LIMESTONE BANCORP, INC. - Annual Report: 2013 (Form 10-K)

Table of Contents

UNITED STATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20549

FORM 10-K

(Mark One)

For the Fiscal Year Ended December 31, 2013

OR

For the transition period from                      to                     

Commission file number: 001-33033

PORTER BANCORP, INC.

(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)

Registrant’s telephone number, including area code: (502) 499-4800

Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Act:

Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(g) of the Act:

None

Indicate by check mark if the registrant is a well-known seasoned issuer (as defined in Rule 405 of the Securities Act).    Yes  ¨    No  x

Indicate by check mark if the registrant is not required to file reports pursuant to Section 13 or Section 15(d) of the Act.    Yes  ¨    No  x

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant (1) has filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12 months (or for shorter period that the registrant was required to file such reports), and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days.    Yes  x    No  ¨

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant has submitted electronically and posted on its corporate Web site, if any, every Interactive Data File required to be submitted and posted pursuant to Rule 405 of Regulation S-T (§ 232.405 of this chapter) during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to submit and post such files).    Yes  x    No  ¨

Indicate by check mark if disclosure of delinquent filers pursuant to Item 405 of Regulation S-K is not contained herein, and will not be contained, to the best of registrant’s knowledge, in definitive proxy or information statements incorporated by reference in Part III of this Form 10-K or any amendment to this Form 10-K.    ¨

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a large accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, a non-accelerated filer, or a smaller reporting company. See definition of “accelerated filer”, “large accelerated filer” and “smaller reporting company” in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act. (Check one):

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a shell company (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act).    Yes  ¨    No  x

The aggregate market value of the voting common equity held by non-affiliates computed by reference to the price at which the common equity was last sold as of the close of business on June 30, 2013, was $10,473,876 based upon the last sales price reported for such date on the NASDAQ Global Market.

The number of shares outstanding of the registrant’s Common Stock, no par value, as of February 28, 2014, was 12,894,759.

DOCUMENTS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE

Portions of the registrant’s Proxy Statement for the Annual Meeting of Shareholders to be held May 28, 2014 are incorporated by reference into Part III of this Form 10-K.

Table of Contents

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Table of Contents

PART I

Preliminary Note Concerning Forward-Looking Statements

This report contains statements about the future expectations, activities and events that constitute forward-looking statements. Forward-looking statements express our beliefs, assumptions and expectations of our future financial and operating performance and growth plans, taking into account information currently available to us. These statements are not statements of historical fact. The words “believe,” “may,” “should,” “anticipate,” “estimate,” “expect,” “intend,” “objective,” “seek,” “plan,” “strive” or similar words, or the negatives of these words, identify forward-looking statements.

Forward-looking statements involve risks and uncertainties that may cause our actual results to differ materially from the expectations of future results we expressed or implied in any forward-looking statements. These risks and uncertainties can be difficult to predict and may be out of our control. Factors that could contribute to differences in our results include, but are not limited to deterioration in the financial condition of borrowers resulting in significant increases in loan losses and provisions for those losses; changes in the interest rate environment, which may reduce our margins or impact the value of securities, loans, deposits and other financial instruments; changes in loan underwriting, credit review or loss reserve policies associated with economic conditions, examination conclusions, or regulatory developments; general economic or business conditions, either nationally, regionally or locally in the communities we serve, may be worse than expected, resulting in, among other things, a deterioration in credit quality or a reduced demand for credit; the results of regulatory examinations; any matter that would cause us to conclude that there was impairment of any asset, including intangible assets; the continued service of key management personnel; our ability to attract, motivate and retain qualified employees; factors that increase the competitive pressure among depository and other financial institutions, including product and pricing pressures; the ability of our competitors with greater financial resources to develop and introduce products and services that enable them to compete more successfully than us; the impact of governmental restrictions on entities participating in the Capital Purchase Program of the U.S. Department of the Treasury; inability to comply with regulatory capital requirements and to secure any required regulatory approvals for capital actions; legislative or regulatory developments, including changes in laws concerning taxes, banking, securities, insurance and other aspects of the financial services industry; and fiscal and governmental policies of the United States federal government.

Other risks are detailed in Item 1A. “Risk Factors” of this Form 10-K all of which are difficult to predict and many of which are beyond our control.

Forward-looking statements are not guarantees of performance or results. A forward-looking statement may include the assumptions or bases underlying the forward-looking statement. We have made our assumptions and bases in good faith and believe they are reasonable. We caution you however, that estimates based on such assumptions or bases frequently differ from actual results, and the differences can be material. The forward-looking statements included in this report speak only as of the date of the report. We do not intend to update these statements unless applicable laws require us to do so.

Overview

We are a bank holding company headquartered in Louisville, Kentucky. We operate the ninth largest bank domiciled in the Commonwealth of Kentucky based on total assets through our wholly-owned subsidiary PBI Bank. We operate 18 full-service banking offices in twelve counties in Kentucky. Our markets include metropolitan Louisville in Jefferson County and the surrounding counties of Henry and Bullitt, and extend south along the Interstate 65 corridor to Tennessee. We serve south central Kentucky and southern Kentucky from banking offices in Butler, Green, Hart, Edmonson, Barren, Warren, Ohio, and Daviess Counties. We also have an office in Lexington, the second largest city in Kentucky. PBI Bank is a community bank with a wide range of commercial and personal banking products. As of December 31, 2013, we had total assets of $1.1 billion, total loans of $709.3 million, total deposits of $987.7 million and stockholders’ equity of $35.9 million.

History

We were organized in 1988, and historically conducted our banking business through separate community banks under the common control of J. Chester Porter, our chairman emeritus, and Maria L. Bouvette, our former chairman and chief executive officer. In 2005, we completed a reorganization in which we consolidated our subsidiary banks into a single bank. On December 31, 2005, we renamed our consolidated subsidiary PBI Bank to create a single brand name for our banking operations throughout our market area. We completed our initial public offering in September 2006.

1

Table of Contents

On November 21, 2008, we issued to the U.S. Treasury, in exchange for cash consideration of $35.0 million, (i) 35,000 shares of Fixed Rate Cumulative Perpetual Preferred Stock, Series A, with a liquidation preference of $1,000 per share (the “Series A Preferred Stock”), and (ii) a warrant to purchase up to 330,561 shares of our common stock for $15.88 per share.

In 2010, we completed a $32.0 million private placement to accredited investors. Following completion of the transactions involved, Porter Bancorp had issued (i) 2,465,569 shares of common stock, (ii) 317,042 shares of Non–Voting Cumulative Mandatorily Convertible Perpetual Preferred Shares, Series C (“Series C Preferred Stock”) and (iii) warrants to purchase 1,163,045 shares of non-voting common stock at a price of $11.50 per share. See Item 7. Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operation – Capital.

On June 24, 2011, PBI Bank entered into a Consent Order with the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (“FDIC”) and the Kentucky Department of Financial Institutions (“KDFI”). The consent order requires the Bank to improve its asset quality, reduce its loan concentrations, and maintain a minimum Tier 1 leverage ratio of 9% and a minimum total risk based capital ratio of 12%.

On September 21, 2011, Porter Bancorp entered into a written agreement with the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis. Porter Bancorp made formal commitments to use its resources to serve as a source of strength for PBI Bank, to assist the Bank in addressing weaknesses identified by the FDIC and the KDFI, to pay no dividends without prior written approval, to pay no interest on subordinated debentures or principal on trust preferred securities without written approval, and to submit a plan to maintain sufficient capital.

In October 2012, the Bank entered into a new Consent Order with the FDIC and KDFI again agreeing to maintain a minimum Tier 1 leverage ratio of 9% and a minimum total risk based capital ratio of 12%. The Bank also agreed that if it should be unable to reach the required capital levels, and if directed in writing by the FDIC, then the Bank would within 30 days develop, adopt and implement a written plan to sell or merge itself into another federally insured financial institution or otherwise immediately obtain a sufficient capital investment into the Bank to fully meet the capital requirements. We have not been directed by the FDIC to implement such a plan. The Consent Order also requires the Bank to continue to adhere to the plans implemented in response to the June 2011 Consent Order, and includes the substantive provisions of the June 2011 Consent Order.

Our Markets

We operate in markets that include the four largest cities in Kentucky – Louisville, Lexington, Owensboro and Bowling Green – and in other communities along the I-65 corridor.

2

Table of Contents

Our Products and Services

We meet our customers’ banking needs with a broad range of financial products and services. Our lending services include real estate, commercial, mortgage and consumer loans to small to medium-sized businesses, the owners and employees of those businesses, as well as other executives and professionals. We complement our lending operations with an array of retail and commercial deposit products. In addition, we offer our customers drive-through banking facilities, automatic teller machines, night depository, personalized checks, credit cards, debit cards, internet banking, electronic funds transfers through ACH services, domestic and foreign wire transfers, travelers’ checks, cash management, vault services, lock box services, along with loan and deposit sweep accounts.

Employees

At December 31, 2013, the Company had 260 full-time equivalent employees. Our employees are not subject to a collective bargaining agreement, and management considers the Company’s relationship with employees to be good.

Competition

The banking business is highly competitive, and we experience competition in our market from many other financial institutions. Competition among financial institutions is based upon interest rates offered on deposit accounts, interest rates charged on loans, other credit and service charges relating to loans, the quality and scope of the services offered, the convenience of banking facilities and, in the case of loans to commercial borrowers, relative lending limits. We compete with commercial banks, credit unions, savings and loan associations, mortgage banking firms, consumer finance companies, securities brokerage firms, insurance companies, money market funds and other mutual funds, as well as super-regional, national and international financial institutions that operate offices within our market area and beyond.

Supervision and Regulation

Consent Order and Formal Written Agreement. On June 24, 2011, PBI Bank entered into a Consent Order with the FDIC and the Kentucky Department of Financial Institutions. PBI Bank agreed to obtain the written consent of both agencies before declaring or paying any future dividends. As a practical matter, PBI Bank will not be able to pay dividends to Porter Bancorp for the foreseeable future. The Consent Order also establishes benchmarks for the Bank to improve its asset quality, reduce its loan concentrations, and maintain a minimum Tier 1 leverage ratio of 9% and a minimum total risk based capital ratio of 12%. At December 31, 2013, the Bank’s Tier 1 leverage ratio was 6.3% and its total risk-based capital ratio was 9.4%, which are below the minimums of 9.0% and 12.0% required by the Bank’s Consent Order. At December 31, 2013, Porter Bancorp’s leverage ratio was 5.0% and its total risk-based capital ratio was 7.3%. We are continuing our efforts to strengthen our capital levels and comply with the Consent Order as outlined in the current written capital plan submitted by the Bank to its regulators.

On September 21, 2011, we entered into a formal written agreement with the Federal Bank of St. Louis. Porter Bancorp made formal commitments in the agreement to use its financial and management resources to serve as a source of strength for the Bank and to assist the Bank in addressing weaknesses identified by the FDIC and the KDFI, to pay no dividends without prior written approval, to pay no interest or principal on subordinated debentures or trust preferred securities without written approval, and to submit an acceptable plan to maintain sufficient capital.

In October 2012, the Bank entered into a new Consent Order with the FDIC and KDFI again agreeing to maintain a minimum Tier 1 leverage ratio of 9% and a minimum total risk based capital ratio of 12%. The Bank also agreed that if it should be unable to reach the required capital levels, and if directed in writing by the FDIC, then the Bank would within 30 days develop, adopt and implement a written plan to sell or merge itself into another federally insured financial institution or otherwise obtain a capital investment into the Bank sufficient to recapitalize the bank. We have not been directed by the FDIC to implement such a plan.

We expect to continue to work with our regulators toward capital ratio compliance as outlined in our written capital plan. The new Consent Order also requires the Bank to continue to adhere to the plans implemented in response to the June 2011 Consent Order, and includes the substantive provisions of the June 2011 Consent Order. While we have substantially complied with the Consent Order, as of December 31, 2013, the capital ratios required by the Consent Order were not met.

3

Table of Contents

Bank and Holding Company Laws, Rules and Regulations. The following is a summary description of the relevant laws, rules and regulations governing banks and bank holding companies. The descriptions of, and references to, the statutes and regulations below are brief summaries and do not purport to be complete. The descriptions are qualified in their entirety by reference to the specific statutes and regulations discussed.

The Dodd-Frank Act. On July 21, 2010, the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010 (“Dodd-Frank Act”) was signed into law. The Dodd-Frank Act imposes new restrictions and an expanded framework of regulatory oversight for financial institutions, including depository institutions. Because the Dodd-Frank Act requires various federal agencies to adopt a broad range of regulations with significant discretion, certain of the details of the law and the effects it will have on the Company are not known at this time.

The Dodd-Frank Act represents a comprehensive overhaul of the financial services industry within the United States. There are a number of reform provisions that significantly impact the ways in which banks and bank holding companies, including the Company, do business. For example, the Dodd-Frank Act changes the assessment base for federal deposit insurance premiums by modifying the deposit insurance assessment base calculation to be based on a depository institution’s consolidated assets less tangible capital instead of deposits, and permanently increases the standard maximum amount of deposit insurance per customer to $250,000. The Dodd-Frank Act also imposes more stringent capital requirements on bank holding companies by, among other things, imposing leverage ratios on bank holding companies and prohibiting new trust preferred security issuances from counting as Tier I capital. The Dodd-Frank Act also repeals the federal prohibition on the payment of interest on demand deposits, thereby permitting depository institutions to pay interest on business transaction and other accounts. The Act codifies and expands the Federal Reserve’s source of strength doctrine, which requires that all bank holding companies serve as a source of financial strength for its subsidiary banks. Other provisions of the Dodd-Frank Act include, but are not limited to: (i) the creation of a new financial consumer protection agency that is empowered to promulgate new consumer protection regulations and revise existing regulations in many areas of consumer protection; (ii) enhanced regulation of financial markets, including derivatives and securitization markets; (iii) reform related to the regulation of credit rating agencies; (iv) the elimination of certain trading activities by banks; and (v) new disclosure and other requirements relating to executive compensation and corporate governance.

