PEAPACK GLADSTONE FINANCIAL CORP - Annual Report: 2011 (Form 10-K)

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, D.C. 20549

FORM 10-K

Annual Report Pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d)

of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934

For the Fiscal Year Ended December 31, 2011                                     Commission File No. 000-23537

PEAPACK-GLADSTONE FINANCIAL CORPORATION

(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)

Registrant’s telephone number (908) 234-0700

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 S.

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 S.

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 such 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 S 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 S 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 of this Form 10-K £.

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a large accelerated filer, an accelerated filer or a non-accelerated filer. See definition of “accelerated filer” and “large accelerated filer” 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 S.

The aggregate market value of the shares held by unaffiliated stockholders was approximately $97,132,896 on June 30, 2011.

As of February 29, 2012, 8,872,334 shares of no par value Common Stock were outstanding.

DOCUMENTS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE

Portions of the Corporation’s 2011 Annual Report to shareholders (the “2011 Annual Report”) and Definitive Proxy Statement for the Corporation’s 2012 Annual Meeting of Shareholders (the “2012 Proxy Statement”) are incorporated by reference into Parts II and III. The Corporation will file the 2012 Proxy Statement within 120 days of December 31, 2011.

FORM 10-K

PEAPACK-GLADSTONE FINANCIAL CORPORATION

For the Year Ended December 31, 2011

Table of Contents

This Form 10-K contains certain forward-looking statements within the meaning of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. Such statements are not historical facts and include expressions about management’s confidence and strategies and management’s expectations about new and existing programs and products, investments, relationships, opportunities and market conditions. These statements may be identified by such forward-looking terminology as “expect”, “look”, “believe”, “anticipate”, “may”, or similar statements or variations of such terms. Actual results may differ materially from such forward-looking statements. Factors that may cause results to differ materially from such forward-looking statements include, but are not limited to those risks identified in the “Risk Factor” section of this Annual Report on Form 10-K and:

The Corporation undertakes no duty to update any forward-looking statement to conform the statement to actual results or changes in the Corporation’s expectations. Although we believe that the expectations reflected in the forward-looking statements are reasonable, the Corporation cannot guarantee future results, levels of activity, performance or achievements.

PART I

The Corporation

Peapack-Gladstone Financial Corporation (the “Corporation”) is a bank holding company registered under the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956, as amended (“Holding Company Act”). The Corporation was organized under the laws of New Jersey in August 1997, by the Board of Directors of Peapack-Gladstone Bank (the “Bank”), its principal subsidiary, to become a holding company for the Bank. The Bank is a state chartered commercial bank founded in 1921 under the laws of the State of New Jersey. The Bank is a member of the Federal Reserve System. The Bank offers financial services through 23 full-service banking offices. The Bank maintains ten branches in Somerset County, six in Morris County, four in Hunterdon County, one in Middlesex County and two in Union County.

The Bank is primarily dedicated to providing quality, personalized financial, trust and investment services to individuals and small businesses.

Commercial loan customers of the Bank are business people, including merchants, architects, doctors, dentists, attorneys and building contractors as well as various service firms and other local retailers. Most forms of commercial lending are offered, including working capital lines of credit, term loans for fixed asset acquisitions, commercial mortgages and other forms of asset-based financing.

In addition to commercial lending activities, the Bank offers a wide range of consumer banking services, including: checking and savings accounts, money market and interest-bearing checking accounts, certificates of deposit, and individual retirement accounts held in certificates of deposit. The Bank also offers residential and construction mortgages, home equity lines of credit and other second mortgage loans. For children, the Bank offers a special pony club savings account. New Jersey Consumer Checking Accounts are offered to low income customers. In addition, the Bank provides foreign and domestic travelers’ checks, cashier’s checks and wire transfers. Automated teller machines are available at 23 locations. Via the automatic teller machine access card issued by the Bank, customers may pay for commodities at point-of-sale merchant locations. Internet banking is available to customers including an online bill payment option. The Corporation has no foreign operations.

The Bank has a Trust and Investment Department, PGB Trust and Investments, which offers personal investment management services, personal trust administration services, estate settlement, income tax services, custodial services and other financial planning services. Since its inception in 1972, market value of trust assets under administration have increased to $1.96 billion.

The Corporation makes its Annual Report on Form 10-K, Quarterly Reports on Form 10-Q and Current Reports on Form 8-K, and amendments to such reports, available free of charge on its website at www.pgbank.com. Also available on the website are the Corporation’s Code of Business Conduct and Ethics, Corporate Governance Principles and charters for the Corporation’s Audit Committee, Compensation Committee and Nominating Committee.

Employees

As of December 31, 2011, the Corporation employed 295 full-time equivalent persons. Management considers relations with employees to be satisfactory.

Principal Market Areas

The Bank’s principal market for its deposit gathering activities includes Somerset, Morris, Hunterdon, Middlesex and Union Counties. The area is composed of upper-income single-family homes, moderate-income properties, some low-income housing and several large corporate campuses. There are numerous small retail businesses in each of the towns as well as offices for various professionals, i.e. attorneys, architects, interior decorators, physicians, etc. A portion of the market area is bisected by Interstate Highways 287 and 78 where numerous corporate offices have relocated over the past 25 years.

The Bank has expanded its service areas from one office in 1968 to the present 23 full-service banking locations by steadily opening new branches. Most of the communities that the Bank serves are demographically similar and contiguous to the main office.

Competition

The market for banking and bank-related services is highly competitive. The Bank competes with other providers of financial services such as other bank holding companies, commercial and savings banks, savings and loan associations, credit unions, money market and mutual funds, mortgage companies, and a growing list of other local, regional and national institutions which offer financial services. Mergers between financial institutions within New Jersey and in neighboring states have added competitive pressure. The Bank competes by offering quality products and convenient services at competitive prices. In order to maintain and enhance its competitive position, the Bank regularly reviews its products, locations and new branching prospects.

Governmental Policies and Legislation

The banking industry is highly regulated. Statutory and regulatory controls increase a bank holding company’s cost of doing business and limit the options of its management to deploy assets and maximize income. Proposals to change the laws and regulations governing the operations and taxation of banks, bank holding companies and other financial institutions are frequently made in Congress, in state legislatures and before various bank regulatory agencies. The likelihood of any major changes and the impact such changes might have on the Corporation or the Bank is impossible to predict. The following discussion is not intended to be a complete list of all the activities regulated by the banking laws or of the impact of such laws and regulations on the Bank. It is intended only to briefly summarize some material provisions.

The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010

The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010 (the “Dodd-Frank Act”) was signed into law on July 21, 2010. Generally, the Act is effective the day after it was signed into law, but different effective dates apply to specific sections of the law. The Act, among other things:

The Dodd-Frank Act also authorized the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) to promulgate rules that would allow stockholders to nominate and solicit votes for their own candidates using a company’s proxy materials. However, on July 21, 2011, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit struck down the SEC’s proposed proxy access rules.

