Primis Financial Corp. - Annual Report: 2010 (Form 10-K)

Table of Contents

UNITED STATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, D.C. 20549

FORM 10-K

For the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010

Commission file number: 001-33037

SOUTHERN NATIONAL BANCORP OF VIRGINIA, INC.

(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)

6830 Old Dominion Drive

McLean, Virginia 22101

(Address or principal executive offices) (Zip code)

(703) 893-7400

(Registrant’s telephone number including area code)

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 Exchange 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 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  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  ¨    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, 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 Act).    Yes  ¨    No  x

The aggregate market value of voting stock held by non-affiliates of the registrant as of June 30, 2010 was approximately $79,300,591 based on the closing price of the common stock on such date.

The number of shares of common stock outstanding as of March 2, 2011 was 11,590,212.

DOCUMENTS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE

Portions of the registrant’s definitive proxy statement to be used in conjunction with the registrant’s 2011 Annual Meeting of Shareholders are incorporated into Part III, Items 10-14 of this Form 10-K.

Table of Contents

SOUTHERN NATIONAL BANCORP OF VIRGINIA, INC.

FORM 10-K

INDEX

i

Table of Contents

PART I

Item 1.—Business

Overview

Southern National Bancorp of Virginia, Inc. (“SNBV”, “we” or “our”) is the bank holding company for Sonabank (“Sonabank” or the “Bank”), a Virginia state chartered bank which commenced operations on April 14, 2005. Sonabank conducts full-service community banking operations from locations in Fairfax County (Reston, McLean and Fairfax), Charlottesville, Warrenton, Leesburg, New Market, Front Royal, South Riding and Clifton Forge, Virginia and in Rockville, Maryland and maintains loan production offices in Richmond, Charlottesville, Warrenton and Fredericksburg. As of December 31, 2010, we reported, on a consolidated basis, total assets of $590.8 million, total loans, net of unearned income, of $459.4 million, total deposits of $431.0 million and shareholders’ equity of $99.1 million.

While we offer a wide range of commercial banking services, we focus on making loans secured primarily by commercial real estate and other types of secured and unsecured commercial loans to small and medium-sized businesses in a number of industries, as well as loans to individuals for a variety of purposes. We are the leading Small Business Administration (SBA) lender among Virginia community banks. We also invest in real estate-related securities, including collateralized mortgage obligations and agency mortgage backed securities. Our principal sources of funds for loans and investing in securities are deposits and, to a lesser extent, borrowings. We offer a broad range of deposit products, including checking (NOW), savings, money market accounts and certificates of deposit. We actively pursue business relationships by utilizing the business contacts of our directors, senior management and other bank officers, thereby capitalizing on our knowledge of our local market areas.

Effective December 4, 2009, Sonabank assumed certain deposits and liabilities and acquired certain assets of Greater Atlantic from the FDIC as receiver for Greater Atlantic Bank, pursuant to the terms of a purchase and assumption agreement entered into by the Bank and the FDIC on December 4, 2009 (the “Agreement”). On December 5, 2009, the former Greater Atlantic offices, located in Reston, New Market, Front Royal and South Riding, Virginia and Rockville, Maryland opened as Sonabank branches.

The Bank acquired substantially all of the assets of Greater Atlantic Bank, including all loans, and assumed substantially all of its liabilities, including the insured and uninsured deposits. Pursuant to the terms of the Agreement, the Bank (a) acquired at fair value $113.6 million in loans, $1.0 million in foreclosed assets, $28.1 million in securities available-for-sale and $73.0 million in cash and other assets, and (b) assumed at fair value $178.7 million in deposits, $25.4 million in borrowings and $407 thousand in other liabilities and recorded a deferred tax liability of $3.8 million. The Bank also recorded a core deposit intangible asset in the amount of $1.2 million and recorded a pre-tax gain on the transaction of $11.2 million. In connection with the Greater Atlantic acquisition, the FDIC made a cash payment to the Bank of approximately $27.0 million. The terms of the Agreement provide for the FDIC to indemnify the Bank against claims with respect to liabilities of Greater Atlantic not assumed by the Bank and certain other types of claims listed in the Agreement.

The Bank paid no cash or other consideration to acquire Greater Atlantic Bank. As part of the Greater Atlantic acquisition, the Bank and the FDIC entered into a loss sharing agreement (the “loss sharing agreement”) on approximately $143.4 million (cost basis) of Greater Atlantic Bank’s assets. The Bank will share in the losses on the loans and foreclosed loan collateral with the FDIC as specified in the loss sharing agreement; we refer to these assets collectively as “covered assets.” Pursuant to the terms of the loss sharing agreement, the FDIC is obligated to reimburse the Bank for 80% of losses of up to $19 million with respect to the covered assets. The FDIC will reimburse the Bank for 95% of losses in excess of $19 million with respect to the covered assets. The Bank will reimburse the FDIC for 80% of recoveries with respect to losses for which the FDIC paid the Bank 80% reimbursement under the loss sharing agreement, and for 95% of recoveries with respect to losses for which the FDIC paid the Bank 95% reimbursement under the loss sharing agreement.

1

Table of Contents

On September 28, 2009, Southern National Bancorp of Virginia, Inc. completed the purchase of the Warrenton branch office, acquired at fair value selected loans in the amount of $23.8 million and assumed at fair value approximately $26.8 million of deposits from Millennium Bank, N.A.

SNBV completed a public offering of its common stock in an underwritten public offering. FIG Partners, LLC acted as the sole manager for the offering. SNBV closed on the offering on November 4, 2009, selling 4,791,665 shares of common stock, including 624,999 shares sold pursuant to an over-allotment option granted to the underwriter, at a price of $6.00 per share. The gross proceeds from the shares sold were $28.7 million. The net proceeds to SNBV from the offering were approximately $26.9 million after deducting $1.3 million in underwriting commission and an estimated $486 thousand in other expenses incurred in connection with the offering.

We primarily market our products and services to small and medium-sized businesses and to retail consumers. Our strategy is to provide superior service through our employees, who are relationship-oriented and committed to their respective customers. Through this strategy, we intend to grow our business, expand our customer base and improve our profitability. The key elements of our strategy are to:

2

Table of Contents

General

Our principal business is the acquisition of deposits from the general public through our branch offices and deposit intermediaries and the use of these deposits to fund our loan and investment portfolios. We seek to be a full service community bank that provides a wide variety of financial services to our middle market corporate clients as well as to our retail clients. We are an active commercial lender, have been designated as a “Preferred SBA Lender” and participate in the Virginia Small Business Financing Authority lending program. In addition, we are an active commercial real estate lender. We also invest funds in mortgage-backed securities, collateralized mortgage obligations, securities issued by agencies of the federal government and pooled trust preferred securities.

The principal sources of funds for our lending and investment activities are deposits, amortization and repayment of loans, prepayments from mortgage-backed securities, repayments of maturing investment securities, Federal Home Loan Bank advances and other borrowed money.

Principal sources of revenue are interest and fees on loans and investment securities, as well as fee income derived from the maintenance of deposit accounts and income from bank-owned life insurance policies. Our principal expenses include interest paid on deposits and advances from the Federal Home Loan Bank of Atlanta (“FHLB”) and other borrowings, and operating expenses.

3

Table of Contents

Available Information

SNBV files annual, quarterly and other reports under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”). These reports are posted and are available at no cost on our website, www.sonabank.com, through the Investor Relations link, as soon as reasonably practicable after we file such documents with the SEC. Our filings are also available through the SEC’s website at www.sec.gov.

Lending Activities

Our primary strategic objective is to serve small to medium-sized businesses in our market with a variety of unique and useful services, including a full array of commercial mortgage and non-mortgage loans. These loans include commercial real estate loans, construction to permanent loans, development and builder loans, accounts receivable financing, lines of credit, equipment and vehicle loans, leasing, and commercial overdraft protection. We strive to do business in the areas served by our branches, which is also where our marketing is focused, and the vast majority of our loan customers are located in existing market areas. Virtually all of our loans are from Virginia, Maryland, West Virginia, or Washington D.C. The Small Business Administration may from time to time come to us because of our reputation and expertise as an SBA lender and ask us to review a loan outside of our core counties but within our market area. Prior to making a loan, we obtain loan applications to determine a borrower’s ability to repay, and the more significant items on these applications are verified through the use of credit reports, financial statements and confirmations.

The following is a discussion of each of the major types of lending:

Commercial Real Estate Lending

Permanent. Commercial real estate lending includes loans for permanent financing. Commercial real estate lending typically involves higher loan principal amounts and the repayment of loans is dependent, in large part, on sufficient income from the properties securing the loans to cover operating expenses and debt service. As a general practice, we require our commercial real estate loans to be secured by well-managed income producing properties with adequate margins and to be guaranteed by responsible parties. We look for opportunities where cash flow from the collateral properties provides adequate debt service coverage and the guarantor’s net worth is strong. At December 31, 2010, our commercial real estate loans for permanent financing including multi-family residential loans and loans secured by farmland totaled $200.0 million, of which $19.7 million was acquired in the Greater Atlantic transaction.

Our underwriting guidelines for commercial real estate loans reflect all relevant credit factors, including, among other things, the income generated from the underlying property to adequately service the debt, the availability of secondary sources of repayment and the overall creditworthiness of the borrower. In addition, we look to the value of the collateral, while maintaining the level of equity invested by the borrower.

All valuations on property which will secure loans over $250 thousand are performed by independent outside appraisers who are reviewed by our executive vice president of risk management and/or an officer independent of the transaction. We retain a valid lien on real estate and obtain a title insurance policy (on first trust loans only) that insures the property is free of encumbrances. In addition, we do title searches on all loans secured by real estate.

Construction. We recognize that construction loans for commercial, multifamily and other non-residential properties can involve risk due to the length of time it may take to bring a finished real estate product to market. As a result, we will only make these types of loans when pre-leasing or pre-sales or other credit factors suggest that the borrower can carry the debt if the anticipated market and property cash flow projections change during the construction phase.

Income producing property loans are supported by evidence of the borrower’s capacity to service the debt. All of our commercial construction loans are guaranteed by the principals or general partners. At December 31, 2010, we had $40.6 million of construction, land and development loans, of which $1.1 million was acquired in the Greater Atlantic transaction.

4

Table of Contents

Construction loan borrowers are generally pre-qualified for the permanent loan by us or a third party. We obtain a copy of the contract with the general contractor who must be acceptable to us. All plans, specifications and surveys must include proposed improvements. We review feasibility studies and risk analyses showing sensitivity of the project to variables such as interest rates, vacancy rates, lease rates and operating expenses.

Commercial Business Lending

These loans consist of lines of credit, revolving credit facilities, demand loans, term loans, equipment loans, SBA loans, stand-by letters of credit and unsecured loans. Commercial business loans are generally secured by accounts receivable, equipment, inventory and other collateral, such as readily marketable stocks and bonds with adequate margins, cash value in life insurance policies and savings and time deposits at Sonabank. At December 31, 2010, our commercial business loans totaled $77.6 million, of which $1.0 million was acquired in the Greater Atlantic transaction.

In general, commercial business loans involve more credit risk than residential mortgage loans and real estate-backed commercial loans and, therefore, usually yield a higher return to us. The increased risk for commercial business loans is due to the type of collateral securing these loans. The increased risk also derives from the expectation that commercial loans will be serviced principally from the operations of the business, and that those operations may not be successful. Historical trends have shown that these types of loans do have higher delinquencies than mortgage loans. Because of this, we often utilize the SBA 7(a) program (which guarantees the repayment of up to 90% of the principal and accrued interest to us) to reduce the inherent risk associated with commercial business lending.

Another way that we reduce risk in the commercial loan portfolio is by taking accounts receivable as collateral. Our accounts receivable financing facilities, which provide a relatively high yield with considerable collateral control, are lines of credit under which a company can borrow up to the amount of a borrowing base which covers a certain percentage of the company’s receivables. From our customer’s point of view, accounts receivable financing is an efficient way to finance expanding operations because borrowing capacity expands as sales increase. Customers can borrow from 75% to 90% of qualified receivables. In most cases, the borrower’s customers pay us directly. For borrowers with a good track record for earnings and quality receivables, we will consider pricing based on an increment above the prime rate for transactions in which we lend up to a percentage of qualified outstanding receivables based on reported aging of the receivables portfolio.

We also actively pursue for our customers equipment lease financing opportunities. We provide financing and use a third party to service the leases. Payment is derived from the cash flow of the borrower, so credit quality may not be any lower than it would be in the case of an unsecured loan for a similar amount and term.

SBA Lending

We have developed an expertise in the federally guaranteed SBA program. The SBA program is an economic development program which finances the expansion of small businesses. We are a Preferred Lender in the Washington D.C. and Richmond Districts of the SBA. As an SBA Preferred lender, our pre-approved status allows us to quickly respond to customers’ needs. Under the SBA program, we originate and fund SBA 7(a) loans which qualify for guarantees up to 90% of principal and accrued interest. We also originate 504 chapter loans in which we generally provide 50% of the financing, taking a first lien on the real property as collateral.

We provide SBA loans to potential borrowers who are proposing a business venture, often with existing cash flow and a reasonable chance of success. We do not treat the SBA guarantee as a substitute for a borrower meeting our credit standards, and, except for minimum capital levels or maximum loan terms, the borrower must meet our other credit standards as applicable to loans outside the SBA process.

Residential Mortgage Lending

Permanent. Our business model generally does not include making permanent residential mortgage loans. We do it only on a case-by-case basis. In the case of conventional loans, we typically lend up to 80% of the

5

Table of Contents

appraised value of single-family residences and require mortgage insurance for loans exceeding that amount. We have no sub-prime loans. At December 31, 2010, we had $88.8 million of permanent residential mortgage loans. Of that amount, $27.2 million remain from the purchase of 1^st Service Bank, and $29.9 million was acquired in the Greater Atlantic transaction.

We retain a valid lien on real estate and obtain a title insurance policy that insures the property is free of encumbrances. We also require hazard insurance and flood insurance for all loans secured by real property if the real property is in a flood plain as designated by the Department of Housing and Urban Development. We also require most borrowers to advance funds on a monthly basis from which we make disbursements for items such as real estate taxes, private mortgage insurance and hazard insurance.

Construction. We typically make single family residential construction loans to builders/developers in our market areas. Construction loans generally have interest rates of prime plus one to two percent and fees of one to three points, loan-to-value ratios of 80% or less based on current appraisals and terms of generally nine months or less. In most cases, when we make a residential construction loan to a builder, the residence is pre-sold. All plans, specifications and surveys must include proposed improvements. Borrowers must evidence the capacity to service the debt.

Home Equity Lines of Credit. Sonabank rarely originates home equity lines of credit. At December 31, 2010, we had outstanding balances totaling $50.8 million, of which $40.3 million was acquired in the Greater Atlantic transaction. We had previously acquired outstanding balances of home equity lines of credit in the amount of $8.0 million in the acquisition of 1^st Service Bank in 2006.

Consumer Lending

To a limited extent, we offer various types of secured and unsecured consumer loans. We make consumer loans primarily for personal, family or household purposes as a convenience to our customer base since these loans are not the focus of our lending activities. As a general guideline, a consumer’s debt service should not exceed 40% of his gross income or 45% of net income. For purposes of this calculation, debt includes house payment or rent, fixed installment payments, the estimated payment for the loan being requested and the minimum required payment on any revolving debt. At December 31, 2010, we had $2.2 million of consumer loans.

