Management utilizes corporate and municipal default and loss rates which provides decades of data across all corporate and municipal sectors and geographies. Management may exercise discretion to make adjustments based on environmental factors. The model calculates the expected loss for each security over the contractual life. If the risk of a held to maturity debt security no longer matches the collective assessment pool, it is removed and individually assessed for credit deterioration.

Allowance for Credit Losses on Securities Available for Sale

The impairment model for available for sale debt securities differs from the CECL approach utilized for held to maturity debt securities because available for sale debt securities are measured at fair value rather than amortized cost. For available for sale securities in an unrealized loss position, the Company first assesses whether it intends to sell, or it is more than likely than not that it will be required to sell the security before recovery of its amortized cost basis. If either of the criteria regarding intent or requirement to sell is met, the security’s amortized cost basis is written down to fair value through income. For securities available for sale that do not meet the above criteria, the Company evaluates whether the decline in fair value has resulted from credit losses or other factors. In making this assessment, the Company considers the extent to which fair value is less than amortized cost and adverse conditions related to the security, among other factors. If this assessment indicates that a credit loss exists, the present value of cash flows expected to be collected from the security are compared to the amortized cost basis of the security. If the present value of the cash flows expected to be collected is less than the amortized cost basis, a credit loss exists and an allowance for credit losses is recorded for the credit loss, limited by the amount that the fair value is less than the amortized cost. Any impairment that has not been recorded through an allowance for credit losses is recognized in other comprehensive income, net of tax. Changes in the allowance for credit losses are recorded as provision for, or reversal of, credit loss expense. Losses are charged against the allowance when management believes the uncollectibility of an available for sale security is confirmed or when either of the criteria regarding intent or requirement to sell is met.

Accrued Interest Receivable

Accrued interest receivable balances are presented separately on the consolidated statements of financial condition and are not included in amortized cost when determining the allowance for credit losses. The Company does not estimate expected credit losses on accrued interest receivable on loans and investment securities, as accrued interest receivable is reversed or written off when the full collection of the accrued interest receivable related to a loan or investment security becomes doubtful.

Troubled Debt Restructurings and Vintage Disclosures - Topic 326

In March 2022, the FASB issued ASU 2022-02, amendments related to Troubled Debt Restructurings (TDRs) for all entities after they adopt ASU 2016-13 and amendments related to vintage disclosures that affect public business entities with investments in financing receivables, under Financial Instruments-Credit Losses (Topic 326). This ASU eliminates the guidance on TDRs in Subtopic 310-40, Receivables-Troubled Debt Restructurings, while enhancing disclosure requirements for certain loan refinancings and restructurings by creditors when a borrower is experiencing financial difficulty. The ASU also requires that public business entities disclose current-period gross charge-offs by year of origination. The Company adopted the standard prospectively, beginning July 1, 2023, concurrently with the adoption of ASU 2016-13. The adoption of this guidance did not have a material impact on our consolidated financial statements.

Reference Rate Reform - Topic 848

In March 2020, the FASB issued ASU 2020-04, Reference Rate Reform (Topic 848). The ASU and related amendments provide optional expedients and exceptions for applying GAAP to contracts, hedging relationships, and other transactions affected by reference rate reform if certain criteria are met. The amendments in this update apply only to contracts, hedging relationships, and other transactions that reference LIBOR or another reference rate expected to be discontinued because of reference rate reform. The amendments (1) apply to contract modifications that replace a reference rate affected by reference rate reform, (2) provide exceptions to existing guidance related to changes to the critical terms of a hedging relationship due to reference rate reform (3) provide optional expedients for fair value hedging relationships, cash flow hedging relationships, and net investment hedging relationships, and (4) provide a one-time election to sell, transfer, or both sell and transfer debt securities classified as held to maturity that reference a rate affected by reference rate reform and that are classified as held to maturity before January 1, 2020. The amendments in this ASU are effective for all entities as of March 12, 2020 through December 31, 2022. The amendments for contract modifications can be elected to be applied as of any date from the beginning of an interim period that includes or is subsequent to March 12, 2020, or prospectively from a date within an interim period that includes or is subsequent to March 12, 2020. The amendments for existing hedging relationships can be elected to be applied as of the beginning of the interim period that includes March 12, 2020 and to new eligible hedging relationships entered into after the beginning of the interim period that includes March 12, 2020. On December 21, 2022, the FASB issued ASU 2022-06, Reference Rate Reform (Topic 848): Deferral of the Sunset Date of Topic 848, which extends the sunset (or expiration) date of ASC Topic 848, Reference Rate Reform, from December 31, 2022, to December 31, 2024. On July 1, 2023, the Company adopted ASC 848, as amended. The adoption of this guidance did not have a material impact on our consolidated financial statements.

Impact of Recent Accounting Pronouncements

In December 2023, the FASB issued ASU No. 2023-09—Income Taxes (Topic 740)—Improvements to Income Tax Disclosures, to provide more transparency about income tax information through improvements to income tax disclosures. Specifically, the update requires enhancements to the rate reconciliation, including disclosure of specific categories and additional information for reconciling items meeting a quantitative threshold, and greater disaggregation of income tax disclosures related to income taxes paid. The amendments in this update are effective for fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2024 and early adoption is permitted. The Company is evaluating the impact this will have on the consolidated financial statements.

**3.**ACQUISITIONS

On July 13, 2023, the Company, through its subsidiary, Pioneer Financial Services, Inc., completed the acquisition of certain assets of Hudson Financial LLC, a company engaged in the wealth management services business in the Hudson Valley Region of New York. The Company paid an aggregate of $2.0 million in cash and recorded $1.5 million in contingent consideration payable to acquire the assets and recorded a $1.4 million customer list intangible asset and goodwill in the amount of $2.1 million in conjunction with the acquisitions. No contingent consideration was paid during the three and nine months ended March 31, 2024. The effects of the acquired assets have been included in the consolidated financial statements since the acquisition date. The above referenced acquisition was made to expand the Company’s wealth management services activities.

**4.**INVESTMENT SECURITIES

The amortized cost and estimated fair value of securities available for sale are as follows (dollars in thousands):

Accrued interest receivable on available for sale debt securities totaled $1.8 million at March 31, 2024 and is excluded from the estimate of credit losses.

There wasno allowance for credit losses for securities available for sale as of March 31, 2024.

The amortized cost and estimated fair value of securities held to maturity are as follows (dollars in thousands):

Accrued interest receivable on held to maturity debt securities totaled $108,000 at March 31, 2024 and is excluded from the estimate of credit losses.

Allowance for credit losses for held to maturity securities totaled $238,000 as of March 31, 2024. There wereno held to maturity securities that were 30 days or more past due or classified as non-accrual as of March 31, 2024.

The following tables present the activity in the allowance for credit losses on securities held-to-maturity (dollars in thousands):

The estimated fair value and gross unrealized losses aggregated by security category and length of time such securities have been in a continuous unrealized loss position, is summarized as follows (dollars in thousands):

Unrealized losses on securities available for sale have not been recognized into income because the issuers' debt securities are of high credit quality (rated AA or higher), management does not intend to sell, and it is likely that management will not be required to sell the securities prior to their anticipated recovery, and the decline in fair value is largely due to changes in interest rates and other market conditions. The issuers continue to make timely principal and interest payments on the securities. The fair value is expected to recover as the securities approach maturity.

