UNITED STATES
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
Washington, D.C. 20549

 

FORM 10-K

 

(Mark One)
x		ANNUAL REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934.

For the Fiscal Year Ended December 31, 2010

OR

o		TRANSITION REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934.

For the Transition Period from  to 

Commission File Number: 000-11486

 

CENTER BANCORP, INC.

(Exact Name of Registrant as Specified in Its Charter)

New Jersey		52-1273725
(State or Other Jurisdiction of Incorporation or Organization)		(IRS Employer Identification Number)

2455 Morris Avenue, Union, NJ 07083-0007

(Address of Principal Executive Offices, Including Zip Code)

(908) 688-9500

(Registrant’s Telephone Number, Including Area Code)

 

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

Common Stock, No Par Value

(Title of Class)

Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(g) of the Exchange Act: None

 

Indicate by checkmark if the registrant is a well-known seasoned issuer, as defined in Rule 405 of the Securities Act. Yes o No x

Indicate by checkmark if the registrant is not required to file reports pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of the Act. Yes o 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 o

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 Regulation S-T (232,405 of this chapter) during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant has required to submit and post such files.) Yes o No o Not applicable

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 the Form 10-K or any amendment to the Form 10-K. o

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a large accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, a non-accelerated filer or a smaller reporting company. See definition of “large accelerated filer”, “accelerated filer” and “smaller reporting company” in Rule 12b-2 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

Large Accelerated Filer o		Accelerated Filer x		Non-Accelerated o		Small Reporting Company o

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

The aggregate market value of the voting and non-voting common equity held by non-affiliates computed by reference to the price at which the common equity was last sold or the average bid and ask price of such common equity, as of the last business day of the registrant’s most recently completed second fiscal quarter — $88.1 million

Shares Outstanding on March 1, 2011

Common Stock, no par value: 16,290,700 shares

DOCUMENTS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE

Definitive proxy statement in connection with the 2011 Annual Stockholders Meeting to be filed with the Commission pursuant to Regulation 14A will be incorporated by reference in Part III.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

CENTER BANCORP, INC.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

		Page
PART I
Item 1. Business			1
Item 1A. Risk Factors			17
Item 1B. Unresolved Staff Comments			24
Item 2. Properties			24
Item 3. Legal Proceedings			25
Item 3A. Executive Officers of the Registrant			26
Item 4. Reserved			27
PART II
Item 5. Market for Registrant’s Common Equity, Related Stockholder Matters and Issuer Purchases of Equity Securities			28
Item 6. Selected Financial Data			30
Item 7. Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations			33
Item 7A. Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures About Market Risk			67
Item 8. Financial Statements and Supplementary Data:			F-1
Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm			F-2
Center Bancorp, Inc. and Subsidiaries:
Consolidated Statements of Condition			F-3
Consolidated Statements of Income			F-4
Consolidated Statements of Changes in Stockholders’ Equity			F-5
Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows			F-6
Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements			F-8
Item 9. Changes in and Disagreements With Accountants on Accounting and Financial Disclosure			68
Item 9A. Controls and Procedures			68
Item 9B. Other Information			70
PART III
Item 10. Directors, Executive Officers and Corporate Governance			71
Item 11. Executive Compensation			71
Item 12. Security Ownership of Certain Beneficial Owners and Management and Related Stockholder Matters			71
Item 13. Certain Relationships and Related Transactions, and Director Independence			71
Item 14. Principal Accountant Fees and Services			71
PART IV
Item 15. Exhibits and Financial Statements Schedules			72
Signatures			75

Information included in or incorporated by reference in this Annual Report on Form 10-K, other filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission, t he Corporation’s press releases or other public statements, contain or may contain forward looking statements. Please refer to a discussion of the Corporation’s forward looking statements and associated risks in “Item 1 — Business — Historical Development of Business” and “Item 1A — Risk Factors” in this Annual Report on Form 10-K.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

CENTER BANCORP, INC.
FORM 10-K

PART I

Item 1. Business

Historical Development of Business

This report, in Item 1, Item 7 and elsewhere, includes forward-looking statements within the meaning of Sections 27A of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and 21E of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, that involve inherent risks and uncertainties. This report contains certain forward-looking statements with respect to the financial condition, results of operations, plans, objectives, future performance and business of Center Bancorp, Inc. and its subsidiaries, including statements preceded by, followed by or that include words or phrases such as “believes,” “expects,” “anticipates,” “plans,” “trend,” “objective,” “continue,” “remain,” “pattern” or similar expressions or future or conditional verbs such as “will,” “would,” “should,” “could,” “might,” “can,” “may” or similar expressions. There are a number of important factors that could cause future results to differ materially from historical performance and these forward-looking statements. Factors that might cause such a difference include, but are not limited to: (1) competitive pressures among depository institutions may increase significantly; (2) changes in the interest rate environment may reduce interest margins; (3) prepayment speeds, loan origination and sale volumes, charge-offs and loan loss provisions may vary substantially from period to period; (4) general economic conditions may be less favorable than expected; (5) political developments, wars or other hostilities may disrupt or increase volatility in securities markets or other economic conditions; (6) legislative or regulatory changes or actions may adversely affect the businesses in which Center Bancorp, Inc. is engaged; (7) changes and trends in the securities markets may adversely impact Center Bancorp, Inc; (8) a delayed or incomplete resolution of regulatory issues could adversely impact our planning; (9) the impact of reputation risk created by the developments discussed above on such matters as business generation and retention, funding and liquidity could be significant; and (10) the outcome of regulatory and legal investigations and proceedings may not be anticipated. Further information on other factors that could affect the financial results of Center Bancorp, Inc. are included in Item 1A of this Annual Report on Form 10-K and in Center Bancorp’s other filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission. These documents are available free of charge at the Commission’s website at http://www.sec.gov and/or from Center Bancorp, Inc. Center Bancorp, Inc. assumes no obligation to update forward-looking statements at any time.

Center Bancorp, Inc., a one-bank holding company, was incorporated in the state of New Jersey on November 12, 1982. Upon the acquisition of all outstanding shares of capital stock of Union Center National Bank (the “Bank”), its principal subsidiary, Center Bancorp, Inc., commenced operations on May 1, 1983. The holding company’s sole activity, at this time, is to act as a holding company for the Bank and other subsidiaries. As used herein, the term “Corporation” shall refer to Center Bancorp, Inc. and its direct and indirect subsidiaries and the term “Parent Corporation” shall refer to Center Bancorp, Inc. on an unconsolidated basis. In addition to its principal subsidiary, Center Bancorp, Inc. owns 100 percent of the voting shares of Center Bancorp, Inc. Statutory Trust II, through which it issued trust preferred securities. Center Bancorp, Inc. Statutory Trust II is not a consolidated subsidiary. See Note 10 of the Consolidated Financial Statements.

The Corporation’s wholly-owned subsidiaries are all included in the consolidated financial statements of Center Bancorp, Inc. These subsidiaries include an advertising subsidiary; an insurance subsidiary offering annuity products, property and casualty, life and health insurance, and various investment subsidiaries which hold, maintain and manage investment assets for the Corporation. In the past, the Corporation’s subsidiaries have also included real estate investment trust subsidiaries (the “REIT” subsidiaries) and two title insurance partnerships. The title insurance partnerships were liquidated and ceased operations in December 2009. During the fourth quarter of 2006, the Corporation effected an internal entity reorganization and adopted a plan of liquidation for its one remaining REIT subsidiary, which was completed on November 16, 2007.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

During 2001 and 2003, the Corporation formed statutory business trusts, which exist for the exclusive purpose of (i) issuing trust securities representing undivided beneficial interests in the assets of a trust; (ii) investing the gross proceeds of the trust securities in junior subordinated deferrable interest debentures (subordinated debentures) of the Corporation; and (iii) engaging in only those activities necessary or incidental thereto. These subordinated debentures and the related income effects are not eliminated in the consolidated financial statements as the statutory business trusts are not consolidated in accordance with Financial Accounting Standards Board (“FASB”) FASB ASC 810-10 (previously FASB interpretation No. 46(R), “Consolidation of Variable Interest Entities.” Distributions on the subordinated debentures owned by the subsidiary trusts have been classified as interest expense in the Consolidated Statements of Income.

The Corporation issued $10.3 million of subordinated debentures in 2001 and $5.2 million of subordinated debentures in 2003. On December 18, 2006, the Corporation redeemed $10.3 million of subordinated debentures and dissolved Center Bancorp, Inc. Statutory Trust I. At December 31, 2010, the $5.2 million of these securities still outstanding were included as a component of Tier 1 Capital for regulatory purposes. The Tier 1 leverage capital ratio was 9.90 percent at December 31, 2010.

During 2002, the Bank established two investment subsidiaries to hold portions of its securities portfolio. At December 2007, under a plan of liquidation adopted by the Bank, one of the investment companies had been liquidated. During 2008, the Corporation formed a new investment company. In January of 2003, the Corporation established an insurance subsidiary for the sale of insurance and annuity products. The Corporation also formed a title insurance partnership during the later part of 2007 that was fully operational in 2008. During the early part of 2008, the Corporation formed a second title partnership that was fully operational during the second half of 2008. Both title insurance partnerships were liquidated during December, 2009 and the Bank no longer provides title insurance.

SEC Reports and Corporate Governance

The Parent Corporation makes its Annual Report on Form 10-K, Quarterly Reports on Form 10-Q and Current Reports on Form 8-K and amendments thereto available on its website at www.centerbancorp.com without charge as soon as reasonably practicable after filing or furnishing them to the SEC. Also available on the website are the Corporation’s corporate code of ethics that applies to all of the Corporation’s employees, including principal officers and directors, and charters for the Audit Committee, Compensation Committee and Nominating Committee.