Many provisions of the Dodd-Frank Act will require interpretation and rule- making by federal agencies. The Company monitors all relevant sections of the Dodd-Frank Act to ensure continued compliance with laws and regulations. While the ultimate effect of the Dodd-Frank Act on the Company is not fully known, the law is likely to result in increased compliance costs and fees paid to regulators, along with possible restrictions on the Company’s operations.

Porter Bancorp. Porter Bancorp is registered as a bank holding company under the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956, as amended, and is subject to supervision and regulation by the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System. As such, we must file with the Federal Reserve Board annual and quarterly reports and other information regarding our business operations and the business operations of our subsidiaries. We are also subject to examination by the Federal Reserve Board and to operational guidelines established by the Federal Reserve Board. We are subject to the Bank Holding Company Act and other federal laws on the types of activities in which we may engage, and to other supervisory requirements, including regulatory enforcement actions for violations of laws and regulations.

Acquisitions. A bank holding company must obtain Federal Reserve Board approval before acquiring, directly or indirectly, ownership or control of more than 5% of the voting stock or all or substantially all of the assets of a bank, merging or consolidating with any other bank holding company and before engaging, or acquiring a company that is not a bank but is engaged in certain non-banking activities. Federal law also prohibits a person or group of persons from acquiring “control” of a bank holding company without notifying the Federal Reserve Board in advance, and then only if the Federal Reserve Board does not object to the proposed transaction. The Federal Reserve Board has established a rebuttable presumptive standard that the acquisition of 10% or more of the voting stock of a bank holding company would constitute an acquisition of control of the bank holding company. In addition, any company is required to obtain the approval of the Federal Reserve Board before acquiring 25% (5% in the case of an acquirer that is a bank holding company) or more of any class of a bank holding company’s voting securities, or otherwise obtaining control or a “controlling influence” over a bank holding company.

Permissible Activities. A bank holding company is generally permitted under the Bank Holding Company Act to engage in or acquire direct or indirect control of more than 5% of the voting shares of any bank, bank holding company or company engaged in any activity that the Federal Reserve Board determines to be so closely related to banking as to be a proper incident to the business of banking.

4

Table of Contents

Under current federal law, a bank holding company may elect to become a financial holding company, which enables the holding company to conduct activities that are “financial in nature.” Activities that are “financial in nature” include securities underwriting, dealing and market making; sponsoring mutual funds and investment companies; insurance underwriting and agency; merchant banking activities; and activities that the Federal Reserve Board has determined to be closely related to banking. No regulatory approval will be required for a financial holding company to acquire a company, other than a bank or savings association, engaged in activities that are financial in nature or incidental to activities that are financial in nature, as determined by the Federal Reserve Board. We have not filed an election to become a financial holding company.

U.S. Treasury Capital Purchase Program. On November 21, 2008, pursuant to the U.S. Department of the Treasury’s (the “U.S. Treasury”) Capital Purchase Program (the “CPP”) established under the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 (“EESA”), Porter Bancorp issued and sold to the U.S. Treasury in an offering exempt from registration under the Securities Act of 1933, (i) 35,000 shares of Porter Bancorp’s Fixed Rate Cumulative Perpetual Preferred Stock, Series A, no par value and liquidation preference $1,000 per share ($35.0 million aggregate liquidation preference) (the “Series A Preferred Stock”) and (ii) a warrant (the “Warrant”) to purchase 330,561 shares (adjusted for stock dividends) of Porter Bancorp’s common stock, at an exercise price of $15.88 per share (adjusted for stock dividends), subject to certain anti-dilution and other adjustments for an aggregate purchase price of $35.0 million in cash. The securities purchase agreement, dated November 21, 2008, pursuant to which the securities issued to the U.S. Treasury under the CPP were sold, limits the payment of dividends on Porter Bancorp’s common stock to the quarterly dividend level at the time of the transaction without prior approval of the U.S. Treasury, limits Porter Bancorp’s ability to repurchase shares of its common stock (with certain exceptions, including the repurchase of our common stock to offset share dilution from equity-based compensation awards) and grants registration rights to the holders of the Series A Preferred Stock, the Warrant and the common stock of Porter Bancorp to be issued upon any exercise of the Warrant. The U.S. Treasury has notified us that it may sell at auction the shares of Series A Preferred Stock issued by the Company. We do not know, at this time, the U.S. Treasury’s timeline for such a sale.

The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (“ARRA”) was enacted on February 17, 2009. ARRA imposes certain executive compensation and corporate governance obligations on all current and future CPP recipients, including Porter Bancorp, until the institution has redeemed the preferred stock. On June 15, 2009, under the authority granted to it under EESA and ARRA, the U. S. Treasury issued an interim final rule under Section 111 of EESA, as amended by ARRA, regarding compensation and corporate governance restrictions that would be imposed on CPP recipients, effective June 15, 2009. As a CPP recipient with currently outstanding CPP obligations, we are subject to the compensation and corporate governance restrictions and requirements set forth in the interim final rule. The restrictions and requirements provided for in the implementing regulations are generally as follows: (1) required us to establish an independent compensation committee, (2) required us to adopt a corporate policy on luxury or excessive expenditures; (3) requires our compensation committee to conduct semi-annual risk assessments to assure that our compensation arrangements do not encourage “unnecessary and excessive risks” or the manipulation of earnings to increase compensation; (4) requires us to recoup or “clawback” any bonus, retention award or incentive compensation paid by us to a senior executive officer or any of our next 20 most highly compensated employees, if the payment was based on financial statements or other performance criteria that are later found to be materially inaccurate; (5) prohibits us from making severance payments or “golden parachutes” to any of our senior executive officers or next five most highly compensated employees; (6) prohibits us from paying or accruing bonuses, retention awards or incentive compensation, except for certain long-term stock awards, to our five most highly compensated employees; (7) prohibits us from providing tax gross-ups to any of our senior executive officers or next 20 most highly compensated employees; (8) requires us to provide enhanced disclosure of perquisites to the FDIC and the U.S. Treasury; (9) requires us to disclose to the FDIC and the U.S. Treasury the use and role of compensation consultants; (10) requires our chief executive officer and chief financial officer to provide period certifications about our compensation practices and compliance with the interim final rule; and (11) requires us to provide an annual non-binding shareholder vote, or “say-on-pay” proposal, to approve the compensation of our named executives, consistent with regulations promulgated by the Securities and Exchange Commission. On January 12, 2010, the SEC adopted final regulations setting forth the parameters for such say-on pay proposals for public company CPP participants. The U.S. Treasury has notified us that it intends to sell at auction the shares of Series A Preferred Stock issued by the Company. We do not know the U.S. Treasury’s timeline for that sale. If the U.S. Treasury completes such a sale, most of the compensation restrictions described above will no longer apply to the Company and the Bank.

Capital Adequacy Requirements. The Federal Reserve Board has adopted a system using risk-based capital guidelines to evaluate the capital adequacy of bank holding companies. Under the guidelines, specific categories of assets are assigned different risk weights, based generally on the perceived credit risk of the asset. These risk weights are multiplied by corresponding asset balances to determine a “risk-weighted” asset base. The guidelines require a minimum total risk-based capital ratio of 8.0%. At least half of the total capital must be composed of common equity, retained earnings, senior perpetual preferred stock issued to the U. S. Treasury under the CPP and qualifying perpetual preferred stock and certain hybrid capital instruments, less certain intangible assets (“Tier 1 capital”). The remainder may consist of certain subordinated debt, certain hybrid capital instruments, qualifying preferred stock and a limited amount of the allowance for loan losses (“Tier 2 capital”). Total capital is the sum of Tier 1 and Tier 2 capital. To be considered well-capitalized under the risk-based capital guidelines, an institution must maintain a total capital to total risk-weighted assets ratio of at least 10% and a Tier 1 capital to total risk-weighted assets ratio of 6% or greater. We are under a Consent Order with our primary regulators as previously discussed, and therefore cannot be considered well-capitalized. Please see “Supervision and Regulation” above for our capital requirements.

5

Table of Contents

In addition to the risk-based capital guidelines, the Federal Reserve Board uses a leverage ratio as an additional tool to evaluate the capital adequacy of bank holding companies. The leverage ratio is a company’s Tier 1 capital divided by its average total consolidated assets. Certain highly rated bank holding companies may maintain a minimum leverage ratio of 3.0%, but other bank holding companies may be required to maintain a leverage ratio of 4.0%.

The federal banking agencies’ risk-based and leverage ratios are minimum supervisory ratios generally applicable to banking organizations that meet certain specified criteria, assuming that they have the highest regulatory rating. Banking organizations not meeting these criteria are expected to operate with capital positions well above the minimum ratios. The federal bank regulatory agencies may set capital requirements for a particular banking organization that are higher than the minimum ratios when circumstances warrant. Federal Reserve Board guidelines also provide that banking organizations experiencing internal growth or making acquisitions will be expected to maintain strong capital positions substantially above the minimum supervisory levels, without significant reliance on intangible assets.

New Capital Requirements – Possible Changes to Capital Requirements Resulting from Basel III. In December 2010 and January 2011, the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision published the final texts of reforms on capital and liquidity generally referred to as “Basel III.” Although Basel III is intended to be implemented by participating countries for large, internationally active banks, its provisions are likely to be considered by United States banking regulators in developing new regulations applicable to other banks in the United States, including the Bank. For banks in the United States, among the most significant provisions of Basel III concerning capital are the following:

The Basel III provisions on liquidity include complex criteria establishing a liquidity coverage ratio (“LCR”) and net stable funding ratio (“NSFR”). The purpose of the LCR is to ensure that a bank maintains adequate unencumbered, high quality liquid assets to meet its liquidity needs for 30 days under a severe liquidity stress scenario. The purpose of the NSFR is to promote more medium and long-term funding of assets and activities, using a one-year horizon. Although Basel III is described as a “final text,” it is subject to the resolution of certain issues and to further guidance and modification, as well as to adoption by United States banking regulators, including decisions as to whether and to what extent it will apply to United States banks that are not large, internationally active banks. We are already subject to capital requirements imposed by our consent order that are higher than Basel III.

Dividends. Under Federal Reserve policy, bank holding companies should pay cash dividends on common stock only out of income available over the past year and only if prospective earnings retention is consistent with the organization’s expected future needs and financial condition. The policy provides that bank holding companies should not declare a level of cash dividends that undermines the bank holding company’s ability to serve as a source of strength to its banking subsidiaries.

6

Table of Contents

Porter Bancorp is a legal entity separate and distinct from PBI Bank. The majority of our revenue is from dividends paid to us by PBI Bank. PBI Bank is subject to laws and regulations that limit the amount of dividends it can pay. If, in the opinion of a federal regulatory agency, an institution under its jurisdiction is engaged in or is about to engage in an unsafe or unsound practice, the agency may require, after notice and hearing, that the institution cease such practice. The federal banking agencies have indicated that paying dividends that deplete an institution’s capital base to an inadequate level would be an unsafe and unsound banking practice. Under the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation Improvement Act (FDICIA), an insured institution may not pay any dividend if payment would cause it to become undercapitalized or if it already is undercapitalized. Moreover, the Federal Reserve and the FDIC have issued policy statements providing that bank holding companies and banks should generally pay dividends only out of current operating earnings. A bank holding company may still declare and pay a dividend if it does not have current operating earnings if the bank holding company expects profits for the entire year and the bank holding company obtains the prior consent of the Federal Reserve. Porter Bancorp and PBI Bank must obtain the prior written consent of each of their primary regulators prior to declaring or paying any future dividends.

Under Kentucky law, dividends by Kentucky banks may be paid only from current or retained net profits. Before any dividend may be declared for any period (other than with respect to preferred stock), a bank must increase its capital surplus by at least 10% of the net profits of the bank for the period until the bank’s capital surplus equals the amount of its stated capital attributable to its common stock. Moreover, the Kentucky Department of Financial Institutions must approve the declaration of dividends if the total dividends to be declared by a bank for any calendar year would exceed the bank’s total net profits for such year combined with its retained net profits for the preceding two years, less any required transfers to surplus or a fund for the retirement of preferred stock or debt. We are also subject to the Kentucky Business Corporation Act, which generally prohibits dividends to the extent they result in the insolvency of the corporation from a balance sheet perspective or in the corporation becoming unable to pay its debts as they come due. PBI Bank did not pay any dividends in 2012 or 2013.

Porter Bancorp is in deferral on dividends due on its issued and outstanding Series A Preferred Stock. Until accrued unpaid interest on Series A Preferred Stock is paid in full and current, no dividends on common may be paid. Additionally, unless Porter Bancorp redeems all of the Series A Preferred Stock issued to the U.S. Treasury on November 21, 2008 or unless the U.S. Treasury transfers all the preferred securities to a third party, the consent of the U.S. Treasury is required for Porter Bancorp to declare or pay any dividend or make any distribution on common stock other than (i) regular quarterly cash dividends of not more than the per share dividend amount at the time of the issuance of the Series A Preferred Stock, as adjusted for any stock split, stock dividend, reverse stock split, reclassification or similar transaction, (ii) dividends payable solely in shares of common stock and (iii) dividends or distributions of rights or junior stock in connection with a shareholders’ rights plan.

Imposition of Liability for Undercapitalized Subsidiaries. Bank regulators are required to take “prompt corrective action” to resolve problems associated with insured depository institutions whose capital declines below certain levels. In the event an institution becomes “undercapitalized,” it must submit a capital restoration plan. The capital restoration plan will not be accepted by the regulators unless each company having control of the undercapitalized institution guarantees the subsidiary’s compliance with the capital restoration plan up to a certain specified amount. Any such guarantee from a depository institution’s holding company is entitled to a priority of payment in bankruptcy.

The aggregate liability of the holding company of an undercapitalized bank is limited to the lesser of 5% of the institution’s assets at the time it became undercapitalized or the amount necessary to cause the institution to be “adequately capitalized.” The bank regulators have greater power in situations where an institution becomes “significantly” or “critically” undercapitalized or fails to submit a capital restoration plan. For example, a bank holding company controlling such an institution can be required to obtain prior Federal Reserve Board approval of proposed dividends, or might be required to consent to a consolidation or to divest the troubled institution or other affiliates.