As a result of the Company adopting the CECL guidance using the prospective transition approach for debt securities for which other-than-temporary impairment had been recognized prior to July 1, 2023, the amortized cost basis remains the same before and after the effective date of the CECL guidance. The effective interest rate on these debt securities was not changed. Amounts previously recognized in accumulated other comprehensive income as of July 1, 2023 relating to improvements in cash flows expected to be collected will be accreted into income over the remaining life of the asset. Recoveries of amounts previously written off relating to improvements in cash flows after July 1, 2023 will be recorded in earnings when received.

The following table sets forth information with regard to contractual maturities of debt securities (dollars in thousands). Securities not due at a single maturity date are shown separately.

There wereno sales of securities available for sale for the three months ended March 31, 2024. During the nine months ended March 31, 2024, the Company received $74.5 million in proceeds from the sale of securities available for sale, realizing gross losses of $5.6 million. There wereno sales of securities available for sale for the three and nine months ended March 31, 2023.

There wereno sales of securities held to maturity for the three and nine months ended March 31, 2024 and 2023.

During the three and nine months ended March 31, 2024, the Company received $3.1 million in proceeds from the sale of equity securities. There wereno sales of equity securities for the three and nine months ended March 31, 2023.

At March 31, 2024, there were no holdings of securities of any one issuer, other than the U.S. Government and its agencies, in an amount greater than 10% of the Company’s equity. As of March 31, 2024 and June 30, 2023, the carrying value of available for sale securities pledged to secure Federal Home Loan Bank of New York (“FHLBNY”) advances and municipal deposits was $293.5 million and $428.5 million, respectively.

**5.**NET LOANS RECEIVABLE

A summary of net loans receivable is as follows (dollars in thousands):

Accrued interest receivable on loans totaled $5.7 million at March 31, 2024 and is excluded from the estimate of credit losses.

Net deferred loan costs totaled $9.5 million at March 31, 2024 and are included in net loans receivable.

The Company’s July 1, 2023 adoption of CECL resulted in a significant change to our methodology for estimating the allowance for credit losses. The allowance for credit losses on loans is established through a provision for credit losses based on the results of life of loan quantitative models, reserves associated with collateral-dependent loans evaluated individually and adjustments for the impact of current economic conditions not accounted for in the quantitative models. The discounted cash flow methodology is used to calculate the CECL reserve for the commercial, residential mortgages, and home equity loans and lines of credit segments. The Company uses a four-quarter reasonable and supportable forecast period based on economic forecast from the Federal Open Market Committee (“FOMC”) of the Federal Reserve's projections of civilian unemployment and year-over-year U.S. GDP growth. The forecast will revert to long-term economic conditions over a four quarter reversion period on a straight-line basis. The remaining life method is used to determine the CECL reserve for the consumer loan segment. A qualitative factor framework has been developed to adjust the quantitative loss rates for asset-specific risk characteristics or current conditions at the reporting date.

The Company established a reserve for off-balance sheet credit exposures in conjunction with its adoption of the CECL guidance. The allowance for credit losses on off-balance sheet credit exposures is recognized as a liability (classified as a component of other liabilities on the consolidated statements of condition), with adjustments to the reserve recognized in the provision for credit losses on the consolidated statements of operations.

The following tables present the activity in the allowance for credit losses by portfolio segment (dollars in thousands):

The following tables present the balance in the allowance for credit losses and allowance for loan losses and the recorded investment in loans by portfolio segment (dollars in thousands):

The following table presents information related to impaired loans by class (dollars in thousands):

Interest income on nonaccrual loans is recognized using the cost recovery method. Interest income on impaired loans that were on nonaccrual status and cash-basis interest income for the year ended June 30, 2023 was immaterial.

At various times, certain loan modifications are executed for economic or legal reasons related to a borrower’s financial condition that it would not otherwise consider resulting in a modified loan. Substantially all of these modifications include one or a combination of the following: extension of the maturity date at a stated rate of interest lower than the current market rate for new debt with similar risk; temporary reduction in the interest rate; change in scheduled payment amount including interest only; or extensions of additional credit for payment of delinquent real estate taxes or other costs.

As previously noted in Note 2 – Summary of Significant Accounting Policies, effective July 1, 2023, the Company adopted ASU 2022-02, Financial Instruments-Credit Losses (Topic 326)-Troubled Debt Restructurings. The Company may occasionally make modifications to loans where the borrower is considered to be experiencing financial difficulty. Types of modifications considered under ASU 2022-02 include principal reductions, interest rate reductions, term extensions, or a combination. There were no modifications to loans where the borrower is considered to be experiencing financial difficulty for the three and nine months ended March 31, 2024.

There wereno loans modified as troubled debt restructurings during the three and nine months ended March 31, 2023. There wereno loans that had been modified as a troubled debt restructuring during the twelve months prior to March 31, 2023 which subsequently defaulted during the three or nine months ended March 31, 2023.

The following tables present the recorded investment in nonaccrual and loans past due over 90 days still on accrual by class of loans (dollars in thousands):

Nonaccrual loans and loans past due 90 days still on accrual include both smaller balance homogeneous loans that are collectively evaluated for impairment and individually evaluated loans.

A loan is considered collateral-dependent when the borrower is experiencing financial difficulty and repayment of the loan is expected to be provided substantially through the operation or sale of the collateral.

The following table presents the amortized cost basis of collateral-dependent loans by class of loans (dollars in thousands):

The following tables present the aging of the recorded investment in loans by class of loans as of (dollars in thousands):

The Company categorizes commercial loans into risk categories based on relevant information about the ability of borrowers to service their debt such as: current financial information, historical payment experience, credit documentation, public information, and current economic trends, among other factors. The Company analyzes commercial loans individually by classifying the loans as to credit risk. The Company uses the following definitions for risk ratings:

Special Mention – Loans classified as special mention have a potential weakness that deserves management’s close attention. If left uncorrected, these potential weaknesses may result in deterioration of the repayment prospects for the loan or of the institution’s credit position at some future date.

Substandard – Loans classified as substandard are inadequately protected by the current net worth and paying capacity of the obligor or of the collateral pledged, if any. Loans so classified have a well-defined weakness or weaknesses that jeopardize the liquidation of the debt. They are characterized by the distinct possibility that the institution will sustain some loss if the deficiencies are not corrected.

Doubtful – Loans classified as doubtful have all the weaknesses inherent in those classified as substandard, with the added characteristic that the weaknesses make collection or liquidation in full, on the basis of currently existing facts, conditions, and values, highly questionable and improbable.

Commercial loans not meeting the criteria above are considered to be pass rated loans.

The Company grades residential mortgages, home equity loans and lines of credit and consumer loans as either non-performing or performing.

Non-performing – Loans that are over 90 days past due and still accruing interest or on nonaccrual.

Performing– Loans not meeting any of the above criteria are considered to be performing loans.

The following table presents loans summarized by segment and class, and the risk category (dollars in thousands):

The following table presents commercial loans summarized by class of loans and the risk category (dollars in thousands):

The Company considered the performance of the loan portfolio and its impact on the allowance for loan losses. For residential mortgages, home equity loans and lines of credit and consumer loan classes, the Company also evaluated credit quality based on the aging status of the loan, which was previously presented, and by payment activity.

As of March 31, 2024 and June 30, 2023, the Company had pledged $606.5 million and $476.6 million respectively, of residential mortgage, home equity and commercial loans as collateral for FHLBNY borrowings and stand-by letters of credit.