The CFPB took over responsibility over the principal federal consumer protection laws, such as the Truth in Lending Act, the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act and the Truth in Saving Act, among others, on July 21, 2011. Institutions that have assets of $10 billion or less, such as the Bank, will continue to be supervised in this area by their primary federal regulators (in the case of the Bank, the Federal Reserve Board (“FRB”)). The Act also gives the CFPB expanded data collecting powers for fair lending purposes for both small business and mortgage loans, as well as expanded authority to prevent unfair, deceptive and abusive practices.

Effective October 1, 2011, interchange fees on debit card transactions are limited to a maximum of 21 cents per transaction plus 5 basis points of the transaction amount. A debit card issuer may recover an additional one cent per transaction for fraud prevention purposes if the issuer complies with certain fraud-related requirements prescribed by the Federal Reserve. Issuers that, together with their affiliates, have less than $10 billion in assets, such as the Bank, are exempt from the debit card interchange fee standards.

The Dodd-Frank Act contains numerous other provisions affecting financial institutions of all types, many of which may have an impact on our operating environment in substantial and unpredictable ways. Consequently, the Dodd-Frank Act is likely to continue to increase our cost of doing business, it may limit or expand our permissible activities, and it may affect the competitive balance within our industry and market areas. The nature and extent of future legislative and regulatory changes affecting financial institutions, including as a result of the Dodd-Frank Act, remains very unpredictable at this time.

Capital Requirements

The Corporation’s wholly owned subsidiary is subject to risk-based capital guidelines for banks as adopted by the Federal Reserve Board. The minimum guideline for the ratio of total capital to risk-weighted assets is 8%. At least half of the total capital is to be comprised of common stock, retained earnings, minority interests in the equity accounts of consolidated subsidiaries, noncumulative perpetual preferred stock and a limited amount of qualifying cumulative perpetual preferred stock, less goodwill and certain other intangibles (“Tier 1 Capital”). The remainder may consist of other preferred stock, certain other instruments and a portion of the loan loss allowance. At December 31, 2011, the Bank’s Tier 1 Capital and Total Capital ratios were 12.25% and 13.50%, respectively.

In addition, the Federal Reserve Board has established minimum leverage ratio guidelines for banks. These guidelines provide for a minimum ratio of Tier 1 Capital to average total assets of 4% for banks that meet certain specified criteria, including having the highest regulatory rating. All other banks generally are required to maintain a leverage ratio of at least 4% plus an additional cushion of 100 to 200 basis points. The Bank’s leverage ratio at December 31, 2011 was 7.58%.

Basel III

In December 2010, the Basel Committee released its final framework for strengthening international capital and liquidity regulation, now officially identified by the Basel Committee as “Basel III”. Basel III, when implemented by the U.S. banking agencies and fully phased-in, will require bank holding companies and their bank subsidiaries to maintain substantially more capital, with a greater emphasis on common equity.

The Basel III final capital framework, among other things, (i) introduces as a new capital measure “Common Equity Tier 1” (“CET1”), (ii) specifies that Tier 1 capital consists of CET1 and “Additional Tier 1 capital” instruments meeting specified requirements, (iii) defines CET1 narrowly by requiring that most adjustments to regulatory capital measures be made to CET1 and not to the other components of capital and (iv) expands the scope of the adjustments as compared to existing regulations.

When fully phased in on January 1, 2019, Basel III requires banks to maintain (i) as a newly adopted international standard, a minimum ratio of CET1 to risk-weighted assets of at least 4.5%, plus a 2.5% “capital conservation buffer” (which is added to the 4.5% CET1 ratio as that buffer is phased in, effectively resulting in a minimum ratio of CET1 to risk-weighted assets of at least 7%), (ii) a minimum ratio of Tier 1 capital to risk-weighted assets of at least 6.0%, plus the capital conservation buffer (which is added to the 6.0% Tier 1 capital ratio as that buffer is phased in, effectively resulting in a minimum Tier 1 capital ratio of 8.5% upon full implementation), (iii) a minimum ratio of Total (that is, Tier 1 plus Tier 2) capital to risk-weighted assets of at least 8.0%, plus the capital conservation buffer (which is added to the 8.0% total capital ratio as that buffer is phased in, effectively resulting in a minimum total capital ratio of 10.5% upon full implementation) and (iv) as a newly adopted international standard, a minimum leverage ratio of 3%, calculated as the ratio of Tier 1 capital to balance sheet exposures plus certain off-balance sheet exposures (computed as the average for each quarter of the month-end ratios for the quarter).

Basel III also provides for a “countercyclical capital buffer,” generally to be imposed when national regulators determine that excess aggregate credit growth becomes associated with a buildup of systemic risk, that would be a CET1 add-on to the capital conservation buffer in the range of 0% to 2.5% when fully implemented (potentially resulting in total buffers of between 2.5% and 5%). The aforementioned capital conservation buffer is designed to absorb losses during periods of economic stress. Banking institutions with a ratio of CET1 to risk-weighted assets above the minimum but below the conservation buffer (or below the combined capital conservation buffer and countercyclical capital buffer, when the latter is applied) will face constraints on dividends, equity repurchases and compensation based on the amount of the shortfall.

The implementation of the Basel III final framework will commence January 1, 2013. On that date, banking institutions will be required to meet the following minimum capital ratios:

The Basel III final framework provides for a number of new deductions from and adjustments to CET1. These include, for example, the requirement that mortgage servicing rights, deferred tax assets dependent upon future taxable income and significant investments in non-consolidated financial entities be deducted from CET1 to the extent that any one such category exceeds 10% of CET1 or all such categories in the aggregate exceed 15% of CET1.

Implementation of the deductions and other adjustments to CET1 will begin on January 1, 2014 and will be phased-in over a five-year period (20% per year). The implementation of the capital conservation buffer will begin on January 1, 2016 at 0.625% and be phased in over a four-year period (increasing by that amount on each subsequent January 1, until it reaches 2.5% on January 1, 2019).

The U.S. banking agencies have yet to propose regulations implementing Basel III. Notwithstanding its release of the Basel III framework as a final framework, the Basel Committee is considering further amendments to Basel III, including the imposition of additional capital surcharges on globally systemically important financial institutions. In addition to Basel III, Dodd-Frank requires or permits the Federal banking agencies to adopt regulations affecting banking institutions’ capital requirements in a number of respects, including potentially more stringent capital requirements for systemically important financial institutions. Accordingly, the regulations ultimately applicable to the Corporation may be substantially different from the Basel III final framework as published in December 2010. Requirements to maintain higher levels of capital or to maintain higher levels of liquid assets could adversely impact the Corporation’s net income and return on equity.