Credit Approval and Collection Policies

Because future loan losses are so closely intertwined with our underwriting policy, we have instituted what management believes is a stringent loan underwriting policy. Our underwriting guidelines are tailored for particular credit types, including lines of credit, revolving credit facilities, demand loans, term loans, equipment loans, real estate loans, SBA loans, stand-by letters or credit and unsecured loans. We will make extensions of credit based, among other factors, on the potential borrower’s creditworthiness, likelihood of repayment and proximity to market areas served.

We have a standing Credit Committee comprised of certain officers, each of whom has a defined lending authority in combination with other officers. These individual lending authorities are determined by our Chief Executive Officer and certain directors and are based on the individual’s technical ability and experience. These authorities must be approved by our board of directors and our Credit Committee. Our Credit Committee is comprised of four levels of members: junior, regular, senior, and executive, based on experience. Our executive members are Ms. Derrico and Messrs. Porter and Baker. Mr. Stevens, Chief Risk Officer, must approve risk ratings for loans over $1.5 million. Loans over a certain size must be approved by the full Board of Directors or two outside directors. (See “Management.”) Under our loan approval process, the sponsoring loan officer’s approval is required on all credit submissions. This approval must be included in or added to the individual and joining authorities outlined below. The sponsoring loan officer is primarily responsible for the customer’s relationship with us, including, among other things, obtaining and maintaining adequate credit file information. We require each loan officer to maintain loan files in an order and detail that would enable a disinterested third party to review the file and determine the current status and quality of the credit.

6

Table of Contents

In addition to approval of the sponsoring loan officer, we require approvals from one or more members of the Credit Committee on all loans. The approvals required differ based on the size of the borrowing relationship. At least one senior or one executive member must approve all loans in the amount of $100,000 or more. All three of the executive members of the committee must approve all loans of $1 million or more. Regardless of the number of approvals needed, we encourage each member not to rely on another member’s approval as a basis for approval and to treat his approval as if it were the only approval necessary to approve the loan. Our legal lending limit to one borrower is limited to 15% of our unimpaired capital and surplus. We have an internal guidance line of 75% to 80% of the legal lending limit. As of December 31, 2010, our legal lending limit was approximately $13.9 million, although we have no loans to one borrower that approach our legal lending limit to date. Our largest group credit as of December 31, 2010, was approximately $9.0 million.

The following collection actions are the minimal procedures which management believes are necessary to properly monitor past due loans and leases. When a borrower fails to make a payment, we contact the borrower in person, in writing or on the telephone. At a minimum, all borrowers are notified by mail when payments of principal and/or interest are 10 days past due. Real estate and commercial loan borrowers are assessed a late charge when payments are 10-15 days past due. Customers are contacted by a loan officer before the loan becomes 60 days delinquent. After 90 days, if the loan has not been brought current or an acceptable arrangement is not worked out with the borrower, we will institute measures to remedy the default, including commencing foreclosure action with respect to mortgage loans and repossessions of collateral in the case of consumer loans.

If foreclosure is effected, the property is sold at a public auction in which we may participate as a bidder. If we are the successful bidder, we include the acquired real estate property in our real estate owned account until it is sold. These assets are carried at fair value net of estimated selling costs. To the extent there is a decline in value, that amount is charged to operating expense. At December 31, 2010, we had other real estate owned totaling $4.6 million, of which $676 thousand, net of discount, resulted from foreclosures on loans that were acquired in the Greater Atlantic transaction.

Special Products and Services

To complement our array of loans, we also provide the following special products and services to our commercial customers:

Cash Management Services

Cash Management services are offered that enable the Bank’s business customer to maximize the efficiency of their cash management. Specific products offered in our cash management services program include the following:

7

Table of Contents

Some of the products listed above are described in-depth below.

SABL is an Asset Based Lending software system, built by Sonabank that allows the bank to monitor the collateral of its commercial borrowers who have pledged their working assets (accounts receivables and other qualifying assets such as inventory) as collateral. SABL will also have the ability to track other offsets (liabilities, e.g. other loans the customer has with the bank) to the line of credit. SABL will serve to provide the more stringent controls and supervision that this type of lending requires.

One control that is typical of Asset Based Lending is that the commercial borrower is required to have its customers remit invoice payments to a bank controlled lockbox. The bank retrieves these payments and the bank applies them directly to any outstanding balance on the line. SABL allows for this and can combine that service with remote capture (check 21) if warranted.

Most Asset Based Lending systems are manual processes or software that certifies the borrowing base periodically. These certifications are usually provided in the form of manually created borrowing bases backed up with field exams. SABL will provide a real time capability to analyze and adjust borrowing availability based on the levels of collateral at the moment.

SABL also offers an automated collateral upload, taking receivable information directly from the clients accounting system. SABL also offers discretionary borrowings and pay offs, allowing clients to borrow on or pay down their line at their discretion, as long as they are compliant with the SABL system. Lastly, SABL offers superior reporting, offering reports to bank officers that provide all the information they need to monitor risk. Customized reports can also be built for clients.

8

Table of Contents

Competition

The banking business is highly competitive, and our profitability depends principally on our ability to compete in the market areas in which our banking operations are located. We experience substantial competition in attracting and retaining savings deposits and in lending funds. The primary factors we encounter in competing for savings deposits are convenient office locations and rates offered. Direct competition for savings deposits comes from other commercial bank and thrift institutions, money market mutual funds and corporate and government securities which may offer more attractive rates than insured depository institutions are willing to pay. The primary factors we encounter in competing for loans include, among others, interest rate and loan origination fees and the range of services offered. Competition for origination of loans normally comes from other commercial banks, thrift institutions, mortgage bankers, mortgage brokers and insurance companies. We have been able to compete effectively with other financial institutions by:

Employees

At December 31, 2010, we had 107 full-time equivalent employees, four of whom were executive officers. Management considers its relations with its employees to be good. Neither we nor Sonabank are a party to any collective bargaining agreement.

SUPERVISION AND REGULATION

The business of SNBV and the Bank are subject to extensive regulation and supervision under federal banking laws and other federal and state laws and regulations. In general, these laws and regulations are intended for the protection of the customers and depositors of the Bank and not for the protection of SNBV or its shareholders. Set forth below are brief descriptions of selected laws and regulations applicable to SNBV and the Bank. These descriptions are not intended to be a comprehensive description of all laws and regulations to which SNBV and the Bank are subject or to be complete descriptions of the laws and regulations discussed. The descriptions of statutory and regulatory provisions are qualified in their entirety by reference to the particular statutes and regulations. Changes in applicable statutes, regulations or regulatory policy may have a material effect on SNBV, the Bank and their business.

The Bank Holding Company Act of 1956. Under the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956, as amended (“BHCA”), SNBV is subject to periodic examination by the Federal Reserve Board (“FRB”) and required to file periodic reports regarding its operations and any additional information that the FRB may require. Our activities at the bank holding company level are limited to:

9

Table of Contents

Some of the activities that the FRB has determined by regulation to be proper incidents to the business of a bank holding company include making or servicing loans and specific types of leases, performing specific data processing services and acting in some circumstances as a fiduciary or investment or financial adviser. In approving acquisitions or the addition of activities, the FRB considers, among other things, whether the acquisition or the additional activities can reasonably be expected to produce benefits to the public, such as greater convenience, increased competition, or gains in efficiency, that outweigh such possible adverse effects as undue concentration of resources, decreased or unfair competition, conflicts of interest or unsound banking practices. SNBV does not currently plan to perform any of these activities, but may do so in the future.

With some limited exceptions, the BHCA requires every bank holding company to obtain the prior approval of the FRB before: (i) acquiring substantially all the assets of any bank; (ii) acquiring direct or indirect ownership or control of any voting shares of any bank if after such acquisition it would own or control more than 5% of the voting shares of such bank (unless it already owns or controls the majority of such shares); or (iii) merging or consolidating with another bank holding company. In approving bank acquisitions by bank holding companies, the FRB is required to consider, among other things, the financial and managerial resources and future prospects of the bank holding company and the banks concerned, the convenience and needs of the communities to be served, and various competitive factors.

In addition, and subject to some exceptions, the BHCA and the Change in Bank Control Act, together with their regulations, require FRB approval prior to any person or company acquiring “control” of a bank holding company. Control is conclusively presumed to exist if an individual or company acquires 25% (5% in the case of an acquirer that is a bank holding company) or more of any class of voting securities of the bank holding company. Control is rebuttably presumed to exist if a person acquires 10% or more, of any class of voting securities and either has registered securities under Section 12 of the Exchange Act or no other person owns a greater percentage of that class of voting securities immediately after the transaction. The regulations provide a procedure for challenging this rebuttable control presumption. On September 22, 2008, the FRB issued a policy statement on equity investments in bank holding companies and banks, which allows the FRB to generally be able to conclude that an entity’s investment is not “controlling” if the entity does not own in excess of 15% of the voting power and 33% of the total equity of the bank holding company or bank. Depending on the nature of the overall investment and the capital structure of the banking organization, based on the policy statement, the FRB will permit noncontrolling investments in the form of voting and nonvoting shares that represent in the aggregate (i) less than one-third of the total equity of the banking organization (and less than one-third of any class of voting securities, assuming conversion of all convertible nonvoting securities held by the entity) and (ii) less than 15% of any class of voting securities of the banking organization.

In November 1999, Congress enacted the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (“GLBA”), which made substantial revisions to the statutory restrictions separating banking activities from other financial activities. Under the GLBA, bank holding companies that are well-capitalized under the prompt-corrective-action provisions of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation Act of 1991 and well-managed under applicable FRB regulations and meet other conditions can elect to become “financial holding companies.” As financial holding companies, they and their subsidiaries are permitted to acquire or engage in previously impermissible activities such as insurance underwriting, securities underwriting and distribution, travel agency activities, insurance agency activities, merchant banking and other activities that the FRB determines to be financial in nature or complementary to these activities. Financial holding companies continue to be subject to the overall oversight and supervision of the FRB, but the GLBA applies the concept of functional regulation to the activities conducted by subsidiaries. For example, insurance activities would be subject to supervision and regulation by state insurance authorities. Although SNBV has not elected to become a financial holding company in order to exercise the broader activity powers provided by the GLBA, SNBV may elect to do so in the future.

10

Table of Contents

Insurance of Deposits. Substantially all of the deposits of the Bank are insured up to applicable limits by the Deposit Insurance Fund (“DIF”) of the FDIC and the Bank must pay deposit insurance assessments to the FDIC for such deposit insurance protection. The FDIC maintains the DIF by designating a required reserve ratio. If the reserve ratio falls below the designated level, the FDIC must adopt a restoration plan that provides that the DIF will return to an acceptable level generally within 5 years. The designated reserve ratio is currently set at 2.00%. The FDIC has the discretion to price deposit insurance according to the risk for all insured institutions regardless of the level of the reserve ratio.

The DIF reserve ratio is maintained by assessing depository institutions an insurance premium based upon statutory factors. Under its current regulations, the FDIC imposes assessments for deposit insurance according to a depository institution’s ranking in one of four risk categories based upon supervisory and capital evaluations. The assessment rate for an individual institution is determined according to a formula based on a combination of weighted average CAMELS component ratings, financial ratios and, for institutions that have long-term debt ratings, the average ratings of its long-term debt. Well-capitalized institutions (generally those with CAMELS composite ratings of 1 or 2) are grouped in Risk Category I and the initial base assessment rate for deposit insurance is set at an annual rate of between 12 and 16 basis points. The initial base assessment rate for institutions in Risk Categories II, III and IV is set at annual rates of 22, 32 and 50 basis points, respectively. These initial base assessment rates are adjusted to determine an institution’s final assessment rate based on its brokered deposits, secured liabilities and unsecured debt. Total base assessment rates after adjustments range from 7 to 24 basis points for Risk Category I, 17 to 43 basis points for Risk Category II, 27 to 58 basis points for Risk Category III, and 40 to 77.5 basis points for Risk Category IV.

In November 2009, the FDIC adopted a rule that required all insured institutions with limited exceptions, to prepay their estimated quarterly risk-based assessments for the fourth quarter of 2009 and for all of 2010, 2011 and 2012. The assessment, which totaled $1.9 million for SNBV, was calculated by taking the institution’s actual September 30, 2009 assessment base and adjusting it quarterly by an estimated 5% annual growth rate through the end of 2012. Each institution recorded the entire amount of its prepaid assessment as a prepaid expense, an asset on its balance sheet, as of December 31, 2009. As of December 31, 2009, and each quarter thereafter, each institution records 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. As of December 31, 2010, $1.2 million in prepaid assessments is included in other assets in the accompanying consolidated balance sheet.

On February 7, 2011, the FDIC approved a final rule that amends its existing DIF restoration plan and implements certain provisions of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act. Effective April 1, 2011, the assessment base will be determined using average consolidated total assets minus average tangible equity rather than the current assessment base of adjusted domestic deposits. Since the change will result in a much larger assessment base, the final rule also lowers the assessment rates in order to keep the total amount collected from financial institutions relatively unchanged from the amounts currently being collected. The new assessment rates, calculated on the revised assessment base, will generally range from 2.5 to 9 basis points for Risk Category I institutions, 9 to 24 basis points for Risk Category II institutions, 18 to 33 basis points for Risk Category III institutions, and 30 to 45 basis points for Risk Category IV institutions. The new assessment rates will be calculated for the quarter beginning April 1, 2011 and reflected in invoices for assessments due September 30, 2011.

Safety and Soundness. There are a number of obligations and restrictions imposed on bank holding companies and their depository institution subsidiaries by federal law and regulatory policy that are designed to reduce potential loss exposure to the depositors of such depository institutions and to the DIF in the event that the depository institution is insolvent or is in danger of becoming insolvent. These obligations and restrictions are not for the benefit of investors. The FRB’s Regulation Y, for example, generally requires a holding company to give the FRB prior notice of any redemption or repurchase of its own equity securities, if the consideration to be paid, together with the consideration paid for any repurchases or redemptions in the preceding year, is equal to

11

Table of Contents

10% or more of the holding company’s consolidated net worth. The FRB may oppose the transaction if it believes that the transaction would constitute an unsafe or unsound practice or would violate any law or regulation. Depending upon the circumstances, the FRB could take the position that paying a dividend would constitute an unsafe or unsound banking practice.

Regulators may pursue an administrative action against any bank holding company or national bank which violates the law, engages in an unsafe or unsound banking practice or which is about to engage in an unsafe and unsound banking practice. The administrative action could take the form of a cease and desist proceeding, a removal action against the responsible individuals or, in the case of a violation of law or unsafe and unsound banking practice, a civil penalty action. A cease and desist order, in addition to prohibiting certain action, could also require that certain action be undertaken. Under the policies of the FRB, SNBV is required to serve as a source of financial strength to the Bank and to commit resources to support the Bank in circumstances where SNBV might not do so otherwise.