**6.**DERIVATIVES

In the normal course of servicing our commercial customers, the Company acts as an interest rate swap counterparty for certain commercial borrowers. The Company manages its exposure to such interest rate swaps by entering into corresponding and offsetting interest rate swaps with third parties that match the terms of the interest rate swap with the commercial borrowers. These positions directly offset each other and the Company’s exposure is the fair value of the derivatives due to potential changes in credit risk of our commercial borrowers and third parties.

The notional amount of the interest rate swaps does not represent amounts exchanged by the parties. The amount exchanged is determined by reference to the notional amount and the other terms of the individual interest rate swap agreements. At March 31, 2024, the Company held derivatives not designated as hedging instruments, comprised of back-to-back interest rate swaps, with a total notional amount of $422.2 million, consisting of $211.1 million of interest rate swaps with commercial borrowers and $211.1 million of offsetting interest rate swaps with third-party counterparties on substantially the same terms. At June 30, 2023, the Company held derivatives not designated as hedging instruments, comprised of back-to-back interest rate swaps, with a total notional amount of $455.8 million, consisting of $227.9 million of interest rate swaps with commercial borrowers and $227.9 million of offsetting interest rate swaps with third-party counterparties on substantially the same terms.

The fair value of derivatives are classified as other assets and other liabilities on the consolidated statements of condition. The estimated fair value of derivatives not designated as hedging instruments are as follows (dollars in thousands):

Under terms of the agreements with the third-party counterparties, the Company provides cash collateral to the counterparty, when required, for the initial trade. Subsequent to the trade, the margin is exchanged in either direction, based upon the estimated fair value of the underlying contracts. At March 31, 2024, the Company had received $17.1 million and deposited $16,000 as collateral for swap agreements with third-party counterparties. At June 30, 2023, the Company had received $18.2 million and deposited $16,000 as collateral for swap agreements with third-party counterparties.

**7.**OTHER COMPREHENSIVE INCOME (LOSS)

Reclassifications out of accumulated other comprehensive income (loss) were as follows (dollars in thousands):

The balances and changes in the components of accumulated other comprehensive income (loss), net of tax, are as follows (dollars in thousands):

The amounts of income tax expense (benefit) allocated to each component of other comprehensive income (loss) were as follows (dollars in thousands):

**8.**EMPLOYEE BENEFIT PLANS

The Company maintains a noncontributory defined benefit pension plan and a defined benefit post-retirement plan. Plan assets and obligations that determine the funded status are measured as of the end of the fiscal year.

Pension Plan

The Company maintains a noncontributory defined benefit pension plan covering substantially all of its full-time employees twenty-one years of age or older, with at leastone year of service hired before September 1, 2019. Through December 31, 2009, pensions were paid as an annuity using a pension formula of 2.0% of the average of thefive highest consecutive years of total compensation over the lastten years multiplied by credited service up tothirty years. Effective January 1, 2010, the plan was amended and service rendered thereafter is paid using a pension formula of 1.5%. Amounts contributed to the plan are determined annually on the basis of (a) the maximum amount allowable under Internal Revenue Service regulations and (b) the amount certified by a consulting actuary as necessary to avoid an accumulated funding deficiency as defined by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (“ERISA”). The defined benefit pension plan was amended, effective August 31, 2019, to close the plan to new employees hired on or after September 1, 2019, therefore, no new employees hired on or after September 1, 2019 would be eligible to participate in the defined benefit pension plan.

Net periodic pension cost included in salaries and employee benefits in the Company’s consolidated statements of operations included the following components (dollars in thousands):

Contributions

For the three and nine months ended March 31, 2024 and 2023, the Company madeno cash contributions to the plan.

Post-Retirement Healthcare Plan

The Company offers a defined benefit post-retirement plan which provides medical and life insurance benefits to employees meeting certain requirements. Effective October 1, 2006, the plan was amended so that there have been no new plan participants for medical benefits. The cost of post-retirement plan benefits is recognized on an accrual basis as employees perform services. Active employees are eligible for retiree medical coverage upon reaching agesixty with twenty-five or more years of service. Employees with a minimum of thirty years of service are eligible for individual and spousal coverage. Retirees are eligible to participate in any bank-sponsored health insurance programs. The Company’s contributions for retiree medical are limited to a monthly premium of $210 for individual coverage and $420 for employee and spousal coverage. The Company’s funding policy is to pay insurance premiums as they come due.

Net periodic post-retirement benefit cost included in salaries and employee benefits in the Company’s consolidated statements of operations included the following components (dollars in thousands):

Employee Stock Ownership Plan

On July 17, 2019, the Company established an Employee Stock Ownership Plan (“ESOP”) to provide eligible employees the opportunity to own Company stock. The ESOP is a tax-qualified retirement plan for the benefit of Company employees. The Company granted loans to the ESOP for the purchase of 1,018,325 shares of the Company’s common stock at an average price of $13.40 per share. The loan obtained by the ESOP from the Company to purchase the common stock is payable annually over 20 years at a rate per annum equal to the Prime Rate. Loan payments are principally funded by cash contributions from the Bank. The loan is secured by the shares purchased, which are held in a suspense account for allocation among participants as the loan is repaid. The balance of the ESOP loan at March 31, 2024 was $11.0 million. Contributions are allocated to eligible participants on the basis of compensation, subject to federal tax limits. The number of shares committed to be released annually is 50,916 through the year 2038. Participants may receive the shares at the end of employment.

Shares held by the ESOP include the following:

Total compensation expense recognized in connection with the ESOP for the three and nine months ended March 31, 2024 was $122,000 and $351,000, respectively.

Total compensation expense recognized in connection with the ESOP for the three and nine months ended March 31, 2023 was $140,000 and $401,000, respectively.

**9.**COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENT LIABILITIES

Off-Balance-Sheet Financing and Concentrations of Credit

The Company is a party to certain financial instruments with off-balance-sheet risk to meet the financing needs of its customers. These financial instruments include the Company’s commitments to extend credit. Those instruments involve, to varying degrees, elements of credit risk in excess of the amount recognized on the consolidated statements of condition. The contract amounts of those instruments reflect the extent of involvement the Company has in particular classes of financial instruments.

The Company’s exposure to credit loss in the event of nonperformance by the other party to the commitments to extend credit is represented by the contractual notional amounts of those instruments which are presented in the tables below (dollars in thousands). The Company uses the same credit policies in making commitments as it does for on-balance-sheet instruments.

Commitments to extend credit are agreements to lend to a customer as long as there is no violation of any condition established in the contract. Commitments generally have fixed expiration dates or other termination clauses and require payment of a fee. Since certain commitments are expected to expire without being fully drawn, the total commitment amounts do not necessarily represent future cash requirements. The Company evaluates each customer’s credit-worthiness on a case-by-case basis. The amount of collateral, if any, required by the Company for the extension of credit is based on management’s credit evaluation of the customer.

Commitments to extend credit may be written on a fixed rate basis thus exposing the Company to interest rate risk, given the possibility that market rates may change between commitment and actual extension of credit.

Standby letters of credit are conditional commitments issued by the Company to guarantee payment on behalf of a customer or to guarantee the performance of a customer to a third party. The credit risk involved in issuing these instruments is essentially the same as that involved in extending loans to customers. Since a portion of these instruments will expire unused, the total amounts do not necessarily represent future cash requirements. Each customer is evaluated individually for creditworthiness under the same underwriting standards used for commitments to extend credit and on-balance-sheet instruments. Bank policies governing loan collateral apply to standby letters of credit at the time of credit extension.