Source of Financial Strength. Under Federal Reserve policy, a bank holding company is expected to act as a source of financial strength to, and to commit resources to support, its bank subsidiaries. This support may be required at times when, absent such a policy, the bank holding company may not be inclined to provide it. In addition, any capital loans by the bank holding company to its bank subsidiaries are subordinate in right of payment to deposits and to certain other indebtedness of the bank subsidiary. In the event of a bank holding company’s bankruptcy, any commitment by the bank holding company to a federal bank regulatory agency to maintain the capital of subsidiary banks will be assumed by the bankruptcy trustee and entitled to a priority of payment. The Federal Reserve’s “Source of Financial Strength” policy was codified in the Dodd-Frank Act.

PBI Bank. PBI Bank, a Kentucky chartered commercial bank, is subject to regular bank examinations and other supervision and regulation by both the FDIC and the Kentucky Department of Financial Institutions (“KDFI”). Kentucky’s banking statutes contain a “super-parity” provision that permits a well-rated Kentucky banking corporation to engage in any banking activity which could be engaged in by a national bank operating in any state; a state bank, a thrift or savings bank operating in any other state; or a federal chartered thrift or federal savings association meeting the qualified thrift lender test and operating in any state could engage, provided the Kentucky bank first obtains a legal opinion specifying the statutory or regulatory provisions that permit the activity.

7

Table of Contents

Capital Requirements. Similar to the Federal Reserve Board’s requirements for bank holding companies, the FDIC has adopted risk-based capital requirements for assessing state non-member banks’ capital adequacy. The FDIC’s risk-based capital guidelines require that all banks maintain a minimum ratio of total capital to total risk-weighted assets of 8.0% and a minimum ratio of Tier 1 capital to total risk-weighted assets of 4.0%. To be well-capitalized, a bank must have a ratio of total capital to total risk-weighted assets of at least 10.0% and a ratio of Tier 1 capital to total risk-weighted assets of 6.0%.

PBI Bank has agreed with its primary regulators to maintain a ratio of total capital to total risk-weighted assets of at least 12.0% and a ratio of Tier 1 capital to total assets of 9%. As of December 31, 2013, PBI Bank’s ratio of total capital to total risk-weighted assets was 11.44% and its ratio of Tier 1 capital to total assets was 6.28%, both under the ratios required by the Consent Order.

The FDIC also requires a minimum leverage ratio of 3.0% of Tier 1 capital to total assets for the highest rated banks and an additional cushion of approximately 100-200 basis points for all other banks. The leverage ratio operates in tandem with the FDIC’s risk-based capital guidelines and places a limit on the amount of leverage a bank can undertake by requiring a minimum level of capital to total assets.

Prompt Corrective Action. Pursuant to the Federal Deposit Insurance Act (“FDIA”), the FDIC must take prompt corrective action to resolve the problems of undercapitalized institutions. FDIC regulations define the levels at which an insured institution would be considered “well capitalized,” “adequately capitalized,” “undercapitalized,” “significantly undercapitalized” and “critically undercapitalized.” A “well-capitalized” bank has a total risk-based capital ratio of 10.0% or higher; a Tier 1 risk- based capital ratio of 6.0% or higher; a leverage ratio of 5.0% or higher; and is not subject to any written agreement, order or directive requiring it to maintain a specific capital level for any capital measure. An “adequately capitalized” bank has a total risk-based capital ratio of 8.0% or higher; a Tier 1 risk-based capital ratio of 4.0% or higher; a leverage ratio of 4.0% or higher (3.0% or higher if the bank was rated a composite 1 in its most recent examination report and is not experiencing significant growth); and does not meet the criteria for a well-capitalized bank. A bank is “undercapitalized” if it fails to meet any one of the ratios required to be adequately capitalized. A depository institution may be deemed to be in a capitalization category that is lower than is indicated by its actual capital position if it receives an unsatisfactory examination rating. The degree of regulatory scrutiny increases and the permissible activities of a bank decreases, as the bank moves downward through the capital categories. Depending on a bank’s level of capital, the FDIC’s corrective powers include:

In the event an institution is required to submit a capital restoration plan, the institution’s holding company must guaranty the subsidiary’s compliance with the capital restoration plan up to a certain specified amount. Any such guarantee from a depository institution’s holding company is entitled to a priority of payment in bankruptcy. The aggregate liability of the holding company of an undercapitalized bank is limited to the lesser of 5% of the institution’s assets at the time it became undercapitalized or the amount necessary to cause the institution to be “adequately capitalized.” The bank regulators have greater power in situations where an institution becomes “significantly” or “critically” undercapitalized or fails to submit a capital restoration plan. For example, a bank holding company controlling such an institution can be required to obtain prior Federal Reserve Board approval of proposed dividends, or might be required to consent to a consolidation or to divest the troubled institution or other affiliates.

8

Table of Contents

Deposit Insurance Assessments. The deposits of PBI Bank are insured by the Deposit Insurance Fund (DIF) of the FDIC up to the limits set forth under applicable law and are subject to the deposit insurance premium assessments of the DIF. The FDIC imposes a risk-based deposit premium assessment system, which was amended pursuant to the Federal Deposit Insurance Reform Act of 2005 (the “Reform Act”). Under this system, as amended, the assessment rates for an insured depository institution vary according to the level of risk incurred in its activities. To arrive at an assessment rate for a banking institution, the FDIC places it in one of four risk categories determined by reference to its capital levels and supervisory ratings. The assessment rate schedule can change from time to time, at the discretion of the FDIC, subject to certain limits.

On November 12, 2009, the FDIC amended the final rule adopted on May 22, 2009 to restore losses to the DIF. The new rule required insured institutions to prepay on December 30, 2009, an estimated quarterly risk-based assessment for the fourth quarter of 2009 and for all 2010, 2011, and 2012. An institution’s assessment is calculated by taking the institution’s actual September 30, 2009 assessment and adjusting it quarterly by an estimated 5% annual growth rate through the end of 2012. Further, the FDIC incorporated a uniform 3 basis point increase effective January 1, 2011. On December 30, 2009, PBI Bank prepaid $7.9 million of FDIC insurance premiums for 2010 through 2012. The entire amount of the prepaid assessment was recorded as a prepaid expense. As of December 31, 2009, and each quarter thereafter, each institution recorded an expense, or a charge to earnings, for its quarterly assessment invoiced on its quarterly statement and an offsetting credit to the prepaid assessment until the asset is exhausted. At December 31, 2012, our prepaid assessment was exhausted.

The Dodd-Frank Act imposes additional assessments and costs with respect to deposits. Under the Dodd-Frank Act, the FDIC is directed to impose deposit insurance assessments based on total assets rather than total deposits, as well as making permanent the increase of deposit insurance to $250,000 and providing for full insurance of non-interest bearing transaction accounts beginning December 31, 2010, for two years. In February 2011, the FDIC adopted a final rule on the deposit insurance assessment system. The rule was effective as of April 1, 2011, and revised the assessment system to comply with Dodd-Frank and also included a revised assessment rate process with the goal of differentiating insured depository institutions who pose greater risk to the DIF. The first assessments under the new rule were payable in the third quarter of 2011.

Safety and Soundness Standards. The FDIA requires the federal bank regulatory agencies to prescribe standards, by regulations or guidelines, relating to internal controls, information systems and internal audit systems, loan documentation, credit underwriting, interest rate risk exposure, asset growth, asset quality, earnings, stock valuation and compensation, fees and benefits, and such other operational and managerial standards as the agencies deem appropriate. Guidelines adopted by the federal bank regulatory agencies establish general standards relating to internal controls and information systems, internal audit systems, loan documentation, credit underwriting, interest rate exposure, asset growth and compensation, fees and benefits. In general, the guidelines require, among other things, appropriate systems and practices to identify and manage the risk and exposures specified in the guidelines. The guidelines prohibit excessive compensation as an unsafe and unsound practice and describe compensation as excessive when the amounts paid are unreasonable or disproportionate to the services performed by an executive officer, employee, director or principal stockholder. In addition, the agencies adopted regulations that authorize, but do not require, an agency to order an institution that has been given notice by an agency that it is not satisfying any of such safety and soundness standards to submit a compliance plan. If, after being so notified, an institution fails to submit an acceptable compliance plan or fails in any material respect to implement an acceptable compliance plan, the agency must issue an order directing action to correct the deficiency and may issue an order directing other actions of the types to which an undercapitalized institution is subject under the “prompt corrective action” provisions of FDIA. See “Prompt Corrective Actions” above. If an institution fails to comply with such an order, the agency may seek to enforce such order in judicial proceedings and to impose civil money penalties.

Branching. Kentucky law permits Kentucky chartered banks to establish a banking office in any county in Kentucky. A Kentucky bank may also establish a banking office outside of Kentucky. Well capitalized Kentucky banks that have been in operation at least three years and that satisfy certain criteria relating to, among other things, their composite and management ratings, may establish a banking office in Kentucky without the approval of the KDFI upon notice to the KDFI and any other state bank with its main office located in the county where the new banking office will be located. Branching by all other banks requires the approval of the KDFI, which must ascertain and determine that the public convenience and advantage will be served and promoted and that there is reasonable probability of the successful operation of the banking office.

9

Table of Contents

The transaction must also be approved by the FDIC, which considers a number of factors, including financial history, capital adequacy, earnings prospects, character of management, needs of the community and consistency with corporate powers.

Section 613 of the Dodd—Frank Act effectively eliminated the interstate branching restrictions set forth in the Riegle-Neal Interstate Banking and Branching Efficiency Act of 1994. Banks located in any state may now de novo branch in any other state, including Kentucky. Such unlimited branching power will likely increase competition within the markets in which the Corporation and the Bank operate.Insider Credit Transactions. The restrictions on loans to directors, executive officers, principal shareholders and their related interests (collectively referred to herein as “insiders”) contained in the Federal Reserve Act and Regulation O apply to all insured depository institutions and their subsidiaries. These restrictions include limits on loans to one borrower and conditions that must be met before such a loan can be made. There is also an aggregate limitation on all loans to insiders and their related interests. These loans cannot exceed the institution’s total unimpaired capital and surplus.

Automated Overdraft Payment Regulation. The Federal Reserve and FDIC have recently enacted consumer protection regulations related to automated overdraft payment programs offered by financial institutions. In November 2009, the Federal Reserve amended its Regulation E to prohibit financial institutions from charging consumers fees for paying overdrafts on automated teller machine and one-time debit card transactions, unless a consumer consents, or opts in, to the overdraft service for those types of transactions. The Regulation E amendments also require financial institutions to provide consumers with a notice that explains the financial institution’s overdraft services, including the fees associated with the service and the consumer’s choices.

In November 2010, the FDIC supplemented the Regulation E amendments by requiring FDIC-supervised institutions to implement additional changes relating to automated overdraft payment programs by July 1, 2011. One material change requires financial institutions to monitor overdraft payment programs for “excessive or chronic” customer use and to undertake “meaningful and effective” follow-up action with customers that overdraw their accounts more than six times during a rolling 12-month period. The new guidance also imposes daily limits on overdraft charges, requires institutions to review and modify check-clearing procedures, prominently distinguish account balances from available overdraft coverage amounts and requires increased board and management oversight regarding overdraft payment programs.

Consumer Protection Laws. We are subject to a number of federal and state laws designed to protect borrowers and promote lending to various sectors of the economy and population. These laws include, among others, the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, the Fair Credit Reporting Act, the Truth in Lending Act, the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act, and the Real Estate Settlement and Procedures Act, and state law counterparts.

Equal Credit Opportunity Act. This statute prohibits discrimination against an applicant in any credit transaction, whether for consumer or business purposes, on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, sex, marital status, age (except in limited circumstances), receipt of income from public assistance programs or good faith exercise of any rights under the Consumer Credit Protection Act. Under the Fair Housing Act, it is unlawful for any lender to discriminate in its housing-related lending activities against any person because of race, color, religion, national origin, sex, handicap or familial status. Among other things, these laws prohibit a lender from denying or discouraging credit on a discriminatory basis, making excessively low appraisals of property based on racial considerations, or charging excessive rates or imposing more stringent loan terms or conditions on a discriminatory basis. In addition to private actions by aggrieved borrowers or applicants for actual and punitive damages, the U.S. Department of Justice and other regulatory agencies can take enforcement action seeking injunctive and other equitable relief or sanctions for alleged violations.

Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”). FCRA requires the Bank to adopt and implement a written identity theft prevention program, paying particular attention to several identified “red flag” events. The program must assess the validity of address change requests for card issuers and for users of consumer reports to verify the subject of a consumer report in the event of notice of an address discrepancy. FCRA gives consumers the ability to challenge banks with respect to credit reporting information provided by the bank. FCRA also prohibits banks from using certain information it may acquire from an affiliate to solicit the consumer for marketing purposes unless the consumer has been given notice and an opportunity to opt out of such solicitation for a period of five years.

Truth in Lending Act (“TILA”). TILA is designed to ensure that credit terms are disclosed in a meaningful way so that consumers may compare credit terms more readily and knowledgeably. As result of TILA, all creditors must use the same credit terminology and expressions of rates, and disclose the annual percentage rate, the finance charge, the amount financed, the total of payments and the payment schedule for each proposed loan. Violations of TILA may result in regulatory sanctions and in the imposition of both civil and, in the case of willful violations, criminal penalties. Under certain circumstances, TILA also provides a consumer with a right of rescission, which if exercised within three business days would require the creditor to reimburse any amount paid by the consumer to the creditor or to a third party in connection with the loan, including finance charges, application fees, commitment fees, title search fees and appraisal fees. Consumers may also seek actual and punitive damages for violations of TILA.