Capital Requirements. Each of the FRB and the FDIC has issued risk-based and leverage capital guidelines under a two-tier capital framework applicable to banking organizations that it supervises. Under the risk-based capital requirements, SNBV and the Bank are each generally required to maintain a minimum ratio of total capital to risk-weighted assets (including specific off-balance sheet activities, such as standby letters of credit) of 8%. At least half of the total capital must be composed of “Tier 1 Capital,” which generally consists of common shareholders’ equity, retained earnings, a limited amount of qualifying perpetual preferred stock, qualifying trust preferred securities and noncontrolling interests in the equity accounts of consolidated subsidiaries, less goodwill and certain intangibles. Tier 2 capital generally consists of certain hybrid capital instruments and perpetual debt, mandatory convertible debt securities and a limited amount of subordinated debt, qualifying preferred stock, loan loss allowance and unrealized holding gains on certain equity securities. In addition, each of the federal banking regulatory agencies has established minimum leverage capital requirements for banking organizations. Under these requirements, banking organizations must maintain a minimum ratio of Tier 1 capital to adjusted average quarterly assets equal to 3% to 5%, subject to federal bank regulatory evaluation of an organization’s overall safety and soundness. In sum, the capital measures used by the federal banking regulators are:

Under these regulations, a state bank will be:

The risk-based capital standards of each of the FRB and the FDIC explicitly identify concentrations of credit risk and the risk arising from non-traditional activities, as well as an institution’s ability to manage these risks, as

12

Table of Contents

important factors to be taken into account by the agency in assessing an institution’s overall capital adequacy. The capital guidelines also provide that an institution’s exposure to a decline in the economic value of its capital due to changes in interest rates be considered by the agency as a factor in evaluating a banking organization’s capital adequacy.

The federal banking agencies’ risk-based and leverage ratios are minimum supervisory ratios generally applicable to banking organizations that meet certain specified criteria. 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. FRB 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.

In addition to requiring undercapitalized institutions to submit a capital restoration plan, agency regulations contain broad restrictions on certain activities of undercapitalized institutions including asset growth, acquisitions, branch establishment and expansion into new lines of business. With certain exceptions, an insured depository institution is prohibited from making capital distributions, including dividends, and is prohibited from paying management fees to control persons if the institution would be undercapitalized after any such distribution or payment.

As an institution’s capital decreases, the FDIC’s enforcement powers become more severe. A significantly undercapitalized institution is subject to mandated capital raising activities, restrictions on interest rates paid and transactions with affiliates, removal of management and other restrictions. The FDIC has only very limited discretion in dealing with a critically undercapitalized institution and is virtually required to appoint a receiver or conservator.

Banks with risk-based capital and leverage ratios below the required minimums may also be subject to certain administrative actions, including the termination of deposit insurance upon notice and hearing, or a temporary suspension of insurance without a hearing in the event the institution has no tangible capital.

Proposed Revisions to Capital Adequacy Requirements. The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act requires the FRB, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (“OCC”) and the FDIC to adopt regulations imposing a continuing “floor” of the 1988 capital accord (“Basel I”) of the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision (the “Basel Committee”) capital requirements in cases where the 2004 Basel Committee capital accord (“Basel II”) capital requirements and any changes in capital regulations resulting from Basel III (defined below) otherwise would permit lower requirements. In December 2010, the FRB, the OCC and the FDIC issued a joint notice of proposed rulemaking that would implement this requirement.

On December 16, 2010, the Basel Committee released its final framework for strengthening international capital and liquidity regulation (“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 U.S. banking agencies have indicated informally that they expect to propose regulations implementing Basel III in mid-2011 with final adoption of implementing regulations in mid-2012. Notwithstanding its release of the Basel III framework, the Basel Committee is considering further amendments to Basel III, including the imposition of additional capital surcharges on globally and systemically important financial institutions. In addition to Basel III, the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act requires or permits the Federal banking agencies to adopt regulations affecting banking institutions’ capital requirements in a number of respects. Accordingly, the regulations ultimately applicable to the Company may be substantially different from the Basel III final framework as published in December 2010.

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

13

Table of Contents

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,” that would be added to the capital conservation buffer generally to be imposed when national regulators determine that excess aggregate credit growth becomes associated with a buildup of systemic risk.

Proposed Liquidity Requirements. Historically, regulation and monitoring of bank and bank holding company liquidity has been addressed as a supervisory matter, without required formulaic measures. The Basel III final framework will require banks and bank holding companies to measure their liquidity against specific liquidity tests that, although similar in some respects to liquidity measures historically applied by banks and regulators for management and supervisory purposes, going forward will be required by regulation. One test, referred to as the liquidity coverage ratio (“LCR”), is designed to ensure that the banking entity maintains an adequate level of unencumbered high-quality liquid assets equal to the entity’s expected net cash outflow for a 30-day time horizon (or, if greater, 25% of its expected total cash outflow) under an acute liquidity stress scenario. The other, referred to as the net stable funding ratio (“NSFR”), is designed to promote more medium- and long-term funding of the assets and activities of banking entities over a one-year time horizon. These requirements will incentivize banking entities to increase their holdings of U.S. Treasury securities and other sovereign debt as a component of assets and increase the use of long-term debt as a funding source. The LCR would be implemented subject to an observation period beginning in 2011, but would not be introduced as a requirement until January 1, 2015, and the NSFR would not be introduced as a requirement until January 1, 2018. These new standards are subject to further rulemaking and their terms could change before implementation.

Prompt Corrective Action. Under Section 38 of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act (“FDIA”), each federal banking agency is required to implement a system of prompt corrective action for institutions which it regulates. The federal banking agencies (including the FRB and the FDIC) have adopted substantially similar regulations to implement Section 38 of the FDIA. Section 38 of the FDIA and the regulations promulgated thereunder also specify circumstances under which the FDIC may reclassify a well capitalized bank as adequately capitalized and may require an adequately capitalized bank or an undercapitalized bank to comply with supervisory actions as if it were in the next lower category (except that the FDIC may not reclassify a significantly undercapitalized bank as critically undercapitalized).

The FRB and the FDIC may take various corrective actions against any undercapitalized bank and any bank that fails to submit an acceptable capital restoration plan or fails to implement a plan accepted by the FRB or the FDIC. These powers include, but are not limited to, requiring the institution to be recapitalized, prohibiting asset growth, restricting interest rates paid, requiring prior approval of capital distributions by any bank holding company that controls the institution, requiring divestiture by the institution of its subsidiaries or by the holding company of the institution itself, requiring a new election of directors, and requiring the dismissal of directors and officers.

14

Table of Contents

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 FRB approval of proposed dividends, or might be required to consent to a consolidation or to divest the troubled institution or other affiliates.

Brokered Deposit Restrictions. Adequately capitalized institutions (as defined for purposes of the prompt corrective action rules described above) cannot accept, renew or roll over brokered deposits except with a waiver from the FDIC, and are subject to restrictions on the interest rates that can be paid on such deposits. Undercapitalized institutions may not accept, renew, or roll over brokered deposits.

Payment of Dividends. SNBV is a legal entity separate and distinct from Sonabank. The principal sources of SNBV’s cash flow, including cash flow to pay dividends to its stockholders, are dividends that Sonabank pays to its sole shareholder, SNBV. Statutory and regulatory limitations apply to Sonabank’s payment of dividends to us as well as to SNBV’s payment of dividends to its stockholders.

It is the policy of the FRB that 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 maintain a level of cash dividends that undermines the bank holding company’s ability to serve as a source of strength to its banking subsidiaries.

Under FRB policy, a bank holding company has historically been required to act as a source of financial strength to each of its banking subsidiaries. The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act codifies this policy as a statutory requirement. Under this requirement, SNBV is expected to commit resources to support Sonabank, including at times when SNBV may not be in a financial position to provide such resources. Any capital loans by a bank holding company to any of its subsidiary banks are subordinate in right of payment to deposits and to certain other indebtedness of such subsidiary banks. As discussed below, a bank holding company, in certain circumstances, could be required to guarantee the capital plan of an undercapitalized banking subsidiary.

Capital adequacy requirements serve to limit the amount of dividends that may be paid by Sonabank. Under federal law, the Bank cannot pay a dividend if, after paying the dividend, the bank will be “undercapitalized.” The bank regulatory agencies may declare a dividend payment to be unsafe and unsound even though the Bank would continue to meet its capital requirements after the dividend.

The ability of SNBV to pay dividends is also subject to the provisions of Virginia law. The payment of dividends by SNBV and Sonabank may also be affected by other factors, such as the requirement to maintain adequate capital above regulatory guidelines. The federal banking agencies have indicated that paying dividends that deplete a depository institution’s capital base to an inadequate level would be an unsafe and unsound banking practice. Under the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation Improvement Act of 1991, a depository institution may not pay any dividend if payment would cause it to become undercapitalized or if it already is undercapitalized. Moreover, the federal agencies have issued policy statements that provide that bank holding companies and insured banks should generally only pay dividends out of current operating earnings.

In the event of a bank holding company’s bankruptcy under Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code, the trustee will be deemed to have assumed and to cure immediately any deficit under any commitment by the debtor holding company to any of the federal banking agencies to maintain the capital of an insured depository institution. Any claim for breach of such obligation will generally have priority over most other unsecured claims.

15

Table of Contents

Because we are a legal entity separate and distinct from our subsidiary Sonabank, our right to participate in the distribution of assets of any subsidiary upon the subsidiary’s liquidation or reorganization will be subject to the prior claims of the subsidiary’s creditors. In the event of a liquidation or other resolution of an insured depository institution, the claims of depositors and other general or subordinated creditors are entitled to a priority of payment over the claims of holders of any obligation of the institution to its shareholders, arising as a result of their status as shareholders, including any depository institution holding company (such as us) or any shareholder or creditor thereof.

Privacy. Under the GLBA, financial institutions are required to disclose their policies for collecting and protecting confidential information. Customers generally may prevent financial institutions from sharing nonpublic personal financial information with nonaffiliated third parties except under narrow circumstances, such as the processing of transactions requested by the consumer or when the financial institution is jointly sponsoring a product or service with a nonaffiliated third party. Additionally, financial institutions generally may not disclose consumer account numbers to any nonaffiliated third party for use in telemarketing, direct mail marketing or other marketing to consumers. Financial institutions are further required to disclose their privacy policies to customers annually. Financial institutions, however, will be required to comply with state law if it is more protective of customer privacy than the GLBA. Sonabank has established policies and procedures to assure our compliance with all privacy provisions of the GLBA.

Consumer Credit Reporting. On December 4, 2003, President Bush signed the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act amending the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act. These amendments to the Fair Credit Reporting Act (the “FCRA Amendments”) became effective in 2004.

The FCRA Amendments include, among other things:

The FCRA Amendments also prohibit a business that receives consumer information from an affiliate from using that information for marketing purposes unless the consumer is first provided a notice and an opportunity to direct the business not to use the information for such marketing purposes (the opt-out), subject to certain exceptions. We do not share consumer information among our affiliated companies for marketing purposes, except as allowed under exceptions to the notice and opt-out requirements. Because no affiliate of SNBV is currently sharing consumer information with any other affiliate for marketing purposes, the limitations on sharing of information for marketing purposes do not have a significant impact on us.

Audit Reports. Insured institutions with total assets of $500 million or more must submit annual audit reports prepared by independent auditors to federal and state regulators. In some instances, the audit report of the institution’s holding company can be used to satisfy this requirement. Auditors must receive examination reports, supervisory agreements and reports of enforcement actions. For institutions with total assets of $1 billion or more, financial statements prepared in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles, management’s certifications concerning responsibility for the financial statements, internal controls and compliance with legal requirements designated by the FDIC, and an attestation by the auditor regarding the statements of management

16

Table of Contents

relating to the internal controls must be submitted. For institutions with total assets of more than $3 billion, independent auditors may be required to review quarterly financial statements. FDICIA requires that independent audit committees be formed, consisting of outside directors only. The committees of such institutions must include members with experience in banking or financial management, must have access to outside counsel, and must not include representatives of large customers.

Anti-Terrorism and Anti-Money Laundering Legislation. A major focus of governmental policy on financial institutions in recent years has been aimed at combating money laundering and terrorist financing. The USA PATRIOT Act of 2001 (the “USA Patriot Act”) substantially broadened the scope of United States anti-money laundering laws and regulations by imposing significant new compliance and due diligence obligations, creating new crimes and penalties and expanding the extra-territorial jurisdiction of the United States. The United States Treasury Department has issued and, in some cases, proposed a number of regulations that apply various requirements of the USA Patriot Act to financial institutions. These regulations impose obligations on financial institutions to maintain appropriate policies, procedures and controls to detect, prevent and report money laundering and terrorist financing and to verify the identity of their customers. Certain of those regulations impose specific due diligence requirements on financial institutions that maintain correspondent or private banking relationships with non-U.S. financial institutions or persons. Failure of a financial institution to maintain and implement adequate programs to combat money laundering and terrorist financing, or to comply with all of the relevant laws or regulations, could have serious legal and reputational consequences for the institution.

Office of Foreign Assets Control Regulation. The United States has imposed economic sanctions that affect transactions with designated foreign countries, nationals and others. These are typically known as the “OFAC” rules based on their administration by the U.S. Treasury Department Office of Foreign Assets Control (“OFAC”). The OFAC-administered sanctions targeting countries take many different forms. Generally, however, they contain one or more of the following elements: (i) restrictions on trade with or investment in a sanctioned country, including prohibitions against direct or indirect imports from and exports to a sanctioned country and prohibitions on “U.S. persons” engaging in financial transactions relating to making investments in, or providing investment-related advice or assistance to, a sanctioned country; and (ii) a blocking of assets in which the government or specially designated nationals of the sanctioned country have an interest, by prohibiting transfers of property subject to U.S. jurisdiction (including property in the possession or control of U.S. persons). Blocked assets (e.g., property and bank deposits) cannot be paid out, withdrawn, set off or transferred in any manner without a license from OFAC. Failure to comply with these sanctions could have serious legal and reputational consequences.

Virginia Law. Certain state corporation laws may have an anti-takeover affect. Virginia law restricts transactions between a Virginia corporation and its affiliates and potential acquirers. The following discussion summarizes the two Virginia statutes that may discourage an attempt to acquire control of SNBV.

Virginia Code Sections 13.1-725 – 727.1 govern “Affiliated Transactions.” These provisions, with several exceptions discussed below, require approval by the holders of at least two-thirds of the remaining voting shares of material acquisition transactions between a Virginia corporation and any holder of more than 10% of any class of its outstanding voting shares. Affiliated Transactions include mergers, share exchanges, material dispositions of corporate assets not in the ordinary course of business, any dissolution of the corporation proposed by or on behalf of an interested shareholder, or any reclassification, including a reverse stock split, recapitalization, or merger of the corporation with its subsidiaries which increases the percentage of voting shares owned beneficially by any 10% shareholder by more than 5%.

For three years following the time that a shareholder becomes an owner of 10% of the outstanding voting shares, a Virginia corporation cannot engage in an Affiliated Transaction with that shareholder without approval of two-thirds of the voting shares other than those shares beneficially owned by that shareholder, and majority approval of the disinterested directors. A disinterested director is a member of the company’s board of directors who was (i) a member on the date the shareholder acquired more than 10%, and (ii) recommended for election

17

Table of Contents

by, or was elected to fill a vacancy and received the affirmative vote of, a majority of the disinterested directors then on the board. At the expiration of the three-year period, the statute requires approval of Affiliated Transactions by two-thirds of the voting shares other than those beneficially owned by the 10% shareholder.

The principal exceptions to the special voting requirement apply to transactions proposed after the three-year period has expired and require either that the transaction be approved by a majority of the corporation’s disinterested directors or that the transaction satisfies the fair-price requirement of the statute. In general, the fair-price requirement provides that in a two-step acquisition transaction, the 10% shareholder must pay the shareholders in the second step either the same amount of cash or the same amount and type of consideration paid to acquire the Virginia corporation’s shares in the first step.