Certain residential mortgage loans are written on an adjustable basis and include interest rate caps which limit annual and lifetime increases in interest rates. Generally, adjustable rate mortgages have an annual rate increase cap of 2% to 5% and lifetime rate increase cap of 5% to 6% above the initial loan rate. These caps expose the Company to interest rate risk should market rates increase above these limits. At March 31, 2024, approximately $268.9 million of adjustable rate residential mortgage loans had interest rate caps. In addition, certain adjustable rate residential mortgage loans have a

conversion option whereby the borrower may elect to convert the loan to a fixed rate during a designated time period. At March 31, 2024, approximately $520,000 of the adjustable rate mortgage loans had conversion options.

The Company periodically sells residential mortgage loans to the Federal National Mortgage Association (“FNMA”). At March 31, 2024 and June 30, 2023, the Bank hadno loans held for sale. In addition, the Bank hadno loan commitments with borrowers at March 31, 2024 and June 30, 2023 with rate lock agreements which are intended to be held for sale, if closed. The Company generally determines whether or not a loan is held for sale at the time that loan commitments are entered into or at the time a convertible adjustable-rate mortgage loan converts to a fixed interest rate. In order to reduce the interest rate risk associated with the portfolio of loans held for sale, as well as loan commitments with locked interest rates which are intended to be held for sale if closed, the Company enters into agreements to sell loans in the secondary market. At March 31, 2024 and June 30, 2023, the Company hadno commitments to sell loans to unrelated investors.

Concentrations of Credit

The Company primarily grants loans to customers located in the New York State counties of Albany, Greene, Rensselaer, Schenectady, Saratoga, and Warren. Although the Company has a diversified loan portfolio, a substantial portion of its debtors’ ability to honor their contracts is dependent upon the real estate and construction-related sectors of the economy, and general economic conditions in the Company’s market area.

Legal Proceedings and Other Contingent Liabilities

In the ordinary course of business, the Company and the Bank are involved in a number of legal, regulatory, governmental and other proceedings, claims or investigations that could result in losses, including damages, fines and/or civil penalties, which could be significant concerning matters arising from the conduct of their business, including the matters described below. In view of the inherent difficulty of predicting the outcome of such matters, particularly where the claimants seek large or indeterminate damages, the Company generally cannot predict the eventual outcome of the pending matters, timing of the ultimate resolution of these matters, or eventual loss, fines or penalties related to each pending matter. In accordance with applicable accounting guidance, the Company will establish an accrued liability when those matters present loss contingencies that are both probable and estimable. The Company’s estimates of potential losses will change over time and the actual losses may vary significantly, and there may be an exposure to loss in excess of any amounts accrued. As a matter develops, management, in conjunction with any outside counsel handling the matter, evaluate on an ongoing basis whether such matter presents a loss contingency that is probable and estimable; or where a loss is reasonably possible, whether in excess of a related accrued liability or where there is no accrued liability, whether it is possible to estimate a range of possible loss. Once the loss contingency is deemed to be both probable and estimable, the Company establishes an accrued liability and records a corresponding amount of litigation-related expense. The Company continues to monitor the matters for further developments that could affect the amount of the accrued liability that has been previously established. Excluding legal fees and expenses, litigation-related expense of $0 was recognized for the three and nine months ended March 31, 2024 and 2023. For those matters for which a loss is reasonably possible and estimable, whether in excess of an accrued liability or where there is no accrued liability, the Company’s estimated range of possible loss is $0 to $54.4 million in excess of the accrued liability, if any, as of March 31, 2024. These estimates are based upon currently available information and are subject to significant judgment, a variety of assumptions and known and unknown uncertainties. The matters underlying the accrued liability and estimated range of possible losses are unpredictable and may change from time to time, and actual losses may vary significantly from the current estimate and accrual. The estimated range of possible loss does not represent the Company’s maximum loss exposure.

Information is provided below regarding the nature of the matters and associated claimed damages. The Company and the Bank are defending each of these matters vigorously, and the Company believes that it and the Bank have substantial defenses, including affirmative defenses, counterclaims and cross-claims to the various allegations that have been asserted. In light of the significant judgment, variety of assumptions and uncertainties involved in the matters described below, some of which are beyond the Company’s control, and the large or indeterminate damages sought in some of these matters, an adverse outcome in one or more of these matters, or matters related to or resulting from the matters described below, could have an adverse material impact on the Company’s business, prospects, financial condition, results of operations, cash flows, or cause significant reputational harm and subject the Company to face civil litigation, significant fines, damage awards or other material regulatory consequences.

Mann Entities Related Fraudulent Activity

During the first fiscal quarter of 2020 (the quarter ended September 30, 2019), the Company became aware of potentially fraudulent activity associated with transactions by an established business customer of the Bank. The customer and various affiliated entities (collectively, the “Mann Entities”) had numerous accounts with the Bank. The transactions in question related both to deposit and lending activity with the Mann Entities.

For the fraudulent activity related to the Mann Entities, the Bank’s potential monetary exposure with respect to its deposit activity was approximately $18.5 million. In the first fiscal quarter of 2020, the Bank exercised its rights pursuant to state and federal law and the relevant Mann Entity general deposit account agreements to take actions to set off/recover approximately $16.0 million from general deposit corporate operating accounts held by the Mann Entities at the Bank to partially cover overdrafts/negative account balances in Mann Entity general deposit corporate operating accounts that primarily resulted from another bank returning/calling back $15.6 million in checks on August 30, 2019, that the Mann Entities had deposited into and then withdrawn from their accounts at the Bank the day before. In the first fiscal quarter of 2020, the Bank recognized a charge to non-interest expense in the amount of $2.5 million based on the net negative deposit balance of the various Mann Entities’ accounts after the setoffs/overdraft recoveries. Through March 31, 2024, no additional charges to non-interest expense were recognized related to the deposit transactions with the Mann Entities.

With respect to the Bank’s lending activity with the Mann Entities, its potential exposure was approximately $15.8 million (which represents the Bank’s participation interest in the approximately $35.8 million commercial loan relationships for which the Bank is the originating lender). In the fourth fiscal quarter of 2019, the Bank recognized a provision for loan losses in the amount of $15.8 million, related to the charge-off of the entire principal balance owed to the Bank related to the Mann Entities’ commercial loan relationships. During the third fiscal quarter of 2020 and the first fiscal quarter of 2021, the Bank recognized partial recoveries in the amount of $1.7 million and $34,000, respectively, related to the charge-off of the Mann Entities’ commercial loan relationships, which were credited to the allowance for loan losses. Through March 31, 2024, no additional charges to the provision for credit losses andno additional recoveries related to the charge-off of the loans were recognized related to the loan transactions with the Mann Entities.