FDICIA

Pursuant to the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation Improvement Act of 1991 (“FDICIA”), each federal banking agency has promulgated regulations, specifying the levels at which a financial institution would be considered “well capitalized,” “adequately capitalized,” “undercapitalized,” “significantly undercapitalized,” and “critically undercapitalized,” and to take certain mandatory and discretionary supervisory actions based on the capital level of the institution. The regulations implementing these provisions of FDICIA provide that a bank is defined to be “well capitalized” if it maintains a leverage ratio of at least 5%, a risk-adjusted Tier 1 capital ratio of at least 6% and a risk-adjusted total capital ratio of at least 10% and is not otherwise in a “troubled condition” as specified by its appropriate federal regulatory agency. A bank is defined to be “adequately capitalized” if it meets other minimum capital requirements. In addition, a depository institution will be considered “undercapitalized” if it fails to meet any minimum required measure, “significantly undercapitalized” if it is significantly below such measure and “critically undercapitalized” if it fails to maintain a level of tangible equity equal to not less than 2% of total assets. 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.

Insurance Funds Legislation

The Bank’s deposits are insured up to applicable limits by the Deposit Insurance Fund of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (the “FDIC”). The Deposit Insurance Fund is the successor to the Bank Insurance Fund and the Savings Association Insurance Fund, which were merged in 2006. Under the FDIC’s risk-based system, insured institutions are assigned to one of four risk categories based on supervisory evaluations, regulatory capital levels and certain other factors with less risky institutions paying lower assessments on their deposits.

On November 12, 2009, the FDIC issued a final rule that required insured depository institutions to prepay, on December 30, 2009, their estimated quarterly risk-based assessments for the fourth quarter of 2009 and for all of 2010, 2011 and 2012, together with their quarterly risk-based assessment for the third quarter 2009. The Bank paid approximately $8.8 million in assessments as of December 31, 2009 of which approximately $8.3 million was recorded as a prepaid asset. Prepaid assessments are to be applied against the actual quarterly assessments until exhausted, and may not be applied to any special assessments that may occur in the future. Any unused prepayments will be returned to the Bank on June 30, 2013. The balance of the prepaid FDIC assessment fees at December 31, 2011 was $4.8 million.

In February 2011, as required by the Dodd Frank Act, the FDIC approved a final rule that revised the assessment base to consist of average consolidated total assets during the assessment period minus the average tangible equity during the assessment period. In addition, the final revisions eliminated the adjustment for secured borrowings, including Federal Home Loan Bank advances, and made certain other changes to the impact of unsecured borrowings and brokered deposits on an institution’s deposit insurance assessment. The final rule also revised the assessment rate schedule to provide initial base assessment rates ranging from 5 to 35 basis points and total base assessment rates ranging from 2.5 to 45 basis points after adjustment. The final rule became effective on April 1, 2011.

As previously noted above, the Dodd-Frank Act makes permanent the $250 thousand limit for federal deposit insurance and provides unlimited federal deposit insurance until January 1, 2013 for non-interest bearing demand transaction accounts at all insured depository institutions.

The FDIC has authority to further increase insurance assessments. A significant increase in insurance premiums may have an adverse effect on the operating expenses and results of operations of the Bank. Management cannot predict what insurance assessment rates will be in the future.

Troubled Asset Relief Capital Purchase Program

In response to the financial crises affecting the banking system and financial markets and going concern threats to investment banks and other financial institutions, on October 3, 2008, the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 (the “EESA”) was signed into law. Pursuant to the EESA, the U.S. Treasury was given the authority to, among other things, purchase up to $700 billion of mortgages, mortgage-backed securities and certain other financial instruments from financial institutions for the purpose of stabilizing and providing liquidity to the U.S. financial markets.

On October 14, 2008, the Secretary of the U.S. Department of the Treasury announced that the Treasury will purchase equity stakes in a wide variety of banks and thrifts. Under the program, known as the Troubled Asset Relief Program Capital Purchase Program (the “TARP Capital Purchase Program”), from the $700 billion authorized by the EESA, the Treasury made $250 billion of capital available to U.S. financial institutions in the form of preferred stock. In conjunction with the purchase of preferred stock, the Treasury received, from participating financial institutions, warrants to purchase common stock with an aggregate market price equal to 15% of the preferred investment. Participating financial institutions were required to adopt the Treasury’s standards for executive compensation and corporate governance for the period during which the Treasury holds equity issued under the TARP Capital Purchase Program.

The Corporation entered into a Securities Purchase Agreement with the Treasury that provides for our participation in the TARP Capital Purchase Program. On January 9, 2009, the Corporation issued and sold to the Treasury 28,685 shares of the Corporation Fixed Rate Cumulative Perpetual Preferred Stock, with a liquidation preference of $1 thousand per share, and a ten-year warrant to purchase up to 150,296 shares of the Corporation’s common stock at an exercise price of $28.63 per share.

On January 6, 2010 and March 2, 2011, the Corporation redeemed 25 percent of the preferred shares issued under the Treasury’s CPP, each time repaying approximately $7.2 million to the Treasury, including accrued and unpaid dividends. On January 11, 2012, the Corporation redeemed the remaining 50 percent of the preferred shares issued under the Treasury’s CPP, repaying approximately $14.5 million to the Treasury, including accrued and unpaid dividends. Upon redemption of the final preferred shares, the Corporation’s participation in the CPP ended, and the Corporation is no longer subject to the requirements of the CPP, including certain limits on executive compensation. The Corporation is currently negotiating with Treasury regarding the repurchase of the warrant. If the Corporation and Treasury are unable to agree on a repurchase price, the warrant will be sold at a public auction with all proceeds payable to Treasury.

Restrictions on the Payment of Dividends

The holders of the Corporation’s common stock are entitled to receive dividends, when, as and if declared by the Board of Directors of the Corporation out of funds legally available. The only statutory limitation is that such dividends may not be paid when the Corporation is insolvent. Since the principal source of income for the Corporation will be dividends on Bank common stock paid to the Corporation by the Bank, the Corporation’s ability to pay dividends to its shareholders will depend on whether the Bank pays dividends to it. As a practical matter, restrictions on the ability of the Bank to pay dividends act as restrictions on the amount of funds available for the payment of dividends by the Corporation. As a New Jersey chartered commercial bank, the Bank is subject to the restrictions on the payment of dividends contained in the New Jersey Banking Act of 1948, as amended (the “Banking Act”). Under the Banking Act, the Bank may pay dividends only out of retained earnings, and out of surplus to the extent that surplus exceeds 50% of stated capital. Under the Financial Institutions Supervisory Act, the FDIC has the authority to prohibit a state-chartered bank from engaging in conduct that, in the FDIC’s opinion, constitutes an unsafe or unsound banking practice. Under certain circumstances, the FDIC could claim that the payment of a dividend or other distribution by the Bank to the Corporation constitutes an unsafe or unsound practice. The Corporation is also subject to Federal Reserve Board (“FRB”) policies, which may, in certain circumstances, limit its ability to pay dividends. The FRB policies require, among other things, that a bank holding company maintain a minimum capital base. The FRB would most likely seek to prohibit any dividend payment that would reduce a holding company’s capital below these minimum amounts.