None of the foregoing limitations and special voting requirements applies to a transaction with any 10% shareholder whose acquisition of shares taking him or her over 10% was approved by a majority of the corporation’s disinterested directors.

These provisions were designed to deter certain takeovers of Virginia corporations. In addition, the statute provides that, by affirmative vote of a majority of the voting shares other than shares owned by any 10% shareholder, a corporation can adopt an amendment to its articles of incorporation or bylaws providing that the Affiliated Transactions provisions shall not apply to the corporation. SNBV “opted out” of the Affiliated Transactions provisions when it incorporated.

Virginia law also provides that shares acquired in a transaction that would cause the acquiring person’s voting strength to meet or exceed any of the three thresholds (20%, 33 ¹/3% or 50%) have no voting rights for those shares exceeding that threshold, unless granted by a majority vote of shares not owned by the acquiring person. This provision empowers an acquiring person to require the Virginia corporation to hold a special meeting of shareholders to consider the matter within 50 days of the request. SNBV also “opted out” of this provision at the time of its incorporation.

Federal Reserve Monetary Policy. The Bank will be directly affected by government monetary and fiscal policy and by regulatory measures affecting the banking industry and the economy in general. The actions of the FRB as the nation’s central bank can directly affect the money supply and, in general, affect the lending activities of banks by increasing or decreasing the cost and availability of funds. An important function of the FRB is to regulate the national supply of bank credit. Among the instruments of monetary policy used by the FRB to implement this objective are open market operations in United States government securities, changes in the discount rate on member bank borrowings and changes in reserve requirements against bank deposits. These means are used in varying combinations to influence overall growth of bank loans, investments and deposits, and interest rates charged on loans or paid on deposits. The monetary policies of the FRB 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.

Reserve Requirements. In 1980, Congress enacted legislation that imposed reserve requirements on all depository institutions that maintain transaction accounts or nonpersonal time deposits. NOW accounts, money market deposit accounts and other types of accounts that permit payments or transfers to third parties fall within the definition of transaction accounts and are subject to these reserve requirements, as are any nonpersonal time deposits at an institution. For net transaction accounts in 2011, the first $10.7 million will be exempt from reserve requirements. A 3.0% reserve ratio will be assessed on net transaction accounts over $10.7 million to and including $58.8 million. A 10.0% reserve ratio will be applied to net transaction accounts in excess of $58.8 million. These percentages are subject to adjustment by the FRB.

Restrictions on Transactions with Affiliates and Insiders. Transactions between banks and their affiliates are governed by Sections 23A and 23B of the Federal Reserve Act. An affiliate of a bank is any bank or entity that controls, is controlled by or is under common control with such bank. In general, Section 23A imposes limits on the amount of such transactions to 10% of Sonabank’s capital stock and surplus and requires that such

18

Table of Contents

transactions be secured by designated amounts of specified collateral. It also limits the amount of advances to third parties which are collateralized by the securities or obligations of SNBV or its subsidiaries. Commencing in July 2011, the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act will require that the 10% of capital limit on covered transactions begin to apply to financial subsidiaries. “Covered transactions” are defined by statute to include a loan or extension of credit, as well as a purchase of securities issued by an affiliate, a purchase of assets (unless otherwise exempted by the FRB) from the affiliate, the acceptance of securities issued by the affiliate as collateral for a loan, and the issuance of a guarantee, acceptance or letter of credit on behalf of an affiliate.

Affiliate transactions are also subject to Section 23B of the Federal Reserve Act which generally requires that certain transactions between Sonabank and its affiliates be on terms substantially the same, or at least as favorable to Sonabank, as those prevailing at the time for comparable transactions with or involving other nonaffiliated persons. The FRB has also issued Regulation W which codifies prior regulations under Sections 23A and 23B of the Federal Reserve Act and interpretive guidance with respect to affiliate 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 institutions and their subsidiaries and holding companies. 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, and the FDIC may determine that a lesser amount is appropriate. Insiders are subject to enforcement actions for knowingly accepting loans in violation of applicable restrictions.

Concentrated Commercial Real Estate Lending Regulations. The federal banking agencies, including the FDIC, have promulgated guidance governing financial institutions with concentrations in commercial real estate lending. The guidance provides that a bank has a concentration in commercial real estate lending if (i) total reported loans for construction, land development, and other land represent 100% or more of total capital or (ii) total reported loans secured by multifamily and non-farm residential properties and loans for construction, land development, and other land represent 300% or more of total capital and the bank’s commercial real estate loan portfolio has increased 50% or more during the prior 36 months. Owner occupied loans are excluded from this second category. If a concentration is present, management must employ heightened risk management practices that address the following key elements: including board and management oversight and strategic planning, portfolio management, development of underwriting standards, risk assessment and monitoring through market analysis and stress testing, and maintenance of increased capital levels as needed to support the level of commercial real estate lending.

Cross-Guarantee Provisions. The Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery and Enforcement Act of 1989 contains a “cross-guarantee” provision which generally makes commonly controlled insured depository institutions liable to the FDIC for any losses incurred in connection with the failure of a commonly controlled depository institution.

Community Reinvestment Act. Under the Community Reinvestment Act and related regulations, depository institutions have a continuing and affirmative obligation to assist in meeting the credit needs of their market areas, including low and moderate-income areas, consistent with safe and sound banking practice. The Community Reinvestment Act requires the adoption by each institution of a Community Reinvestment Act statement for each of its market areas describing the depository institution’s efforts to assist in its community’s credit needs. Depository institutions are periodically examined for compliance with the Community Reinvestment Act and are periodically assigned ratings in this regard. Banking regulators consider a depository institution’s Community Reinvestment Act rating when reviewing applications to establish new branches, undertake new lines of business, and/or acquire part or all of another depository institution. An unsatisfactory rating can significantly delay or even prohibit regulatory approval of a proposed transaction by a bank holding company or its depository institution subsidiaries.

19

Table of Contents

The GLBA and federal bank regulators have made various changes to the Community Reinvestment Act. Among other changes, Community Reinvestment Act agreements with private parties must be disclosed and annual reports must be made to a bank’s primary federal regulatory. A bank holding company will not be permitted to become a financial holding company and no new activities authorized under the GLBA may be commenced by a holding company or by a bank financial subsidiary if any of its bank subsidiaries received less than a “satisfactory” rating in its latest Community Reinvestment Act examination. The Bank received a “satisfactory” rating in the most recent examination for Community Reinvestment Act compliance in October 2010.

Fair Lending; Consumer Laws. In addition to the Community Reinvestment Act, other federal and state laws regulate various lending and consumer aspects of the banking business. Governmental agencies, including the Department of Housing and Urban Development, the Federal Trade Commission and the Department of Justice, have become concerned that prospective borrowers experience discrimination in their efforts to obtain loans from depository and other lending institutions. These agencies have brought litigation against depository institutions alleging discrimination against borrowers. Many of these suits have been settled, in some cases for material sums, short of a full trial.

Recently, these governmental agencies have clarified what they consider to be lending discrimination and have specified various factors that they will use to determine the existence of lending discrimination under the Equal Credit Opportunity Act and the Fair Housing Act, including evidence that a lender discriminated on a prohibited basis, evidence that a lender treated applicants differently based on prohibited factors in the absence of evidence that the treatment was the result of prejudice or a conscious intention to discriminate, and evidence that a lender applied an otherwise neutral non-discriminatory policy uniformly to all applicants, but the practice had a discriminatory effect, unless the practice could be justified as a business necessity.

Banks and other depository institutions also are subject to numerous consumer-oriented laws and regulations. These laws, which include the Truth in Lending Act, the Truth in Savings Act, the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act, the Electronic Funds Transfer Act, the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, and the Fair Housing Act, require compliance by depository institutions with various disclosure requirements and requirements regulating the availability of funds after deposit or the making of some loans to customers.

The foregoing is only a brief summary of certain statutes, rules, and regulations that may affect SNBV and the Bank. Numerous other statutes and regulations also will have an impact on the operations of SNBV and the Bank. Supervision, regulation and examination of banks by the regulatory agencies are intended primarily for the protection of depositors, not shareholders.

Legislative Initiatives. In light of current conditions and the market outlook for continuing weak economic conditions, regulators have increased their focus on the regulation of financial institutions. From time to time, various legislative and regulatory initiatives are introduced in Congress and State Legislatures. Such initiatives may change banking statutes and the operating environment for us and Sonabank in substantial and unpredictable ways. We cannot determine the ultimate effect that any potential legislation, if enacted, or implementing regulations with respect thereto, would have, upon the financial condition or results of our operations or the operations of Sonabank. A change in statutes, regulations or regulatory policies applicable to us or Sonabank could have a material effect on the financial condition, results of operations or business of our company and Sonabank.

Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act. In July 2010, Congress enacted the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act regulatory reform legislation, which the President signed into law on July 21, 2010. Many aspects of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act are subject to further rulemaking and will take effect over several years, making it difficult for us to anticipate the overall financial impact to us or across the industry. This new law broadly affects the financial

20

Table of Contents

services industry by implementing changes to the financial regulatory landscape aimed at strengthening the sound operation of the financial services sector, including provisions that, among other things, will:

Management is actively reviewing the provisions of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act and assessing its probable impact on our business, financial condition and results of operations. Provisions in the legislation that affect deposit insurance assessments and payment of interest on demand deposits could increase the costs associated with deposits as well as place limitations on certain revenues those deposits may generate. Provisions in the legislation that revoke the Tier 1 capital treatment of newly issued trust preferred securities could require us to seek other sources of capital in the future. Many aspects of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act are subject to rulemaking and will take effect over several years, making it difficult to anticipate the overall financial impact on us, our customers or the financial industry more generally.

Incentive Compensation. In June 2010, the FRB, OCC and FDIC issued comprehensive final guidance on incentive compensation policies intended to ensure that the incentive compensation policies of banking organizations do not undermine the safety and soundness of such organizations by encouraging excessive risk-taking. The guidance, which covers all employees that have the ability to materially affect the risk profile of an organization, either individually or as part of a group, is based upon the key principles that a banking organization’s incentive compensation arrangements should (i) provide incentives that do not encourage risk-taking beyond the organization’s ability to effectively identify and manage risks, (ii) be compatible with

21

Table of Contents

effective internal controls and risk management, and (iii) be supported by strong corporate governance, including active and effective oversight by the organization’s board of directors. Also, on February 7, 2011, the FDIC proposed an interagency rule to implement certain incentive compensation requirements of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act. Under the proposed rule, financial institutions must prohibit incentive-based compensation arrangements that encourage inappropriate risk taking that are deemed excessive or that may lead to material losses.

The FRB will review, as part of the regular, risk-focused examination process, the incentive compensation arrangements of banking organizations, such as us, that are not “large, complex banking organizations.” These reviews will be tailored to each organization based on the scope and complexity of the organization’s activities and the prevalence of incentive compensation arrangements. The findings of the supervisory initiatives will be included in reports of examination. Deficiencies will be incorporated into the organization’s supervisory ratings, which can affect the organization’s ability to make acquisitions and take other actions. Enforcement actions may be taken against a banking organization if its incentive compensation arrangements, or related risk-management control or governance processes, pose a risk to the organization’s safety and soundness and the organization is not taking prompt and effective measures to correct the deficiencies.

Enforcement Powers of Federal and State Banking Agencies. The federal banking agencies have broad enforcement powers, including the power to terminate deposit insurance, impose substantial fines and other civil and criminal penalties, and appoint a conservator or receiver. Failure to comply with applicable laws, regulations, and supervisory agreements could subject SNBV or the Bank and their subsidiaries, as well as officers, directors, and other institution-affiliated parties of these organizations, to administrative sanctions and potentially substantial civil money penalties. In addition to the grounds discussed above, the appropriate federal banking agency may appoint the FDIC as conservator or receiver for a banking institution (or the FDIC may appoint itself, under certain circumstances) if any one or more of a number of circumstances exist, including, without limitation, the fact that the banking institution is undercapitalized and has no reasonable prospect of becoming adequately capitalized; fails to become adequately capitalized when required to do so; fails to submit a timely and acceptable capital restoration plan; or materially fails to implement an accepted capital restoration plan. The Virginia Bureau of Financial Institutions also has broad enforcement powers over the Bank, including the power to impose orders, remove officers and directors and impose fines.

Future Regulatory Uncertainty. Because federal regulation of financial institutions changes regularly and is the subject of constant legislative debate, we cannot forecast how federal regulation of financial institutions may change in the future and impact our operations. SNBV fully expects that the financial institution industry will remain heavily regulated in the near future and that additional laws or regulations may be adopted further regulating specific banking practices.

22

Table of Contents

Item 1A. Risk Factors

An investment in our common stock involves risks. The following is a description of the material risks and uncertainties that SNBV believes affect its business and an investment in the common stock. Additional risks and uncertainties that we are unaware of, or that we currently deem immaterial, also may become important factors that affect us and our business. If any of the risks described in this Annual Report on Form 10-K were to occur, SNBV’s financial condition, results of operations and cash flows could be materially and adversely affected. If this were to happen, the value of the common stock could decline significantly and you could lose all or part of your investment.

We have a limited operating history, which makes it difficult to predict future prospects and financial performance.

We have only been operating as a bank holding company since April of 2005. Due to this limited operating history, it may be difficult to evaluate our business prospects and future financial performance. There can be no assurance that we can maintain our profitability. Further, our future operating results depend upon a number of factors, including our ability to manage our growth, retain our customer base and to successfully identify and respond to emerging trends in our market areas.

Difficult market conditions and economic trends have adversely affected the banking industry and could adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations.

We are operating in a challenging and uncertain economic environment, including generally uncertain conditions nationally and locally in our markets. Financial institutions continue to be affected by declines in the real estate market that have negatively impacted the credit performance of mortgage, construction and commercial real estate loans and resulted in significant write-downs of assets by many financial institutions. Concerns over the stability of the financial markets and the economy have resulted in decreased lending by financial institutions to their customers and to each other. We retain direct exposure to the residential and commercial real estate markets, and we are affected by these events. Our ability to assess the creditworthiness of customers and to estimate the losses inherent in our credit portfolio is made more complex by these difficult market and economic conditions.

A prolonged national economic recession or further deterioration of these conditions in our markets could drive losses beyond that which is provided for in our allowance for loan losses and result in the following consequences:

While economic conditions in the Commonwealth of Virginia and the U.S. are showing signs of recovery, there can be no assurance that these difficult conditions will continue to improve. Continued declines in real estate values, home sales volumes and financial stress on borrowers as a result of the uncertain economic environment, including job losses, could have an adverse affect on our borrowers and/or their customers, which could adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations.

Liquidity risk could impair our ability to fund operations and jeopardize our financial condition, results of operations and cash flows.

Liquidity is essential to our business. Our ability to implement our business strategy will depend on our ability to obtain funding for loan originations, working capital, possible acquisitions and other general corporate

23

Table of Contents

purposes. An inability to raise funds through deposits, borrowings, securities sold under repurchase agreements, the sale of loans and other sources could have a substantial negative effect on our liquidity. We do not anticipate that our retail and commercial deposits will be sufficient to meet our funding needs in the foreseeable future. We therefore rely on deposits obtained through intermediaries, FHLB advances, securities sold under agreements to repurchase and other wholesale funding sources to obtain the funds necessary to implement our growth strategy.