Several other parties and regulatory agencies are asserting claims against the Company and the Bank related to the series of transactions between the Company or the Bank, on the one hand, and the Mann Entities, on the other. The Company and the Bank continue to investigate these matters and it is possible that the Company and the Bank will be subject to similar legal, regulatory, governmental or other proceedings and additional liabilities. The ultimate timing and outcome of any such proceedings, involving the Company, or the Bank, cannot be predicted with any certainty. It also remains possible that other private parties or governmental bodies will pursue existing or additional claims against the Bank as a result of the Bank’s dealings with certain of the Mann Entities or as a result of the actions taken by the Company or the Bank. The Company’s and the Bank’s legal fees and expenses related to these actions are significant and are expected to continue being significant. In addition, costs associated with potentially prosecuting, litigating or settling any litigation, satisfying any adverse judgments, if any, or other proceedings, could be significant. These legal, regulatory, governmental and other proceedings, claims or investigations, costs, settlements, judgments, sanctions or other expenses could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s business prospects, financial condition, results of operations or cash flows or cause significant reputational harm and subject the Company to face civil litigation, significant fines, damage awards or other material regulatory consequences. The Company is pursuing all available sources of recovery and other means of mitigating the potential loss, and the Company and the Bank are vigorously defending all claims asserted against them arising out of or otherwise related to the fraudulent activity of the Mann Entities. During the nine months ended March 31, 2024 and 2023, the Bank recognized insurance recoveries in the amount of $1.2 million and $2.5 million, respectively, related to the partial reimbursement of defense costs incurred as a result of these matters, which were credited to noninterest expense – professional fees on the consolidated statements of operations. Going forward, the Bank does not expect to recognize any such insurance recoveries, as the applicable policy limits and deductibles have been exceeded. For a fuller recitation of the procedural history of each of the matters summarized below, please refer to the Company’s earlier periodic filings on Forms 10-Q and 10-K. The Pioneer Parties (as defined below) vigorously dispute the assertions and claims in each of the matters noted below.

Legal Proceedings

On October 31, 2019, Southwestern Payroll Services, Inc. (“Southwestern”) filed a complaint against the Company and the Bank (“Pioneer Parties”), Michael T. Mann, Valuewise Corporation, MyPayrollHR, LLC and Cloud Payroll, LLC (collectively, the “Mann Parties”) in the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York. On April 10, 2023, the Court entered a memorandum decision and order granting Southwestern leave to file a third amended complaint adding Granite Solutions Groupe, Inc. (“Granite Solutions”) as a plaintiff and asserting claims against the Pioneer Parties for declaratory judgment, conversion, fraud, negligence/gross negligence, unjust enrichment/money had and received, violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (“RICO”) Act, aiding and abetting conversion, and aiding and abetting fraud. Southwestern and Granite Solutions filed the third amended complaint on April 26, 2023. The third amended complaint seeks a monetary judgment of at least $39.0 million, allegedly comprised of compensatory damages in excess of $13.0 million, penalties and interest, treble damages, and punitive damages. The Pioneer Parties filed their answer to the third amended complaint on May 12, 2023. In addition to denying that Southwestern or Granite Solutions is entitled to any of the relief sought in the third amended complaint, the Pioneer Parties asserted numerous affirmative defenses, as well as counterclaims against Southwestern and cross-claims against certain of the Mann Parties for common law fraud under New York law and violations of RICO. The Pioneer Parties contend that the actions of Southwestern and certain of the Mann Parties have resulted in damages to the Pioneer Parties comprised of compensatory damages, treble damages, and attorneys’ fees and costs. The Pioneer Parties seek to recover these damages jointly and severally against all counterclaim and cross-claim defendants. Southwestern filed its answer to the counterclaims on June 2, 2023. The parties currently are due to file any motions for summary judgment on or before June 3, 2024.

On December 10, 2019, National Payment Corp. (“NatPay”) filed a motion to intervene as a plaintiff in Southwestern’s lawsuit against the Pioneer Parties and the Mann Parties as described above. On August 4, 2020, the magistrate judge issued a decision recommending that NatPay be allowed to intervene, which was subsequently accepted by the Court. NatPay filed its complaint in intervention on August 18, 2020. On April 10, 2023, the Court entered a memorandum decision and order granting NatPay leave to file an amended complaint asserting claims against the Pioneer Parties for declaratory judgment, conversion, fraud, negligence/gross negligence, unjust enrichment/money had and received, violations of RICO, aiding and abetting conversion, and aiding and abetting fraud. NatPay filed its amended complaint on April 13, 2023. The amended complaint seeks a monetary judgment of at least $11.4 million, allegedly comprised of compensatory damages in excess of $3.8 million, penalties and interest, treble damages, and punitive damages. The Pioneer Parties filed their answer to NatPay’s amended complaint on May 12, 2023. In addition to denying that NatPay is entitled to any of the relief sought in the third amended complaint, the Pioneer Parties asserted numerous affirmative defenses, as well as counterclaims against NatPay and cross-claims against certain of the Mann Parties for violations of RICO. The Pioneer Parties contend that the actions of NatPay and certain of the Mann Parties have resulted in damages to the Pioneer Parties comprised of compensatory damages, treble damages, and attorneys’ fees and costs. The Pioneer Parties seek to recover these damages jointly and severally against all counterclaim and cross-claim defendants. On June 23, 2023, NatPay filed a motion to dismiss the counterclaims and certain affirmative defenses of the Pioneer Parties. The Pioneer Parties filed their opposition to the motion on July 21, 2023, and the motion was fully briefed and submitted to the Court for decision on August 4, 2023. On December 21, 2023, the Court entered an order granting NatPay’s motion. On January 18, 2024, the Pioneer Parties filed a motion for reconsideration of the Court’s order and for leave to amend their answer and counterclaims. On April 3, 2024, the Court entered an order granting the Pioneer Parties leave to amend their answer and counterclaims. The Pioneer Parties thereafter filed their amended answer and counterclaims on April 15, 2024. NatPay filed its reply to amended counterclaims on April 29, 2024. The parties currently are due to file any motions for summary judgment on or before June 3, 2024.

On January 21, 2020, Cachet Financial Services (“Cachet”), a third-party automated clearing house service provider, filed for bankruptcy protection under Chapter 11 of the United States Bankruptcy Code in the Central District of California, Los Angeles Division (“Bankruptcy Court”). The Bank is not listed as a creditor in the bankruptcy proceedings. On January 20, 2022, Cachet filed an adversary proceeding complaint against the Pioneer Parties in the Bankruptcy Court. On February 16, 2023, Cachet filed an amended complaint in lieu of responding to the Pioneer Parties’ motion to dismiss. The amended complaint, like the initial complaint, alleges Michael T. Mann stole approximately $26.4 million from Cachet in August 2019 by manipulating Cachet’s “batch file specifications,” and that Mann subsequently caused approximately $8.5 million of those purportedly stolen funds to be deposited into accounts held by companies owned by Mann at Pioneer Bank. Cachet alleges Pioneer Bank refused Cachet’s request to return the approximately $8.5 million in purportedly stolen