Holding Company Supervision

The Corporation is a bank holding company within the meaning of the Holding Company Act. As a bank holding company, the Corporation is supervised by the FRB and is required to file reports with the FRB and provide such additional information as the FRB may require.

The Holding Company Act prohibits the Corporation, with certain exceptions, from acquiring direct or indirect ownership or control of more than five percent of the voting shares of any company which is not a bank and from engaging in any business other than that of banking, managing and controlling banks or furnishing services to subsidiary banks, except that it may, upon application, engage in, and may own shares of companies engaged in, certain businesses found by the FRB to be so closely related to banking “as to be a proper incident thereto.” The Holding Company Act requires prior approval by the FRB of the acquisition by the Corporation of more than five percent of the voting stock of any additional bank. Satisfactory capital ratios, Community Reinvestment Act ratings and anti-money laundering policies are generally prerequisites to obtaining federal regulatory approval to make acquisitions. The policy of the FRB provides that a bank holding company is expected to act as a source of financial strength to its subsidiary bank and to commit resources to support the subsidiary bank in circumstances in which it might not do so absent that policy. Acquisitions through the Bank require the approval of the FRB and the New Jersey Department of Banking and Insurance (“NJDOBI”).

Temporary Liquidity Guarantee Program

On November 21, 2008, the Board of Directors of the FDIC adopted a final rule relating to the Temporary Liquidity Guarantee Program (“TLG Program”), Under the TLG Program (as amended on March 17, 2009) the FDIC has (i) guaranteed through the earlier of maturity or December 31, 2012, certain newly issued senior unsecured debt issued by participating institutions on or after October 14, 2008, and before October 31, 2009 (the “Debt Guarantee Program”) and (ii) provide full FDIC deposit insurance coverage for non-interest bearing transaction deposit accounts, Negotiable Order of Withdrawal (“NOW”) accounts paying less than or equal to 0.5 percent interest per annum and Interest on Lawyers Trust Accounts (“IOLTAs”) held at participating FDIC- insured institutions through June 30, 2010 (the “TAG Program”). On April 13, 2010, the FDIC announced a second extension of the TAG Program until December 31, 2010. Coverage under the TLG Program was available for the first 30 days without charge. The fee assessment for coverage of senior unsecured debt ranges from 50 basis points to 100 basis points per annum, depending on the initial maturity of the debt. The fee assessment for deposit insurance coverage ranges from 15 to 25 basis points based upon the Bank’s CAMELS rating by the FRB on amounts in covered accounts exceeding $250,000.

We have elected to participate in both the Debt Guarantee Program and the TAG Program. We have not issued debt under the Debt Guarantee Program.

The Dodd-Frank Act included a two-year extension of the TAG Program, though the extension does not apply to all accounts covered under the original program. The extension through December 31, 2012 applies only to non-interest bearing transaction accounts. Beginning January 1, 2011, NOW accounts and IOLTAs are longer eligible for the unlimited guarantee. Unlike the original TAG Program, which allowed banks to opt in, the extended program applies to all FDIC-insured institutions and is no longer funded by separate premiums. The FDIC accounts for the additional TAG insurance coverage in determining the amount of the general assessment it charges under the risk-based assessment system.

Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (“Sarbanes-Oxley Act”) added new legal requirements for public companies affecting corporate governance, accounting and corporate reporting.

The Sarbanes-Oxley Act provides for, among other things:

Each of the national stock exchanges, including the National Association of Securities Dealers Automated Quotations (NASDAQ) Global Select Market where the Corporation’s securities are listed, have implemented corporate governance listing standards, including rules strengthening director independence requirements for boards, and requiring the adoption of charters for the nominating and audit committees.

USA PATRIOT Act

As part of the USA PATRIOT Act, Congress adopted the International Money Laundering Abatement and Financial Anti-Terrorism Act of 2001 (the “Anti Money Laundering Act”). The Anti Money Laundering Act authorizes the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the heads of other government agencies, to adopt special measures applicable to financial institutions such as banks, bank holding companies, broker-dealers and insurance companies. Among its other provisions, the Anti Money Laundering Act requires each financial institution: (i) to establish an anti-money laundering program; (ii) to establish due diligence policies, procedures and controls that are reasonably designed to detect and report instances of money laundering in United States private banking accounts and correspondent accounts maintained for non-United States persons or their representatives; and (iii) to avoid establishing, maintaining, administering, or managing correspondent accounts in the United States for, or on behalf of, a foreign shell bank that does not have a physical presence in any country. In addition, the Anti Money Laundering Act expands the circumstances under which funds in a bank account may be forfeited and requires covered financial institutions to respond under certain circumstances to requests for information from federal banking agencies within 120 hours.

Regulations implementing the due diligence requirements, require minimum standards to verify customer identity and maintain accurate records, encourage cooperation among financial institutions, federal banking agencies, and law enforcement authorities regarding possible money laundering or terrorist activities, prohibit the anonymous use of “concentration accounts,” and requires all covered financial institutions to have in place an anti-money laundering compliance program. Federal and state banking agencies have strictly enforced various anti-money laundering and suspicious activity reporting requirements using formal and informal enforcement tools to cause banks to comply with these provisions.

The Anti Money Laundering Act amended the Bank Holding Company Act and the Bank Merger Act to require the federal banking agencies to consider the effectiveness of any financial institution involved in a proposed merger transaction in combating money laundering activities when reviewing an application under these acts.

Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act

The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Financial Modernization Act of 1999 (“Modernization Act”) became effective in early 2000. The Modernization Act:

If a bank holding company elects to become a financial holding company, it files a certification, effective in 30 days, and thereafter may engage in certain financial activities without further approvals. The Corporation has not elected to become a financial holding company.

The Modernization Act modified other financial laws, including laws related to financial privacy and community reinvestment.

The material risks and uncertainties that management believes affect the Corporation are described below. These risks and uncertainties are not the only ones affecting the Corporation. Additional risks and uncertainties that management is not aware of or focused on or that management currently deems immaterial may also impair the Corporation’s business operations. This report is qualified in its entirety by these risk factors. If any one or more of the following risks actually occur, the Corporation’s financial condition and results of operations could be materially and adversely affected.

The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act may affect our business activities, financial position and profitability by increasing our regulatory compliance burden and associated costs, placing restrictions on certain products and services, and limiting our future capital raising strategies.

On July 21, 2010, the President signed into law the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (the “Act”), which implements significant changes in the financial regulatory landscape and will impact all financial institutions, including the Corporation and the Bank. The Act has and is likely to continue to increase our regulatory compliance burden.