Our access to funding sources in amounts adequate to finance our activities or on terms which are acceptable to us could be impaired by factors that affect us specifically or the financial services industry or economy in general, including a decrease in the level of our business activity as a result of a downturn in the markets in which our loans are concentrated 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 disruption in the financial markets or negative views and expectations about the prospects for the financial services industry in light of the recent turmoil faced by banking organizations and the continued deterioration in credit markets. To the extent we are not successful in obtaining such funding, we will be unable to implement our strategy as planned which could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition, results of operations and cash flows.

Sonabank’s reliance on brokered deposits could adversely affect its liquidity and results of operations.

Among other sources of funds, Sonabank relies on brokered deposits to provide funds with which to make loans and provide for its other liquidity needs. Like many community banks, Sonabank’s loan demand has exceeded the rate at which it has been able to increase its deposits, and, as a result, Sonabank has relied on brokered deposits as a source of funds, though less so during 2010. As of December 31, 2010, brokered deposits, which include brokered certificates of deposit and brokered money market deposits, amounted to $37.2 million with an average cost of 1.02%, or approximately 8.6% of total deposits, a decrease of $59.8 million, or 61.6%, compared with brokered certificates of deposit and brokered money market deposits of $97.0 million with an average cost of 1.85% at December 31, 2009. Generally, brokered deposits may not be as stable as other types of deposits, and, in the future, those depositors may not renew their deposits when they mature, or Sonabank may have to pay a higher rate of interest to keep those deposits or to replace them with other deposits or with funds from other sources. Additionally, if Sonabank ceases to be “well capitalized” for bank regulatory purposes, it will not be able to accept, renew or rollover brokered deposits without a waiver from the FDIC. As of December 31, 2010, Sonabank is categorized as well-capitalized with total risk-based capital, Tier 1 risk-based capital and leverage ratios of 20.99%, 19.74% and 14.64%, respectively. An inability to maintain or replace these brokered deposits as they mature could adversely affect Sonabank’s liquidity. Further, paying higher interest rates to maintain or replace these deposits could adversely affect Sonabank’s net interest margin and its results of operations.

Declines in asset values may result in impairment charges and adversely affect the value of our investments, financial performance and capital.

We maintain an investment portfolio that includes, but is not limited to, collateralized mortgage obligations, agency mortgage-backed securities and pooled trust preferred securities. The market value of investments may be affected by factors other than the underlying performance of the issuer or composition of the bonds themselves, such as ratings downgrades, adverse changes in the business climate and a lack of liquidity for resales of certain investment securities. We periodically, but not less than quarterly, evaluate investments and other assets for impairment indicators. We may be required to record additional impairment charges if our investments suffer a decline in value that is considered other-than-temporary. During the year ended December 31, 2010, we incurred other-than-temporary impairment charges of $288 thousand pre-tax on two of our trust preferred securities holdings and one collateralized mortgage obligation. During the year ended December 31, 2009, we incurred other-than-temporary impairment charges of $7.7 million pre-tax on seven of our trust preferred securities holdings and one collateralized mortgage obligation. For the year ended December 31, 2008, we incurred other-than-temporary impairment charges of $1.5 million pre-tax on our holding of Freddie Mac perpetual preferred stock. If in future periods we determine that a significant impairment has occurred, we would be

24

Table of Contents

required to charge against earnings the credit-related portion of the other-than-temporary impairment, which could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations in the periods in which the write-offs occur.

Our pooled trust preferred securities are particularly vulnerable to the performance of the issuer of the subordinated debentures that are collateral for the trust preferred securities. Deterioration of these trust preferred securities can occur because of defaults by the issuer of the collateral or because of deferrals of dividend payments on the securities. Numerous financial institutions have failed and their parent bank holding companies have filed for bankruptcy, which has led to defaults in the subordinated debentures that collateralize the trust preferred securities. Further, increased regulatory pressure has been placed on financial institutions to maintain capital ratios above the required minimum to be well-capitalized, which often results in restrictions on dividends, and leads to deferrals of dividend payments on the trust preferred securities. More specifically, the Federal Reserve has stated that a bank holding company should eliminate, defer or significantly reduce dividends if (i) its net income available to shareholders for the past four quarters, net of dividends paid, is not sufficient to fully fund the dividends, (ii) its prospective rate of earnings retention is not consistent with its capital needs or (iii) it is in danger of not meeting its minimum regulatory capital adequacy ratios. Additional defaults in the underlying collateral or deferrals of dividend payments for these securities could lead to additional charges on these securities and/or other-than-temporary impairment charges on other trust preferred securities we own.

The failure of other financial institutions could adversely affect us.

In addition to the risk to our pooled trust preferred securities discussed above, our ability to engage in routine funding transactions could be adversely affected by the actions and potential failures of other financial institutions. Financial institutions are interrelated as a result of trading, clearing, counterparty and other relationships. We have exposure to many different industries and counterparties, and we routinely execute transactions with a variety of counterparties in the financial services industry. As a result, defaults by, or even rumors or concerns about, one or more financial institutions with whom we do business, or the financial services industry generally, have led to market-wide liquidity problems and could lead to losses or defaults by us or by other institutions. Many of these transactions expose us to credit risk in the event of default of our counterparty or client. In addition, our credit risk may be exacerbated when the collateral we hold cannot be sold at prices that are sufficient for us to recover the full amount of our exposure. Any such losses could materially and adversely affect our financial condition and results of operations.

If the goodwill that we recorded in connection with business acquisitions becomes impaired, it could have a negative impact on our profitability.

Goodwill represents the amount of acquisition cost over the fair value of net assets we acquired in the purchase of another entity. We review goodwill for impairment at least annually, or more frequently if events or changes in circumstances indicate the carrying value of the asset might be impaired. Examples of those events or circumstances include the following:

We determine impairment by comparing the implied fair value of the reporting unit goodwill with the carrying amount of that goodwill. If the carrying amount of the reporting unit goodwill exceeds the implied fair value of that goodwill, an impairment loss is recognized in an amount equal to that excess. Any such adjustments are reflected in our results of operations in the periods in which they become known. As of December 31, 2010,

25

Table of Contents

our goodwill totaled $8.7 million. While we have recorded no such impairment charges since we initially recorded the goodwill, there can be no assurance that our future evaluations of goodwill will not result in findings of impairment and related write-downs, which may have a material adverse effect on our financial condition and results of operations.

If our nonperforming assets increase, our earnings will suffer.

SNBV experienced a significant increase in nonperforming assets from December 31, 2008 to December 31, 2010, resulting in increases to our provision for loan losses. At December 31, 2010, our nonperforming assets (which consist of nonaccrual loans, loans past due 90 days and accruing and other real estate owned (“OREO”)) totaled $13.5 million, or 3.63% of total non-covered loans and OREO, which is an increase of $5.0 million or 58.1% compared with nonperforming assets at December 31, 2009. At December 31, 2008, our non-performing assets were $4.8 million, or 1.59% of total loans and OREO.

Until economic and market conditions improve, we may continue to incur losses relating to an increase in nonperforming assets. Our nonperforming assets adversely affect our net income in various ways. We do not record interest income on nonaccrual loans or OREO, thereby adversely affecting our net interest income, and increasing loan administration costs. When we take collateral in foreclosures and similar proceedings, we are required to mark the related loan to the then fair value of the collateral, which may ultimately result in a loss. We must reserve for probable losses, which is established through a current period charge to the provision for loan losses as well as from time to time, as appropriate, write down the value of properties in our OREO portfolio to reflect changing market values. Additionally, there are legal fees associated the resolution of problem assets as well as carrying costs such as taxes, insurance and maintenance related to our OREO. Further, the resolution of nonperforming assets requires the active involvement of management, which can distract them from more profitable activity. Finally, an increase in the level of nonperforming assets increases our regulatory risk profile. There can be no assurance that we will not experience future increases in nonperforming assets.

A significant amount of our loans are secured by real estate and the continued economic slowdown and depressed residential real estate market in our primary markets could be detrimental to our financial condition and results of operations.

Real estate lending (including commercial, construction, land development, and residential loans) is a large portion of our loan portfolio, constituting $380.2 million, or approximately 82.8% of our total loan portfolio, as of December 31, 2010. Total real estate loans covered under the FDIC loss sharing agreement amount to $91.0 million. The residential and commercial real estate sectors of the U.S. economy experienced an economic slowdown that has continued into 2010. Specifically, the values of residential and commercial real estate located in our market areas have declined, and these declines may continue in the future. If the loans that are collateralized by real estate become troubled during a time when market conditions are declining or have declined, then we may not be able to realize the full value of the collateral that we anticipated at the time of originating the loan, which could require us to increase our provision for loan losses and adversely affect our financial condition and results of operations.

Current market conditions include an over-supply of land, lots, and finished homes in many markets, including those where we do business. As of December 31, 2010, $139.6 million, or approximately 30.3% of our total loans, were secured by single-family residential real estate. This includes $88.8 million in residential 1-4 family loans and $50.8 million in home equity lines of credit. Total single-family residential real estate loans covered under the FDIC loss sharing agreement amount to $70.2 million. If housing markets in our market areas continue to deteriorate, we may experience a further increase in nonperforming loans, provisions for loan losses and charge-offs. While it is difficult to predict how long these conditions will exist and which markets, products or other segments of our loan and securities portfolio might ultimately be affected, these factors could adversely affect our ability to grow our earning assets or affect our results of operations.

26

Table of Contents

If the value of real estate in our market areas were to decline materially, a significant portion of our loan portfolio could become under-collateralized, which could have a material adverse effect on our asset quality, capital structure and profitability.

As of December 31, 2010, a significant portion of our loan portfolio was comprised of loans secured by commercial real estate. In the majority of these loans, real estate was the primary collateral component. In some cases, and out of an abundance of caution, we take real estate as security for a loan even when it is not the primary component of collateral. The real estate collateral that provides the primary or an alternate source of repayment in the event of default may deteriorate in value during the term of the loan as a result of changes in economic conditions, fluctuations in interest rates and the availability of loans to potential purchasers, changes in tax and other laws and acts of nature. If we are required to liquidate the collateral securing a loan to satisfy the debt during a period of reduced real estate values, which we have seen and continue to experience, our earnings and capital could be adversely affected. We are subject to increased lending risks in the form of loan defaults as a result of the high concentration of real estate lending in our loan portfolio should the real estate market in Virginia and our market area maintain its depressed levels. A continued weakening of the real estate market in our primary market areas could have an adverse effect on the demand for new loans, the ability of borrowers to repay outstanding loans, the value of real estate and other collateral securing the loans and the value of real estate owned by us. If real estate values decline further, it is also more likely that we would be required to increase our allowance for loan losses, which could adversely affect our financial condition and results of operations.

We are subject to risks related to our concentration of construction and land development and commercial real estate loans.

As of December 31, 2010, we had $40.6 million of construction loans, of which $1.1 million are covered loans under the FDIC loss sharing agreement. Construction loans are subject to risks during the construction phase that are not present in standard residential real estate and commercial real estate loans. These risks include:

Real estate construction loans may involve the disbursement of substantial funds with repayment dependent, in part, on the success of the ultimate project rather than the ability of a borrower or guarantor to repay the loan and also present risks of default in the event of declines in property values or volatility in the real estate market during the construction phase. Our practice, in the majority of instances, is to secure the personal guaranty of individuals in support of our real estate construction loans which provides us with an additional source of repayment. As of December 31, 2010, we had non-covered nonperforming construction and development loans in the amount of $2.3 million and $2.8 million of non-covered assets that have been foreclosed. If one or more of our larger borrowers were to default on their construction and development loans, and we did not have alternative sources of repayment through personal guarantees or other sources, or if any of the aforementioned risks were to occur, we could incur significant losses.

As of December 31, 2010, we had $200.0 million of commercial real estate loans including multi-family residential loans and loans secured by farmland, of which $19.7 million is covered by the FDIC loss sharing agreement. Commercial real estate lending typically involves higher loan principal amounts and the repayment is dependent, in large part, on sufficient income from the properties securing the loan to cover operating expenses and debt service. Federal bank regulatory authorities issued the Interagency Guidance on Concentrations in Commercial Real Estate Lending in December of 2006 to provide guidance regarding significant concentrations of commercial real estate loans within bank loan portfolios. The FDIC reiterated this guidance in a letter to financial institutions dated March 17, 2008 (FIL-22-2008) titled “Managing Commercial Real Estate Concentrations in a Challenging Environment” to remind banks that their risk management practices and capital

27

Table of Contents

levels should be commensurate with the level and nature of their commercial real estate concentration risk. Banks with higher levels of commercial real estate loans are expected to implement improved underwriting, internal controls, risk management policies and portfolio stress testing, as well as higher levels of allowances for loan losses and capital levels as a result of commercial real estate lending growth and exposures. Sonabank’s commercial real estate loans are below the thresholds identified as significant by the regulatory guidance. If there is deterioration in our commercial real estate portfolio or if regulatory authorities conclude that we have not implemented appropriate risk management policies and practices, it could adversely affect our business and result in a requirement of increased capital levels, and such capital may not be available at that time.

The benefits of our FDIC loss-sharing agreements may be reduced or eliminated.

In connection with Sonabank’s assumption of the banking operations of Greater Atlantic Bank, the Bank entered into the Agreement, which contains loss-sharing provisions. Our decisions regarding the fair value of assets acquired, including the FDIC loss-sharing assets (referred to herein as the “covered assets”), could be inaccurate which could materially and adversely affect our business, financial condition, results of operations, and future prospects. Management makes various assumptions and judgments about the collectability of the acquired loans, including the creditworthiness of borrowers and the value of the real estate and other assets serving as collateral for the repayment of secured loans. In the Greater Atlantic Bank acquisition, we recorded a loss-sharing asset that reflects our estimate of the timing and amount of future losses that are anticipated to occur in and used to value the acquired loan portfolio. In determining the size of the loss-sharing asset, we analyzed the loan portfolio based on historical loss experience, volume and classification of loans, volume and trends in delinquencies and nonaccruals, local economic conditions, and other pertinent information.

If our assumptions related to the timing or amount of expected losses are incorrect, there could be a negative impact on our operating results. Increases in the amount of future losses in response to different economic conditions or adverse developments in the acquired loan portfolio may result in increased credit loss provisions. Changes in our estimate of the timing of those losses, specifically if those losses are to occur beyond the applicable loss-sharing periods, may result in impairments of the FDIC indemnification asset.

Our ability to obtain reimbursement under the loss-sharing agreements on covered assets depends on our compliance with the terms of the loss-sharing agreements.

Management must certify to the FDIC on a quarterly basis our compliance with the terms of the FDIC loss-sharing agreements as a prerequisite to obtaining reimbursement from the FDIC for realized losses on covered assets. The agreements contain specific, detailed and cumbersome compliance, servicing, notification and reporting requirements, and failure to comply with any of the requirements and guidelines could result in a specific asset or group of assets permanently losing their loss-sharing coverage. Additionally, management may decide to forgo loss-share coverage on certain assets to allow greater flexibility over the management of certain assets. As of December 31, 2010, $92.8 million, or 16%, of SNBV’s assets were covered by the FDIC loss-sharing agreements.