The Parent Corporation has filed the certifications of the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer required pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 with respect to the Parent Corporation’s Annual Report on Form 10-K as exhibits to this Report. Center Bancorp’s CEO submitted the required annual CEO’s Certification regarding the NASDAQ’s corporate governance listing standards, Section 12(a) CEO Certification, to the NASDAQ within the required time frame after the 2010 annual shareholders’ meeting.

Additionally, the Parent Corporation will provide without charge, a copy of its Annual Report on Form 10-K to any shareholder by mail. Requests should be sent to Center Bancorp, Inc, Attention: Shareholder Relations, 2455 Morris Avenue, Union, New Jersey, 07083.

Narrative Description of the Business

The Bank offers a broad range of lending, depository and related financial services to commercial, industrial and governmental customers. In 1999, the Bank obtained full trust powers, enabling it to offer a variety of trust services to its customers. In the lending area, the Bank’s services include short and medium term loans, lines of credit, letters of credit, working capital loans, real estate construction loans and mortgage loans. In the depository area, the Bank offers demand deposits, savings accounts and time deposits. In addition, the Bank offers collection services, wire transfers, night depository and lock box services.

The Bank offers a broad range of consumer banking services, including interest bearing and non-interest bearing checking accounts, savings accounts, money market accounts, certificates of deposit, IRA accounts, Automated Teller Machine (“ATM”) accessibility using Star Systems, Inc. service, secured and unsecured loans, mortgage loans, home equity lines of credit, safe deposit boxes, Christmas club accounts, vacation club accounts, money orders and travelers’ checks.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

The Bank, through its subsidiary, Center Financial Group LLC, provides financial services, including brokerage services, insurance and annuities, mutual funds and financial planning. In the fourth quarter of 2007, the Corporation formed a title insurance partnership, Center Title LLC, with Progressive Title Company in Parsippany, New Jersey to provide title services in connection with the closing of real estate transactions. In January 2008, the Corporation formed a title insurance partnership, Union Title LLC, with Elite Title Abstract of West Caldwell, New Jersey to provide title services in connection with the closing of real estate loan transactions. Our partnerships with both title companies were liquidated during December, 2009.

The Bank offers various money market services. It deals in U.S. Treasury and U.S. Governmental agency securities, certificates of deposit, commercial paper and repurchase agreements.

The Bank entered into a limited liability company operating agreement with Morris Property Company, LLC, a New Jersey limited liability company, during the fourth quarter of 2008. The purpose of Morris Property Company, LLC is to hold foreclosed assets.

On August 20, 2010, the Bank formed UCNB 1031 Exchange, LLC, for the purpose of providing customers 1031 exchange services. At December 31, 2010 UCNB 1031 Exchange, LLC was active, however its operations to date have had no material impact on the operations of the Corporation.

Competitive pressures affect the Corporation’s manner of conducting business. Competition stems not only from other commercial banks but also from other financial institutions such as savings banks, savings and loan associations, mortgage companies, leasing companies and various other financial service and advisory companies. Many of the financial institutions operating in the Corporation’s primary market are substantially larger and offer a wider variety of products and services than the Corporation.

Supervision and Regulation

The banking industry is highly regulated. Statutory and regulatory controls increase a bank holding company’s cost of doing business and limit the options of its management to deploy assets and maximize income. The following discussion is not intended to be a complete list of all the activities regulated by the banking laws or of the impact of such laws and regulations on the Corporation or its Bank subsidiary. It is intended only to briefly summarize some material provisions.

Bank Holding Company Regulation

Center Bancorp, Inc. is a bank holding company within the meaning of the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (the “Holding Company Act”). As a bank holding company, the Parent Corporation is supervised by the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (“FRB”) and is required to file reports with the FRB and provide such additional information as the FRB may require. The Parent Corporation and it subsidiaries are subject to examination by the FRB.

On November 9, 2007, the FRB approved the Parent Corporation’s application to become a Financial Holding Company. A Financial Holding Company may perform the following activities: insurance underwriting, securities dealing and underwriting, financial and investment advisory services, merchant banking and issuing or selling security interests in bank-eligible assets. Financial Holding Companies may also engage in any other activity that the FRB determines to be financial in nature or incidental to financial activities after consultation with the Secretary of the Treasury. A Financial Holding Company may also engage in any non-financial activity that the FRB determines is complementary to a financial activity and does not pose a substantial risk to the safety or soundness of depository institutions or the financial system. As of December 31, 2009 the Parent Corporation officially rescinded its status as a financial services holding company as a result of the discontinuation of its title insurance activities.

The Holding Company Act prohibits the Corporation, with certain exceptions, from acquiring direct or indirect ownership or control of more than five percent of the voting shares of any company which is not a bank and from engaging in any business other than that of banking, managing and controlling banks or furnishing services to subsidiary banks, except that it may, upon application, engage in, and may own shares of companies engaged in, certain businesses found by the FRB to be so closely related to banking “as to be a proper incident thereto.” The Holding Company Act requires prior approval by the FRB of the acquisition by Center Bancorp, Inc. of more than five percent of the voting stock of any other bank. Satisfactory capital

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ratios and Community Reinvestment Act ratings and anti-money laundering policies are generally prerequisites to obtaining federal regulatory approval to make acquisitions. The policy of the FRB provides that a bank holding company is expected to act as a source of financial strength to its subsidiary bank and to commit resources to support the subsidiary bank in circumstances in which it might not do so absent that policy.

Acquisitions through Union Center National Bank require approval of the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency of the United States (“OCC”). The Holding Company Act does not place territorial restrictions on the activities of non-bank subsidiaries of bank holding companies. The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, discussed below, allows the Corporation to expand into insurance, securities, merchant banking activities, and other activities that are financial in nature.

The Riegle-Neal Interstate Banking and Branching Efficiency Act of 1994 (“Interstate Banking and Branching Act”) enables bank holding companies to acquire banks in states other than their home state, regardless of applicable state law. The Interstate Banking and Branching Act also authorizes banks to merge across state lines, thereby creating interstate banks with branches in more than one state. Under the legislation, each state had the opportunity to “opt-out” of this provision. Furthermore, a state may “opt-in” with respect to de novo branching, thereby permitting a bank to open new branches in a state in which the bank does not already have a branch. Without de novo branching, an out-of-state commercial bank can enter the state only by acquiring an existing bank or branch. The vast majority of states have allowed interstate banking by merger but have not authorized de novo branching.

New Jersey enacted legislation to authorize interstate banking and branching and the entry into New Jersey of foreign country banks. New Jersey did not authorize de novo branching into the state. However, under federal law, federal savings banks which meet certain conditions may branch de novo into a state, regardless of state law. The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (the “Dodd-Frank Act”) removes the restrictions on interstate branching contained in the Interstate Banking and Branching Act, and allows national banks and state banks to establish branches in any state if, under the laws of the state in which the branch is to be located, a state bank chartered by that state would be permitted to establish the branch.

Regulation of Bank Subsidiary

The operations of the Bank are subject to requirements and restrictions under federal law, including requirements to maintain reserves against deposits, restrictions on the types and amounts of loans that may be granted, and limitations on the types of investments that may be made and the types of services which may be offered. Various consumer laws and regulations also affect the operations of the Bank. Approval of the Comptroller of the Currency is required for branching, bank mergers in which the continuing bank is a national bank and in connection with certain fundamental corporate changes affecting the Bank. There are various legal limitations, including Sections 23A and 23B of the Federal Reserve Act, which govern the extent to which a bank subsidiary may finance or otherwise supply funds to its holding company or its holding company’s non-bank subsidiaries. Under federal law, no bank subsidiary may, subject to certain limited exceptions, make loans or extensions of credit to, or investments in the securities of, its parent or the non-bank subsidiaries of its parent (other than direct subsidiaries of such bank which are not financial subsidiaries) or take their securities as collateral for loans to any borrower. Each bank subsidiary is also subject to collateral security requirements for any loans or extensions of credit permitted by such exceptions.

The Bank and the OCC have entered into an informal Memorandum of Understanding, or MOU. A memorandum of understanding is characterized by the regulatory authorities as an informal action that is not published or publicly available and that is used when circumstances warrant a milder form of action than a formal supervisory action. Among other things, under the MOU, the Bank has agreed to develop a three year capital program, which will include specific plans for the maintenance of adequate capital and the strengthening of the Bank’s capital structure to meet the Bank’s current and future needs, a profit plan that includes the identification of the major areas and means by which the Board will seek to improve the Bank’s operating performance, and a dividend policy that permits the declaration of a dividend by the Bank only with the prior approval of the OCC. Management is committed to addressing and resolving the issues raised by the OCC and has substantially completed corrective actions to comply with the MOU. In addition, the OCC has established higher minimum capital ratios for the Bank than the regulatory minimums. See “FDICIA.”