Among the Act’s significant regulatory changes, it creates the CFPB that is empowered to promulgate new consumer protection regulations and revise existing regulations in many areas of consumer protection. The CFPB has exclusive authority to issue regulations, orders and guidance to administer and implement the objectives of federal consumer protection laws. Moreover, the Act permits states to adopt stricter consumer protection laws and state attorney generals may enforce consumer protection rules issued by the CFPB. The Act also changes the scope of federal deposit insurance coverage, and increases the FDIC assessment payable by the Bank. We expect the CFPB and these other changes will increase our regulatory compliance burden and costs and may restrict the financial products and services we offer to our customers.

The 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 issuances from counting as Tier I capital. These restrictions may limit our future capital strategies. The Act also increases regulation of derivatives and hedging transactions, which could limit our ability to enter into, or increase the costs associated with, interest rate and other hedging transactions.

Although certain provisions of the Act, such as direct supervision by the CFPB, will not apply to banking organizations with less than $10 billion of assets, such as the Corporation and the Bank, the changes resulting from the legislation will impact our business. These changes will require us to invest significant management attention and resources to evaluate and make necessary changes.

Negative developments in the financial services industry and U.S. and global credit markets may adversely impact our operations and results.

Uncertainty in the financial markets in general with the expectation of the general economic downturn continued in 2011 and may continue through 2012. Loan portfolio performances have deteriorated at many institutions resulting from, amongst other factors, a weak economy and a decline in the value of the collateral supporting their loans. The competition for our deposits has increased significantly due to liquidity concerns at many of these same institutions. Stock prices of bank holding companies, like ours, have been negatively affected by the current condition of the financial markets, as has our ability, if needed, to raise capital or borrow in the debt markets compared to recent years. As a result, there is a potential for new federal or state laws and regulations regarding lending and funding practices and liquidity standards, and financial institution regulatory agencies are expected to be very aggressive in responding to concerns and trends identified in examinations, including the expected issuance of many formal enforcement actions. Negative developments in the financial services industry and the impact of new legislation in response to those developments could negatively impact our operations by restricting our business operations, including our ability to originate or sell loans, and adversely impact our financial performance.

Much of our business is with customers located within Morris, Somerset, Middlesex, Union and Hunterdon Counties and contiguous counties. Our business loans are generally made to small to mid-sized businesses, most of whose success depends on the regional economy. These businesses generally have fewer financial resources in terms of capital or borrowing capacity than larger entities. Adverse economic and business conditions in our market area could reduce our growth rate, affect our borrowers’ ability to repay their loans and, consequently, adversely affect our financial condition and performance. Further, we place substantial reliance on real estate as collateral for our loan portfolio. A sharp downturn in real estate values in our market area could leave many of our loans under-secured, which could adversely affect our earnings.

Continuing declines in the fair value of securities may require classification to other-than-temporary impaired status.

Declines in the fair value of securities below their cost that are other-than-temporary are reflected as realized losses and results in a new cost basis being established. In estimating other-than-temporary losses, management considers the length of time and extent that fair value has been less than cost; the financial condition and near-term prospects of the issuer; and whether the Corporation has the intent to sell the securities or is likely that it will be required to sell the securities before their anticipated recovery.

Securities are evaluated on at least a quarterly basis to determine whether a decline in their value is other-than-temporary. To determine whether a loss in value is other-than-temporary, Management utilizes criteria such as the reasons underlying the decline, the magnitude and the duration of the decline and the intent and ability of the Corporation to retain its investment in the security for a period of time sufficient to allow for an anticipated recovery in the fair value. “Other-than-temporary” is not intended to indicate that the decline is permanent, but indicates that the prospects for a near-term recovery of value are not necessarily favorable, or that there is a lack of evidence to support a realizable value equal to or greater than the carrying value of the investment. Once a decline in value is determined to be other-than-temporary, the value of the security is reduced and a corresponding charge to earnings is recognized.

If our allowance for loan losses were not sufficient to cover actual loan losses, our earnings would decrease.

We maintain an allowance for loan losses based on, among other things, national and regional economic conditions, and historical loss experience and delinquency trends among loan types. However, we cannot predict loan losses with certainty and we cannot assure you that charge-offs in future periods will not exceed the allowance for loan losses. In addition, regulatory agencies, as an integral part of their examination process, review our allowance for loan losses and may require additions to the allowance based on their judgment about information available to them at the time of their examination. Factors that require an increase in our allowance for loan losses could reduce our earnings.

Changes in interest rates may adversely affect our earnings and financial condition.

Our net income depends primarily upon our net interest income. Net interest income is the difference between interest income earned on loans, investments and other interest-earning assets and the interest expense incurred on deposits and borrowed funds.

Different types of assets and liabilities may react differently, and at different times, to changes in market interest rates. We expect that we will periodically experience “gaps” in the interest rate sensitivities of our assets and liabilities. That means either our interest-bearing liabilities will be more sensitive to changes in market interest rates than our interest-earning assets, or vice versa. When interest-bearing liabilities mature or reprice more quickly than interest-earning assets, an increase in market rates of interest could reduce our net interest income. Likewise, when interest-earning assets mature or reprice more quickly than interest-bearing liabilities, falling interest rates could reduce our net interest income. We are unable to predict changes in market interest rates, which are affected by many factors beyond our control, including inflation, recession, unemployment, money supply, domestic and international events and changes in the United States and other financial markets.

We may not be able to continue to grow our business, which may adversely impact our results of operations.

Our business strategy calls for continued expansion. Our ability to continue to grow depends, in part, upon our ability to open new branch locations, successfully attract deposits to existing and new branches, and identify favorable loan and investment opportunities. In the event that we do not continue to grow, our results of operations could be adversely impacted.

We may not be able to manage our growth, which may adversely impact our financial results.

As part of our expansion strategy, we plan to open new branches in our existing and target markets. However, we may be unable to identify attractive locations on terms favorable to us or to hire qualified management to operate the new branches. In addition, the organizational and overhead costs may be greater than we anticipated or we may not be able to obtain the regulatory approvals necessary to open new branches. New branches may take longer than expected to reach profitability, and we cannot assure that they will become profitable. The additional costs of starting new branches may adversely impact our financial results.

Our ability to manage growth successfully will depend on whether we can continue to fund this growth while maintaining cost controls and asset quality, as well as on factors beyond our control, such as national and regional economic conditions and interest rate trends. If we are not able to control costs and maintain asset quality, such growth could adversely impact our earnings and financial condition.

The Corporation is required by Federal regulatory authorities to maintain adequate levels of capital to support its operations. The Corporation may at some point need to raise additional capital to support continued growth. The Corporation’s ability to raise additional capital, if needed, will depend on conditions in the capital markets at that time, which are outside the Corporation’s control, and on its financial performance. Accordingly, the Corporation cannot assure you of its ability to raise additional capital if needed or on terms acceptable to the Corporation. If the Corporation cannot raise additional capital when needed, the ability to further expand its operations could be materially impaired.