Under the terms of the FDIC loss-sharing agreements, the assignment or transfer of a loss-sharing agreement to another entity generally requires the written consent of the FDIC. In addition, the Bank may not assign or otherwise transfer a loss-sharing agreement during its term without the prior written consent of the FDIC. Our failure to comply with the terms of the loss-sharing agreements or to manage the covered assets in such a way as to maintain loss-share coverage on all such assets may cause individual loans or large pools of loans to lose eligibility for loss share payments from the FDIC. This could result in material losses that are currently not anticipated.

Changes to government guaranteed loan programs could affect our SBA business.

Sonabank relies on originating government guaranteed loans, in particular those guaranteed by the SBA. As of December 31, 2010, Sonabank had $29.3 million of SBA loans. Sonabank originated $12.6 million,

28

Table of Contents

$17.7 million and $11.0 million in SBA loans in the years ended December 31, 2010, 2009 and 2008, respectively. Sonabank sold the guaranteed portions of some of its SBA loans in the secondary market in 2008 and 2009 and intends to continue such sales, which are a source of non-interest income for Sonabank, when market conditions are favorable. We can provide no assurance that Sonabank will be able to continue originating these loans, that it will be able to sell the loans in the secondary market or that it will continue to realize premiums upon any sale of SBA loans.

SBA lending is a federal government created and administered program. As such, legislative and regulatory developments can affect the availability and funding of the program. This dependence on legislative funding and regulatory restrictions from time to time causes limitations and uncertainties with regard to the continued funding of such loans, with a resulting potential adverse financial impact on our business. Currently, the maximum limit on individual 7(a) loans which the SBA will permit is $2.0 million. Any reduction in this level could adversely affect the volume of our business. As of December 31, 2010, our SBA business constitutes 6.4% of our total loans. The periodic uncertainty of the SBA program relative to availability, amounts of funding and the waiver of associated fees creates greater risk for our business than do more stable aspects of our business.

The federal government presently guarantees 75% to 90% of the principal amount of each qualifying SBA loan under the 7(a) program. We can provide no assurance that the federal government will maintain the SBA program, or if it does, that such guaranteed portion will remain at its current funding level. Furthermore, it is possible that Sonabank could lose its preferred lender status which, subject to certain limitations, allows it to approve and fund SBA loans without the necessity of having the loan approved in advance by the SBA. It is also possible the federal government could reduce the amount of loans which it guarantees. In addition, we are dependent on the expertise of our personnel who make SBA loans in order to continue to originate and service SBA loans. If we are unable to retain qualified employees in the future, our income from the origination of SBA loans could be substantially reduced.

If our allowance for loan losses is not adequate to cover actual loan losses, our earnings will decrease.

As a lender, we are exposed to the risk that our loan clients may not repay their loans according to the terms of these loans, and the collateral securing the payment of these loans may be insufficient to assure repayment. We make various assumptions and judgments about the collectibility of our loan portfolio, including the creditworthiness of the borrowers and the value of the real estate and other assets serving as collateral for the repayment of many of our loans. We maintain an allowance for loan losses to cover any probable incurred loan losses in the loan portfolio. In determining the size of the allowance, we rely on a periodic analysis of our loan portfolio, our historical loss experience and our evaluation of general economic conditions. If our assumptions prove to be incorrect or if we experience significant loan losses, our current allowance may not be sufficient to cover actual loan losses and adjustments may be necessary to allow for different economic conditions or adverse developments in our loan portfolio. A material addition to the allowance for loan losses could cause our earnings to decrease. Due to the relatively unseasoned nature of our loan portfolio, we cannot assure you that we will not experience an increase in delinquencies and losses as these loans continue to mature.

In addition, federal regulators periodically review our allowance for loan losses and may require us to increase our provision for loan losses or recognize further charge-offs, based on judgments different than those of our management. Any significant increase in our allowance for loan losses or charge-offs required by these regulatory agencies could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations and financial condition.

Our business strategy includes strategic growth, and our financial condition and results of operations could be negatively affected if we fail to grow or fail to manage our growth effectively.

We completed the acquisition and assumption of certain assets and liabilities of Greater Atlantic Bank from the FDIC on December 4, 2009, the acquisition of a branch of Millennium Bank in Warrenton, Virginia on September 28, 2009, the acquisition of the Leesburg branch location from Founders Corporation which opened

29

Table of Contents

on February 11, 2008, the acquisition of 1st Service Bank in December of 2006 and the acquisition of the Clifton Forge branch of First Community Bancorp, Inc. in December of 2005. We intend to continue pursuing a growth strategy for our business. Our prospects must be considered in light of the risks, expenses and difficulties frequently encountered by growing companies such as the continuing need for infrastructure and personnel, the time and costs inherent in integrating a series of different operations and the ongoing expense of acquiring and staffing new banks or branches. We may not be able to expand our presence in our existing markets or successfully enter new markets and any expansion could adversely affect our results of operations. Failure to manage our growth effectively could have a material adverse effect on our business, future prospects, financial condition or results of operations, and could adversely affect our ability to successfully implement our business strategy. Our ability to grow successfully will depend on a variety of factors, including the continued availability of desirable business opportunities, the competitive responses from other financial institutions in our market areas and our ability to manage our growth. There can be no assurance of success or the availability of branch or bank acquisitions in the future.

Future growth or operating results may require us to raise additional capital, but that capital may not be available or it may be dilutive.

We and Sonabank are each required by the Federal Reserve to maintain adequate levels of capital to support our operations. In the event that our future operating results erode capital, if Sonabank is required to maintain capital in excess of well-capitalized standards, or if we elect to expand through loan growth or acquisitions, we may be required to raise additional capital. Our ability to raise capital will depend on conditions in the capital markets, which are outside our control, and on our financial performance. Accordingly, we cannot be assured of our ability to raise capital on favorable terms when needed, or at all. If we cannot raise additional capital when needed, we will be subject to increased regulatory supervision and the imposition of restrictions on our growth and business. These outcomes could negatively impact our ability to operate or further expand our operations through acquisitions or the establishment of additional branches and may result in increases in operating expenses and reductions in revenues that could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition and results of operations. In addition, in order to raise additional capital, we may need to issue shares of our common stock that would dilute the book value of our common stock and reduce our current shareholders’ percentage ownership interest to the extent they do not participate in future offerings.

Our business is subject to interest rate risk and variations in interest rates may negatively affect our financial performance.

The majority of our assets and liabilities are monetary in nature and subject us to significant risk from changes in interest rates. Fluctuations in interest rates are not predictable or controllable. Like most financial institutions, changes in interest rates can impact our net interest income as well as the valuation of our assets and liabilities, which is the difference between interest earned from interest-earning assets, such as loans and investment securities, and interest paid on interest-bearing liabilities, such as deposits and borrowings. We expect that we will periodically experience “gaps” in the interest rate sensitivities of our assets and liabilities, meaning that either our interest-bearing liabilities will be more sensitive to changes in market interest rates than our interest-earning assets, or vice versa. In either event, if market interest rates should move contrary to our position, this “gap” will negatively impact our earnings. Many factors impact interest rates, including governmental monetary policies, inflation, recession, changes in unemployment, the money supply, and international disorder and instability in domestic and foreign financial markets.

Based on our analysis of the interest rate sensitivity of our assets, an increase in the general level of interest rates may negatively affect the market value of the portfolio equity, but will positively affect our net interest income since most of our assets have floating rates of interest that adjust fairly quickly to changes in market rates of interest. Additionally, an increase in interest rates may, among other things, reduce the demand for loans and our ability to originate loans. A decrease in the general level of interest rates may affect us through, among other things, increased prepayments on our loan and mortgage-backed securities portfolios and increased competition

30

Table of Contents

for deposits. Accordingly, changes in the level of market interest rates affect our net yield on interest-earning assets, loan origination volume, loan and mortgage-backed securities portfolios, and our overall results. Although our asset liability management strategy is designed to control our risk from changes in market interest rates, it may not be able to prevent changes in interest rates from having a material adverse effect on our results of operations and financial condition.

We may be required to pay significantly higher FDIC deposit insurance premiums and assessments in the future.

Recent insured depository institution failures, as well as deterioration in banking and economic conditions, have significantly depleted the FDIC’s DIF, resulting in a decline in the ratio of reserves to insured deposits to historical lows. The FDIC anticipates that additional insured depository institutions are likely to fail in the foreseeable future so the reserve ratio may continue to decline. In addition, the deposit insurance limit on FDIC deposit insurance coverage generally has increased to $250,000. These developments have caused the premiums assessed on us by the FDIC to increase and materially increase our noninterest expense.

On February 7, 2011, the FDIC approved a final rule that amends its existing DIF restoration plan and implements certain provisions of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act. Effective April 1, 2011, the assessment base will be determined using average consolidated total assets minus average tangible equity rather than the current assessment base of adjusted domestic deposits. Since the change will result in a much larger assessment base, the final rule also lowers the assessment rates in order to keep the total amount collected from financial institutions relatively unchanged from the amounts currently being collected. The new assessment rates, calculated on the revised assessment base, will generally range from 2.5 to 9 basis points for Risk Category I institutions, 9 to 24 basis points for Risk Category II institutions, 18 to 33 basis points for Risk Category III institutions, and 30 to 45 basis points for Risk Category IV institutions. The new assessment rates will be calculated for the quarter beginning April 1, 2011 and reflected in invoices for assessments due September 30, 2011.

It is possible that our FDIC assessments could increase under these final regulations and could have an adverse impact on our results of operations. For the year ended December 31, 2010, our FDIC insurance related costs were $705 thousand compared with $755 thousand and $211 thousand for the years ended December 31, 2009 and 2008. We are unable to predict the impact in future periods; including whether and when additional special assessments will occur, in the event the economic crisis continues.

A loss of our executive officers could impair our relationship with our customers and adversely affect our business.

Many community banks attract customers based on the personal relationships that the banks’ officers and customers establish with each other and the confidence that the customers have in the officers. We depend on the performance of Ms. Georgia S. Derrico, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, and R. Roderick Porter, President, of our company and Sonabank. Ms. Derrico is a well-known banker in our market areas, having operated a successful financial institution there for more than 18 years prior to founding our company and Sonabank. We do not have an employment agreement with either individual. The loss of the services of either of these officers or their failure to perform management functions in the manner anticipated by our Board of Directors could have a material adverse effect on our business. Our success will be dependent upon the Board’s ability to attract and retain quality personnel, including these officers. We have attempted to reduce our risk by entering into a change in control agreement that includes a non-competition covenant with Ms. Derrico and Mr. Porter.

Our profitability depends significantly on local economic conditions in the areas where our operations and loans are concentrated.

Our profitability depends on the general economic conditions in our market areas of Northern Virginia, Maryland, Washington D.C., Charlottesville and Clifton Forge (Alleghany County), Front Royal, New Market and

31

Table of Contents

the surrounding areas. Unlike larger banks that are more geographically diversified, we provide banking and financial services to clients primarily in our market areas. As of December 31, 2010, substantially all of our commercial real estate, real estate construction and residential real estate loans were made to borrowers in our market area. The local economic conditions in this area have a significant impact on our commercial, real estate and construction and consumer loans, the ability of the borrowers to repay these loans and the value of the collateral securing these loans. In addition, if the population or income growth in this region slows, stops or declines, income levels, deposits and housing starts could be adversely affected and could result in the curtailment of our expansion, growth and profitability. In the last several years, economic conditions in our market area have declined and if this continues for a prolonged period of time, we would likely experience significant increases in nonperforming loans, which could lead to operating losses, impaired liquidity and eroding capital.

Additionally, political conditions could impact our earnings. Acts or threats of war, terrorism, an outbreak of hostilities or other international or domestic calamities, or other factors beyond our control could impact these local economic conditions and could negatively affect the financial results of our banking operations.

The properties that we own and our foreclosed real estate assets could subject us to environmental risks and associated costs.

There is a risk that hazardous substances or wastes, contaminants, pollutants or other environmentally restricted substances could be discovered on our properties or our foreclosed assets (particularly in the case of real estate loans). In this event, we might be required to remove the substances from the affected properties or to engage in abatement procedures at our sole cost and expense. Besides being liable under applicable federal and state statutes for our own conduct, we may also be held liable under certain circumstances for actions of borrowers or other third parties on property that collateralizes one or more of our loans or on property that we own. Potential environmental liability could include the cost of remediation and also damages for any injuries caused to third-parties. We cannot assure you that the cost of removal or abatement will not substantially exceed the value of the affected properties or the loans secured by those properties, that we would have adequate remedies against prior owners or other responsible parties or that we would be able to resell the affected properties either prior to or following completion of any such removal or abatement procedures. If material environmental problems are discovered prior to foreclosure, we generally will not foreclose on the related collateral or will transfer ownership of the loan to a subsidiary. It should be noted, however, that the transfer of the property or loans to a subsidiary may not protect us from environmental liability. Furthermore, despite these actions on our part, the value of the property as collateral will generally be substantially reduced and, as a result, we may suffer a loss upon collection of the loan.

The small to medium-sized businesses we lend to may have fewer resources to weather a downturn in the economy, which may impair a borrower’s ability to repay a loan to us that could materially harm our operating results.

We make loans to professional firms and privately owned businesses that are considered to be small to medium-sized businesses. Small to medium-sized businesses frequently have smaller market shares than their competition, may be more vulnerable to economic downturns, often need substantial additional capital to expand or compete and may experience substantial volatility in operating results, any of which may impair a borrower’s ability to repay a loan. In addition, the success of a small and 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 and other events that negatively impact our target markets could cause us to incur substantial loan losses that could materially harm our operating results.

We are heavily regulated by federal and state agencies; changes in laws and regulations or failures to comply with such laws and regulations may adversely affect our operations and our financial results.

We and Sonabank are subject to extensive regulation, supervision and examination by federal and state banking authorities. Any change in applicable regulations or federal or state legislation could have a substantial

32

Table of Contents

impact on us and Sonabank, and our respective operations. Additional legislation and regulations may be enacted or adopted in the future that could significantly affect our powers, authority and operations or the powers, authority and operations of Sonabank, which could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition and results of operations.

Further, bank regulatory authorities have the authority to bring enforcement actions against banks and their holding companies for unsafe or unsound practices in the conduct of their businesses or for violations of any law, rule or regulation, any condition imposed in writing by the appropriate bank regulatory agency or any written agreement with the agency. Possible enforcement actions against us could include the issuance of a cease-and-desist order that could be judicially enforced, the imposition of civil monetary penalties, the issuance of directives to increase capital or enter into a strategic transaction, whether by merger or otherwise, with a third party, the appointment of a conservator or receiver, the termination of insurance of deposits, the issuance of removal and prohibition orders against institution-affiliated parties, and the enforcement of such actions through injunctions or restraining orders. The exercise of this regulatory discretion and power may have a negative impact on us.

As a regulated entity, Sonabank must maintain certain required levels of regulatory capital that may limit our operations and potential growth.

We and Sonabank are subject to various regulatory capital requirements administered by the Federal Reserve. Failure to meet minimum capital requirements can initiate certain mandatory, and possibly additional discretionary actions by regulators that, if undertaken, could have a direct material effect on Sonabank’s and our company’s consolidated financial statements. Under capital adequacy guidelines and the regulatory framework for prompt corrective action, Sonabank must meet specific capital guidelines that involve quantitative measures of Sonabank’s assets, liabilities and certain off-balance sheet commitments as calculated under these regulations.