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Regulation W

The Federal Reserve Board has issued Regulation W, which codifies prior regulations under Sections 23A and 23B of the Federal Reserve Act and interpretative guidance with respect to affiliate transactions. Regulation W incorporates the exemption from the affiliate transaction rules but expands the exemption to cover the purchase of any type of loan or extension of credit from an affiliate. Affiliates of a bank include, among other entities, the bank’s holding company and companies that are under common control with the bank. The Parent Corporation is considered to be an affiliate of the Bank. In general, subject to certain specified exemptions, a bank or its subsidiaries are limited in their ability to engage in “covered transactions” with affiliates:

In addition, a bank and its subsidiaries may engage in covered transactions and other specified transactions only on terms and under circumstances that are substantially the same, or at least as favorable to the bank or its subsidiary, as those prevailing at the time for comparable transactions with nonaffiliated companies. A “covered transaction” includes:

In addition, under Regulation W:

Regulation W generally excludes all non-bank and non-savings association subsidiaries of banks from treatment as affiliates, except to the extent that the Federal Reserve Board decides to treat these subsidiaries as affiliates.

Capital Adequacy Guidelines

The Federal Reserve Board has adopted risk-based capital guidelines. These guidelines establish minimum levels of capital and require capital adequacy to be measured in part upon the degree of risk associated with certain assets. Under these guidelines all banks and bank holding companies must have a core or Tier 1 capital to risk-weighted assets ratio of at least 4% and a total capital to risk-weighted assets ratio of at least 8%. At December 31, 2010, the Corporation’s Tier 1 capital to risk-weighted assets ratio and total capital to risk-weighted assets ratio were 13.28 percent and 14.29 percent, respectively.

In addition, the Federal Reserve Board and the FDIC have approved leverage ratio guidelines (Tier 1 capital to average quarterly assets, less goodwill) for bank holding companies such as the Parent Corporation. These guidelines provide for a minimum leverage ratio of 3% for bank holding companies that meet certain specified criteria, including that they have the highest regulatory rating. All other holding companies are

TABLE OF CONTENTS

required to maintain a leverage ratio of 3% plus an additional cushion of at least 100 to 200 basis points. The Parent Corporation’s leverage ratio was 9.90 percent at December 31, 2010.

Under FDICIA, federal banking agencies have established certain additional minimum levels of capital which accord with guidelines established under that act. In addition, OCC has established higher minimum capital ratios for the Bank effective as of December 31, 2009. See “FDICIA.”

FDICIA

Pursuant to the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation Improvement Act of 1991 (“FDICIA”), each federal banking agency has promulgated regulations, specifying the levels at which a financial institution would be considered “well capitalized,” “adequately capitalized,” “undercapitalized,” “significantly undercapitalized,” or “critically undercapitalized,” and to take certain mandatory and discretionary supervisory actions based on the capital level of the institution. To qualify to engage in financial activities under the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, all depository institutions must be “well capitalized.” The financial holding company of a national bank will be put under directives to raise its capital levels or divest its activities if the depository institution falls from that level.

The OCC’s regulations implementing these provisions of FDICIA provide that an institution will be classified as “well capitalized” if it (i) has a total risk-based capital ratio of at least 10.0 percent, (ii) has a Tier 1 risk-based capital ratio of at least 6.0 percent, (iii) has a Tier 1 leverage ratio of at least 5.0 percent, and (iv) meets certain other requirements. An institution will be classified as “adequately capitalized” if it (i) has a total risk-based capital ratio of at least 8.0 percent, (ii) has a Tier 1 risk-based capital ratio of at least 4.0 percent, (iii) has a Tier 1 leverage ratio of (a) at least 4.0 percent or (b) at least 3.0 percent if the institution was rated 1 in its most recent examination, and (iv) does not meet the definition of “well capitalized.” An institution will be classified as “undercapitalized” if it (i) has a total risk-based capital ratio of less than 8.0 percent, (ii) has a Tier 1 risk-based capital ratio of less than 4.0 percent, or (iii) has a Tier 1 leverage ratio of (a) less than 4.0 percent or (b) less than 3.0 percent if the institution was rated 1 in its most recent examination. An institution will be classified as “significantly undercapitalized” if it (i) has a total risk-based capital ratio of less than 6.0 percent, (ii) has a Tier 1 risk-based capital ratio of less than 3.0 percent, or (iii) has a Tier 1 leverage ratio of less than 3.0 percent. An institution will be classified as “critically undercapitalized” if it has a tangible equity to total assets ratio that is equal to or less than 2.0 percent. An insured depository institution may be deemed to be in a lower capitalization category if it receives an unsatisfactory examination rating.

The OCC has established higher minimum capital ratios for the Bank effective as of December 31, 2009: Tier 1 Risk-Based Capital of 10.0 percent, Total Risk-Based Capital of 12.0 percent and Tier 1 Leverage Capital of 8.0 percent. At December 31, 2010, the Bank’s capital ratios were all above the minimum levels required.

In addition, significant provisions of FDICIA required federal banking regulators to impose standards in a number of other important areas to assure bank safety and soundness, including internal controls, information systems and internal audit systems, credit underwriting, asset growth, compensation, loan documentation and interest rate exposure. Under the MOU between the Bank and the OCC, the Bank has agreed to develop a three year capital program, which will include specific plans for the maintenance of adequate capital and the strengthening of the Bank’s capital structure to meet current and future needs.

Additional Regulation of Capital

The federal regulatory authorities’ risk-based capital guidelines are based upon the 1988 capital accord (“Basel I”) of the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision (the “Basel Committee”). The Basel Committee is a committee of central banks and bank supervisors/regulators from the major industrialized countries that develops broad policy guidelines for use by each country’s supervisors in determining the supervisory policies and regulations to which they apply. Actions of the Committee have no direct effect on banks in participating countries. In 2004, the Basel Committee published a new capital accord (“Basel II”) to replace Basel I. Basel II provides two approaches for setting capital standards for credit risk — an internal ratings-based approach tailored to individual institutions’ circumstances and a standardized approach that bases risk weightings on external credit assessments to a much greater extent than permitted in existing risk-based capital guidelines.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Basel II also would set capital requirements for operational risk and refine the existing capital requirements for market risk exposures. The Corporation is not required to comply with the advanced approaches of Basel II.

In 2009, the United States Treasury Department issued a policy statement (the “Treasury Policy Statement”) entitled “Principles for Reforming the U.S. and International Regulatory Capital Framework for Banking Firms,” which contemplates changes to the existing regulatory capital regime involving substantial revisions to major parts of the Basel I and Basel II capital frameworks and affecting all regulated banking organizations. The Treasury Policy Statement calls for, among other things, higher and stronger capital requirements for all banking firms, with changes to the regulatory capital framework to be phased in over a period of several years.

On December 17, 2009, the Basel Committee issued a set of proposals (the “2009 Capital Proposals”) that would significantly revise the definitions of Tier 1 capital and Tier 2 capital. Among other things, the 2009 Capital Proposals would re-emphasize that common equity is the predominant component of Tier 1 capital. Concurrently with the release of the 2009 Capital Proposals, the Basel Committee also released a set of proposals related to liquidity risk exposure (the “2009 Liquidity Proposals”). The 2009 Liquidity Proposals include the implementation of (i) a “liquidity coverage ratio” or LCR, designed to ensure that a bank maintains an adequate level of unencumbered, high-quality assets sufficient to meet the bank’s liquidity needs over a 30-day time horizon under an acute liquidity stress scenario and (ii) a “net stable funding ratio” or NSFR, designed to promote more medium and long-term funding of the assets and activities of banks over a one-year time horizon.

The Dodd-Frank Act includes certain provisions, often referred to as the “Collins Amendment,” concerning the capital requirements of the United States banking regulators. These provisions are intended to subject bank holding companies to the same capital requirements as their bank subsidiaries and to eliminate or significantly reduce the use of hybrid capital instruments, especially trust preferred securities, as regulatory capital. Under the Collins Amendment, trust preferred securities issued by a company, such as Union Center National Bank, with total consolidated assets of less than $15 billion before May 19, 2010 and treated as regulatory capital are grandfathered, but any such securities issued later are not eligible as regulatory capital. The banking regulators must develop regulations setting minimum risk-based and leverage capital requirements for holding companies and banks on a consolidated basis that are no less stringent than the generally applicable requirements in effect for depository institutions under the prompt corrective action regulations. The banking regulators also must seek to make capital standards countercyclical so that the required levels of capital increase in times of economic expansion and decrease in times of economic contraction. The Dodd-Frank Act requires these new capital regulations to be adopted by the Federal Reserve in final form 18 months after the date of enactment of the Dodd-Frank Act (July 21, 2010).

In December 2010 and January 2011, the Basel Committee published the final texts of reforms on capital and liquidity generally referred to as “Basel III.” Although Basel III is intended to be implemented by participating countries for large, internationally active banks, its provisions are likely to be considered by United States banking regulators in developing new regulations applicable to other banks in the United States, including Union Center National Bank.

For banks in the United States, among the most significant provisions of Basel III concerning capital are the following:

TABLE OF CONTENTS

The Basel III provisions on liquidity include complex criteria establishing the LCR and NSFR. Although Basel III is described as a “final text,” it is subject to the resolution of certain issues and to further guidance and modification, as well as to adoption by United States banking regulators, including decisions as to whether and to what extent it will apply to United States banks that are not large, internationally active banks.

Federal Deposit Insurance and Premiums

Substantially all of the deposits of the Bank are insured up to applicable limits by the Deposit Insurance Fund (“DIF”) of the FDIC and are subject to deposit insurance assessments to maintain the DIF. As a result of the Dodd-Frank Act, the basic federal deposit insurance limit was permanently increased from at least $100,000 to at least $250,000. In addition, on November 9, 2010 and January 18, 2011, the FDIC (as mandated by Section 343 of the Dodd-Frank Act) adopted rules providing for unlimited deposit insurance for traditional noninterest-bearing transaction accounts and IOLTA accounts beginning December 31, 2010 until December 31, 2012. This coverage, which applies to all insured deposit institutions, does not charge any additional FDIC assessment to the institution. Furthermore, this unlimited coverage is separate from, and in addition to, the coverage provided to depositors with respect to other accounts held at an insured institution.