Our exposure to credit risk could adversely affect our earnings and financial condition.

There are certain risks inherent in making loans. These risks include interest rate changes over the time period in which loans may be repaid, risks resulting from changes in the economy, risks inherent in dealing with borrowers and, in the case of a loan backed by collateral, risks resulting from uncertainties about the future value of the collateral.

Competition from other financial institutions in originating loans and attracting deposits may adversely affect our profitability.

We face substantial competition in originating loans. This competition comes principally from other banks, savings institutions, mortgage banking companies and other lenders. Many of our competitors enjoy advantages, including greater financial resources and higher lending limits, a wider geographic presence, and more accessible branch office locations.

In attracting deposits, we face substantial competition from other insured depository institutions such as banks, savings institutions and credit unions, as well as institutions offering uninsured investment alternatives, including money market funds. Many of our competitors enjoy advantages, including greater financial resources, more aggressive marketing campaigns, better brand recognition and more branch locations. These competitors may offer higher interest rates than we do, which could decrease the deposits that we attract or require us to increase our rates to retain existing deposits or attract new deposits. Increased deposit competition could adversely affect our ability to generate the funds necessary for lending operations and increase our cost of funds.

We also compete with non-bank providers of financial services, such as brokerage firms, consumer finance companies, insurance companies and governmental organizations, which may offer more favorable terms. Some of our non-bank competitors are not subject to the same extensive regulations that govern our operations. As a result, such non-bank competitors may have advantages over us in providing certain products and services. This competition may reduce or limit our margins on banking services, reduce our market share and adversely affect our earnings and financial condition.

Government regulation significantly affects our business.

The banking industry is extensively regulated. Banking regulations are intended primarily to protect depositors, and the FDIC deposit insurance funds, not the shareholders of the Corporation. We are subject to regulation and supervision by the New Jersey Department of Banking and Insurance and the Federal Reserve Bank. Regulatory requirements affect our lending practices, capital structure, investment practices, dividend policy and growth. The bank regulatory agencies possess broad authority to prevent or remedy unsafe or unsound practices or violations of law. We are subject to various regulatory capital requirements, which involve both quantitative measures of our assets and liabilities and qualitative judgments by regulators regarding risks and other factors. Failure to meet minimum capital requirements or comply with other regulations could result in actions by regulators that could adversely affect our ability to pay dividends or otherwise adversely impact operations. In addition, changes in laws, regulations and regulatory practices affecting the banking industry may limit the manner in which we conduct our business. Such changes may adversely affect us, including our ability to offer new products and services, obtain financing, attract deposits, make loans and achieve satisfactory spreads and may impose additional costs on us.

The Bank is also subject to a number of Federal laws, which, among other things, require it to lend to various sectors of the economy and population, and establish and maintain comprehensive programs relating to anti-money laundering and customer identification. The Bank’s compliance with these laws will be considered by the Federal banking regulators when reviewing bank merger and bank holding company acquisitions or commencing new activities or making new investments in reliance on the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act. As a public company, we are also subject to the corporate governance standards set forth in the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, as well as any rules or regulations promulgated by the SEC or the NASDAQ Stock Market.

Higher FDIC deposit insurance premiums and assessments could adversely affect our financial condition.

FDIC insurance premiums increased substantially in 2009 and we may have to pay significantly higher FDIC premiums in the future. Market developments have significantly depleted the insurance fund of the FDIC and reduced the ratio of reserves to insured deposits. The FDIC adopted a revised risk-based deposit insurance assessment schedule on February 27, 2009, which raised regular deposit insurance premiums. On May 22, 2009, the FDIC also implemented a five basis point special assessment of each insured depository institution’s total assets minus Tier 1 capital as of June 30, 2009, but no more than 10 basis points times the institution’s assessment base for the second quarter of 2009, collected by the FDIC on September 30, 2009. The amount of this special assessment for the Bank was $672 thousand. Additional special assessments may be imposed by the FDIC for future quarters at the same or higher levels.

In addition, the FDIC adopted a rule that requires insured depository institutions, including the Bank, to prepay their estimated quarterly risk-based assessments for the fourth quarter of 2009 and for all of 2010, 2011 and 2012. The prepaid assessments were collected on December 30, 2009. The total prepaid assessments for the Bank was $8.8 million, which was recorded as a prepaid expense (asset). As of December 31, 2009 and each quarter thereafter, the Bank would record an expense for its regular quarterly assessment for the quarter and an offsetting credit to the prepaid assessment until the asset is exhausted.

The Dodd-Frank Act revised the assessment rate schedule to provide initial base assessment rates ranging from five to 35 basis points and total base assessment rates ranging from 2.5 to 45 basis points. These changes, along with the use of all of our remaining FDIC insurance assessment credits in early 2009, may cause the premiums charged by the FDIC to increase. These actions could significantly increase our noninterest expense in 2012 and in future periods.

We are subject to liquidity risk.

Liquidity risk is the potential that we will be unable to meet our obligations as they become due, capitalize on growth opportunities as they arise, or pay regular dividends because of an inability to liquidate assets or obtain adequate funding in a timely basis, at a reasonable cost and within acceptable risk tolerances.

Liquidity is required to fund various obligations, including credit commitments to borrowers, mortgage and other loan originations, withdrawals by depositors, repayment of borrowings, dividends to shareholders, operating expenses and capital expenditures.

Liquidity is derived primarily from retail deposit growth and retention; principal and interest payments on loans; principal and interest payments; sale, maturity and prepayment of investment securities; net cash provided from operations and access to other funding sources.

Our access to funding sources in amounts adequate to finance our activities could be impaired by factors that affect us specifically or the financial services industry in general. Factors that could detrimentally impact our access to liquidity sources include a decrease in the level of our business activity due to a market downturn or adverse regulatory action against us. Our ability to borrow could also be impaired by factors that are not specific to us, such as a severe disruption of the financial markets or negative views and expectations about the prospects for the financial services industry as a whole as banking organizations face turmoil and domestic and worldwide credit markets deteriorate.

Our information systems may experience a security breach, computer virus, or disruption of service.

We rely heavily on communications and information systems to conduct our business, and provide customers with various products and services, including the ability to bank online. Despite positioning our communications and information systems environment to be capable of controlling, monitoring and proactively preventing security breaches, our network could become vulnerable to unauthorized access, computer viruses, phishing schemes and other security problems. We may be required to spend significant capital and other resources to protect against the threat of security breaches and computer viruses, or to alleviate problems caused by security breaches or viruses. To the extent that our activities or the activities of our customers involve the storage and transmission of confidential information, security breaches and viruses could expose us to claims, litigation and other possible liabilities. Any failure, interruption, or breach in security or operational integrity of our systems could also result in failures or disruptions in our general ledger, deposit, loan, and other systems, and could subject us to additional regulatory scrutiny. Any inability to prevent security breaches or computer viruses could also cause existing customers to lose confidence in our systems and could adversely affect our reputation.