10

Table of Contents

Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (“HMDA”). HMDA has grown out of public concern over credit shortages in certain urban neighborhoods. One purpose of HMDA is to provide public information that will help show whether financial institutions are serving the housing credit needs of the neighborhoods and communities in which they are located. HMDA also includes a “fair lending” aspect that requires the collection and disclosure of data about applicant and borrower characteristics, as a way of identifying possible discriminatory lending patterns and enforcing anti-discrimination statutes. HMDA requires institutions to report data regarding applications for loans for the purchase or improvement of single family and multi-family dwellings, as well as information concerning originations and purchases of such loans. Federal bank regulators rely, in part, upon data provided under HMDA to determine whether depository institutions engage in discriminatory lending practices. The appropriate federal banking agency, or in some cases the Department of Housing and Urban Development, enforces compliance with HMDA and implements its regulations. Administrative sanctions, including civil money penalties, may be imposed by supervisory agencies for violations of HMDA.

Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (“RESPA”). RESPA requires lenders to provide borrowers with disclosures regarding the nature and cost of real estate settlements. RESPA also prohibits certain abusive practices, such as kickbacks, and places limitations on the amount of escrow accounts. Violations of RESPA may result in imposition of penalties, including: (1) civil liability equal to three times the amount of any charge paid for the settlement services or civil liability of up to $1,000 per claimant, depending on the violation; (2) awards of court costs and attorneys’ fees; and (3) fines of not more than $10,000 or imprisonment for not more than one year, or both.

Loans to One Borrower. Under current limits, loans and extensions of credit outstanding at one time to a single borrower and not fully secured generally may not exceed 15% of an institution’s unimpaired capital and unimpaired surplus. Loans and extensions of credit fully secured by certain readily marketable collateral may represent an additional 10% of unimpaired capital and unimpaired surplus.

Federal law currently contains extensive customer privacy protection provisions. Under these provisions, a financial institution must provide to its customers, at the inception of the customer relationship and annually thereafter, the institution’s policies and procedures regarding the handling of customers’ nonpublic personal financial information. These provisions also provide that, except for certain limited exceptions, an institution may not provide such personal information to unaffiliated third parties unless the institution discloses to the customer that such information may be so provided and the customer is given the opportunity to opt out of such disclosure. Federal law makes it a criminal offense, except in limited circumstances, to obtain or attempt to obtain customer information of a financial nature by fraudulent or deceptive means.

Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (“CFPB”). The Dodd-Frank Act created a new, independent federal agency called the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, which is granted broad rulemaking, supervisory and enforcement powers under various federal consumer financial protection laws. The CFPB has examination and primary enforcement authority with respect to depository institutions with $10 billion or more in assets. Smaller institutions will be subject to rules promulgated by the CFPB, but will continue to be examined and supervised by federal banking regulators for consumer compliance purposes. The CFPB has authority to prevent unfair, deceptive or abusive acts or practices in connection with the offering of consumer financial products. The Dodd-Frank Act authorizes the CFPB to establish certain minimum standards for the origination of residential mortgages including a determination of the borrower’s ability to repay. In addition, the Dodd-Frank Act will allow borrowers to raise certain defenses to foreclosure if they receive any loan other than a “qualified mortgage” as defined by the CFPB.

The Dodd-Frank Act also permits states to adopt consumer protection laws and standards that are more stringent than those adopted at the federal level and, in certain circumstances, permits state attorneys general to enforce compliance with both the state and federal laws and regulations. Federal preemption of state consumer protection law requirements, traditionally an attribute of the federal savings association charter, has also been modified by the Dodd-Frank Act and now requires a case-by-case determination of preemption by the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (“OCC”) and eliminates preemption for subsidiaries of a bank. Depending on the implementation of this revised federal preemption standard, the operations of the Bank could become subject to additional compliance burdens in the states in which it operates.

Privacy. Federal law currently contains extensive customer privacy protection provisions. Under these provisions, a financial institution must provide to its customers, at the inception of the customer relationship and annually thereafter, the institution’s policies and procedures regarding the handling of customers’ nonpublic personal financial information. These provisions also provide that, except for certain limited exceptions, an institution may not provide such personal information to unaffiliated third parties unless the institution discloses to the customer that such information may be so provided and the customer is given the opportunity to opt out of such disclosure. Federal law makes it a criminal offense, except in limited circumstances, to obtain or attempt to obtain customer information of a financial nature by fraudulent or deceptive means.

11

Table of Contents

Community Reinvestment Act. The Community Reinvestment Act (“CRA”) requires the FDIC to assess our record in meeting the credit needs of the communities we serve, including low- and moderate-income neighborhoods and persons. The FDIC’s assessment of our record is made available to the public. The assessment also is part of the Federal Reserve Board’s consideration of applications to acquire, merge or consolidate with another banking institution or its holding company, to establish a new banking office or to relocate an office.

Bank Secrecy Act. The Bank Secrecy Act of 1970 (“BSA”) was enacted to deter money laundering, establish regulatory reporting standards for currency transactions and improve detection and investigation of criminal, tax and other regulatory violations. BSA and subsequent laws and regulations require us to take steps to prevent the use of PBI Bank in the flow of illegal or illicit money, including, without limitation, ensuring effective management oversight, establishing sound policies and procedures, developing effective monitoring and reporting capabilities, ensuring adequate training and establishing a comprehensive internal audit of BSA compliance activities. In recent years, federal regulators have increased the attention paid to compliance with the provisions of BSA and related laws, with particular attention paid to “Know Your Customer” practices. Banks have been encouraged by regulators to enhance their identification procedures prior to accepting new customers in order to deter criminal elements from using the banking system to move and hide illegal and illicit activities.

USA Patriot Act. The USA Patriot Act of 2001 (the “Patriot Act”) contains anti-money laundering measures affecting insured depository institutions, broker-dealers and certain other financial institutions. The Patriot Act requires financial institutions to implement policies and procedures to combat money laundering and the financing of terrorism. This includes standards for verifying customer identification at account opening, as well as rules to promote cooperation among financial institutions, regulators and law enforcement entities in identifying parties that may be involved in terrorism or money laundering. It grants the Secretary of the Treasury broad authority to establish regulations and to impose requirements and restrictions on financial institutions’ operations. In addition, the Patriot Act requires the federal bank regulatory agencies to consider the effectiveness of a financial institution’s anti-money laundering activities when reviewing bank mergers and bank holding company acquisitions.

Effect on Economic Environment. The policies of regulatory authorities, including the monetary policy of the Federal Reserve Board, have a significant effect on the operating results of bank holding companies and their subsidiaries. Among the means available to the Federal Reserve Board to affect the money supply are open market operations in U.S. government securities, changes in the discount rate on member bank borrowings and changes in reserve requirements against member bank deposits. These means are used in varying combinations to influence overall growth and distribution of bank loans, investments and deposits. Their use may affect interest rates charged on loans or paid for deposits.

Federal Reserve Board monetary policies have materially affected the operating results of commercial banks in the past and are expected to continue to do so in the future. The nature of future monetary policies and the effect of such policies on our business and earnings and those of our subsidiaries cannot be predicted.

Recently Enacted and Future Legislation. Various laws, regulations and governmental programs affecting financial institutions and the financial industry are from time to time introduced in Congress or otherwise promulgated by regulatory agencies. Such measures may change the operating environment of Porter Bancorp and its subsidiaries in substantial and unpredictable ways. The nature and extent of future legislative, regulatory or other changes affecting financial institutions is unpredictable at this time.

We cannot predict what other legislation or economic policies of the various regulatory authorities might be enacted or adopted or what other regulations might be adopted or the effects thereof. Future legislation, policies and the effects thereof might have a significant influence on overall growth and distribution of loans, investments and deposits, as well as affect interest rates charged on loans or paid on time and savings deposits. Such legislation and policies have had a significant effect on the operating results of commercial banks in the past and are expected to continue to do so in the future.

Available Information

We file periodic reports with the SEC including our annual report on Form 10-K, quarterly reports on Form 10-Q, current event reports on Form 8-K and proxy statements. The public may read and copy any materials we file with the SEC at the SEC’s Public Reference Room at 100 F Street, NE, Washington, DC 20549. The public may obtain information on the operation of the Public Reference Room by calling the SEC at 1-800-SEC-0330. The SEC maintains an internet site that contains reports, proxy and information statements and other information regarding issuers that file electronically with the SEC at http://www.sec.gov. Our SEC reports filed are accessible at no cost on our web site at http://www.pbibank.com, under the Investors Relations section, once they are electronically filed with or furnished to the SEC. A shareholder may also request a copy of our Annual Report on Form 10-K free of charge upon written request to: Chief Financial Officer, Porter Bancorp, Inc., 2500 Eastpoint Parkway, Louisville, Kentucky 40223.

12

Table of Contents

An investment in our common stock involves a number of risks. Realization of any of the risks described below could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations, cash flow and/or future prospects.

We are subject to a Consent Order with the FDIC and the KDFI and a formal agreement with the Federal Reserve that restrict the conduct of our operations and may have a material adverse effect on our business.

Our good standing with bank regulatory agencies is of fundamental importance to the continuation of our businesses. In June 2011, PBI Bank agreed to a Consent Order with the FDIC and KDFI in which the Bank agreed, among other things, to improve asset quality, reduce loan concentrations, and maintain a minimum Tier 1 leverage ratio of 9% and a minimum total risk based capital ratio of 12%. The Consent Order was included in our Current Report on 8-K filed on June 30, 2011.

On September 21, 2011, we entered into a Written Agreement with the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis. Pursuant to the Agreement, we made formal commitments to, among other things, use our financial and management resources to serve as a source of strength for the Bank and to assist the Bank in addressing weaknesses identified by the FDIC and the KDFI, to pay no dividends without prior written approval, to pay no interest or principal on subordinated debentures or trust preferred securities without prior written approval, and to submit an acceptable plan to maintain sufficient capital.

In October 2012, the Bank entered into a new Consent Order with the FDIC and KDFI again agreeing to maintain a minimum Tier 1 leverage ratio of 9% and a minimum total risk based capital ratio of 12%. The Bank also agreed that if it should be unable to reach the required capital levels, and if directed in writing by the FDIC, then the Bank would within 30 days develop, adopt and implement a written plan to sell or merge itself into another federally insured financial institution or otherwise immediately obtain a sufficient capital investment into the Bank to fully meet the capital requirements. The new Consent Order also requires the Bank to continue to adhere to the plans implemented in response to the June 2011 Consent Order, and includes the substantive provisions of the June 2011 Consent Order. While we substantially complied with the Consent Order, we did not meet the capital ratios required by the Consent Order as of December 31, 2013.

Bank regulatory agencies can exercise discretion when an institution does not meet minimum regulatory capital levels and the other terms of a consent order. The agencies may initiate changes in management, issue mandatory directives, impose monetary penalties or refrain from formal sanctions, depending on individual circumstances. Any action taken by bank regulatory agencies could damage our reputation and have a material adverse effect on our business. Compliance with the Consent Order also increases our operating expense, and adversely affects our financial performance.

We have made commitments to the banking regulators to raise additional capital. Our inability to increase our capital to the levels required by our bank regulatory agreements could have a material adverse effect on our business.

We recorded a net loss attributable to common shareholders of $3.4 million in 2013. The net loss for 2013 was due in part to $4.7 million of loan collection expense, and $4.5 million of expense related to other real estate owned and the accrual of dividends due and payable on our Series A Preferred Stock which totaled $4.3 million in 2013.

Our losses, non-performing loan costs, other real estate owned expenses, and asset impairments, have reduced our capital below the levels agreed upon with our banking regulators. While we believe we have recognized the probable losses in our portfolio, further credit deterioration could result in additional losses and a reduction in capital levels.

In its consent order with the FDIC and the KDFI, PBI Bank has agreed to maintain a ratio of total capital to total risk-weighted assets of at least 12.0% and a ratio of Tier 1 capital to total assets of 9.0%. As of December 31, 2013, PBI Bank’s ratio of total capital to total risk-weighted assets was 11.44% and its ratio of Tier 1 capital to total assets was 6.28%, both below the ratios required by the consent order.

We have agreed with and submitted to the FDIC, the KDFI and the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis a plan to restore our capital ratios to levels that comply with our regulatory agreements. We are evaluating various specific initiatives to increase our regulatory capital and reduce our total assets. Strategic alternatives include divesting of branch offices, selling loans and raising capital by selling stock.

Our ability to raise additional capital will depend on, among other things, conditions in the capital markets at that time (which are outside of our control) and our financial performance, including the management of our revenue, expenses, levels of average assets, credit quality, levels of other real estate owned, and contingent liability risks. We may not have access to capital on acceptable terms or at all. Our inability to raise additional capital on acceptable terms when needed could have a material adverse effect on our businesses, financial condition and results of operations. In addition, if we are unable to comply with our regulatory capital requirements, it could result in more stringent enforcement actions by the bank regulatory agencies, which could damage our reputation and have a material adverse effect on our business.

13

Table of Contents

Our ability to pay cash dividends on our common and preferred stock and pay interest on the junior subordinated debentures that relate to our trust preferred securities is currently restricted. Our inability to resume paying dividends and distributions on these securities may adversely affect our common shareholders.

We historically paid quarterly cash dividends on our common stock until we suspended dividend payments in October 2011. Effective with the fourth quarter of 2011, we began deferring cash dividends on the Series A Preferred Stock held by the U.S. Treasury and interest payments on the junior subordinated notes relating to our trust preferred securities. Deferring interest payments on the junior subordinated notes resulted in a deferral of distributions on our trust preferred securities. We will be prohibited from paying cash dividends on our common stock until such time as we have paid all deferred dividends on our Series A Preferred Stock and all deferred distributions on our trust preferred securities. At December 31, 2013, we have accrued and unpaid dividends on Series A Preferred Stock totaling $4.3 million.

If we defer interest payments on our trust preferred securities for 20 consecutive quarters, we must pay all deferred interest and resume quarterly interest payments or we will be in default. We have deferred dividend payments on our Series A Preferred Stock for nine quarters and the holder (currently the U.S. Treasury) has the right to appoint up to two representatives to our Board of Directors. Dividends on the Series A preferred stock and deferred distributions on our trust preferred securities are cumulative and therefore unpaid dividends and distributions will accrue and compound on each subsequent payment date. If we become subject to any liquidation, dissolution or winding up of affairs, holders of the trust preferred securities and then holders of the preferred stock will be entitled to receive the liquidation amounts to which they are entitled including the amount of any accrued and unpaid distributions and dividends, before any distribution to the holders of common stock.