Under current regulations, the FDIC utilizes a risk-based assessment system that imposes insurance premiums based upon a risk matrix that takes into account a bank’s capital level and supervisory rating, known as a “CAMEL rating.” The assessment rate for an individual institution is determined according to a formula based on a weighted average of the institution’s individual CAMELS component ratings plus six financial ratios. Well-capitalized institutions (generally those with CAMELS composite ratings of 1 or 2) are grouped in Risk Category I and their initial assessment base 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, 31 and 50 basis points, respectively. These base rates are then adjusted to a final assessment rate based on an institution’s brokered deposits, secured liabilities and unsecured debt. In 2010 the Bank recognized a total of $1.8 million in FDIC expense of the $5.7 million assessments prepaid in 2009.

On May 22, 2009, the Board of Directors of the FDIC adopted a final rule imposing a special assessment on the entire banking industry. The special assessment was calculated as five basis points times each insured depository institution’s assets minus Tier 1 capital, as reported in the report of condition as of June 30, 2009 and would not exceed ten times the institution’s assessment base for the second quarter of 2009 risk-based assessment. This special assessment, which totaled $1.2 million, was remitted by the Bank on September 30, 2009.

On November 12, 2009, the FDIC adopted the final rule which required insured depository institutions to prepay their quarterly risk-based assessments for the fourth quarter of 2009 through the fourth quarter of 2012. On December 30, 2009, the Bank remitted an FDIC prepayment in the amount of $5.7 million. An institution’s prepaid assessment was based on the total base assessment rate that the institution paid for the third quarter of 2009, adjusted quarterly by an estimated annual growth rate of 5% through the end of 2012, plus, for 2011 and 2012, an increase in the total base assessment rate on September 30, 2009 by an annualized

TABLE OF CONTENTS

three basis points. Any prepaid assessment in excess of the amounts that are subsequently determined to be actually due to the FDIC by June 30, 2013, will be returned to the institution at that time.

In November 2010, the FDIC approved a rule to change the assessment base from adjusted domestic deposits to average consolidated total assets minus average tangible equity, as required by the Dodd-Frank Act. These new assessment rates will begin in the second quarter of 2011 and will be payable at the end of September 2011. Since the new base is larger than the current base, the FDIC’s rule would lower total base assessment rates to between 2.5 and 9 basis points for banks in the lowest risk category, and 30 to 45 basis points for banks in the highest risk category.

In addition to deposit insurance assessments, the FDIC is required to continue to collect from institutions payments for the servicing of obligations of the Financing Corporation (“FICO”) that were issued in connection with the resolution of savings and loan associations, so long as such obligations remain outstanding. The Bank paid a FICO premium of $87,000 in 2010 and expects to pay a similar premium in 2011.

The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Financial Modernization Act of 1999

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

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

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

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

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Community Reinvestment Act

Under the Community Reinvestment Act (“CRA”), as implemented by OCC regulations, a national bank has a continuing and affirmative obligation consistent with its safe and sound operation to help meet the credit needs of its entire community, including low and moderate income neighborhoods. The CRA does not establish specific lending requirements or programs for financial institutions nor does it limit an institution’s discretion to develop the types of products and services that it believes are best suited to its particular community, consistent with the CRA. The CRA requires the OCC, in connection with its examination of a national bank, to assess the bank’s record of meeting the credit needs of its community and to take such record into account in its evaluation of certain applications by such bank.

USA PATRIOT Act

In response to the events of September 11, 2001, the Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001 (the “USA PATRIOT Act”), was signed into law on October 26, 2001. The USA PATRIOT Act gives the federal government powers to address terrorist threats through domestic security measures, surveillance powers, information sharing, and anti-money laundering requirements. By way of amendments to the Bank Secrecy Act, the USA PATRIOT Act encourages information sharing among bank regulatory agencies and law enforcement bodies. Further, certain provisions of the USA PATRIOT Act impose affirmative obligations on a broad range of financial institutions, including banks, thrifts, brokers, dealers, credit unions, money transfer agents and parties registered under the Commodity Exchange Act.

Among other requirements, the USA PATRIOT Act imposes the following requirements with respect to financial institutions:

The United States Treasury Department has issued a number of implementing regulations which address various requirements of the USA PATRIOT Act and are applicable to financial institutions such as the Bank. 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.

Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

The stated goals of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (the “SOA”) are to increase corporate responsibility, to provide for enhanced penalties for accounting and auditing improprieties by publicly traded companies and to protect investors by improving the accuracy and reliability of corporate disclosures pursuant to the securities laws.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

The SOA generally applies to all companies, both U.S. and non-U.S., that file or are required to file periodic reports with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”) under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”).

The SOA includes specific disclosure requirements and corporate governance rules, requires the SEC and securities exchanges to adopt extensive additional disclosure, corporate governance and other related rules and mandates further studies of certain issues by the SEC. The SOA addresses, among other matters:

Legislation Implemented in Response to Periods of Economic Turmoil

In response to recent unprecedented market turmoil, EESA was enacted on October 3, 2008. EESA authorizes the U.S. Treasury Department (the “treasury”) to provide up to $700 billion in funding for the financial services industry. Pursuant to the EESA, the Treasury was initially authorized to use $350 billion for the Troubled Asset Relief Program (“TARP”). Of this amount, the Treasury allocated $250 billion to the TARP Capital Purchase Program. On January 15, 2009, the second $350 billion of TARP monies was released to the Treasury. As described elsewhere in this Annual Report on Form 10-K, the Treasury purchased $10,000,000 of the Parent Corporation’s non-convertible preferred stock (the “Preferred Shares”) under the TARP Capital Purchase Program.

Participants in the TARP Capital Purchase Program were required to accept several compensation-related limitations associated with this Program. In January 2009, five executive officers of the Corporation agreed in writing to accept the compensation standards in existence at that time under the Capital Purchase Program and thereby cap or eliminate some of their contractual or legal rights. The provisions agreed to were as follows:

TABLE OF CONTENTS

During the CPP Covered Period, the Corporation is not permitted to take federal income tax deductions for compensation paid to the senior executive officers in excess of $500,000 per year, subject to certain exceptions.

On February 17, 2009, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (the “Stimulus Act”) was enacted. The Stimulus Act contains several provisions designed to establish executive compensation and governance standards for financial institutions (such as the Corporation) that received or will receive financial assistance under TARP. In certain instances, the Stimulus Act modified the compensation-related limitations contained in the TARP Capital Purchase Program; in addition, the Stimulus Act created additional compensation-related limitations and directed the Treasury to establish standards for executive compensation applicable to participants in TARP. In their January 2009 agreements, the Corporation’s executives did not waive their rights with respect to the provisions implemented by the Stimulus Act; other employees now covered by these provisions were not asked and did not agree to waive their rights. The compensation-related limitations applicable to the Corporation which have been added or modified by the Stimulus Act are as follows, which provisions are expected to be included in standards established by the Treasury:

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Recent Regulatory Reform-The Dodd-Frank Act

The Dodd-Frank Act, which was signed into law on July 21, 2010, will have a broad impact on the financial services industry, including significant regulatory and compliance changes. Many of the requirements called for in the Dodd-Frank Act will be implemented over time and most will be subject to implementing regulations over the course of several years.

Among other things, the Dodd-Frank Act:

TABLE OF CONTENTS

While it is difficult to predict at this time what specific impact the Dodd-Frank Act and the yet to be written implementing rules and regulations will have on the Corporation, management expects that at a minimum the Corporation’s operating and compliance costs will increase, and our interest expense could increase.

Proposed Legislation

From time to time proposals are made in the U.S. Congress and before various bank regulatory authorities, which would alter the policies of and place restrictions on different types of banking operations. It is impossible to predict the impact, if any, of potential legislative trends on the business of the Parent Corporation and the Bank.

Loans to Related Parties

The Corporation’s authority to extend credit to its directors and executive officers, as well as to entities controlled by such persons, is currently governed by the requirements of the National Bank Act, the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and Regulation O of the Federal Reserve Bank. Among other things, these provisions require that extensions of credit to insiders (i) be made on terms that are substantially the same as, and follow credit underwriting procedures that are not less stringent than, those prevailing for comparable transactions with unaffiliated persons and that do not involve more than the normal risk of repayment or present other unfavorable features and (ii) not exceed certain limitations on the amount of credit extended to such persons, individually and in the aggregate, which limits are based, in part, on the amount of the Corporation’s capital. In addition, the Corporation’s Board of Directors must approve extensions of credit in excess of certain limits. Under the SOA, the Corporation and its subsidiaries, other than Union Center National Bank, may not extend or arrange for any personal loans to its directors and executive officers.

Dividend Restrictions

The Parent Corporation is a legal entity separate and distinct from the Bank. Virtually all of the revenue of the Parent Corporation available for payment of dividends on its capital stock will result from amounts paid to the Parent Corporation by the Bank. All such dividends are subject to various limitations imposed by federal laws and by regulations and policies adopted by federal regulatory agencies. As a national bank, the Bank may not pay a dividend if it would impair the capital of the Bank. Furthermore, prior approval by the Comptroller of the Currency is required if the total of dividends declared in a calendar year exceeds the total

TABLE OF CONTENTS

of the Bank’s net profits for that year combined with the retained profits for the two preceding years. The Bank’s current MOU provides that the Bank cannot declare a dividend without the prior approval of the OCC.