The price of our common stock may fluctuate.

The price of our common stock on the NASDAQ Global Select Market constantly changes and recently, given the uncertainty in the financial markets, has fluctuated widely. We expect that the market price of our common stock will continue to fluctuate. Holders of our common stock will be subject to the risk of volatility and changes in prices.

Our common stock price can fluctuate as a result of a variety of factors, many of which are beyond our control. These factors include:

In addition, recently the stock market generally has experienced extreme price and volume fluctuations, and industry factors and general economic and political conditions and events, such as economic slowdowns or recessions, interest rate changes or credit loss trends, could also cause our stock price to decrease regardless of our operating results.

Our ability to pay dividends to our common shareholders is limited.

Since the principal source of income for the Corporation is dividends paid to the Corporation by the Bank, the Corporation’s ability to pay dividends to its shareholders will depend on whether the Bank pays dividends to it. As a practical matter, restrictions on the ability of the Bank to pay dividends act as restrictions on the amount of funds available for the payment of dividends by the Corporation. As a New Jersey-chartered commercial bank, the Bank is subject to the restrictions on the payment of dividends contained in the New Jersey Banking Act of 1948, as amended. Under the Banking Act, the Bank may pay dividends only out of retained earnings, and out of surplus to the extent that surplus exceeds 50% of stated capital. The Corporation is also subject to FRB policies, which may, in certain circumstances, limit its ability to pay dividends. The FRB policies require, among other things, that a bank holding company maintain a minimum capital base. The FRB would most likely seek to prohibit any dividend payment that would reduce a holding company’s capital below these minimum amounts.

We may lose lower-cost funding sources.

Checking, savings, and money market deposit account balances and other forms of customer deposits can decrease when customers perceive alternative investments, such as the stock market, as providing a better risk/return tradeoff. If customers move money out of bank deposits and into other investments, we could lose a relatively low cost source of funds, increasing our funding costs and reducing our net interest income and net income.

There may be changes in accounting policies or accounting standards.

Our accounting policies are fundamental to understanding our financial results and condition. Some of these policies require use of estimates and assumptions that may affect the value of our assets or liabilities and financial results. We identified our accounting policies regarding the allowance for loan losses, goodwill and other intangible assets, and income taxes to be critical because they require management to make difficult, subjective and complex judgments about matters that are inherently uncertain. Under each of these policies, it is possible that materially different amounts would be reported under different conditions, using different assumptions, or as new information becomes available.

From time to time the Financial Accounting Standards Board (“FASB”) and the SEC change the financial accounting and reporting standards that govern the form and content of our external financial statements. In addition, accounting standard setters and those who interpret the accounting standards (such as the FASB, SEC, banking regulators and our independent auditors) may change or even reverse their previous interpretations or positions on how these standards should be applied. Changes in financial accounting and reporting standards and changes in current interpretations may be beyond our control, can be hard to predict and could materially impact how we report our financial results and condition. In certain cases, we could be required to apply a new or revised standard retroactively or apply an existing standard differently (also retroactively) which may result in our restating prior period financial statements in material amounts.

We encounter continuous technological change.

The financial services industry is continually undergoing rapid technological change with frequent introductions of new technology-driven products and services. The effective use of technology increases efficiency and enables financial institutions to better serve customers and to reduce costs. Our future success depends, in part, upon our ability to address the needs of our customers by using technology to provide products and services that will satisfy customer demands, as well as to create additional efficiencies in our operations. Many of our competitors have substantially greater resources to invest in technological improvements. We may not be able to effectively implement new technology-driven products and services or be successful in marketing these products and services to our customers. Failure to successfully keep pace with technological change affecting the financial services industry could have a material adverse impact on our business and, in turn, our financial condition and results of operations.

We are subject to operational risk.

We face the risk that the design of our controls and procedures, including those to mitigate the risk of fraud by employees or outsiders, may prove to be inadequate or are circumvented, thereby causing delays in detection of errors or inaccuracies in data and information. Management regularly reviews and updates our internal controls, disclosure controls and procedures, and corporate governance policies and procedures. Any system of controls, however well designed and operated, is based in part on certain assumptions and can provide only reasonable, not absolute, assurances that the objectives of the system are met. Any failure or circumvention of our controls and procedures or failure to comply with regulations related to controls and procedures could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations and financial condition.

We may also be subject to disruptions of our systems arising from events that are wholly or partially beyond our control (including, for example, computer viruses or electrical or telecommunications outages), which may give rise to losses in service to customers and to financial loss or liability. We are further exposed to the risk that our external vendors may be unable to fulfill their contractual obligations (or will be subject to the same risk of fraud or operational errors by their respective employees as we are) and to the risk that our (or our vendors’) business continuity and data security systems prove to be inadequate.

Our performance is largely dependent on the talents and efforts of highly skilled individuals. There is intense competition in the financial services industry for qualified employees. In addition, we face increasing competition with businesses outside the financial services industry for the most highly skilled individuals. Our business operations could be adversely affected if we were unable to attract new employees and retain and motivate our existing employees.

There may be claims and litigation pertaining to fiduciary responsibility.

From time to time as part of the Corporation’s normal course of business, customers make claims and take legal action against the Corporation based on its actions or inactions. If such claims and legal actions are not resolved in a manner favorable to the Corporation, they may result in financial liability and/or adversely affect the market perception of the Corporation and its products and services. This may also impact customer demand for the Corporation’s products and services. Any financial liability or reputation damage could have a material adverse effect on the Corporation’s business, which, in turn, could have a material adverse effect on its financial condition and results of operations.

None.

The Corporation owns 10 branches and leases 11 branches. The Corporation leases an administrative and operations office building in Bedminster, New Jersey, a data center in Bedminster, New Jersey and a trust office in Bethlehem, Pennsylvania. The information set forth in the 2011 Annual Report under the heading “Offices” is incorporated by reference herein.

In the normal course of its business, lawsuits and claims may be brought against the Corporation and its subsidiaries. There is no currently pending or threatened litigation or proceedings against the Corporation or its subsidiaries, which assert claims that if adversely decided, we believe would have a material adverse effect on the Corporation.

Not applicable.

PART II

The Common Stock of Peapack-Gladstone Financial Corporation is traded on the NASDAQ Global Select Market under the symbol of PGC. The following table sets forth, for the periods indicated, the reported high and low sale prices on known trades and cash dividends declared per share by the Corporation.

Future dividends payable by the Corporation will be determined by the Board of Directors after consideration of earnings and financial condition of the Corporation, need for capital and such other matters as the Board of Directors deems appropriate. The payment of dividends is subject to certain restrictions, see Part I, Item 1, “Description of Business - Restrictions on the Payment of Dividends.”