As a bank holding company, we depend on dividends and distributions paid by our banking subsidiary.

Porter Bancorp is a legal entity separate and distinct from PBI Banks and our other subsidiaries. Our principal source of cash flow, from which we would fund any dividends paid to our shareholders, has historically been dividends Porter Bancorp receives from PBI Bank. Regulations of the FDIC and the KDFI govern the ability of PBI Bank to pay dividends and other distributions to us, and regulations of the Federal Reserve govern our ability to pay dividends or make other distributions to our shareholders. In its consent order with the FDIC and the KDFI, PBI Bank agreed not to pay dividends to us without the prior consent of those regulators. During 2011, Porter Bancorp contributed $13.1 million to PBI Bank. The contribution, which was made to strengthen PBI Bank’s capital in an effort to help it comply with its capital ratio requirements under the consent order, also substantially decreased the liquid assets of Porter Bancorp. Liquid assets decreased from $20.3 million at December 31, 2010 to $2.7 million at December 31, 2013. Since PBI Bank is unlikely to be in a position to pay dividends to Porter Bancorp for the foreseeable future, cash inflows for Porter Bancorp are limited to earnings on investment securities, sales of investment securities, and interest on its deposits held at PBI Bank. These cash inflows, along with the liquid assets held at December 31, 2013, are needed to cover ongoing operating expenses of Porter Bancorp, which have been reduced and are budgeted at approximately $950,000 for 2014. See the “Supervision-Porter Bancorp-Dividends” section of Item 1. “Business” and the “Dividends” section of Item 5. “Market for Registrant’s Common Equity, Related Stockholder Matters and Issuer Purchases of Equity Securities” of this Annual Report on Form 10-K.

We may not pay dividends on your common stock and we have agreed with the Federal Reserve to obtain its written consent before declaring or paying any future dividends.

We are currently unable to pay dividends. Holders of shares of our common stock are only entitled to receive such dividends as our board of directors may declare from funds legally available for such payments. Although we have historically declared cash dividends on our common stock, we currently do not pay a cash dividend and we are not required to do so. Also, our ability to increase our dividend or to repurchase our common stock is limited for so long as any of our Series A Preferred Stock remains outstanding, as discussed in greater detail in the “Dividends” section of Item 5. “Market for Registrant’s Common Equity, Related Stockholder Matters and Issuer Purchases of Equity Securities” of this Annual Report on Form 10-K. There can be no assurance that we will pay dividends to our shareholders in the future, or if dividends are paid, that we will increase our dividend to historical levels or otherwise. Our ability to pay dividends to our shareholders is not only subject to limitations imposed by the terms of our Series A Preferred Stock, but also by limitations and guidance issued by the Federal Reserve. For example, under Federal Reserve guidance, bank holding companies generally are advised to consult in advance with the Federal Reserve before declaring dividends, and to strongly consider reducing, deferring or eliminating dividends in certain situations, such as when declaring or paying a dividend would exceed earnings for the fiscal quarter for which the dividend is being paid, or when declaring or paying a dividend could result in a material adverse change to the organization’s capital structure. In addition, Porter Bancorp has agreed with the Federal Reserve to obtain its written consent prior to declaring or paying any future dividends. As a practical matter, Porter Bancorp cannot pay dividends for the foreseeable future.

14

Table of Contents

Our holding company debt (TRUPS) and preferred stock (TARP) could make it difficult to raise capital.

At December 31, 2013, we had an aggregate obligation of $26.5 million relating to the principal and accrued unpaid interest on our four issues of junior subordinate debentures (TRUPS). Although we are permitted to defer payments on these securities for up to five years (and we commenced doing so in 2011), the deferred interest payments continue to accrue until paid in full.

In addition, in November 2008, we issued shares of preferred stock and common stock purchase warrants to the U. S. Treasury Department under the TARP/Capital Purchase Plan. The preferred stock has an aggregate liquidation preference of $35.0 million. TARP carries a cumulative dividend of 5% per annum which increased to 9% in 2013. We stopped paying dividends on the TARP in 2011. Like the holding company debt, unpaid dividends on the TARP continue to accrue until the preferred stock is repaid or restructured and total $4.3 million at December 31, 2013.

Our holding company debt and TARP could make it difficult to recapitalize or enter into a business combination transaction because any investor or purchaser would effectively assume the outstanding liability on the debt and be required to repay or restructure the TARP in addition to the amount of funds such investors or purchaser would need to provide in order to recapitalize the Bank and the Company.

In the normal course of operations, we are defendants in various legal proceedings.

Litigation is subject to inherent uncertainties and unfavorable rulings could occur. We record contingent liabilities resulting from claims against us when a loss is assessed to be probable and the amount of the loss is reasonably estimable. Assessing probability of loss and estimating probable losses requires analysis of multiple factors, including in some cases judgments about the potential actions of third party claimants and courts. Recorded contingent liabilities are based on the best information available and actual losses in any future period are inherently uncertain. Accruals are not made in cases where liability is not probable or the amount cannot be reasonably estimated. We provide disclosure of matters where we believe liability is reasonably possible and which may be material to our consolidated financial statements. If we do not prevail, the ultimate outcome of litigation matter could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition, results of operations, or cash flows.

PBI Bank has served as trustee for ESOPs under review by the Department of Labor, subjecting us to certain financial risks.

From 2007 until the first quarter of 2013, PBI Bank served as trustee for certain Employee Stock Ownership Plan (ESOP) purchase transactions. These transactions are subject to regular and routine reviews by the DOL for compliance with ERISA. Failure to fulfill our fiduciary duties under ERISA with respect to any such plan would subject us to certain financial risks such as claims for damages as well as fines and penalties assessable under ERISA.

Our business has been and may continue to be adversely affected by conditions in the financial markets and by economic conditions generally.

Ongoing weakness in business and economic conditions generally or specifically in our markets has had, and could continue to have one or more of the following adverse effects on our business:

The general business environment has had an adverse effect on our business during the past five years. Although the general business environment has shown some improvement, there can be no assurance that such improvement can be sustained. In addition, the improvement of certain economic indicators, such as real estate asset values and rents and unemployment, may vary between geographic markets and may continue to lag behind improvement in the overall economy. These economic indicators typically affect the real estate and financial services industries, in which we have a significant number of customers, more significantly than other economic sectors. Furthermore, we have a substantial lending business that depends upon the ability of borrowers to make debt service payments on loans. Should unemployment or real estate asset values fail to recover for an extended period of time, or if economic conditions worsen or remain volatile, our business, financial condition or results of operations could be adversely affected.

A large percentage of our loans are collateralized by real estate, and prolonged weakness in the real estate market may result in losses and adversely affect our profitability.

Approximately 87.7% of our loan portfolio as of December 31, 2013, was comprised of commercial and residential loans collateralized by real estate. While we are seeing recent improvements, adverse economic conditions since 2008 have decreased demand for real estate which has depressed real estate values in our markets. Persistent weakness in the real estate market could continue to significantly impair the value of our collateral and our ability to sell the collateral upon foreclosure. The real estate collateral in each case provides an alternate source of repayment in the event of default by the borrower and may deteriorate in value during the time the credit is extended. If real estate values decline further, it will become more likely that we would be required to increase our allowance for loan losses. If during a period of reduced real estate values, we are required to liquidate the collateral securing a loan to satisfy the debt or to increase our allowance for loan losses, it could materially reduce our profitability and adversely affect our financial condition.

We offer real estate construction and development loans, which carry a higher degree of risk than other real estate loans. Persistent weakness in the residential construction and commercial development real estate markets has increased the non-performing assets in our loan portfolio and our provision expense for losses on loans. These impacts have had, and could continue to have a material adverse effect on our capital, financial condition and results of operations.

Approximately 6.1% of our loan portfolio as of December 31, 2013 consisted of real estate construction and development loans, down from 7.8% at December 31, 2012. These loans generally carry a higher degree of risk than long-term financing of existing properties because repayment depends on the ultimate completion of the project and usually on the sale of the property. If we are forced to foreclose on a project prior to its completion, we may not be able to recover the entire unpaid portion of the loan or we may be required to fund additional money to complete the project, or hold the property for an indeterminate period of time. Any of these outcomes may result in losses and adversely affect our profitability.

15

Table of Contents

Residential construction and commercial development real estate activity in our markets were affected by challenging economic conditions following the financial crisis of 2008. Prolonged weakness in these sectors may lead to additional valuation adjustments to our loan portfolios and real estate owned as we continue to reassess the fair value of our non-performing assets, the loss severity of loans in default and the fair value of real estate owned. We also may realize additional losses in connection with our disposition of non-performing assets. A weak real estate market could further reduce demand for residential housing, which, in turn, could adversely affect real estate development and construction activities. Consequently, the longer challenging economic conditions persist, the more likely they are to adversely affect the ability of residential real estate developer borrowers to repay these loans and the value of property used as collateral for such loans. These economic conditions and market factors have negatively affected some of our larger loans, causing our total net-charge offs to increase and requiring us to significantly increase our allowance for loan losses. If adverse economic conditions persist, these trends could continue to worsen. Any further increase in our non-performing assets and related increases in our provision expense for losses on loans could negatively affect our business and could have a material adverse effect on our capital, financial condition and results of operations.

Our decisions regarding credit risk may not be accurate, and our allowance for loan losses may not be sufficient to cover actual losses, which could adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations.

We maintain an allowance for loan losses at a level we believe is adequate to absorb probable incurred losses in our loan portfolio based on historical loan loss experience, specific problem loans, value of underlying collateral and other relevant factors. If our assessment of these factors is ultimately inaccurate, the allowance may not be sufficient to cover actual future loan losses, which would adversely affect our operating results. Our estimates are subjective, and their accuracy depends on the outcome of future events. Changes in economic, operating and other conditions that are generally beyond our control could cause actual loan losses to increase significantly. In addition, bank regulatory agencies, as an integral part of their supervisory functions, periodically review the adequacy of our allowance for loan losses. Regulatory agencies have from time to time required us to increase our provision for loan losses or to recognize additional loan charge-offs when their judgment has differed from ours. Any of these events could have a material negative impact on our operating results.

Our levels of additional classified loans and non-performing assets may increase in the foreseeable future if economic conditions remain weak and cause more borrowers to default. Further, the value of the collateral underlying a given loan, and the realizable value of such collateral in a foreclosure sale, are likely to decline if the real estate markets remain weak, making us less likely to realize a full recovery if a borrower defaults on a loan. Any additional increases in the level of our non-performing assets, loan charge-offs or provision for loan losses, or our inability to realize the full value of underlying collateral in the event of a loan default, could negatively affect our business, financial condition, results of operations and the trading price of our securities.

If we experience greater credit losses than anticipated, our operating results may be adversely affected.

As a lender, we are exposed to the risk that our customers will be unable to repay their loans according to their terms and that any collateral securing the payment of their loans may not be sufficient to assure repayment. Credit losses are inherent in the business of making loans and could have a material adverse effect on our operating results. Our credit risk with respect to our real estate and construction loan portfolio will relate principally to the creditworthiness of borrowers and the value of the real estate serving as security for the repayment of loans. Our credit risk with respect to our commercial and consumer loan portfolio will relate principally to the general creditworthiness of businesses and individuals within our local markets.

We make various assumptions and judgments about the collectability of our loan portfolio and provide an allowance for estimated credit losses based on a number of factors. We believe that our allowance for credit losses is adequate. However, if our assumptions or judgments are wrong, our allowance for credit losses may not be sufficient to cover our actual credit losses. We may have to increase our allowance in the future in response to the request of one of our primary banking regulators, to adjust for changing conditions and assumptions, or as a result of any deterioration in the quality of our loan portfolio. The actual amount of future provisions for credit losses cannot be determined at this time and may vary from the amounts of past provisions.

We continue to hold and acquire a significant amount of OREO properties, which could increase operating expenses and result in future losses to the Company.

During recent years, we have acquired a significant amount of real estate as a result of foreclosure or by deed in lieu of foreclosure that is listed on our balance sheet as other real estate owned (OREO). This increase in our OREO portfolio has increased the expenses we have incurred to manage and dispose of these properties, which sometimes includes funding construction required to facilitate sale. We expect that our operating results in 2014 will continue to be adversely affected by expenses associated with OREO, including insurance and taxes, completion and repair costs, as well as by the funding costs associated with OREO assets.

16

Table of Contents

Properties in our OREO portfolio are recorded at the lower of the recorded investment in the loans for which the properties previously served as collateral or “fair value,” which represents the estimated sales price of the properties on the date acquired less estimated selling costs. Generally, in determining “fair value” an orderly disposition of the property is assumed, except where a different disposition strategy is expected. Significant judgment is required in estimating the fair value of OREO, and the period of time within which such estimates can be considered current may change during periods of market volatility, such as we have experienced since 2008.

Any further decreases in market prices of real estate in our market areas may lead to additional OREO write downs, with a corresponding expense in our income statement. We evaluate OREO property values periodically and write down the carrying value of the properties if and when the results of our analysis require it.

In response to market conditions and other economic factors, we may utilize alternative sale strategies other than orderly disposition as part of our OREO disposition strategy, such as bulk sales. In this event, as a result of the significant judgments required in estimating fair value and the variables involved in different methods of disposition, the net proceeds realized from such sales transactions could differ significantly from appraisals, comparable sales, and other estimates used to determine the fair value of our OREO properties. In addition, our disposition of OREO through alternative sales strategies could impact the fair value of comparable OREO properties remaining in our portfolio.

Our profitability depends significantly on local economic conditions.