On January 9, 2009, as part of the TARP Capital Purchase Program, the Parent Corporation entered into a Letter Agreement (the “Letter Agreement”) and a Securities Purchase Agreement — Standard Terms attached thereto (the “Securities Purchase Agreement”) with the Treasury, pursuant to which (i) the Parent Corporation issued and sold, and the Treasury purchased, 10,000 shares of the Parent Corporation’s Fixed Rate Cumulative Perpetual Preferred Stock, Series A, having a liquidation preference of $1,000 per share, for an aggregate purchase price of $10,000,000 in cash, and (ii) the Parent Corporation issued to the Treasury a ten-year warrant (the “Warrant”) to purchase up to 173,410 shares of the Corporation’s common stock at an exercise price of $8.65 per share. As a result of the successful completion of the Parent Corporation’s rights offering in October 2009, the number of shares underlying the Warrant was reduced to 86,705 shares, or 50% of the original 173,410 shares. The Securities Purchase Agreement contains limitations on the payment of dividends on the common stock. Specifically, the Parent Corporation is unable to declare dividend payments on the common stock (and certain preferred stock if the Corporation issues additional series of preferred stock) if the Parent Corporation is in arrears in the payment of dividends on the Preferred Shares. Further, until the third anniversary of the investment or when all of the Preferred Shares have been redeemed or transferred, the Parent Corporation is not permitted to increase the amount of the quarterly cash dividend above $0.09 per share, which was the amount of the last regular dividend declared by the Parent Corporation prior to October 14, 2008.

If, in the opinion of the OCC, a bank under its jurisdiction is engaged in or is about to engage in an unsafe or unsound practice (which could include the payment of dividends), the OCC may require, after notice and hearing, that such bank cease and desist from such practice or, as a result of an unrelated practice, require the bank to limit dividends in the future. The FRB has similar authority with respect to bank holding companies. In addition, the FRB and the OCC have issued policy statements which provide that insured banks and bank holding companies should generally only pay dividends out of current operating earnings. Regulatory pressures to reclassify and charge off loans and to establish additional loan loss reserves can have the effect of reducing current operating earnings and thus impacting an institution’s ability to pay dividends. Further, as described herein, the regulatory authorities have established guidelines with respect to the maintenance of appropriate levels of capital by a bank or bank holding company under their jurisdiction. Compliance with the standards set forth in these policy statements and guidelines could limit the amount of dividends which the Parent Corporation and the Bank may pay. Under FDICIA, banking institutions which are deemed to be “undercapitalized” will, in most instances, be prohibited from paying dividends.

Lending Guidelines; Real Estate Credit Management

Credit risks are an inherent part of the lending function. The Corporation has set in place specific policies and guidelines to limit credit risks. The following describes the Corporation’s credit management policy and identifies certain risk elements in its earning assets portfolio.

Credit Management

The maintenance of comprehensive and effective credit policies is a paramount objective of the Corporation. Credit procedures are enforced by the department heads of the different lending units and are maintained at the senior administrative level as well as through internal control procedures.

Prior to extending credit, the Corporation’s credit policy generally requires a review of the borrower’s credit history, repayment capacity, collateral and purpose of each loan. Requests for most commercial and consumer loans are to be accompanied by financial statements and other relevant financial data for evaluation. After the granting of a loan or lending commitment, this financial data is typically updated and evaluated by the credit staff on a periodic basis for the purpose of identifying potential problems. Construction financing requires a periodic submission by the borrowers of sales/leasing status reports regarding their projects, as well as, in most cases, inspections of the project sites by independent engineering firms and/or independent consultants. Advances are normally made only upon the satisfactory completion of periodic phases of construction.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Certain lending authorities are granted to loan officers based upon each officer’s position and experience. However, large dollar loans and lending lines are reported to and are subject to the approval of the Bank’s loan committees and/or board of directors. Either the Chairman of the Board or President chairs the loan committees.

The Corporation has established its own internal loan-to-value (“LTV”) limits for real estate loans. In general, except as described below, these internal limits are not permitted to exceed the following supervisory limits:

Loan Category		Loan-to-Value Limit
Raw Land			65	%
Land Development			75	%
Commercial, Multifamily and Other Non-residential construction			80	%
Construction: One to Four Family Residential			85	%
Improved Property (excluding One to Four Family Residential)			85	%
Owner-Occupied One to Four Family and Home Equity*			90	%

It may be appropriate in individual cases to originate loans with loan-to-value ratios in excess of the supervisory LTV limits, based on support provided by other credit factors. The President of the Bank must approve such non-conforming loans. The Bank must identify all non-conforming loans and their aggregate amount must be reported at least quarterly to the Directors’ Loan Committee. Non-conforming loans should not exceed 100% of capital, or 30% with respect to non one to four family residential loans. At present, management is unaware of any exceptions to supervisory LTV limits.

Collateral margin guidelines are based on cost, market or other appraised value to maintain a reasonable amount of collateral protection in relation to the inherent risk in the loan. This does not mitigate the fundamental analysis of cash flow from the conversion of assets in the normal course of business or from operations to repay the loan. It is merely designed to provide a cushion to minimize the risk of loss if the ultimate collection of the loan becomes dependent on the liquidation of security pledged.

The Corporation also seeks to minimize lending risk through loan diversification. The composition of the Corporation’s commercial loan portfolio reflects and is highly dependent upon the economy and industrial make-up of the region it serves. Effective loan diversification spreads risk to many different industries, thereby reducing the impact of downturns in any specific industry on overall loan profitability.

Credit quality is monitored through an internal review process, which includes a credit Risk Grading System that facilitates the early detection of problem loans. Under this grading system, all commercial loans and commercial mortgage loans are graded in accordance with the risk characteristics inherent in each loan. Problem loans include non-accrual loans, and loans which conform to the regulatory definitions of criticized and classified loans.

A Problem Asset Report is prepared monthly and is examined by the senior management of the Bank, the Corporation’s Loan and Discount Committee and Board of Directors. This review is designed to enable management to take such actions as are considered necessary to identify and remedy problems on a timely basis.

The Bank’s internal loan review process is complemented by an independent loan review conducted throughout the year, under the mandate and approval of the Corporation’s Board of Directors. In addition, regularly scheduled audits performed by the Bank’s internal audit function are designed to ensure the integrity of the credit and risk monitoring systems currently in place.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Risk Elements

The risk elements identified by the Corporation include non-performing loans, loans past due ninety days or more as to interest or principal payments but not placed on a non-accrual status, potential problem loans, other real estate owned, net, and other non-performing interest-earning assets.

Item 1A. Risk Factors

An investment in our common stock involves risks. Stockholders should carefully consider the risks described below, together with all other information contained in this Annual Report on Form 10-K, before making any purchase or sale decisions regarding our common stock. If any of the following risks actually occur, our business, financial condition or operating results may be harmed. In that case, the trading price of our common stock may decline, and stockholders may lose part or all of their investment in our common stock.

We are required to take certain actions pursuant to our current MOU with the OCC, and lack of compliance could result in additional regulatory actions.

As described under “Item 1 — Business — Regulation of Bank Subsidiary,” the Bank is subject to a MOU with the OCC, pursuant to which it has agreed to take various actions to improve the Bank’s capital position and profitability. The OCC has also established higher minimum capital ratios for the Bank than the regulatory minimums. While management is committed to addressing and resolving the issues raised by the OCC and has initiated corrective actions to comply with various requirements of the MOU, no assurances can be given that the OCC will find the Bank’s compliance plan satisfactory, or that the Bank will not be subject to further supervisory action by the OCC. We may at some point need to raise additional capital to assure compliance with mandated capital ratios and to support our continued growth. Our ability to raise additional capital, if needed, will depend on conditions in the capital markets at that time, which are outside our control, and on our financial performance. Accordingly, we cannot assure you of our ability to raise additional capital, if needed, on terms acceptable to us. If we cannot raise additional capital when needed, our ability to comply with applicable capital requirements and to further expand our operations through internal growth or acquisitions could be materially impaired.

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

The general economic downturn experienced during 2008, 2009 and portions of 2010 negatively impacted many financial institutions, including the Company. Loan portfolio performances deteriorated at many institutions resulting from, among other factors, a weak economy and a decline in the value of the collateral supporting their loans. The competition for our deposits increased significantly due to liquidity concerns at many of these same institutions. Stock prices of bank holding companies, like ours, were negatively affected by the condition of the financial markets, as was our ability, if needed, to raise capital or borrow in the debt markets compared to recent years. While the United States Congress has taken actions to implement important safeguards, there remains a potential for new federal or state laws and regulations regarding lending and funding practices and liquidity standards, and financial institution regulatory agencies are expected to be very aggressive in responding to concerns and trends identified in examinations, including the issuance of many formal enforcement actions. Negative developments in the financial services industry and the impact of new legislation in response to those developments could negatively impact our operations by restricting our business operations, including our ability to originate or sell loans, and adversely impact our financial performance. A worsening of these conditions would likely exacerbate the adverse effects of these difficult market conditions on us and others in the financial institutions industry. In particular, we may face the following risks in connection with these events:

TABLE OF CONTENTS

We are subject to interest rate risk and variations in interest rates may negatively impact our financial performance.