Quantitative measures established by regulation to ensure capital adequacy require Sonabank to maintain minimum amounts and defined ratios of total and Tier 1 capital to risk-weighted assets and of Tier 1 capital to adjusted total assets, also known as the leverage ratio. For Sonabank, Tier 1 capital consists of shareholders’ equity excluding unrealized gains and losses on certain securities, less a portion of its mortgage servicing asset and deferred tax asset that is disallowed for capital. For Sonabank, total capital consists of Tier 1 capital plus the allowance for loan and lease loss less a deduction for low level recourse obligations.

As of December 31, 2010, Sonabank exceeded the amounts required to be well capitalized with respect to all three required capital ratios. To be well capitalized, a bank must generally maintain a leverage ratio of at least 5%, a Tier 1 risk-based capital ratio of at least 6% and a total risk-based capital ratio of at least 10%. However, the Federal Reserve could require Sonabank to increase its capital levels. For example, regulators have recently required certain banking companies to maintain a leverage ratio of at least 8% and a total risk-based capital ratio of at least 12%. As of December 31, 2010, Sonabank’s leverage, Tier 1 risk-based capital and total risk-based capital ratios were 14.64%, 19.74% and 20.99%, respectively.

Many factors affect the calculation of Sonabank’s risk-based assets and its ability to maintain the level of capital required to achieve acceptable capital ratios. For example, changes in risk weightings of assets relative to capital and other factors may combine to increase the amount of risk-weighted assets in the Tier 1 risk-based capital ratio and the total risk-based capital ratio. Any increases in its risk-weighted assets will require a corresponding increase in its capital to maintain the applicable ratios. In addition, recognized loan losses in excess of amounts reserved for such losses, loan impairments, impairment losses on securities and other factors will decrease Sonabank’s capital, thereby reducing the level of the applicable ratios.

Sonabank’s failure to remain well capitalized for bank regulatory purposes could affect customer confidence, our ability to grow, our costs of funds and FDIC insurance costs, our ability to pay dividends on our capital stock, our ability to make acquisitions, and on our business, results of operations and financial condition.

33

Table of Contents

Under FDIC rules, if Sonabank ceases to be a well capitalized institution for bank regulatory purposes, the interest rates that it pays on deposits and its ability to accept, renew or rollover brokered deposits may be restricted. As of December 31, 2010, we had $37.2 million of brokered deposits, which represented 8.6% of our total deposits.

We may not be able to successfully compete with others for business.

The metropolitan statistical area in which we operate is considered highly attractive from an economic and demographic viewpoint, and is a highly competitive banking market. We compete for loans, deposits and investment dollars with numerous regional and national banks, online divisions of out-of-market banks and other community banking institutions, as well as other kinds of financial institutions and enterprises, such as securities firms, insurance companies, savings associations, credit unions, mortgage brokers and private lenders. Many competitors have substantially greater resources than us, and operate under less stringent regulatory environments. The differences in resources and regulations may make it harder for us to compete profitably, reduce the rates that we can earn on loans and investments, increase the rates we must offer on deposits and other funds and adversely affect our overall financial condition and earnings.

The recent repeal of federal prohibitions on payment of interest on demand deposits could increase our interest expense.

All federal prohibitions on the ability of financial institutions to pay interest on demand deposit accounts were repealed as part of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act. As a result, beginning on July 21, 2011, financial institutions could commence offering interest on demand deposits to compete for clients. We do not yet know what interest rates other institutions may offer. Our interest expense will increase and our net interest margin will decrease if we begin offering interest on demand deposits to attract additional customers or maintain current customers, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

We are subject to transaction risk, which could adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operation.

We, like all businesses, are subject to transaction risk, which is the risk of loss resulting from human error, fraud or unauthorized transactions due to inadequate or failed internal processes and systems, and external events that are wholly or partially beyond our control (including, for example, computer viruses or electrical or telecommunications outages). Transaction risk also encompasses compliance risk, which is the risk of loss from violations of, or noncompliance with, laws, rules, regulations, prescribed practices or ethical standards. Although we seek to mitigate transaction risk through a system of internal controls, there can be no assurance that we will not suffer losses from transaction risks in the future that may be material in amount. Any losses resulting from transaction risk could take the form of explicit charges, increased operational costs, litigation costs, harm to reputation or forgone opportunities, any and all of which could have a material adverse effect on business, financial condition and results of operations.

We must respond to rapid technological changes and these changes may be more difficult or expensive than anticipated.

If competitors introduce new products and services embodying new technologies, or if new industry standards and practices emerge, our existing product and service offerings, technology and systems may become obsolete. Further, if we fail to adopt or develop new technologies or to adapt our products and services to emerging industry standards, we may lose current and future customers, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations. The financial services industry is changing rapidly and in order to remain competitive, we must continue to enhance and improve the functionality and features of our products, services and technologies. These changes may be more difficult or expensive than we anticipate.

34

Table of Contents

The impact of financial reform legislation is uncertain.

The recently enacted Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act institutes a wide range of reforms that will have an impact on all financial institutions. The Act includes, among other things, changes to the deposit insurance and financial regulatory systems, enhanced bank capital requirements and new requirements designed to protect consumers in financial transactions. Many of these provisions are subject to rule making procedures and studies that will be conducted in the future and the full effects of the legislation on SNBV cannot yet be determined. However, these provisions, or any other aspects of current proposed regulatory or legislative changes to laws applicable to the financial industry, if enacted or adopted, may impact the profitability of our business activities or change certain of our business practices, including our ability to offer new products, obtain financing, attract deposits, make loans, and achieve satisfactory interest spreads, and could expose SNBV to additional costs, including increased compliance costs. These changes also may require SNBV to invest significant management attention and resources to make any necessary changes to our operations in order to comply, and could therefore also materially adversely affect our business, financial condition, and results of operations.

We currently do not intend to pay dividends on our common stock. In addition, our future ability to pay dividends is subject to restrictions.

We have not paid any dividends to our holders of common stock in the past and we currently do not intend to pay any dividends on our common stock in the foreseeable future. In the event that we decide to pay dividends, there are a number of restrictions on our ability to pay dividends. It is the policy of the Federal Reserve that 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 maintain a level of cash dividends that undermines the bank holding company’s ability to serve as a source of strength to its banking subsidiaries.

Our principal source of funds to pay dividends on our common stock will be cash dividends that we receive from Sonabank. The payment of dividends by Sonabank to us is subject to certain restrictions imposed by federal banking laws, regulations and authorities. The federal banking statutes prohibit federally insured banks from making any capital distributions (including a dividend payment) if, after making the distribution, the institution would be “under capitalized” as defined by statute. In addition, the relevant federal regulatory agencies have authority to prohibit an insured bank from engaging in an unsafe or unsound practice, as determined by the agency, in conducting an activity. The payment of dividends could be deemed to constitute such an unsafe or unsound practice, depending on the financial condition of Sonabank. Regulatory authorities could impose administratively stricter limitations on the ability of Sonabank to pay dividends to us if such limits were deemed appropriate to preserve certain capital adequacy requirements.

Item 1B.—Unresolved Staff Comments

SNBV does not have any unresolved staff comments to report for the year ended December 31, 2010.

35

Table of Contents

Item 2.—Properties

The following table sets forth the date opened or acquired, ownership status and the total deposits, not including brokered deposits, for each of our banking locations, as of December 31, 2010:

36

Table of Contents

Item 3.—Legal Proceedings

SNBV and Sonabank may, from time to time, be a party to various legal proceedings arising in the ordinary course of business. Sonabank is a party to two small lawsuits considered to be in the ordinary course business. There are no other proceedings pending, or to management’s knowledge, threatened, against SNBV or Sonabank as of December 31, 2010.

Item 4.—Reserved

37

Table of Contents

PART II

Item 5.—Market for Registrant’s Common Equity, Related Stockholder Matters and Issuer Purchases of Equity Securities

Common Stock Market Prices

On November 6, 2006, SNBV closed on the initial public offering of its common stock, $0.01 par value. The shares of common stock sold in the offering were registered under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended on a Registration Statement (Registration No. 333-136285) that was declared effective by the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 31, 2006. The shares of common stock were sold at a price to the public of $14.00 per share (equivalent to $12.73 after the stock dividend declared in May 2007).

SNBV completed a public offering of its common stock in an underwritten public offering. FIG Partners, LLC acted as the sole manager for the offering. SNBV closed on the offering on November 4, 2009, selling 4,791,665 shares of common stock, including 624,999 shares sold pursuant to an over-allotment option granted to the underwriter, at a price of $6.00 per share. The gross proceeds from the shares sold were $28.7 million. The net proceeds to SNBV from the offering were approximately $26.9 million after deducting $1.3 million in underwriting commission and an estimated $486 thousand in other expenses incurred in connection with the offering.

SNBV’s common stock is traded on the Nasdaq Global Market under the symbol “SONA”. Our common stock began trading on the Nasdaq Capital Market in November 2006, and the exchange listing was upgraded to the Nasdaq Global Market at the open of trading on December 18, 2007.

There were 11,590,212 shares of our common stock outstanding at the close of business on March 2, 2011, which were held by 169 shareholders of record.

The following table presents the high and low intra-day sales prices for quarterly periods during 2010 and 2009:

Dividend Policy

Dividends are paid at the discretion of our board of directors. While we paid a nonrecurring 10% stock dividend to our holders of common stock in 2007, we have never paid a cash dividend on our common stock, and our board of directors does not intend to pay a cash or stock dividend for the foreseeable future. The amount and frequency of dividends, if any, will be determined by our board of directors after consideration of our earnings, capital requirements, our financial condition and our ability to service any equity or debt obligations senior to our common stock, and will depend on cash dividends paid to us by our subsidiary bank. As a result, our ability to pay future dividends will depend on the earnings of Sonabank, its financial condition and its need for funds.

There are a number of restrictions on our ability to pay cash dividends. It is the policy of the FRB that bank holding companies should pay cash dividends on common stock only out of net 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 maintain a level of cash

38

Table of Contents

dividends that undermines the bank holding company’s ability to serve as a source of financial strength to its banking subsidiary. For a foreseeable period of time, our principal source of cash will be dividends paid by our subsidiary bank with respect to its capital stock. There are certain restrictions on the payment of these dividends imposed by federal and state banking laws, regulations and authorities.

Regulatory authorities could administratively impose limitations on the ability of our subsidiary bank to pay dividends to us if such limits were deemed appropriate to preserve certain capital adequacy requirements or in the interests of “safety and soundness.”

Recent Sales of Unregistered Securities

None

Securities Authorized for Issuance under Equity Compensation Plans

As of December 31, 2010, the Company had outstanding stock options granted under its Stock Option Plan, which is approved by the Company’s shareholders. The following table provides information as of December 31, 2010 regarding the Company’s equity compensation plans under which the Company’s equity securities are authorized for issuance:

Issuer Purchases of Equity Securities

None

39

Table of Contents

Performance Graph

The following chart compares the cumulative total shareholder return on SNBV common stock for the period from November 1, 2006, when the common stock was registered under Section 12 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and first listed on the Nasdaq Capital Market, to December 31, 2010, with the cumulative total return of the Russell 2000 Index and the SNL Bank and Thrift Index for the same period. Dividend reinvestment has been assumed. This comparison assumes $100 invested on November 1, 2006 in SNBV common stock, the Russell 2000 Index and the SNL Bank and Thrift Index. The historical stock price performance for SNBV common stock shown on the graph below is not necessarily indicative of future stock performance.

40

Table of Contents

Item 6.—Selected Financial Data

The following table sets forth selected financial data for SNBV as of December 31, 2010, 2009, 2008, 2007 and 2006, and for the years ended December 31, 2010, 2009, 2008 and 2007, and 2006:

41

Table of Contents

Item 7.—Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations

Management’s discussion and analysis is presented to aid the reader in understanding and evaluating the financial condition and results of operations of SNBV. This discussion and analysis should be read with the consolidated financial statements, the footnotes thereto, and the other financial data included in this report.

FORWARD-LOOKING STATEMENTS

This Annual Report on Form 10-K contains statements about future expectations, activities and events that constitute forward-looking statements within the meaning of, and subject to the protection of, Section 27A of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and Section 21E of the Exchange Act. Forward-looking statements are based on our beliefs, assumptions and expectations of our future financial and operating performance and growth plans, taking into account the information currently available to us. These statements are not statements of historical fact. The words “believe,” “may,” “forecast,” “should,” “anticipate,” “estimate,” “expect,” “intend,” “continue,” “would,” “could,” “hope,” “might,” “assume,” “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 express or imply in any forward-looking statements. In addition to the other factors discussed in the “Risk Factors” section of this Annual Report on Form 10-K, factors that could contribute to those differences include, but are not limited to:

42

Table of Contents

Forward-looking statements are not guarantees of performance or results. A forward-looking statement may include a statement of the assumptions or bases underlying the forward-looking statement. We believe we have chosen these assumptions or bases in good faith and that they are reasonable. We caution you, however, that assumptions or bases almost always vary from actual results, and the differences between assumptions or bases and actual results can be material. When considering forward-looking statements, you should keep in mind the risk factors and other cautionary statements in this Annual Report on Form 10-K. These statements speak only as of the date of this Annual Report on Form 10-K (or an earlier date to the extent applicable). Except as required by applicable law, we undertake no obligation to update publicly these statements in light of new information or future events.

CRITICAL ACCOUNTING POLICIES

Our accounting policies are in accordance with U. S. generally accepted accounting principles and with general practices within the banking industry. Management makes a number of estimates and assumptions relating to reported amounts of assets and liabilities and the disclosure of contingent assets and liabilities at the date of the consolidated financial statements and the reported amounts of revenues and expenses during periods presented. Different assumptions in the application of these methods or policies could result in material changes in our financial statements. As such, the following policies are considered “critical accounting policies” for us.

Allowance for Loan Losses

The allowance for loan losses is a valuation allowance for probable incurred credit losses. Loan losses are charged against the allowance when management believes the collection of the principal is unlikely. Recoveries of amounts previously charged-off are credited to the allowance. Management’s determination of the adequacy of the allowance is based on a three year historical average net loss experience for each portfolio segment adjusted for current industry and economic conditions and estimates of their affect on loan collectability. While management uses available information to estimate losses on loans, future additions to the allowance may be necessary based on changes in economic conditions, particularly those affecting real estate values.

The allowance consists of specific and general components. The specific component relates to loans that are individually classified as impaired. The general component provides for estimated losses in unimpaired loans and is based on historical loss experience adjusted for current factors.

A loan is considered impaired when, based on current information and events, it is probable that SNBV will be unable to collect the scheduled payments of principal or interest when due according to the terms of the loan documentation. Factors considered by management in determining impairment include payment status, collateral value, and the probability of collecting scheduled principal and interest payments when due. Loans that experience insignificant payment delays and payment shortfalls generally are not classified as impaired. Management determines the significance of payment delays and payment shortfalls on a case-by-case basis, taking into

43

Table of Contents

consideration all of the circumstances surrounding the loan and the borrower, including the length of the delay, the reasons for the delay, the borrower’s prior payment record, and the amount of the shortfall in relation to the principal and interest owed. Impairment is measured on a loan by loan basis for commercial and construction loans by either the present value of expected future cash flows discounted at the loan’s effective interest rate, the loan’s obtainable market price, or the fair value of the collateral if the loan is collateral dependent. Individual consumer and residential loans are evaluated for impairment based on regulatory guidelines.