Because most of our business activities are conducted in central Kentucky and most of our credit exposure is in that region, we are at risk from adverse economic or business developments affecting this area, including declining regional and local business and employment activity, a downturn in real estate values and agricultural activities and natural disasters. To the extent the central Kentucky economy remains weak, the rates of delinquencies, foreclosures, bankruptcies and losses in our loan portfolio will likely increase. Moreover, the value of real estate or other collateral that secures our loans could be adversely affected by the economic downturn or a localized natural disaster. Events that adversely affect business activity and real estate values in Central Kentucky have had and may continue to have a negative impact on our business, financial condition, results of operations and future prospects.

Our small to medium-sized business portfolio may have fewer resources to weather the downturn in the economy.

Our portfolio includes loans to small and medium-sized businesses and other commercial enterprises. Small and medium-sized businesses frequently have smaller market shares than their competitors, may be more vulnerable to economic downturns, often need substantial additional capital to expand or compete and may experience substantial variations in operating results, any of which may impair a borrower’s ability to repay a loan. In addition, the success of a small or medium-sized business often depends on the management talents and efforts of one or two persons or a small group of persons, and the death, disability or resignation of one or more of these persons could have a material adverse impact on the business and its ability to repay our loan. A continued economic downturn may have a more pronounced negative impact on our target market, causing us to incur substantial credit losses that could materially harm our operating results.

Our profitability is vulnerable to fluctuations in interest rates.

Changes in interest rates could harm our financial condition or results of operations. Our results of operations depend substantially on net interest income, the difference between interest earned on interest-earning assets (such as investments and loans) and interest paid on interest-bearing liabilities (such as deposits and borrowings). Interest rates are highly sensitive to many factors, including governmental monetary policies and domestic and international economic and political conditions. Factors beyond our control, such as inflation, recession, unemployment and money supply may also affect interest rates. If, as a result of decreasing interest rates, our interest-earning assets mature or reprice more quickly than our interest-bearing liabilities in a given period, our net interest income may decrease. Likewise, our net interest income may decrease if interest-bearing liabilities mature or reprice more quickly than interest-earning assets in a given period as a result of increasing interest rates.

17

Table of Contents

Fixed-rate loans increase our exposure to interest rate risk in a rising rate environment because interest-bearing liabilities would be subject to repricing before assets become subject to repricing. Adjustable-rate loans decrease the risk associated with changes in interest rates but involve other risks, such as the inability of borrowers to make higher payments in an increasing interest rate environment. At the same time, for secured loans, the marketability of the underlying collateral may be adversely affected by higher interest rates. In a declining interest rate environment, there may be an increase in prepayments on loans as the borrowers refinance their loans at lower interest rates, which could reduce net interest income and harm our results of operations.

If we cannot obtain adequate funding, we may not be able to meet the cash flow requirements of our depositors and borrowers, or meet the operating cash needs of the Company to fund corporate expansion or other activities.

Our liquidity policies and limits are established by the Board of Directors of PBI Bank, with operating limits set by the Asset Liability Committee (“ALCO”), based upon analyses of the ratio of loans to deposits and the percentage of assets funded with non-core or wholesale funding. The ALCO regularly monitors the overall liquidity position of PBI Bank and the Company to ensure that various alternative strategies exist to cover unanticipated events that could affect liquidity. Liquidity is the ability to meet cash flow needs on a timely basis at a reasonable cost. If our liquidity policies and strategies don’t work as well as intended, then we may be unable to make loans and to repay deposit liabilities as they become due or are demanded by customers. The ALCO follows established board approved policies and monitors guidelines to diversify our wholesale funding sources to avoid concentrations in any one-market source. Wholesale funding sources include Federal funds purchased, securities sold under repurchase agreements, and Federal Home Loan Bank (“FHLB”) advances that are collateralized with mortgage-related assets.

We maintain a portfolio of securities that can be used as a secondary source of liquidity. There are other available sources of liquidity, including additional collateralized borrowings such as FHLB advances, the issuance of debt securities, and the issuance of preferred or common securities in public or private transactions. If we were unable to access any of these funding sources when needed, we might not be able to meet the needs of our customers, which could adversely impact our financial condition, our results of operations, cash flows and our level of regulatory-qualifying capital.

We may need to raise additional capital in the future by selling capital stock. Future sales or other dilution of our equity may adversely affect the market price of our common stock.

We are not restricted from issuing additional common stock, including securities that are convertible into or exchangeable for, or that represent the right to receive, common stock. The issuance of additional shares of common stock or the issuance of convertible securities would dilute the ownership interest of our existing common shareholders. The market price of our common stock could decline as a result of such an offering as well as other sales of a large block of shares of our common stock or similar securities in the market after such an offering, or the perception that such sales could occur.

Our stock has traded from time-to-time at a price below our book value per share. Accordingly, a sale of common shares at or below our stock price would be dilutive to current shareholders.

We may not be able to realize the value of our tax losses and deductions.

Due to our losses, we have a net operating loss carry-forward of $28.8 million, credit carry-forwards of $900,000, and other net deferred tax assets of $18.1 million. In order to realize the benefit of these tax losses, credits and deductions, we will need to generate substantial taxable income in future periods. We established a 100% valuation allowance for all deferred tax assets in 2011. Should the Company issue new shares to raise additional capital, a change in control could be triggered, as defined by Section 382 of the Internal Revenue Code, which could negatively impact or limit the ability to utilize our net operating loss carry-forwards, credit loss carry-forwards, and other net deferred tax assets.

Our Series A Preferred Stock limits our ability to return capital to our shareholders and is dilutive to our common shares. In addition, the dividend rate on the Series A Preferred Stock has increased to 9% per annum.

When we had not redeemed our Series A Preferred Stock by November 21, 2013, the annual dividend rate on this capital increased substantially from 5% (approximately $1.75 million annually) to 9% (approximately $3.15 million annually). Depending on market conditions and our financial performance at the time, this increase in dividends could significantly impact our capital, liquidity and earnings available to common shareholders.

The terms of our Series A Preferred Stock limit our ability to pay dividends and repurchase our shares. We will not be able to pay any dividends on our common stock unless and until we are current on our quarterly dividend payments on the Series A Preferred Stock, which we began deferring effective with the fourth quarter of 2011. At December 31, 2013, we have accrued and unpaid dividends on Series A Preferred Stock totaling $4.3 million. These restrictions may have an adverse effect on the market price of our common stock.

18

Table of Contents

The U.S. Treasury has the unilateral ability to change some of the restrictions imposed on us by virtue of our sale of securities to it.

In addition to the restrictions our ability to pay dividends or repurchase our stock, our preferred stock purchase agreement with the U.S. Treasury authorizes the U.S. Treasury to unilaterally amend the agreement to the extent required to comply with any future changes in federal statutes. Following our November 21, 2008 issuance of Series A Preferred stock to the U.S. Treasury, the agreement was amended to impose restrictions on the conduct of our business, including restrictions on the compensation we can pay to executive officers and corporate governance requirements. These restrictions could have an adverse impact on the conduct of our business, as could any additional amendments in the future that impose further requirements or amend existing requirements.

Our former chairman and chairman emeritus together have sufficient voting power to significantly influence election of our directors, and the vote on any matter that requires shareholder approval. In exercising their voting power, they may act according to their own interests, which may be adverse to your interests.

As of December 31, 2013, J. Chester Porter and Maria L. Bouvette together beneficially owned approximately 6,076,758 shares, or 47.3% of our outstanding common stock. Accordingly, Mr. Porter and Ms. Bouvette currently have the power to exercise significant influence over the outcome of any matter submitted to a vote of our shareholders, including the election and removal of a majority of our board of directors, any amendment of our articles of incorporation (including any amendment that changes the rights of our common stock) and any merger, consolidation or sale of all or substantially all of our assets. Mr. Porter and Ms. Bouvette could take actions or make decisions in their self-interest that are opposed to your best interests. They may be less receptive to the desires communicated by shareholders. Neither our articles of incorporation, our bylaws, nor Kentucky law requires the vote of more than a simple majority of our outstanding shares of common stock to approve a matter submitted for shareholder approval, subject to the general statutory requirement that any transaction in which one or more directors have a direct or indirect interest (other than as a shareholder) must be “fair” to the corporation. Mr. Porter and Ms. Bouvette have a level of concentrated ownership that could discourage others from initiating any potential merger, takeover or other change of control transaction that may otherwise give you the opportunity to realize a premium over the then-prevailing market price of our common stock. As a result, the market price of our common stock could be adversely affected.

Higher FDIC deposit insurance premiums and assessments could significantly increase our non-interest expense.

Our deposits are insured by the FDIC up to legal limits and, accordingly, we are subject to FDIC deposit insurance premiums and assessments. High levels of bank failures over the past five years and increases in the statutory deposit insurance limits have increased resolution costs to the FDIC and put pressure on the DIF. In order to maintain a strong funding position and restore the reserve ratios of the DIF, the FDIC increased assessment rates on insured institutions, charged a special assessment to all insured institutions as of June 30, 2009 and required banks to prepay three years’ worth of premiums on December 30, 2009. If there are additional financial institution failures, we may be required to pay even higher FDIC premiums than the recently increased levels, or the FDIC may charge additional special assessments. Further, the FDIC recently increased the DIF’s target reserve ratio to 2.0 percent of insured deposits following the Dodd-Frank Act’s elimination of the 1.5 percent cap on the DIF’s reserve ratio. Additional increases in our assessment rate may be required in the future to achieve this targeted reserve ratio. These recent increases in deposit assessments and any future increases, required prepayments or special assessments of FDIC insurance premiums may adversely affect our business, financial condition or results of operations.

Additionally, pursuant to the Dodd-Frank Act, the FDIC amended its regulations regarding assessment for federal deposit insurance to base such assessments on the average total consolidated assets of the insured institution during the assessment period, less the average tangible equity of the institution during the assessment period. Prior to this change, we were assessed only on deposit balances. The FDIC adopted a rule implementing this change, as well as adopting a revised risk-based assessment calculation in February 2011. The FDIC has also proposed a rule tying assessment rates of FDIC-insured institutions to the institution’s employee compensation programs. The exact nature and cumulative effect of these recent changes are not yet known, but they are expected to increase the amount of premiums we must pay for FDIC insurance. Any such increase may adversely affect our business, financial condition or results of operations.

19

Table of Contents

We face strong competition from other financial institutions and financial service companies, which could adversely affect our results of operations and financial condition.

We compete with other financial institutions in attracting deposits and making loans. Our competition in attracting deposits comes principally from other commercial banks, credit unions, savings and loan associations, securities brokerage firms, insurance companies, money market funds and other mutual funds. Our competition in making loans comes principally from other commercial banks, credit unions, savings and loan associations, mortgage banking firms and consumer finance companies. In addition, competition for business in the Louisville and Lexington metropolitan area has grown in recent years as changes in banking law have allowed several banks to enter the market by establishing new branches. Likewise, competition is increasing in the other growing markets we have targeted, which may adversely affect our ability to execute our plans for expansion.

Competition in the banking industry may also limit our ability to attract and retain banking clients. We maintain smaller staffs of associates and have fewer financial and other resources than larger institutions with which we compete. Financial institutions that have far greater resources and greater efficiencies than we do may have several marketplace advantages resulting from their ability to:

In addition, banks and other financial institutions with larger capitalization and other financial intermediaries may not be subject to the same regulatory restrictions as we are and may have larger lending limits than we do. Some of our current commercial banking clients may seek alternative banking sources as they develop needs for credit facilities larger than we can accommodate. If we are unable to attract and retain customers, we may not be able to maintain growth and our results of operations and financial condition may otherwise be negatively impacted.

We depend on our senior management team, and the unexpected loss of one or more of our senior executives could impair our relationship with customers and adversely affect our business and financial results.

Our future success significantly depends on the continued services and performance of our key management personnel. Our future performance will depend on our ability to motivate and retain these and other key officers. The Dodd-Frank Act, legislation governing issuers of preferred stock held by the U.S. Treasury and the policies of bank regulatory agencies have placed restrictions on our executive compensation practices. Such restrictions and standards may further impact our company’s ability to compete for talent with other businesses and financial institutions that are not subject to the same limitations as we are. The loss of the services of members of our senior management or other key officers or our inability to attract additional qualified personnel as needed could materially harm our business.

Our reported financial results depend on management’s selection of accounting methods and certain assumptions and estimates.

Our accounting policies and assumptions are fundamental to our reported financial condition and results of operations. Our management must exercise judgment in selecting and applying many of these accounting policies and methods so they comply with generally accepted accounting principles and reflect management’s judgment of the most appropriate manner to report our financial condition and results. In some cases, management must select the accounting policy or method to apply from two or more alternatives, any of which may be reasonable under the circumstances, yet may result in our reporting materially different results than would have been reported under a different alternative.

Certain accounting policies are critical to presenting our reported financial condition and results. They require management to make difficult, subjective or complex judgments about matters that are uncertain. Materially different amounts could be reported under different conditions or using different assumptions or estimates. These critical accounting policies include the allowance for loan losses, valuation of OREO, valuation of securities and valuation of deferred income taxes. Because of the uncertainty of estimates involved in these matters, we may be required to do one or more of the following: significantly increase the allowance for credit losses and/or sustain credit losses that are significantly higher than the reserve provided; recognize significant impairment on our other intangible assets or significantly increase our accrued income taxes.

While management continually monitors and improves our system of internal controls, data processing systems, and corporate wide processes and procedures, we may suffer losses from operational risk in the future.

Management maintains internal operational controls, and we have invested in technology to help us process large volumes of transactions. However, we may not be able to continue processing at the same or higher levels of transactions. If our systems of internal controls should fail to work as expected, if our systems were to be used in an unauthorized manner, or if employees were to subvert the system of internal controls, significant losses could occur.

20

Table of Contents

We process large volumes of transactions on a daily basis and are exposed to numerous types of operational risk, which could cause us to incur substantial losses. Operational risk resulting from inadequate or failed internal processes, people, and systems includes the risk of fraud by employees or persons outside of our company, the execution of unauthorized transactions by employees, errors relating to transaction processing and systems, and breaches of the internal control system and compliance requirements. This risk of loss also includes potential legal actions that could arise as a result of the operational deficiency or as a result of noncompliance with applicable regulatory standards.