funds to Cachet. Cachet’s complaint asserts causes of action against the Pioneer Parties for avoidance and recovery of constructive fraudulent transfers, conversion, unjust enrichment, money had and received, violation of California Penal Code § 496(a), violations of RICO, aiding and abetting fraud, and declaratory relief. Cachet asserts “actual damages” of approximately $8.5 million, seeks three times its actual damages on its Section 496(a) claim (or approximately $25.6 million), and costs of suit and attorneys’ fees. Cachet also seeks “treble damages according to proof and attorneys’ fees,” and for its aiding abetting fraud claim, Cachet seeks “general, consequential and special damages in an amount to be proven at trial.” On April 28, 2023, the Pioneer Parties filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. On September 6, 2023, the Court entered an order granting in part and denying in part the Pioneer Parties’ motion. In particular, the Court dismissed Cachet’s claims for violations of RICO, violation of California Penal Code § 496(a), aiding and abetting fraud and conversion, and for declaratory relief. The Court denied the Pioneer Parties’ motion as to the claims for conversion, unjust enrichment, and money had and received. The Court permitted Cachet to file a second amended complaint. On September 20, 2023, Cachet filed a motion for reconsideration of the Court’s Order. The Pioneer Parties filed their opposition on October 26, 2023, and Cachet filed its reply on November 2, 2023. On November 16, 2023, the Court entered an order granting the motion to the extent of clarifying certain rulings in the September 6, 2023 order relating to the denial of the motion to dismiss as to Cachet’s conversion claim and the dismissal of Cachet’s RICO claim. Cachet initially filed its second amended complaint on February 5, 2024, but pursuant to a stipulation and order entered on February 29, 2024, Cachet withdrew that version of the second amended complaint and filed a revised second amended complaint on April 8, 2024. The second amended complaint asserts claims for conversion, unjust enrichment, money had and received, violations of RICO, and aiding and abetting conversion and fraud. On May 8, 2024, the Pioneer Parties filed a motion to dismiss the second amended complaint. Subject to the Court’s approval, the parties have agreed that Cachet’s deadline to file any opposition to the Pioneer Parties’ motion will be June 13, 2024, and the Pioneer Parties’ deadline to file any reply in further support of the motion will be June 27, 2024.

On February 4, 2020, Berkshire Hills Bancorp Inc.’s wholly owned subsidiary Berkshire Bank (“Berkshire Bank”) filed a complaint against the Bank in the Supreme Court of the State of New York for Albany County resulting from Berkshire Bank’s participation interest in the commercial loan relationship to the Mann Entities. The complaint alleges that the Bank breached the amended and restated loan participation agreement between the Bank and Berkshire Bank dated as of June 27, 2018, breached the amended and restated loan participation agreement between the Bank and Berkshire Bank dated as of August 12, 2019, engaged in constructive fraud, engaged in fraudulent inducement, engaged in fraudulent concealment, and negligently misrepresented certain material information. The complaint seeks to recover $15.6 million and additional damages. On November 30, 2022, Berkshire Bank filed an amended complaint asserting substantially similar claims to those asserted in the original complaint, except that it excised the claim for negligent misrepresentation that the Court previously had dismissed, and included claims for breach of the loan participation agreement between the Bank and Berkshire Bank dated as of June 29, 2017 and separate claims for fraudulent inducement with respect to each of the three loan participation agreements. On January 30, 2023, the Bank filed its answer to the amended complaint and asserted counterclaims against Berkshire Bank for breach of the amended and restated loan participation agreement between the Bank and Berkshire Bank dated as of August 12, 2019, as well as a claim for a declaratory judgment that Berkshire Bank ratified the agreement and may not contest its validity. This matter is currently in discovery.

On February 4, 2020, Chemung Financial Corporation’s wholly owned subsidiary, Chemung Canal Trust Company (“Chemung”), filed a complaint against the Bank in the Supreme Court of the State of New York for Albany County resulting from Chemung’s participation interest in the commercial loan relationship to the Mann Entities. The complaint alleges that the Bank breached the participation agreement between the Bank and Chemung dated as of August 12, 2019, engaged in fraudulent activities, engaged in constructive fraud, and negligently misrepresented and omitted certain material information. The complaint seeks to recover $4.2 million and additional damages. On July 21, 2023, Chemung filed an amended complaint that asserts the same causes of actions as the original complaint (except that it excised the claim for negligent misrepresentation previously dismissed by the Court), but includes additional factual allegations. On September 19, 2023, the Bank filed its answer to the amended complaint and asserted counterclaims against Chemung for breach of the loan participation agreement between the Bank and Chemung dated as of August 12, 2019, as well as a claim for a declaratory judgment that Chemung ratified the agreement and may not contest its validity. This matter is currently in discovery.

On April 30, 2020, the U.S. Department of Justice (“DOJ”), with the authorization of a delegate of the Secretary of the Treasury, filed a civil complaint against the Company and the Bank (and Cloud Payroll, LLC) in the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York. The complaint alleges, among other things, that the Pioneer Parties wrongfully set off approximately $7.3 million from an account held by Cloud Payroll to apply towards debts allegedly owed to the Bank by Cloud Payroll and other affiliates of Michael Mann. The complaint alleges that the funds in question were comprised of payroll taxes and thus subject to a statutory trust under 26 U.S.C. § 7501 that prohibited the Bank from setting off those funds to apply towards debts owed to the Bank. The complaint seeks return of any payroll taxes, plus interest. On October 21, 2020, the DOJ filed an amended complaint that dropped one of the DOJ’s claims against the Pioneer Parties but continues to seek return of any payroll taxes, plus interest. The amended complaint relates to the same set of facts described above in “Mann Entities Related Fraudulent Activity”, and the alleged payroll taxes, plus interest, sought in this proceeding may be part of the recovery sought in the Southwestern and NatPay complaints described above. On November 4, 2020, the Pioneer Parties filed their answer and affirmative defenses to the DOJ’s amended complaint. On November 15, 2023, the Court entered an order staying discovery until January 16, 2024 to allow the parties to continue discussions about a potential resolution of the matter. On January 12, 2024, the parties filed a joint letter with the Court requesting an extension of the discovery stay until March 18, 2024 to enable the parties to finalize resolution of the matter. On January 16, 2024, the Court entered an order granting the requested extension. On March 15, 2024, after reaching a confidential settlement agreement, the parties filed a stipulation of dismissal of the action with prejudice, which the Court approved on March 18, 2024.

On August 31, 2020, AXH Air-Coolers, LLC (“AXH”) filed a complaint against the Pioneer Parties, and unnamed employees of the Pioneer Parties in the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York. The complaint alleges that the Pioneer Parties wrongfully converted certain tax funds belonging to AXH, were unjustly enriched by the wrongful taking of tax funds belonging to AXH, and were grossly negligent in allowing AXH’s tax funds to be misappropriated, offset, converted, or stolen. The prayer for relief in AXH’s complaint seeks $336,000, plus penalties and interest, attorney’s fees, and punitive damages. The complaint relates to the same set of facts as the DOJ complaint as described above, and the alleged taxes sought in the DOJ, Southwestern, and NatPay complaints. On August 12, 2022, AXH filed an amended complaint asserting gross negligence, unjust enrichment, and accounting claims against the Pioneer Parties. The amended complaint seeks the same relief as in the original complaint. On August 26, 2022, the Pioneer Parties filed their answer to the amended complaint. This matter is currently in discovery.