The general component covers non-impaired loans and is based on historical loss experience adjusted for current factors. The historical loss experience is determined by portfolio segment and is based on the actual net loss history experienced by SNBV over the most recent 3 years. This actual loss experience is supplemented with other economic factors based on the risks present for each portfolio segment. These economic factors include consideration of the following: levels of and trends in delinquencies and impaired loans; levels of and trends in charge-offs and recoveries; trends in volume and terms of loans; effects of any changes in risk selection and underwriting standards; other changes in lending policies, procedures, and practices; experience, ability, and depth of lending management and other relevant staff; national and local economic trends and conditions; industry conditions; and effects of changes in credit concentrations. The following portfolio segments have been identified: Owner Occupied Commercial Real Estate, Non-owner Occupied Commercial Real Estate, Construction and Land Development, Commercial Loans, Closed End Residential 1-4, and Other Consumer. While underwriting practices in this environment are more stringent, the bank estimates the effect of internal factors on future net loss experience to be negligible. Management’s estimate of the effect of current external economic environmental conditions on future net loss experience is significant in all loan segments and particularly on loans secured by real estate including single family 1-4, non-owner occupied commercial real estate and construction and land development loans. These factors include excess inventory, generally less demand driven in part by fewer qualified borrowers and buyers. These considerations have played a significant role in management’s estimate of the adequacy of the allowance for loan and lease losses.

FDIC Indemnification Asset

The acquisition of Greater Atlantic Bank on December 4, 2009 was accounted for under the acquisition method of accounting, and the assets and liabilities were recorded at their estimated fair values. Such fair values were preliminary estimates and subject to adjustment for up to one year after the acquisition date. The FDIC indemnification asset is measured separately from each of the covered asset categories as it is not contractually embedded in any of the covered asset categories. We have completed the analysis of the acquisition accounting estimates as of the acquisition date, and we have revised the FDIC indemnification asset accordingly. The revised fair value of the indemnification asset in the amount of $18.9 million represented the present value of the estimated cash payments expected to be received from the FDIC for future losses on covered assets based on the credit adjustment estimated for each covered asset and the loss sharing percentages at the acquisition date. The revised estimated gross cash flows associated with this receivable were $23.4 million. These cash flows were then discounted at a market-based rate to reflect the uncertainty of the timing and receipt of the loss sharing reimbursement from the FDIC. The ultimate collectability of this asset is dependent upon the performance of the underlying covered assets, the passage of time and claims paid by the FDIC. The difference between the gross cash flows and the fair value of the indemnification assets, $4.5 million, will be accreted on an accelerated basis over the estimated loss period of the loans.

Other than Temporary Impairment (“OTTI”) of Investment Securities

Securities are monitored to determine whether a decline in their value is other than temporary. Management utilizes criteria outlined in ASC 320-10-65, ASC 820-10 and ASC 325-40, such as the probability of collecting amounts due per the contractual terms of the investment security agreement, to determine whether the loss in value is other than temporary. The term “other than temporary” is not intended to indicate that the decline in value is permanent. It indicates that the prospects for a near-term recovery of value are not necessarily favorable,

44

Table of Contents

or that there is a lack of evidence to support fair values 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.

Management has evaluated each of the trust preferred securities for potential impairment under ASC 325. In performing a detailed cash flow analysis of each security, management works with independent third parties to identify the most reflective estimate of the cash flow estimated to be collected. If this estimate results in a present value of expected cash flows that is less than the amortized cost basis of a security (that is, credit loss exists), an OTTI is considered to have occurred. If there is no credit loss, any impairment is considered temporary. The cash flow analysis we performed included the following assumptions:

These assumptions resulted in OTTI charges related to credit on two of the trust preferred securities in the amount of $151 thousand during the year ended December 31, 2010, compared to OTTI charges related to credit on the trust preferred securities totaling $7.6 million for the year ended December 31, 2009.

We also own a residential collateralized mortgage obligation. After a series of downgrades this security has been evaluated for potential impairment. Based on the review of the trustee report, shock analysis, and current information regarding delinquencies, nonperforming loans, and credit support, it has been determined that an OTTI charge for credit exists for the year ended December 31, 2010. The assumptions used in the analysis included a 7% prepayment speed, 15% default rate, a 55% loss severity (which is roughly equivalent to the cumulative severity of the past 12 months) and an accounting yield of 3.60%. We recorded OTTI charges for credit on this security of $137 thousand in 2010 and $139 thousand during 2009.

Goodwill and Intangible Assets

Management is required to assess goodwill and other intangible assets annually for impairment or more often if certain factors are identified which could imply potential impairment. This assessment involves preparing analyses of market multiples for similar operations, and estimating the fair value of the reporting unit to which the goodwill is allocated. If the analysis results in an estimate of fair value materially less than the carrying value SNBV would be required to take a charge against earnings to write down the asset to the lower fair value. Based on its assessment completed with the help of an outside investment banking firm, SNBV believes its goodwill of $8.7 million and other identifiable intangibles of $2.9 million are not impaired and are properly recorded in the consolidated financial statements as of December 31, 2010.

Valuation of Deferred Tax Asset

Income taxes are provided for the tax effects of the transactions reported in the financial statements and consist of taxes currently due plus changes in deferred taxes related primarily to differences between the basis of the net operating losses carryforward and allowance for loan losses. The deferred tax assets and liabilities

45

Table of Contents

represent the future tax return consequences of those differences, which will either be taxable or deductible when the assets and liabilities are recovered or settled. Deferred tax assets and liabilities are reflected at income tax rates applicable to the period in which the deferred tax assets or liabilities are expected to be realized or settled. As changes in tax laws or rates are enacted, deferred tax assets and liabilities are adjusted through the provision for income taxes.

SNBV adopted the guidance issued by the FASB with respect to accounting for uncertainty in income taxes as of January 1, 2007. A tax position is recognized as a benefit only if it is “more likely than not” that the tax position would be sustained in a tax examination, with a tax examination being presumed to occur. The amount recognized is the largest amount of tax benefit that is greater than 50% likely of being realized on examination. The effect of adopting this new guidance had no effect on our consolidated financial statements. We have no unrecognized tax benefits and do not anticipate any increase in unrecognized benefits during the next twelve months. Should the accrual of any interest or penalties relative to unrecognized tax benefits be necessary, it is our policy to record such accruals in our income tax accounts; no such accruals exist as of December 31, 2010. SNBV and its subsidiary file a consolidated U. S. federal tax return and a Virginia state income tax return. These returns are subject to examination by taxing authorities for all years after 2006.

OVERVIEW

Southern National Bancorp of Virginia, Inc. (“SNBV”) is a corporation formed on July 28, 2004 under the laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia and is the holding company for Sonabank (“Sonabank”) a Virginia state bank. Sonabank was originally chartered as a national bank under the laws of the United States of America on April 14, 2005. On January 1, 2009, Sonabank converted from a nationally chartered bank to a state chartered bank and moved its headquarters from Charlottesville to McLean, Virginia. Sonabank is now regulated by the State Corporation Commission of Virginia and the Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond. Sonabank conducts full-service banking operations in Charlottesville, Clifton Forge, Leesburg, Warrenton, New Market, Front Royal, South Riding and Fairfax County in Virginia and in Rockville, Maryland. We also have loan production offices in Charlottesville, Fredericksburg, Warrenton and Richmond in Virginia. We have administrative offices in Warrenton and an executive office in Georgetown, Washington, D.C where senior management is located.

On September 28, 2009, Southern National Bancorp of Virginia, Inc. completed the purchase of the Warrenton branch office, acquired at fair value selected loans in the amount of $23.8 million and assumed at fair value approximately $26.8 million of deposits from Millennium Bank, N.A. No premium was paid in this transaction.

SNBV completed a public offering of its common stock in an underwritten public offering. FIG Partners, LLC acted as the sole manager for the offering. SNBV closed on the offering on November 4, 2009, selling 4,791,665 shares of common stock, including 624,999 shares sold pursuant to an over-allotment option granted to the underwriter, at a price of $6.00 per share. The gross proceeds from the shares sold were $28.7 million. The net proceeds to SNBV from the offering were approximately $26.9 million after deducting $1.3 million in underwriting commission and an estimated $486 thousand in other expenses incurred in connection with the offering.

Effective December 4, 2009, Sonabank assumed certain deposits and liabilities and acquired certain assets of Greater Atlantic from the FDIC as receiver for Greater Atlantic Bank, pursuant to the terms of a purchase and assumption agreement entered into by the Bank and the FDIC on December 4, 2009 (the “Agreement”). On December 5, 2009, the former Greater Atlantic offices, located in Reston, New Market, Front Royal and South Riding, Virginia and Rockville, Maryland opened as Sonabank branches.

Under the terms of the Agreement, the Bank acquired substantially all of the assets of Greater Atlantic Bank, including all loans, and assumed substantially all of its liabilities, including the insured and uninsured deposits. Based on the closing with the FDIC as of December 4, 2009, the Bank (a) acquired at fair value

46

Table of Contents

$113.6 million in loans, $1.0 million in foreclosed assets, $28.1 million in securities available-for-sale and $73.0 million in cash and other assets, and (b) assumed at fair value $178.7 million in deposits, $25.4 million in borrowings and $407 thousand in other liabilities and recorded a deferred tax liability of $3.8 million. The Bank also recorded a core deposit intangible asset in the amount of $1.2 million and recorded a pre-tax gain on the transaction of $11.2 million. In connection with the Greater Atlantic acquisition, the FDIC made a cash payment to the Bank of approximately $27.0 million. The terms of the Agreement provide for the FDIC to indemnify the Bank against claims with respect to liabilities of Greater Atlantic not assumed by the Bank and certain other types of claims listed in the Agreement.

The Bank paid no cash or other consideration to acquire Greater Atlantic Bank. As part of the Greater Atlantic acquisition, the Bank and the FDIC entered into a loss sharing agreement (the “loss sharing agreement”) on approximately $143.4 million (cost basis) of Greater Atlantic Bank’s assets. The Bank will share in the losses on the loans and foreclosed loan collateral with the FDIC as specified in the loss sharing agreement; we refer to these assets collectively as “covered assets.” Pursuant to the terms of the loss sharing agreement, the FDIC is obligated to reimburse the Bank for 80% of losses of up to $19 million with respect to the covered assets. The FDIC will reimburse the Bank for 95% of losses in excess of $19 million with respect to the covered assets. The Bank will reimburse the FDIC for 80% of recoveries with respect to losses for which the FDIC paid the Bank 80% reimbursement under the loss sharing agreement, and for 95% of recoveries with respect to losses for which the FDIC paid the Bank 95% reimbursement under the loss sharing agreement.

RESULTS OF OPERATIONS

Subsequent to the release of our financial results for the fourth quarter and year ended December 31, 2010, we foreclosed on the Kluge related development property discussed in the press release and received additional information which caused us to adjust the valuation of that loan downward by $500 thousand. As a result, for the fourth quarter of 2010, we recorded an additional charge-off of $500 thousand, for total charge-offs of $5.2 million during the quarter and $8.8 million for the year ended December 31, 2010. The provision for loan losses was increased by $500 thousand to cover the charge-off. After the additional charge-off, net income for the year ended December 31, 2010 was $1.8 million compared with the net income $2.1 million previously reported. The charge-off also reduced shareholders’ equity and total assets as of December 31, 2010 by the $330 thousand after-tax decrease in net income.

Net Income

Net income for the year ended December 31, 2010 was $1.8 million, down from $2.4 million for the year ended December 31, 2009. During 2009 we recognized a gain of $11.2 million on the Greater Atlantic acquisition as well as a gain on the Millennium Warrenton branch acquisition in the amount of $423 thousand. Other than temporary impairment (OTTI) charges on investment securities related to credit were $7.7 million in 2009. OTTI charges on investment securities related to credit were $288 thousand in 2010. Net interest income for 2010 was $24.7 million compared to $15.3 million in 2009, attributable primarily to the acquisition of Greater Atlantic Bank late in the fourth quarter of 2009.

Net income for the year ended December 31, 2009 was $2.4 million, up from $1.2 million for the year ended December 31, 2008. During 2009 we recognized the gain of $11.2 million on the Greater Atlantic acquisition as well as a gain on the Millennium Warrenton branch acquisition in the amount of $423 thousand. OTTI charges were $7.7 million in 2009 compared to $1.5 million in 2008.

Net Interest Income

Our operating results depend primarily on our net interest income, which is the difference between interest and dividend income on interest-earning assets such as loans and investments, and interest expense on interest-bearing liabilities such as deposits and borrowings.

47

Table of Contents

Net interest income was $24.7 million during the year ended December 31, 2010, compared to $15.3 million during the prior year. Average interest-earning assets for the year ended December 31, 2010 increased $131.5 million over the same period in 2009. Average loans during 2010 were $460.6 million compared to $339.1 million last year. Average investment securities increased by $5.7 million in the year ended December 31, 2010, compared to the same period in 2009. The average yield on average earning assets increased from 5.60% in 2009 to 6.03% in 2010. The Greater Atlantic Bank loan discount accretion contributed $2.8 million during 2010, of which $2.3 million was related to HELOCs. The yield on securities is expected to remain flat as we proceed through 2011. The yield on portfolio loans which declined in late 2010 as a result of fixed rate loans rolling into floating rates that are customarily subject to floors in today’s market, but were not four or five years ago, should continue to decline slightly in 2011. On the other hand, we had paid rates in excess of market on large money market accounts for former Greater Atlantic Bank customers to retain them, and, as of the beginning of January, we have adjusted those rates to current market rates. Average interest-bearing liabilities for the year ended December 31, 2010 increased $120.3 million compared to the same period in 2009. Average interest-bearing deposits increased by $116.0 million, while average borrowings increased by $4.4 million compared to 2009. The average cost of interest-bearing liabilities decreased from 2.27% in 2009 to 1.79% in 2010. The average cost of interest-bearing deposits decreased from 2.22% in 2009, to 1.71% in 2010, primarily because of the reduction in the average cost of time deposits from 2.44% to 1.83%. The interest rate spread for the year ended December 31, 2010 increased from 3.33% to 4.24% compared to the same period last year. The net interest margin was 4.48% for the year ended December 31, 2010 compared to 3.66% for the year ended December 31, 2009.

Net interest income for the year ended December 31, 2009 was $15.3 million compared to $12.4 million for the same period in the prior year. Average interest-earning assets for the year ended December 31, 2009 increased $40.1 million over the same period in 2008. Approximately $51.9 million of this growth was an increase in average loans outstanding. Average investment securities decreased by $15.7 million in the year ended December 31, 2009, compared to the same period in 2008. The average yield on interest-earning assets decreased from 6.45% in 2008 to 5.60% in 2009. Average interest-bearing liabilities for the year ended December 31, 2009 increased $32.3 million compared to the same period in 2008. Average interest-bearing deposits increased by $27.6 million, while average borrowings increased by $4.7 million compared to 2008. The average cost of interest-bearing liabilities decreased from 3.70% in 2008 to 2.27% in 2009. The interest rate spread for the year ended December 31, 2009 increased from 2.75% to 3.33% compared to the same period in the prior year. The net interest margin for the year ended December 31, 2009 increased to 3.66% from 3.28% compared to the same period in 2008. The net interest margin improved in each quarter of the year ended December 31, 2009 as a result of reduced funding costs.

48

Table of Contents

The following tables detail average balances of interest-earning assets and interest-bearing liabilities, the amount of interest earned/paid on such assets and liabilities, and the yield/rate for the periods indicated:

Average Balance Sheets and Net Interest

Analysis For the Years

Ended December 31, 2010, 2009 and 2008