We establish and maintain systems of internal operational controls that provide management with timely and accurate information about our level of operational risk. While not foolproof, these systems have been designed to manage operational risk at appropriate, cost effective levels. We have also established procedures that are designed to ensure that policies relating to conduct, ethics and business practices are followed. Nevertheless, we experience loss from operational risk from time to time, including the effects of operational errors, and these losses may be substantial.

Our information systems may experience an interruption or security breach.

Failure in or breach of our operational or security systems or infrastructure, or those of our third party vendors and other service providers, including as a result of cyber attacks, could disrupt our businesses, result in the disclosure or misuse of confidential or proprietary information, damage our reputation, increase our costs and cause losses. As a large financial institution, we depend on our ability to process, record and monitor a large number of customer transactions on a continuous basis. As customer, public and regulatory expectations regarding operational and information security have increased, our operational systems and infrastructure must continue to be safeguarded and monitored for potential failures, disruptions and breakdowns. Our business, financial, accounting, data processing systems or other operating systems and facilities may stop operating properly or become disabled or damaged as a result of a number of factors including events that are wholly or partially beyond our control. For example, there could be sudden increases in customer transaction volume; electrical or telecommunications outages; natural disasters such as earthquakes, tornadoes, and hurricanes; disease pandemics; events arising from local or larger scale political or social matters, including terrorist acts; and, as described below, cyber attacks. Although we have business continuity plans and other safeguards in place, our business operations may be adversely affected by significant and widespread disruption to our physical infrastructure or operating systems that support our businesses and customers.

Information security risks for financial institutions have generally increased in recent years in part because of the proliferation of new technologies, the use of the Internet and telecommunications technologies to conduct financial transactions, and the increased sophistication and activities of organized crime, hackers, terrorists, activists, and other external parties. As noted above, our operations rely on the secure processing, transmission and storage of confidential information in our computer systems and networks. In addition, to access our products and services, our customers may use personal smartphones, tablet PC’s, and other mobile devices that are beyond our control systems. Although we believe we have robust information security procedures and controls, our technologies, systems, networks, and our customers’ devices may become the target of cyber attacks or information security breaches that could result in the unauthorized release, gathering, monitoring, misuse, loss or destruction of our customers’ confidential, proprietary and other information or that of our customers, or otherwise disrupt the business operations of ourselves, our customers or other third parties.

Third parties with which we do business or that facilitate our business activities, could also be sources of operational and information security risk to us, including from breakdowns or failures of their own systems or capacity constraints. Although to date we have not experienced any material losses relating to cyber attacks or other information security breaches, there can be no assurance that we will not suffer such losses in the future. Our risk and exposure to these matters remains heightened because of, among other things, the evolving nature of these threats and the prevalence of Internet and mobile banking. As cyber threats continue to evolve, we may be required to expend significant additional resources to continue to modify or enhance our protective measures or to investigate and remediate any information security vulnerabilities. Disruptions or failures in the physical infrastructure or operating systems that support our businesses and customers, or cyber attacks or security breaches of the networks, systems or devices that our customers use to access our products and services could result in customer attrition, regulatory fines, penalties or intervention, reputational damage, reimbursement or other compensation costs, and/or additional compliance costs, any of which could materially adversely affect our business, results of operations or financial condition.

We operate in a highly regulated environment and, as a result, are subject to extensive regulation and supervision that could adversely affect our financial performance and our ability to implement our growth and operating strategies.

We are subject to examination, supervision and comprehensive regulation by federal and state regulatory agencies, which is described under “Item 1 – Business—Supervision and Regulation.” Regulatory oversight of banks is primarily intended to protect depositors, the federal deposit insurance funds, and the banking system as a whole, not our shareholders. Compliance with these regulations is costly and may make it more difficult to operate profitably.

21

Table of Contents

Federal and state banking laws and regulations govern numerous matters including the payment of dividends, the acquisition of other banks and the establishment of new banking offices. We must also meet specific regulatory capital requirements. Our failure to comply with these laws, regulations and policies or to maintain our capital requirements could affect our ability to pay dividends on common stock, our ability to grow through the development of new offices and our ability to make acquisitions. These limitations may prevent us from successfully implementing our growth and operating strategies.

In addition, the laws and regulations applicable to banks could change at any time, which could significantly impact our business and profitability. For example, new legislation or regulation could limit the manner in which we may conduct our business, including our ability to attract deposits and make loans. Events that may not have a direct impact on us, such as the bankruptcy or insolvency of a prominent U.S. corporation, can cause legislators and banking regulators and other agencies such as the Financial Accounting Standards Board, the SEC, the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board and various taxing authorities to respond by adopting and or proposing substantive revisions to laws, regulations, rules, standards, policies and interpretations. The nature, extent, and timing of the adoption of significant new laws and regulations, or changes in or repeal of existing laws and regulations may have a material impact on our business and results of operations. Changes in regulation may cause us to devote substantial additional financial resources and management time to compliance, which may negatively affect our operating results.

Changes in banking laws could have a material adverse effect on us.

We are subject to changes in federal and state laws as well as changes in banking and credit regulations, and governmental economic and monetary policies. We cannot predict whether any of these changes may adversely and materially affect us. The current regulatory environment for financial institutions entails significant potential increases in compliance requirements and associated costs. Federal and state banking regulators also possess broad powers to take supervisory actions as they deem appropriate. These supervisory actions may result in higher capital requirements, higher insurance premiums and limitations on our activities that could have a material adverse effect on our business and profitability.

Recent legislation regarding the financial services industry may have a significant adverse effect on our operations.

The Dodd-Frank Act was signed into law on July 21, 2010. The Dodd-Frank Act has impacted the U.S. financial system, including among others:

Many provisions in the Dodd-Frank Act remain subject to regulatory rule-making, implementation, and interpretation, the effects of which are not yet known. As a result, it is difficult to gauge the ultimate impact of certain provisions of the Dodd-Frank Act because the implementation of many concepts is left to regulatory agencies. For example, the CFPB is given the power to adopt new regulations to protect consumers and is given control over existing consumer protection regulations adopted by federal banking regulators. The CFPB has begun the rule-making process but it is not known at this time when all rules will be finalized and implemented.

The provisions of the Dodd-Frank Act and any rules adopted to implement those provisions as well as any additional legislative or regulatory changes may impact the profitability of our business activities and costs of operations, require that we change certain of our business practices, materially affect our business model or affect retention of key personnel, require us to raise additional regulatory capital, including additional Tier 1 capital, and could expose us to additional costs (including increased compliance costs). These and other changes may also require us to invest significant management attention and resources to make any necessary changes and may adversely affect our ability to conduct our business as previously conducted or our results of operations or financial condition.

22

Table of Contents

Not applicable.

PBI Bank has 18 full-service banking offices. The following table shows the location, square footage and ownership of each property. We believe that each of these locations is adequately insured. Support operations are located in the Main office in Louisville and the Glasgow office building on Columbia Avenue.

In the normal course of operations, we are defendants in various legal proceedings. Litigation is subject to inherent uncertainties and unfavorable rulings could occur. We record contingent liabilities resulting from claims against us when a loss is assessed to be probable and the amount of the loss is reasonably estimable. Assessing probability of loss and estimating probable losses requires analysis of multiple factors, including in some cases judgments about the potential actions of third party claimants and courts. Recorded contingent liabilities are based on the best information available and actual losses in any future period are inherently uncertain. Currently, we have recorded a reserve related to ongoing litigation matters for which we believe liability is probable and reasonably estimable. Accruals are not made in cases where liability is not probable or the amount cannot be reasonably estimated. We provide disclosure of matters where we believe liability is reasonably possible and which may be material to our consolidated financial statements. See Footnote 24, “Contingencies” in the Notes to our consolidated financial statements for additional detail regarding ongoing legal proceedings and other matters.

Not applicable.

23

Table of Contents

PART II

Market Information

Our common stock is traded on the NASDAQ Global Market under the ticker symbol “PBIB”. The following table presents the high and low sales prices for our common stock reported on the NASDAQ Global Market for the periods indicated. Market prices and dividends paid have been restated to reflect stock dividends.

As of January 31, 2014, we had approximately 1,156 shareholders, including 366 shareholders of record and approximately 790 beneficial owners whose shares are held in “street” name by securities broker-dealers or other nominees.

24

Table of Contents

Dividends

We will not be able to pay dividends on our common stock for the foreseeable future. We historically paid quarterly cash dividends on our common stock until we suspended dividend payments in October 2011. As a bank holding company, Porter Bancorp’s ability to declare and pay dividends depends on certain federal regulatory considerations, including the guidelines of the Federal Reserve regarding capital adequacy and dividends. Porter Bancorp has agreed with the Federal Reserve to obtain its written consent prior to declaring or paying any future dividends.

Our principal source of revenue with which to pay dividends on our common stock is the dividends that PBI Bank may declare and pay to us out of funds legally available for payment of dividends. PBI Bank must obtain the prior written consent of its primary regulators prior to declaring or paying any future dividends. In addition to this current restriction, various laws applicable to PBI Bank also limit its payment of dividends to us. A Kentucky chartered bank may declare a dividend of an amount of the bank’s net profits as the board deems appropriate. The approval of the KDFI is required if the total of all dividends declared by the bank in any calendar year exceeds the total of its net profits for that year combined with its retained net profits for the preceding two years, less any required transfers to surplus or a fund for the retirement of preferred stock or debt. As a practical matter, PBI Bank will not be able to pay dividends to us for the foreseeable future.

Effective with the fourth quarter of 2011, we began deferring cash dividends on our Series A Preferred Stock and interest payments on the junior subordinated notes relating to our trust preferred securities. Deferring interest payments on the junior subordinated notes resulted in the deferral of distributions on our trust preferred securities. If we defer interest payments on our trust preferred securities for 20 consecutive quarters, we must pay all deferred interest and resume quarterly interest payments or we will be in default. At December 31, 2013, we have accrued and unpaid dividends on Series A Preferred Stock totaling $4.3 million.

We will not be able to pay cash dividends on our common stock in the future until we have paid all accrued and unpaid dividends on our Series A Preferred Stock and all deferred distributions on our trust preferred securities. Dividends on the Series A Preferred Stock and deferred distributions on our trust preferred securities are cumulative and therefore unpaid dividends and distributions will accrue and compound on each subsequent payment date. If we become subject to any liquidation, dissolution or winding up of affairs, holders of the trust preferred securities and then holders of the preferred stock will be entitled to receive the liquidation amounts to which they are entitled including the amount of any accrued and unpaid distributions and dividends, before any distribution can be made to the holders of our common stock.

Purchase of Equity Securities by Issuer

The Company did not repurchase any of its issued and outstanding equity securities in 2012 or 2013.

25

Table of Contents

The following table summarizes our selected historical consolidated financial data from 2009 to 2013. You should read this information in conjunction with Item 7. “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations” and Item 8. “Financial Statements and Supplementary Data.”

Selected Consolidated Financial Data

26

Table of Contents

Management’s discussion and analysis of financial condition and results of operations analyzes the consolidated financial condition and results of operations of Porter Bancorp, Inc. and its wholly owned subsidiary, PBI Bank. Porter Bancorp, Inc. is a Louisville, Kentucky-based bank holding company which operates 18 full-service banking offices in twelve counties through its wholly-owned subsidiary, PBI Bank. Our markets include metropolitan Louisville in Jefferson County and the surrounding counties of Henry and Bullitt, and extend south along the Interstate 65 corridor to Tennessee. We serve south central Kentucky and southern Kentucky from banking offices in Butler, Green, Hart, Edmonson, Barren, Warren, Ohio, and Daviess Counties. We also have an office in Lexington, the second largest city in Kentucky. The Bank is a community bank with a wide range of commercial and personal banking products.

Historically, we have focused on commercial and commercial real estate lending, both in markets where we have banking offices and other growing markets in our region. Commercial, commercial real estate and real estate construction loans accounted for 56.3% of our total loan portfolio as of December 31, 2013, and 58.6% as of December 31, 2012. Commercial lending generally produces higher yields than residential lending, but involves greater risk and requires more rigorous underwriting standards and credit quality monitoring.

The following discussion should be read in conjunction with our consolidated financial statements and accompanying notes and other schedules presented elsewhere in the report.

Overview

For the year ended December 31, 2013, we reported a net loss of $1.6 million compared with net loss of $32.9 million for the year ended December 31, 2012 and $107.3 million for the year ended December 31, 2011. After deductions for dividends on preferred stock, accretion on preferred stock, and allocating losses to participating securities, the net loss attributable to common shareholders was $3.4 million for the year ended December 31, 2013, compared with net loss attributable to common shareholders of $33.4 million for the year ended December 31, 2012. Basic and diluted loss per common share were $(0.29) for the year ended December 31, 2013, compared with loss per common share of $(2.85) for 2012.

Our financial performance in 2013 continued to be negatively impacted by the Bank’s high level of non-performing assets. Asset quality remediation, capital restoration, and lowering the risk profile of the Company remain our major objectives for 2014.

Non-performing loans were 14.38% of total loans and non-performing assets were 12.35% of total assets at December 31, 2013. We remain diligent in the management of our portfolio and are striving to improve credit quality by working throughout our markets to balance selective new customer acquisition, customer service for our existing clients and prudent risk management.

The following significant developments occurred during the year ended December 31, 2013:

27

Table of Contents

These items are discussed in further detail throughout this “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations” Section.

Going Concern Considerations and Future Plans

Our consolidated financial statements have been prepared on a going concern basis, which contemplates the realization of assets and the satisfaction of liabilities in the normal course of business for the foreseeable future. However, the events and circumstances described in this discussion create an uncertainty about the Company’s ability to continue as a going concern.

For the year ended December 31, 2013, we reported net loss attributable to common shareholders of $3.4 million. This loss was attributable primarily to loan collection expenses of $4.7 million and OREO expense of $4.5 million resulting from fair value write-downs driven by new appraisals and reduced marketing prices, net loss on sales, and ongoing operating expenses. We also had lower net interest margin due to lower average loans outstanding, loans re-pricing at lower rates, and the level of non-performing loans in our portfolio. Net loss to common shareholders of $3.4 million for the year ended December 31, 2013, compares with net loss to common shareholders of $33.4 million for year ended December 31, 2012.