On December 1, 2020, the Bank filed a complaint in the Supreme Court of the State of New York against Teal, Becker & Chiaramonte, CPAs, P.C. (“TBC”), Mr. Pasquale M. Scisci and Mr. Vincent Commisso (collectively, with TBC, the “TBC Parties”), alleging professional malpractice by the TBC Parties in auditing the annual consolidated financial statements of Valuewise Corporation and its subsidiaries (“Valuewise Entities”) for the fiscal years 2010 to 2018. The Bank asserts that the TBC Parties were aware that the primary, if not the exclusive, reason the Valuewise Entities engaged TBC to audit their financial statements was to provide the Bank with accurate financial information that the Bank would rely on in evaluating whether to provide loans to the Valuewise Entities. The Bank contends that, among other matters, Mr. Michael Mann used the Valuewise Entities to defraud the Bank because of the professional malpractice of the TBC Parties and that if the TBC Parties had not committed professional malpractice by issuing unqualified “clean” opinions on the financial statements of the Valuewise Entities for fiscal years 2010 to 2018, the Bank would never have continued loaning money to the Valuewise Entities. The Bank seeks to recover damages of at least $34.1 million (plus interest) sustained by it as a result of the professional malpractice of the TBC Parties. The TBC Parties filed their answer to the Bank’s complaint on February 12, 2021. On February 28, 2022, the TBC Parties filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. On October 4, 2022, the Court entered a decision and order denying the motion in its entirety. On November 15, 2023, the Bank and the TBC Parties entered into a settlement agreement pursuant to which the parties agreed to resolve and settle all disputes and potential claims which exist or may exist among them, including without limitation those claims asserted in the action. Pursuant to the settlement agreement, the TBC Parties made a payment of $5.95 million to the Bank, in exchange for which the Bank caused the action to be dismissed with prejudice.

On May 14, 2021, the Bank filed a verified petition for a hearing, pursuant to 21 U.S.C. § 853(n)(2), to adjudicate the validity of the Bank’s interest in approximately $14.9 million in cash and securities forfeited by Michael Mann pursuant to a preliminary order of forfeiture inU.S. v. Mann filed in United States District Court for the Northern District of New York. The Bank’s petition alleges that it has a valid security interest in the forfeited property, and that the forfeited property should thus be turned over to the Bank. On June 28, 2021, the government filed a motion to dismiss the Bank’s petition. On July 30, 2021, the Bank filed opposition to the government’s motion to dismiss the Bank’s petition. On August 13,

2021, the government filed a reply to the Bank’s opposition to the government’s motion to dismiss the Bank’s petition. On October 14, 2022, the magistrate judge assigned to the case entered a report and recommendation recommending the motion to dismiss the Bank’s petition be granted in part and denied in part. On October 28, 2022, the Bank filed an objection to the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation. The government filed its opposition to the Bank’s objection on November 21, 2022. On April 5, 2024, the district judge entered an order overruling the Bank’s objection and affirming the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation. The court ordered the matter to proceed to a hearing but has not yet set a date for the hearing.

On September 2, 2022, two substantially similar putative class action complaints were filed against the Pioneer Parties in the Supreme Court of the State of New York for Albany County. The first complaint was filed by Brandes & Yancy PLLC and Ricardo’s Restaurant, Inc., two alleged clients of Southwestern which seek to assert claims on behalf of all current or former Southwestern clients based on the same set of facts as the DOJ, AXH, and Granite Solutions complaints as described above, and the alleged taxes sought in the DOJ, Southwestern, and NatPay complaints. The second complaint was filed by O’Malley’s Oven LLC and Legat Architects, Inc., two alleged clients of MyPayrollHR.Com, LLC and ProData Payroll Services, Inc., affiliates of Cloud Payroll, LLC (collectively, “Cloud Payroll”). Similar to the first complaint described above, the two named plaintiffs in the second complaint seek to assert claims on behalf of all current or former Cloud Payroll clients based on the same set of facts as the DOJ, AXH, and Granite Solutions complaints as described above, and the alleged taxes sought in the DOJ, Southwestern, and NatPay complaints. Both complaints assert claims against the Pioneer Parties for conversion, gross negligence, unjust enrichment, money had and received, tortious interference with contract, aiding and abetting fraud, and a declaratory judgment. Both complaints also seek to recover compensatory and punitive damages, plus pre-judgment interest, costs, expenses, disbursements, and reasonable attorneys’ fees. The Pioneer Parties acknowledged service of the complaints as of December 30, 2022. On February 28, 2023, the Pioneer Parties filed motions to dismiss the complaints. On April 7, 2023, the plaintiffs filed amended complaints that assert the same causes of action but include additional allegations. On April 27, 2023, the Pioneer Parties elected to withdraw their pending motions to dismiss and file renewed motions to dismiss the amended complaints. The Pioneer Parties filed renewed motions to dismiss on June 26, 2023. On August 25, 2023, plaintiffs in both putative class actions filed their responses to the renewed motions to dismiss filed by the Pioneer Parties. On October 6, 2023, the Pioneer Parties filed their reply to the response of the plaintiffs. On February 1, 2024, the court entered an order, on its own motion, staying both actions pending the outcome of the ongoing, earlier-filed federal litigation described above. The court instructed the parties to provide a joint written update as to the status of the federal litigation by July 31, 2024.

On December 6, 2023, Sidra Riggins filed a putative class action complaint against the Bank in the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York. The plaintiff is an alleged customer of the Bank who asserts claims for breach of contract, unjust enrichment, violation of New York General Business Law § 349, and violation of the Electronic Funds Transfer Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1693et seq. The plaintiff’s claims concern alleged practices of the Bank relating to fees that the Bank allegedly assessed in connection with certain types of overdrafts or transaction items returned for insufficient funds. The plaintiff seeks to assert her claims on behalf of the following individuals: (i) New York citizens who held checking accounts at the Bank and were assessed an overdraft fee on a debit card transaction that was authorized on sufficient funds and settled on negative funds in the same amount for which the debit card transaction was authorized; (ii) New York citizens who are assessed multiple fees on a transaction item in a checking account held at the Bank; and (iii); New York citizens who were assessed an overdraft fee on a transaction that did not overdraw the account. The Bank acknowledged service of the complaint on January 3, 2024. On March 4, 2024, the Bank moved to dismiss the complaint in its entirety. On March 22, 2024, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint in lieu of responding to the Bank’s motion. On April 5, 2024, the Bank moved to dismiss the amended complaint in its entirety. The plaintiff’s opposition to the motion is due to be filed on May 28, 2024, and the Bank’s reply in further support of the motion is due to be filed on June 18, 2024. The Bank vigorously disputes the assertions and claims in this matter.

The Company and the Bank have received inquiries and requests for information from regulatory agencies relating to some of the entities and events that are the subjects of certain lawsuits described above. This has resulted in, or may in the future result in, regulatory agency investigations, litigation, subpoenas, enforcement actions, and related sanctions or costs. The Company and the Bank continue to cooperate with inquiries and respond to requests as appropriate.

The New York State Department of Financial Services (the “NYSDFS”) has made requests for production of documents, conducted interviews with Bank employees, and taken other investigatory actions with respect to the Bank’s practices associated with the Mann Parties. The Bank has complied with these requests, producing responsive, non-privileged documents to the NYSDFS. In Summer 2021, NYSDFS informed the Bank that if the parties could not reach a negotiated resolution related to NYSDFS’s findings arising from the Bank’s practices associated with the Mann Parties, NYSDFS would proceed to an administrative hearing on the issue. It is unknown whether the parties will be able to resolve the matter. A resolution could involve monetary penalties, injunctive relief, and other regulatory consequences. The monetary penalties could be up to $30.0 million, though, $15.0 million of these potential monetary penalties relate to and are not incremental to the damages sought by the plaintiffs in the Southwestern, NatPay, DOJ, Cachet, AXH, Granite Solutions, and putative class action proceedings described in this section.

**10.**FAIR VALUE

Fair value is the exchange price that would be received for an asset or paid to transfer a liability (exit price) in the principal or most advantageous market for the asset or liability in an orderly transaction between market participants on the measurement date. There are three levels of inputs that may be used to measure fair values:

Level 1: Quoted prices (unadjusted) for identical assets or liabilities in active markets that the entity has the ability to access as of the measurement date.