We are unable to predict actual fluctuations of market interest rates with complete accuracy. Rate fluctuations are affected by many factors, including:

Changes in the interest rate environment may reduce profits. We expect that we will continue to realize income from the differential or “spread” between the interest we earn on loans, securities and other interest-earning assets, and the interest we pay on deposits, borrowings and other interest-bearing liabilities. Net interest spreads are affected by the difference between the maturities and repricing characteristics of interest-earning assets and interest-bearing liabilities. Changes in levels of market interest rates could materially and adversely affect our net interest spread, asset quality, levels of prepayments and cash flows as well as the market value of our securities portfolio and overall profitability.

External factors, many of which we cannot control, may result in liquidity concerns for us.

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

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

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

Our access to funding sources in amounts adequate to finance our activities could be impaired by factors that affect us specifically or the financial services industry in general. Factors that could detrimentally impact our access to liquidity sources include a decrease in the level of our business activity due to market factors or an adverse regulatory action against us. Our ability to borrow could also be impaired by factors that are not specific to us, such as a severe disruption of the financial markets or negative views and expectations about the prospects for the financial services industry as a whole as the turmoil faced by banking organizations in the domestic and worldwide credit markets continues. Over the last several years, the financial services industry and the credit markets generally have been materially and adversely affected by significant declines in asset values and by a lack of liquidity. The liquidity issues have been particularly acute for regional and community banks, as many of the larger financial institutions have significantly curtailed their lending to

TABLE OF CONTENTS

regional and community banks to reduce their exposure to the risks of other banks. In addition, many of the larger correspondent lenders have reduced or even eliminated federal funds lines for their correspondent customers. Furthermore, regional and community banks generally have less access to the capital markets than do the national and super-regional banks because of their smaller size and limited analyst coverage. Any decline in available funding could adversely impact our ability to originate loans, invest in securities, meet our expenses, or fulfill obligations such as repaying our borrowings or meeting deposit withdrawal demands, any of which could have a material adverse impact on our liquidity, business, results of operations and financial condition.

The extensive regulation and supervision to which we are subject impose substantial restrictions on our business.

Center Bancorp Inc., primarily through its principal subsidiary, Union Center National Bank, and certain non-bank subsidiaries, are subject to extensive regulation and supervision. Banking regulations are primarily intended to protect depositors’ funds, federal deposit insurance funds and the banking system as a whole. Such laws are not designed to protect our shareholders. These regulations affect our lending practices, capital structure, investment practices, dividend policy and growth, among other things. Union Center National Bank is also subject to a number of federal laws, which, among other things, require it to lend to various sectors of the economy and population, and establish and maintain comprehensive programs relating to anti-money laundering and customer identification. The United States Congress and federal regulatory agencies continually review banking laws, regulations and policies for possible changes, especially for the TARP Capital Purchase Program (in which the Parent Corporation is a participant). Changes to statutes, regulations or regulatory policies, including changes in interpretation or implementation of statutes, regulations or policies, could affect us in substantial and unpredictable ways. Such changes could subject us to additional costs, limit the types of financial services and products we may offer and/or increase the ability of non-banks to offer competing financial services and products, among other things. Failure to comply with laws, regulations or policies could result in sanctions by regulatory agencies, civil money penalties and/or reputational damage, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

Because of our participation in the U.S. Treasury’s Capital Purchase Program, we are subject to several restrictions, including restrictions on our ability to declare or pay dividends and repurchase our shares, as well as restrictions on our executive compensation.

As a result of our participation in the U.S. Treasury’s Capital Purchase Program, our ability to declare or pay dividends on any of our capital stock is subject to restrictions. Specifically, we are unable to declare dividend payments on common, junior preferred or pari passu preferred shares if we are in arrears in the payment of dividends on the Preferred Shares. Further, until the third anniversary of the investment or when all of the Preferred Shares have been redeemed or transferred, we are not permitted to increase the cash dividends on our common stock without the U.S. Treasury’s approval. Additionally, our ability to repurchase our shares of outstanding common stock is restricted. The U.S. Treasury’s consent generally is required for us to make any stock repurchase until the third anniversary of the investment by the U.S. Treasury unless all of the Preferred Shares have been redeemed or transferred. Further, common, junior preferred or pari passu preferred shares may not be repurchased if we are in arrears in the payment of dividends on the Preferred Shares. These restrictions, as well as the dilutive effect of the warrants that we issued to the U.S. Treasury as part of the Capital Purchase Program, may have a negative effect on the market price of our common stock.

Pursuant to the terms by which we participated in the U.S. Treasury’s Capital Purchase Agreement and the terms of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, we and several of our senior employees are subject to substantial limitations on executive compensation and are subject to corporate governance standards imposed pursuant to that Act. Such requirements may adversely affect our ability to attract and retain senior officers and employees who are critical to the operation of our business.

The documents that we executed with the U.S. Treasury when it purchased our Preferred Shares allow it to unilaterally change the terms of the Preferred Shares or impose additional requirements on the Corporation if there is a change in law. These changes or additional requirements could restrict our ability to conduct business, could subject us to additional cost and expense or could change the terms of the Preferred Shares to the detriment of our common shareholders. While it may be possible for us to redeem the Preferred Shares in

TABLE OF CONTENTS

the event that the U.S. Treasury imposes any changes or additional requirements that we believe are detrimental, there can be no assurances that our federal regulator will approve such redemption or that we will have the ability to implement such redemption, especially in light of regulatory requirements imposed upon financial institutions seeking to redeem TARP securities.

Current levels of volatility in the capital markets are unprecedented and may adversely impact our operations and results.

The capital markets have been experiencing unprecedented volatility for more than three years. Such negative developments and disruptions have resulted in uncertainty in the financial markets. Bank and bank holding company stock prices have been negatively affected, as has the ability of banks and bank holding companies to raise capital or borrow in the debt markets compared to recent years. If current levels of market disruption and volatility continue or worsen, there can be no assurance that we will not experience an adverse effect, which may be material, on our business, financial condition and results of operations or our ability to access capital.

We must effectively manage our credit risk.

There are risks inherent in making any loan, including risks inherent in dealing with particular borrowers, risks of nonpayment, risks resulting from uncertainties as to the future value of collateral and risks resulting from changes in economic and industry conditions. We attempt to minimize our credit risk through prudent loan application approval procedures, careful monitoring of the concentration of our loans within specific industries, a centralized credit administration department and periodic independent reviews of outstanding loans by our loan review department. However, we cannot assure you that such approval and monitoring procedures will reduce these credit risks.

Our loan portfolio includes commercial real estate loans, which involve risks specific to real estate value.

Commercial real estate and construction loans were $421.7 million, or approximately 59.5% of our total loan portfolio, as of December 31, 2010. Many of these loans are extended to small and medium-sized businesses. The market value of real estate can fluctuate significantly in a short period of time as a result of market conditions in the geographic area in which the real estate is located. Although many such loans are secured by real estate as a secondary form of collateral, continued adverse developments affecting real estate values in our market area could increase the credit risk associated with our loan portfolio. Economic events or governmental regulations outside of the control of the borrower or lender could negatively impact the future cash flow and market values of the affected properties. If the loans that are collateralized by real estate become troubled and the value of the real estate has been significantly impaired, then we may not be able to recover the full contractual amount of principal and interest that we anticipated at the time of originating the loan, which could cause us to increase our provision for loan losses and adversely affect our operating results and financial condition.

We may incur impairments to goodwill.

We review our goodwill at least annually. Significant negative industry or economic trends, reduced estimates of future cash flows or disruptions to our business, could indicate that goodwill might be impaired. Our valuation methodology for assessing impairment requires management to make judgments and assumptions based on historical experience and to rely on projections of future operating performance. We operate in a competitive environment and projections of future operating results and cash flows may vary significantly from actual results. Additionally, if our analysis results in an impairment to our goodwill, we would be required to record a non-cash charge to earnings in our financial statements during the period in which such impairment is determined to exist. Any such change could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations and our stock price.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Union Center National Bank’s ability to pay dividends is subject to regulatory limitations, which, to the extent that our holding company requires such dividends in the future, may affect our holding company’s ability to honor its obligations and pay dividends.

As a bank holding company, Center Bancorp, Inc. is a separate legal entity from Union Center National Bank and its subsidiaries and does not have significant operations. We currently depend on Union Center National Bank’s cash and liquidity to pay our operating expenses and dividends to shareholders. We cannot assure you that in the future Union Center National Bank will have the capacity to pay the necessary dividends and that we will not require dividends from Union Center National Bank to satisfy our obligations. Various statutes and regulations limit the availability of dividends from Union Center National Bank. It is possible, depending upon our and Union Center National Bank’s financial condition and other factors, that bank regulators could assert that payment of dividends or other payments by Union Center National Bank are an unsafe or unsound practice. In the event that Union Center National Bank is unable to pay dividends, we may not be able to service our obligations, as they become due, or pay dividends on our capital stock. Consequently, the inability to receive dividends from Union Center National Bank could adversely affect our financial condition, results of operations, cash flows and prospects. Pursuant to the MOU between Union Center National Bank and the OCC, the Bank may not declare dividends without the prior approval of the OCC.

Union Center National Bank’s allowance for loan losses may not be adequate to cover actual losses.

Like all financial institutions, Union Center National Bank maintains an allowance for loan losses to provide for loan defaults and non-performance. If Union Center National Bank’s allowance for loan losses is not adequate to cover actual loan losses, future provisions for loan losses could materially and adversely affect our operating results. Union Center National Bank’s allowance for loan losses is determined by analyzing historical loan losses, current trends in delinquencies and charge-offs, plans for problem loan resolution, the opinions of its regulators, changes in the size and composition of the loan portfolio and industry information. Union Center National Bank also considers the impact of economic events, the outcome of which is uncertain. The amount of future losses is susceptible to changes in economic, operating and other conditions, including changes in interest rates that may be beyond our control and these losses may exceed current estimates. Federal regulatory agencies, as an integral part of their examination process, review Union Center National Bank’s loans and allowance for loan losses. While we believe that Union Center National Bank’s allowance for loan losses in relation to its current loan portfolio is adequate to cover current losses, we cannot assure you that Union Center National Bank will not need to increase its allowance for loan losses or that regulators will not require it to increase this allowance. Either of these occurrences could materially and adversely affect our earnings and profitability.