28

Table of Contents

For the year ended December 31, 2012, we reported net loss attributable to common shareholders of $33.4 million. This loss was attributable primarily to $40.3 million of provision for loan losses expense due to continued decline in credit trends in our portfolio that resulted in net charge-offs of $36.1 million, OREO expense of $10.5 million resulting from fair value write-downs driven by new appraisals and reduced marketing prices, net loss on sales, and ongoing operating expense. We also had lower net interest margin due to lower average loans outstanding, loans re-pricing at lower rates, and the level of non-performing loans in our portfolio. Net loss to common shareholders of $33.4 million, for the year ended December 31, 2012, compares with net loss to common shareholders of $105.2 million for year ended December 31, 2011.

In June 2011, the Bank entered into a Consent Order with the FDIC and KDFI in which the Bank agreed, among other things, to improve asset quality, reduce loan concentrations, and maintain a minimum Tier 1 leverage ratio of 9% and a minimum total risk based capital ratio of 12%. The Consent Order was included in our Current Report on 8-K filed on June 30, 2011. In October 2012, the Bank entered into a new Consent Order with the FDIC and KDFI, again agreeing to maintain a minimum Tier 1 leverage ratio of 9% and a minimum total risk based capital ratio of 12%. The Bank also agreed that if it should be unable to reach the required capital levels, and if directed in writing by the FDIC, then the Bank would within 30 days develop, adopt and implement a written plan to sell or merge itself into another federally insured financial institution or otherwise immediately obtain a sufficient capital investment into the Bank to fully meet the capital requirements.

We expect to continue to work with our regulators toward capital ratio compliance as outlined in the written capital plan submitted by the Bank in December 2012. The new Consent Order also requires the Bank to continue to adhere to the plans implemented in response to the June 2011 Consent Order, and includes the substantive provisions of the June 2011 Consent Order. The new Consent Order was included in our Current Report on 8-K filed on September 19, 2012. As of December 31, 2013, the capital ratios required by the Consent Order were not met.

In order to meet these capital requirements, the Board of Directors and management are continuing to evaluate strategies to achieve the following objectives:

29

Table of Contents

Bank regulatory agencies can exercise discretion when an institution does not meet the terms of a consent order. Based on individual circumstances, the agencies may issue mandatory directives, impose monetary penalties, initiate changes in management, or take more serious adverse actions.

Our consolidated financial statements do not include any adjustments that may result should the Company be unable to continue as a going concern.

Application of Critical Accounting Policies

Our accounting and reporting policies comply with GAAP and conform to general practices within the banking industry. We believe that of our significant accounting policies, the following may involve a higher degree of management assumptions and judgments that could result in materially different amounts to be reported if conditions or underlying circumstances were to change.

Allowance for Loan Losses – PBI Bank maintains an allowance for loan losses believed to be sufficient to absorb probable incurred credit losses existing in the loan portfolio, and the board of directors evaluates the adequacy of the allowance for loan losses on a quarterly basis. We evaluate the adequacy of the allowance using, among other things, historical loan loss experience, known and inherent risks in the portfolio, adverse situations that may affect the borrower’s ability to repay, estimated value of the underlying collateral and current economic conditions and trends. The allowance may be allocated for specific loans or loan categories, but the entire allowance is available for any loan that, in management’s judgment, should be charged off. The allowance consists of specific and general components. The specific component relates to loans that are individually deemed impaired. The general component is based on historical loss experience adjusted for environmental factors. We develop allowance estimates based on actual loss experience adjusted for current economic conditions and trends. Allowance estimates are a prudent measurement of the risk in the loan portfolio which we apply to individual loans based on loan type. If the mix and amount of future charge-off percentages differ significantly from those assumptions used by management in making its determination, we may be required to materially increase our allowance for loan losses and provision for loan losses, which could adversely affect our results.

30

Table of Contents

Other Real Estate Owned – Other real estate owned (OREO) is real estate acquired as a result of foreclosure or by deed in lieu of foreclosure. It is classified as real estate owned until such time as it is sold. When property is acquired as a result of foreclosure or by deed in lieu of foreclosure, it is recorded at its fair market value less estimated cost to sell. Any write-down of the property at the time of acquisition is charged to the allowance for loan losses. Subsequent reductions in fair value are recorded as non-interest expense. To determine the fair value of OREO for smaller dollar single family homes, we consult with internal real estate sales staff and external realtors, investors, and appraisers. If the internally evaluated market price is below our underlying investment in the property, appropriate write-downs are recorded. For larger dollar commercial real estate properties, we obtain a new appraisal of the subject property in connection with the transfer to other real estate owned. We do not obtain updated appraisals on a quarterly basis after the receipt of the initial appraisal. Rather, we internally review the fair value of the other real estate owned in our portfolio on a quarterly basis to determine if a new appraisal is warranted based on the specific circumstances of each property. Generally, we obtain updated appraisals annualluy unless a sale is imminent.

Intangible Assets – We evaluate intangible assets for impairment at least annually and more frequently if circumstances indicate their value may not be recoverable. Identifiable intangible assets that are subject to amortization are amortized on an accelerated basis over the years expected to be benefited, which we believe is 10 years. We review these amortizable intangible assets for impairment if circumstances indicate their value may not be recoverable based on a comparison of fair value to carrying value. Based on our annual review, management does not believe our intangible assets are impaired at December 31, 2013.

Stock-based Compensation – Compensation cost is recognized for stock options and restricted stock awards issued to employees, based on the fair value of these awards at the date of grant. We utilize a Black-Scholes model, which requires the input of highly subjective assumptions, such as volatility, risk-free interest rates and dividend pay-out rates, to estimate the fair value of stock options, while the market price of the Company’s common stock at the date of grant is used for restricted stock awards. Compensation cost is recognized over the required service period, generally defined as the vesting period. For awards with graded vesting, compensation cost is recognized on a straight-line basis over the requisite service period for the entire award.

Valuation of Deferred Tax Asset – We evaluate deferred tax assets for impairment on a quarterly basis. We established a 100% deferred tax valuation allowance of $31.7 million in December 2011 based upon the analysis of our past performance and our expected future performance. We considered all evidence currently available, both positive and negative, in determining, based on the weight of that evidence, the likelihood that the deferred tax asset would be realized. During that review, we determined that the level of our recent historical losses, the level of our non-performing assets, our inability to meet our forecasted levels of earnings in 2011, our intent to defer payment of dividends on our subordinated debentures and Series A Preferred Stock, and our non-compliance with the capital requirements of our Consent Order outweighed our forecasted taxable earnings levels for the near and long term. As such, we established a 100% deferred tax valuation allowance. When evaluating our deferred tax assets for realizability during 2012 and 2013, we concluded that a full valuation allowance was still necessary at December 31, 2012 and 2013, due to the additional losses incurred during those years. A return to profitability would enable us to reduce the valuation allowance and thereby offset income tax expense that would otherwise be recognized. Examinations of our income tax returns or changes in tax law may impact our deferred tax assets and liabilities as well as our provision for income taxes.

Contingencies – In the normal course of operations, we are defendants in various legal proceedings. We record contingent liabilities resulting from claims against us when a loss is assessed to be probable and the amount of the loss is reasonably estimable. Assessing probability of loss and estimating probable losses requires analysis of multiple factors, including in some cases judgments about the potential actions of third party claimants and courts. Recorded contingent liabilities are based on the best information available and actual losses in any future period are inherently uncertain.

31

Table of Contents

Results of Operations

The following table summarizes components of income and expense and the change in those components for 2013 compared with 2012:

Net loss of $1.6 million for the year ended December 31, 2013, improved by $31.4 million from net loss of $32.9 million for 2012. Net loss to common shareholders of $3.4 million for the year ended December 31, 2013, decreased $30.0 million from net loss to common shareholders of $33.4 million for 2012. This decrease in net loss was attributable primarily to lower provision for loan losses expense and decreased non-interest expense associated with our OREO, partially offset by lower net gain on sales of securities and lower net interest income.

The following table summarizes components of income and expense and the change in those components for 2012 compared with 2011:

Net loss of $32.9 million for the year ended December 31, 2012, decreased $74.4 million from net loss of $107.3 million for 2011. Net loss to common shareholders of $33.4 million for the year ended December 31, 2012, decreased $71.7 million from net loss to common shareholders of $105.2 million for 2011. This decrease in net loss was attributable primarily to lower provision for loan losses expense, decreased non-interest expense associated with our OREO, and higher net gain on sales of securities, partially offset by lower net interest income. In addition, the 2011 results included a one-time goodwill impairment charge of $23.8 million.

32

Table of Contents

Net Interest Income – Our net interest income was $32.1 million for the year ended December 31, 2013, a decrease of $9.9 million, or 23.5%, compared with $42.0 million for the same period in 2012. Net interest spread and margin were 2.97% and 3.10%, respectively, for 2013, compared with 3.16% and 3.31%, respectively, for 2012. Average nonaccrual loans were $107.3 million and $90.8 million in 2013 and 2012, respectively. The decrease in net interest income was primarily the result of lower average earning assets coupled with lower rates on those assets. In addition, net interest income and net interest margin were adversely affected by $5.6 million and $4.9 million of interest lost on nonaccrual loans during 2013 and 2012, respectively.

Our average interest-earning assets were $1.05 billion for 2013, compared with $1.28 billion for 2012, an 18.1% decrease, primarily attributable to lower average loans and partially offset by higher average investment securities and interest bearing deposits with financial institutions. Average loans were $788.2 million for 2013, compared with $1.03 billion for 2012, a 23.7% decrease. Average interest bearing deposits with financial institutions were $65.1 million in 2013, compared with $62.1 million in 2012, a 4.7% increase. Average investment securities were $184.2 million for 2013, compared with $173.1 million for 2012, a 6.4% increase. Our total interest income decreased 25.1% to $43.2 million for 2013, compared with $57.7 million for 2012. The change was due primarily to lower interest rates on loans, lower volume of loans and lower interest rates on investment securities.

Our average interest-bearing liabilities decreased by 18.1% to $937.4 million for 2013, compared with $1.14 billion for 2012. Our total interest expense decreased by 29.4% to $11.1 million for 2013, compared with $15.8 million during 2011, due primarily to lower interest rates paid on and lower volume of certificates of deposit, NOW and money market deposits. Our average volume of certificates of deposit decreased 22.8% to $704.0 million for 2013, compared with $912.1 million for 2012. The average interest rate paid on certificates of deposit decreased to 1.35% for 2013, compared with 1.52% for 2012, as the result of continued re-pricing of certificates of deposit at maturity to lower interest rates. Our average volume of NOW and money market deposit accounts increased 1.1% to $154.8 million for 2013, compared with $153.0 million for 2012. The average interest rate paid on NOW and money market deposit accounts decreased to 0.35% for 2013, compared with 0.42% for 2012.

Our net interest income was $42.0 million for the year ended December 31, 2012, a decrease of $9.6 million, or 18.6%, compared with $51.5 million for the same period in 2011. Net interest spread and margin were 3.16% and 3.31%, respectively, for 2012, compared with 3.24% and 3.40%, respectively, for 2011. Average nonaccrual loans were $90.8 million and $67.4 million in 2012 and 2011, respectively. The decrease in net interest income was primarily the result of lower average earning assets coupled with lower rates on those assets. In addition, net interest income and net interest margin were adversely affected by $4.9 million and $4.0 million of interest lost on nonaccrual loans during 2012 and 2011, respectively.

Our average interest-earning assets were $1.28 billion for 2012, compared with $1.53 billion for 2011, a 16.5% decrease, primarily attributable to lower average loans and interest bearing deposits with financial institutions, partially offset by higher average investment securities. Average loans were $1.03 billion for 2012, compared with $1.24 billion for 2011, a 16.9% decrease. Average interest bearing deposits with financial institutions were $62.1 million in 2012, compared with $127.1 million in 2011, a 51.1% decrease. Average investment securities were $173.1 million for 2012, compared with $148.5 million for 2011, a 16.6% increase. Our total interest income decreased 21.5% to $57.7 million for 2012, compared with $73.6 million for 2011. The change was due primarily to lower interest rates on and lower volume of loans and interest bearing deposits with financial institutions, and lower interest rates on investment securities.

Our average interest-bearing liabilities decreased by 17.5% to $1.14 billion for 2012, compared with $1.39 billion for 2011. Our total interest expense decreased by 28.4% to $15.8 million for 2012, compared with $22.0 million during 2011, due primarily to lower interest rates paid on and lower volume of certificates of deposit, NOW and money market deposits. Our average volume of certificates of deposit decreased 18.6% to $912.1 million for 2012, compared with $1.12 billion for 2011. The average interest rate paid on certificates of deposit decreased to 1.52% for 2012, compared with 1.65% for 2011, as the result of continued re-pricing of certificates of deposit at maturity to lower interest rates. Our average volume of NOW and money market deposit accounts decreased 10.5% to $153.0 million for 2012, compared with $171.0 million for 2011. The average interest rate paid on NOW and money market deposit accounts decreased to 0.42% for 2012, compared with 0.85% for 2011.

33

Table of Contents

Average Balance Sheets

The following table sets forth the average daily balances, the interest earned or paid on such amounts, and the weighted average yield on interest-earning assets and weighted average cost of interest-bearing liabilities for the periods indicated. Dividing income or expense by the average daily balance of assets or liabilities, respectively, derives such yields and costs for the periods presented.

34

Table of Contents

35

Table of Contents

Rate/Volume Analysis

The table below sets forth information regarding changes in interest income and interest expense for the periods indicated. For each category of interest-earning assets and interest-bearing liabilities, information is provided on changes attributable to (1) changes in rate (changes in rate multiplied by old volume); (2) changes in volume (changes in volume multiplied by old rate); and (3) changes in rate-volume (change in rate multiplied by change in volume). Changes in rate-volume are proportionately allocated between rate and volume variance.