Performance Graph

The following graph compares the cumulative total return on a hypothetical $100 investment made on December 31, 2006 in (a) the Corporation’s common stock; (b) the Russell 3000 Stock Index, and (c) the Keefe, Bruyette & Woods KBW 50 Index (top 50 U.S. banks). The graph is calculated assuming that all dividends are reinvested during the relevant periods. The graph shows how a $100 investment would increase or decrease in value over time, based on dividends (stock or cash) and increases or decreases in the market price of the stock.

On December 31, 2011, the last reported sale price of the Common Stock was $10.75. Also, on February 29, 2012, there were approximately 757 shareholders of record.

Issuer Purchases of Equity Securities

None.

Sales of Unregistered Securities

None.

The information set forth in the 2011 Annual Report under the heading “Selected Consolidated Financial Data” is incorporated herein by reference.

The information set forth in the 2011 Annual Report under the heading “Management’s Discussion and Analysis” is incorporated herein by reference.

The information set forth in the 2011 Annual Report under the heading “Asset/Liability Management” is incorporated herein by reference.

The Consolidated Financial Statements set forth in the 2011 Annual Report, together with the reports thereon by Crowe Horwath LLP and the Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements, are incorporated herein by reference.

None.

Management’s Evaluation of Disclosure Controls and Procedures

The Corporation maintains “disclosure controls and procedures” which, consistent with Rule 13a-15(e) under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, is defined to mean controls and other procedures that are designed to ensure that information required to be disclosed in the reports that the Corporation files or submits under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, is recorded, processed, summarized and reported within the time periods specified in the Securities and Exchange Commission’s rules and forms, and to ensure that such information is accumulated and communicated to the Corporation’s management, including our Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer, as appropriate, to allow timely decisions regarding required disclosure.

The Corporation’s management, with the participation of its Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer, has evaluated the effectiveness of the Corporation’s disclosure controls and procedures. Based on such evaluation, the Corporation’s Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer have concluded that the Corporation’s disclosure controls and procedures are effective as of the end of the period covered by this Annual Report on Form 10-K.

The Corporation’s Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer have also concluded that there have not been any changes in the Corporation’s internal control over financial reporting that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the Corporation’s internal control over financial reporting during the fourth quarter of 2011.

The Corporation’s management, including the CEO and CFO, does not expect that our disclosure controls and procedures or our internal controls will prevent all error and all fraud. A control system, no matter how well conceived and operated, provides reasonable, not absolute, assurance that the objectives of the control system are met. The design of a control system reflects resource constraints; the benefits of controls must be considered relative to their costs. Because there are inherent limitations in all control systems, no evaluation of controls can provide absolute assurance that all control issues and instances of fraud, if any, within the Corporation have been or will be detected. These inherent limitations include the realities that judgments in decision-making can be faulty and that breakdowns occur because of simple error or mistake. Controls can be circumvented by the individual acts of some persons, by collusion of two or more people, or by management override of the controls. The design of any system of controls is based in part upon certain assumptions about the likelihood of future events. There can be no assurance that any design will succeed in achieving its stated goals under all future conditions; over time, control may become inadequate because of changes in conditions or deterioration in the degree of compliance with the policies or procedures. Because of the inherent limitations in a cost-effective control system, misstatements due to error or fraud may occur and not be detected.

Attestation Report of the Independent Registered Certified Public Accounting Firm

Crowe Horwath LLP, the independent registered certified public accounting firm that audited the financial statements included in this Form 10-K, has attested to, and reported on, the effectiveness of our internal control over financial reporting. Their report is included in “Report of Independent Registered Certified Public Accounting Firm” included in the 2011 Annual Report and is incorporated herein by reference.

Changes in Internal Control over Financial Reporting

There have been no changes in the Corporation’s internal control over financial reporting during the quarter ended December 31, 2011, that have materially affected, or are reasonably likely to materially affect, the Corporation’s internal control over financial reporting.

Management’s Report on Internal Control over Financial Reporting is included in the 2011 Annual Report and is incorporated herein by reference.

None.

PART III

The information set forth under the captions “Director Information,” “Corporate Governance” and “Section 16(a) Beneficial Ownership Reporting Compliance” in the 2012 Proxy Statement is incorporated herein by reference.

Mr. Kissel, Mr. Rogers and Mr. Spengeman have been in their current positions for the past seven years. Mr. Caspersen, Jr. was Senior Vice President and Chief Risk Officer from March 2004 until his appointment to General Counsel in 2008.

Mr. Spero joined the Bank in June 2008 as Senior Vice President and Senior Commercial Lender. Previously Mr. Spero served as Senior Vice President and Commercial Loan Team Leader at Lakeland Bank, a subsidiary of Lakeland Bancorp from May 2000 to May 2008.

Mr. Carfora previously served as a Transitional Officer with New York Community Bank from April 2007 until January 2008 as a result of a merger with PennFed Financial Services Inc. and Penn Federal Savings Bank (collectively referred to as “PennFed”). Previous to the merger Mr. Carfora served as Senior Executive Vice President and Chief Operating Officer of PennFed from October 2001 until April 2007.

The information set forth under the captions “Executive Compensation,” “Director Compensation” and “Compensation Committee Interlocks and Insider Participation” in the 2012 Proxy Statement is incorporated herein by reference.

The following table shows information at December 31, 2011 for all equity compensation plans under which shares of our common stock may be issued:

The information set forth under the captions “Beneficial Ownership of Common Stock” and “Stock Ownership of Directors and Executive Officers” in the 2012 Proxy Statement is incorporated herein by reference.

The information set forth under the captions “Transactions with Related Persons, Promoters and Certain Control Persons” and “Corporate Governance” in the 2012 Proxy Statement is incorporated herein by reference.

The information set forth under the captions “Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm” and “Audit Committee Pre-approval Procedures” in the 2012 Proxy Statement is incorporated herein by reference.

PART IV

SIGNATURES

Pursuant to the requirements of section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the Registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned, thereunto duly authorized.

Dated: March 15, 2012

Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, this report has been signed below by the following persons on behalf of the Registrant and in the capacities indicated.

Exhibit I(1)

PEAPACK-GLADSTONE FINANCIAL CORPORATION

RESTRICTED STOCK AWARD AGREEMENT (“AGREEMENT”)

PEAPACK-GLADSTONE FINANCIAL CORPORATION, a New Jersey corporation (“Company”), this __ day of ________, 20__ (“Award Date”) hereby grants to _____________ (“Employee”), an employee of the Company or a subsidiary thereof, pursuant to the Company’s 2006 Long-Term Stock Incentive Plan (“Plan”), shares of the Common Stock, no par value, of the Company subject to the restrictions set forth herein (“Restricted Stock”) in the amount and on the terms and conditions hereinafter set forth.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement as of the date first above written.

29