Union Center National Bank is subject to various lending and other economic risks that could adversely impact our results of operations and financial condition.

Changes in economic conditions, particularly a significant worsening of the current economic environment, could hurt Union Center National Bank’s business. Union Center National Bank’s business is directly affected by political and market conditions, broad trends in industry and finance, legislative and regulatory changes, changes in governmental monetary and fiscal policies, all of which are beyond our control. Deterioration in economic conditions, particularly within New Jersey, could result in the following consequences, any of which could hurt our business materially:

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Further deterioration in the real estate market, particularly in New Jersey, could hurt our business. As real estate values in New Jersey decline, our ability to recover on defaulted loans by selling the underlying real estate is reduced, which increases the possibility that we may suffer losses on defaulted loans.

Union Center National Bank may suffer losses in its loan portfolio despite its underwriting practices.

Union Center National Bank seeks to mitigate the risks inherent in its loan portfolio by adhering to specific underwriting practices. Although we believe that Union Center National Bank’s underwriting criteria are appropriate for the various kinds of loans that it makes, Union Center National Bank may incur losses on loans that meet its underwriting criteria, and these losses may exceed the amounts set aside as reserves in its allowance for loan losses.

Union Center National Bank faces strong competition from other financial institutions, financial service companies and other organizations offering services similar to the services that Union Center National Bank provides.

Many competitors offer the same types of loans and banking services that Union Center National Bank offers or similar types of such services. These competitors include other national banks, savings associations, regional banks and other community banks. Union Center National Bank also faces competition from many other types of financial institutions, including finance companies, brokerage firms, insurance companies, credit unions, mortgage banks and other financial intermediaries. In this regard, Union Center National Bank’s competitors include other state and national banks and major financial companies whose greater resources may afford them a marketplace advantage by enabling them to maintain numerous banking locations, offer a broader suite of services and mount extensive promotional and advertising campaigns. Our inability to compete effectively may adversely affect our business.

If we pursue acquisitions, we may heighten the risks to our operations and financial condition.

To the extent that we undertake acquisitions or new branch openings, we may experience the effects of higher operating expenses relative to operating income from the new operations, which may have a material adverse effect on our levels of reported net income, return on average equity and return on average assets. Other effects of engaging in such growth strategies may include potential diversion of our management’s time and attention and general disruption to our business. To the extent that we grow through acquisitions and branch openings, we cannot assure you that we will be able to adequately and profitably manage this growth. Acquiring other banks and businesses involve similar risks to those commonly associated with branching, but may also involve additional risks, including:

Attractive acquisition opportunities may not be available to us in the future.

We expect that other banking and financial service companies, many of which have significantly greater resources than us, will compete with us in acquiring other financial institutions if we pursue such acquisitions. This competition could increase prices for potential acquisitions that we believe are attractive. Also, acquisitions are subject to various regulatory approvals. If we fail to receive the appropriate regulatory approvals, we will not be able to consummate an acquisition that we believe is in our best interests. Among other things, our regulators will consider our capital, liquidity, profitability, regulatory compliance and levels of goodwill when considering acquisition and expansion proposals. Any acquisition could be dilutive to our earnings and shareholders’ equity per share of our common stock.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Further increases in FDIC premiums could have a material adverse effect on our future earnings.

The FDIC insures deposits at FDIC insured financial institutions, including Union Center National Bank. The FDIC charges the insured financial institutions premiums to maintain the Deposit Insurance Fund at an adequate level. In light of current economic conditions, the FDIC has increased its assessment rates and imposed special assessments. The FDIC may further increase these rates and impose additional special assessments in the future, which could have a material adverse effect on future earnings.

Declines in value may adversely impact our investment portfolio.

As of December 31, 2010, we had approximately $378.1 million in available for sale investment securities. We may be required to record impairment charges on our investment securities if they suffer a decline in value that is considered other-than-temporary. Numerous factors, including lack of liquidity for re-sales of certain investment securities, absence of reliable pricing information for investment securities, adverse changes in business climate, adverse actions by regulators, or unanticipated changes in the competitive environment could have a negative effect on our investment portfolio in future periods. If an impairment charge is significant enough, it could affect the ability of Union Center National Bank to upstream dividends to us, which could have a material adverse effect on our liquidity and our ability to pay dividends to shareholders and could also negatively impact our regulatory capital ratios.

Concern of customers over deposit insurance may cause a decrease in deposits.

With recent increased concerns about bank failures, customers increasingly are concerned about the extent to which their deposits are insured by the FDIC. Customers may withdraw deposits in an effort to ensure that the amount they have on deposit with their bank is fully insured. Decreases in deposits may adversely affect our funding costs and net income.

We have a continuing need for technological change and we may not have the resources to effectively implement new technology.

The financial services industry is constantly undergoing rapid technological changes with frequent introductions of new technology-driven products and services. The effective use of technology increases efficiency and enables financial institutions to reduce costs, in addition to providing better service to customers. Our future success will depend in part upon our ability to address the needs of our customers by using technology to provide products and services that will satisfy customer demands for convenience as well as to create additional efficiencies in our operations as we grow. We cannot provide you with assurance that we will be able to effectively implement new technology-driven products and services or be successful in marketing such products and services to our customers.

System failure or breaches of our network security could subject us to increased operating costs as well as litigation and other liabilities.

The computer systems and network infrastructure we use could be vulnerable to unforeseen problems. Our operations are dependent upon our ability to protect our computer equipment against damage from physical theft, fire, power loss, telecommunications failure or a similar catastrophic event, as well as from security breaches, denial of service attacks, viruses, worms and other disruptive problems caused by hackers. Any damage or failure that causes an interruption in our operations could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition and results of operations. Computer break-ins, phishing and other disruptions could also jeopardize the security of information stored in and transmitted through our computer systems and network infrastructure, which may result in significant liability to us and may cause existing and potential customers to refrain from doing business with us. A failure of the security measures we use could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition and results of operations.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Recently enacted legislative reforms and future regulatory reforms required by such legislation could have a significant impact on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

On July 21, 2010, President Obama signed the Dodd-Frank Act into law. The Dodd-Frank Act will have a broad impact on the financial services industry, including significant regulatory and compliance changes. Many of the requirements called for in the Dodd-Frank Act will be implemented over time and most are and will be subject to implementing regulations over the course of several years. Given the uncertainty associated with the manner in which the provisions of the Dodd-Frank Act will be implemented by the various regulatory agencies, the full extent of the impact such requirements will have on our operations is unclear. Among other things, the Dodd-Frank Act:

While it is difficult to predict at this time what specific impact the Dodd-Frank Act, newly written implementing rules and regulations and yet to be written implementing rules and regulations will have on us, we expect that at a minimum our operating and compliance costs will increase, and our interest expense could increase.

Item 1B. Unresolved Staff Comments

None.

Item 2. Properties

The Bank’s operations are located at ten sites in Union County, New Jersey, consisting of six sites in Union Township, one in Springfield Township, one in Berkeley Heights, one in Vauxhall and one in Summit, New Jersey. The Bank also has three branch offices in Morris County, New Jersey, consisting of one site in Madison, one site in Boonton/Mountain Lakes, and one site in Morristown, New Jersey. The principal office is located at 2455 Morris Avenue, Union, New Jersey. The principal office is a two story building constructed in 1993. On October 9, 2004, the Bank opened a 19,555 square foot office facility on Springfield Road in Union, New Jersey, which served as the Bank’s Operations and Data Center, until January 12, 2010 when the Bank entered into a sales purchase agreement for this facility. On February 27, 2008 the Corporation signed an agreement to lease premises at 105 North Avenue, Cranford, New Jersey to be used to construct a full service branch facility. Subsequently, the Corporation notified the landlord that it wanted to terminate the commitment and completed the termination in the first quarter of 2009.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

The following table sets forth certain information regarding the Bank’s leased locations.

Branch Location		Term
356 Chestnut Street, Union, New Jersey		Term expires in 2028 with renewal options
Career Center Branch located in Union High School, Union, New Jersey		Term expired in October 2008, currently on month to month lease
300 Main Street, Madison, New Jersey		Term expires June 6, 2015 and is subject to renewal at the Bank’s option
2933 Vauxhall Road, Vauxhall, New Jersey		Term expires January 31, 2013 and is subject to renewal at the Bank’s option
392 Springfield Avenue, Summit, New Jersey		Term expired March 31, 2009 and was subject to renewal at the Bank’s option; however, the Bank advised the landlord that it did not intend to renew this lease.
545 Morris Avenue, Summit, New Jersey		Term expires February 1, 2024, subject to renewal at the Bank’s option
Ely Place, Boonton, New Jersey		Term expires August 29, 2021, and is subject to renewal at the Bank’s option

The Bank operates a Drive In/Walk Up located at 2022 Stowe Street, Union, New Jersey, adjacent to a part of the Center Office facility. The Bank also operates an Autobanking Center located at Bonnel Court, Union, New Jersey. The Bank has three off-site ATM locations. Two are located at the Chatham and Madison New Jersey Transit stations and one is located at the Boys and Girls Club of Union, 1050 Jeanette Avenue, Union, New Jersey.