Level 2: Significant other observable inputs other than Level 1 prices such as quoted prices for similar assets or liabilities; quoted prices in markets that are not active; or other inputs that are observable or can be corroborated by observable market data.

Level 3: Significant unobservable inputs that reflect a reporting entity’s own assumptions about the assumptions that market participants would use in pricing an asset or liability.

The fair values of securities are determined by obtaining quoted prices on nationally recognized securities exchanges (Level 1 inputs) or matrix pricing, which is a mathematical technique widely used in the industry to value debt securities without relying exclusively on quoted prices for the specific securities but rather by relying on the securities’ relationship to other benchmark quoted securities (Level 2 inputs).

The fair value of interest rate swaps are based on valuation models using observable market data as of the measurement date (Level 2). The fair value of derivatives are classified as a component of other assets and other liabilities on the consolidated statements of condition.

The fair value of individually analyzed loans with specific allocations of the allowance for credit losses is generally based on recent real estate appraisals. These appraisals may utilize a single valuation approach or a combination of approaches including comparable sales and the income approach. Adjustments are routinely made in the appraisal process by the appraisers to adjust for differences between the comparable sales and income data available. Such adjustments result in a Level 3 classification of the inputs for determining fair value.

Nonrecurring adjustments to certain commercial and residential real estate properties classified as other real estate owned (“OREO”) are measured at fair value, less costs to sell. Fair values are based on recent real estate appraisals. These appraisals may use a single valuation approach or a combination of approaches including comparable sales and the income approach. Adjustments are routinely made in the appraisal process by the independent appraisers to adjust for differences between the comparable sales and income data available. Such adjustments result in a Level 3 classification of the inputs for determining fair value.

Assets and Liabilities Measured on a Recurring Basis

Assets and liabilities measured at fair value on a recurring basis are summarized below (dollars in thousands):

Assets and Liabilities Measured on a Non-Recurring Basis

Assets and liabilities measured at fair value on a non-recurring basis are summarized below (dollars in thousands):

Individually evaluated loans, which are assets measured at fair value on a non-recurring basis, using the fair value of collateral for collateral dependent loans, had a carrying amount of $764,000 with a valuation allowance of $225,000 resulting in an estimated fair value of $539,000 as of March 31, 2024. Individually evaluated loans had a carrying amount of $1.3 million with a valuation allowance of $792,000 resulting in an estimated fair value of $539,000 as of June 30, 2023.

The Company hadno other real estate owned at March 31, 2024 or June 30, 2023.

The following table presents additional quantitative information about assets measured at fair value on a nonrecurring basis and for which the Company has utilized Level 3 inputs to determine fair value (dollars in thousands):

The carrying and estimated fair values of financial assets and liabilities were as follows (dollars in thousands):

Short-Term Financial Instruments

The fair value of certain financial instruments are estimated to approximate their carrying amounts because the remaining term to maturity or period to repricing of the financial instrument is less than ninety days. Such financial instruments include cash and cash equivalents, accrued interest receivable and payable, and mortgagor’s escrow deposits.

Securities

Fair values of securities available for sale, securities held to maturity and equity securities are determined as outlined earlier in this footnote.

FHLBNY Stock

The fair value of FHLBNY stock approximates its carrying value due to transferability restrictions.

Loans

Fair values are estimated for portfolios of loans with similar financial characteristics. Loans are segregated by type, including residential real estate, commercial real estate, and consumer loans and whether the interest rates are fixed and/or variable.

The estimated fair values of performing loans are calculated by discounting scheduled cash flows through the estimated maturity using estimated market discount rates that reflect the credit and interest rate risk inherent in the respective loan portfolio.

Estimated fair values for nonperforming loans are based on estimated cash flows discounted using a rate commensurate with the credit risk involved. Assumptions regarding credit risk, cash flows, and discount rates are judgmentally determined using available market information and specific borrower information.

Derivatives

Fair values of derivative assets and liabilities are determined as outlined earlier in this footnote.

Deposits

The estimated fair value of deposits with no stated maturity, such as savings, money market and demand deposits, is regarded to be the amount payable on demand. The estimated fair value of time deposits is based on the discounted value of contractual cash flows. The discount rate is estimated using market rates for time deposits with similar maturities. The fair value estimates for deposits do not include the benefit that results from the low-cost funding provided by the deposits as compared to the cost of borrowing funds in the market.

**11.**REVENUE RECOGNITION

In general, for revenue not associated with financial instruments, guarantees and lease contracts, we apply the following steps when recognizing revenue from contracts with customers: (i) identify the contract, (ii) identify the performance obligations, (iii) determine the transaction price, (iv) allocate the transaction price to the performance obligations and (v) recognize revenue when performance obligation is satisfied. Our contracts with customers are generally short term in nature, typically due within one year or less or cancellable by us or our customer upon a short notice period. Performance obligations for our customer contracts are generally satisfied at a single point in time, typically when the transaction is complete. In some cases, we act in an agent capacity, deriving revenue through assisting other entities in transactions with our customers. In such transactions, we recognized revenue and the related costs to provide our services on a net basis in our financial statements. These transactions primarily relate to insurance and brokerage commissions, and fees derived from our customers' use of various interchange and ATM/debit card networks.

Revenue associated with financial instruments, including revenue from loans and securities is excluded from the scope of the accounting guidance for revenue from contracts with customers. In addition, certain noninterest income streams such as fees associated with mortgage servicing rights, financial guarantees, derivatives, and certain credit card fees are also not in scope of the accounting guidance for revenue from contracts with customers. The accounting guidance for revenue from contracts with customers is applicable to noninterest revenue streams such as deposit related fees, interchange fees, and insurance and wealth management services commissions.

The following presents noninterest income, segregated by revenue streams in-scope and out-of-scope of the accounting guidance for revenue from contracts with customers, for the three and nine months ended March 31, 2024 and 2023.

**12.**LEASES

The Company leases certain branches under various non-cancelable operating leases that may contain extension options. Reasonably certain extension options are included in the determination of lease term for accounting purposes. The Company has also entered into a long-term ground lease with a bargain purchase option and into office equipment leases which have been classified as finance leases. The leases may require additional payments for maintenance, taxes, insurance, service, and other costs which are not included in calculating the lease liability.

For all asset classes the Company made an accounting policy election to not separate lease components and non-lease components and treat both as a single lease component for lease accounting purposes. The right-of-use (“ROU”) assets and lease liabilities are based on the stated lease consideration as identified in the underlying agreements.

When known or determinable, the Company uses the rate implicit in the lease in determining the present value of lease payments. Otherwise, the incremental borrowing rate is used which is based on information provided by FHLBNY for a secured borrowing arrangement of a comparable term.

The Company made an accounting policy election to not apply the lease accounting requirements to short-term lease arrangements with an initial term of 12 months or less.

The ROU assets are included in premises and equipment and lease liabilities are included in other liabilities in the Company’s consolidated statements of condition.

The following tables include quantitative data related to the Company’s operating and finance leases:

Maturities of finance and operating lease liabilities are as follows:

**13.**EARNINGS PER SHARE

Basic earnings per share represent income available to common stockholders divided by the weighted-average number of common shares outstanding during the period. Unallocated ESOP shares are not deemed outstanding for earnings per share calculations. There wereno potentially diluted common stock equivalents as of March 31, 2024 or March 31, 2023.