During the second quarter of 2010, the Corporation entered into a lease of its former operations facility under a direct financing lease. The lease has a 15 year term with no renewal options. According to the terms of the lease, the lessee has an obligation to purchase the property underlying the lease in either year seven (7), ten (10) or fifteen (15) at predetermined prices for those years as provided in the lease. The structure of the minimum lease payments and the purchase prices as provided in the lease provide an inducement to the lessee to purchase the property in year seven (7).

Item 3. Legal Proceedings

In December 2009, the Corporation took steps to terminate a participation agreement with another New Jersey bank at December 31, 2009. Under the terms of the agreement, the participation ended on December 31, 2009, and, in the Corporation’s view, the lead bank is required to repurchase the remaining balance. The lead bank questioned our enforcement of the participation agreement. Therefore, the Corporation filed suit in Superior Court of New Jersey Chancery Division in Morris County, New Jersey, for the return of the outstanding principal.

Union Center has instituted a suit against Highlands State Bank (“Highlands”) in the Superior Court of New Jersey (Docket No. MRS-C-189-09). This litigation relates to a participating interest in a construction loan originated by Highlands. This loan was closed, and the participating interest (85%) was acquired, in 2007. Various causes of action are pleaded in this litigation by both parties, including claims for recovery of damages. The primary claim prosecuted by Union Center seeks a judicial determination that the Participation Agreement executed with Highlands was properly terminated in accordance with its terms on December 31, 2009 and that Highlands is obligated to return the unpaid balance of the loan funds advanced by Union Center during its participation in the loan. The primary claim presented by Highlands is that Union Center’s participation in the loan must continue until it is ultimately retired, which will probably result in a substantial loss that it is claimed must be shared by Union Center. This litigation is in its early stages. The initial pleadings have been filed and the discovery phase will now begin. As of December 31, 2010 no significant progress has been made regarding a decision resulting from the discovery or depositions taken during 2010.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

There are no other significant pending legal proceedings involving the Corporation other than those arising out of routine operations. Management does not anticipate that the ultimate liability, if any, arising out of such litigation will have a material effect on the financial condition or results of operations of the Corporation on a consolidated basis. Such statement constitutes a forward-looking statement under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. Actual results could differ materially from this statement as a result of various factors, including the uncertainties arising in proving facts within the judicial process.

Item 3A. Executive Officers of the Registrant

The following table sets forth the name and age of each executive officer of the Parent Corporation, the period during which each such person has served as an officer of the Parent Corporation or the Bank and each such person’s business experience (including all positions with the Parent Corporation and the Bank) for the past five years:

Name and Age		Officer Since		Business Experience
Anthony C. Weagley Age – 49		1996 the Parent Corporation 1985 the Bank		President and Chief Executive Officer of the Parent Corporation (April 2008 – Present); President, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Parent Corporation (August 2007 – March 2008); President and Chief Executive Officer of the Bank (March 2008 – Present); President, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Bank (August 2007 – February 2008); Vice President & Treasurer of the Parent Corporation (1996 – August 2007); Senior Vice President & Cashier of the Bank (1996 – August 2007); Vice President & Cashier of the Bank (1991 – 1996)
Mark S. Cardone Age – 48		2001 the Parent Corporation 2001 the Bank		Vice President of the Parent Corporation and Senior Vice President & Branch Administrator of the Bank (2001 – Present)
Joseph D. Gangemi Age – 30		2008 the Parent Corporation 2004 the Bank		Vice President and Assistant Portfolio Manager of the Parent and the Bank (December 31, 2010 – Present); Executive Assistant to Chief Executive Officer, Investor Relations Officer and Corporate Secretary of the Parent Corporation and the Bank (June 2008 – Present); Executive Assistant to Chief Executive Officer and Investor Relations Officer of the Bank (January 2008 – June 2008); Executive Assistant to Chief Executive Officer of the Bank (August 2007 – January 2008); Executive Assistant to Chief Financial Officer of the Bank (August 2005 – August 2007)
John J. Lukens Age – 63		2009 the Parent Corporation 2004 the Bank		Vice President and Senior Credit Administrator of the Parent Corporation and Senior Vice President and Senior Credit Administrator of the Bank (December 2009 – Present); Vice President of the Bank (September 2004 – December 2009)

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Name and Age		Officer Since		Business Experience
Francis R. Patryn Age – 61		2006 the Parent Corporation 2006 the Bank		Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and Comptroller of the Parent Corporation and Vice President and Chief Financial Officer and Comptroller of the Bank (November 2010 – Present); Vice President and Comptroller of the Bank (October 2006 – Present)
James W. Sorge Age – 58		2010 the Parent Corporation 2010 the Bank		Vice President and Compliance Officer of the Parent Corporation and Senior Vice President and Compliance Officer of the Bank (March 2010 – Present); Vice President and Director, PNC Global Investment Servicing (May 2008 – March 2010); Vice President, BSA/AML/OFAC Officer, Yardville National Bank (June 2005 – April 2008)
George J. Theiller Age – 60		2009 the Parent Corporation 2005 the Bank		Vice President and Senior Auditor of the Parent Corporation and Senior Vice President and Senior Auditor of the Bank (December 2009 – Present); Vice President and Senior Auditor of the Bank (April 2005 – December 2009)
Arthur M. Wein Age – 60		2009 the Parent Corporation 2009 the Bank		Vice President and Chief Operating Officer of the Parent Corporation and Senior Vice President and Chief Operating Officer of the Bank (October 2009 – Present); Vice President and Business Development Officer of the Summit Region of the Bank (April 2009 – October 2009); President and Chief Executive Officer of UTZ Technologies, Inc. (December 2003 – March 2009)

Item 4. Reserved

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PART II

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

Security Market Information

The common stock of the Parent Corporation is traded on the NASDAQ Global Select Market. The Corporation’s symbol is CNBC. As of December 31, 2010, the Corporation had 592 stockholders of record. This does not include beneficial owners for whom CEDE & Company or others act as nominees. On December 31, 2010, the closing low market bid and asked price were $8.10 and $8.15, respectively.

The following table sets forth the high and low bid price, and the dividends declared, on a share of the Corporation’s common stock for the years ended December 31, 2010 and 2009. All amounts are adjusted for prior stock splits and stock dividends.

		Common Stock Price
		2010								2009								Common Dividends Declared
		High Bid				Low Bid				High Bid				Low Bid				2010				2009
Fourth Quarter		$	8.11			$	7.30			$	9.20			$	7.36			$	0.03			$	0.03
Third Quarter			7.67				7.05				10.16				7.53				0.03				0.03
Second Quarter			9.07				6.94				9.15				6.88				0.03				0.03
First Quarter			9.09				8.31				8.50				6.43				0.03				0.09
Total																		$	0.12			$	0.18

Share Repurchase Program

Historically, repurchases have been made from time to time as, in the opinion of management, market conditions warranted, in the open market or in privately negotiated transactions. Shares repurchased were used for stock dividends and other issuances. No repurchases were made during 2009 and 2010

As noted elsewhere herein, on January 9, 2009, as part of the U.S. Department of the Treasury’s Troubled Asset Relief Program (“TARP”), the Parent Corporation entered into an agreement with the U.S. Treasury (the “Stock Purchase Agreement”) pursuant to which (i) the Parent Corporation issued and sold, and the U.S. Treasury purchased, 10,000 shares (the “Preferred Shares”) of the Company’s Fixed Rate Cumulative Perpetual Preferred Stock, Series A, having a liquidation preference of $1,000 per share for an aggregate purchase price of $10 million in cash, and (ii) the Parent Corporation issued to the U.S. Treasury a ten-year warrant (the “Warrant”) to purchase up to 173,410 shares of the Parent Corporation’s common stock at an exercise price of $8.65 per share. As a result of the successful completion of the Rights Offering in October 2009, the number of shares underlying the warrant held by the U.S. Treasury was reduced to 86,705 shares or 50 percent of the original 173,410 shares. Until the third anniversary of the issuance of the Preferred Shares, the consent of the U.S. Treasury will be required for any increase in the dividends on the Parent Corporation’s common stock or for any stock repurchases unless the Preferred Shares have been redeemed in their entirety or the U.S. Treasury has transferred the Preferred Shares to third parties. See “Dividends” below for additional restrictions on the payment of dividends.

Dividends

Federal laws and regulations contain restrictions on the ability of the Parent Corporation and Union Center National Bank to pay dividends. For information regarding restrictions on dividends, see Part I, Item 1, “Business — Dividend Limitations” and Part II, Item 8, “Financial Statements and Supplementary Data —  Dividend and Other Restrictions, Note 17 of the Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements.” Pursuant to the MOU between Union Center National Bank and the OCC, the Bank may not declare dividends without the prior approval of the OCC. In addition, under the terms of the trust preferred securities issued by Center Bancorp, Inc. Statutory Trust II, the Parent Corporation can not pay dividends on its common stock if the Corporation defers payments on the junior subordinated debentures which provide the cash flow for the payments on the trust preferred securities. Further, pursuant to the Stock Purchase Agreement, the Parent Corporation is unable to declare dividend payments on the Parent Corporation’s common stock (and certain

TABLE OF CONTENTS

preferred stock if the Parent Corporation issues additional series of preferred stock) if the Parent Corporation is in arrears in the payment of dividends on the Preferred Shares issued to the U.S. Treasury. Further, until the third anniversary of the U.S. Treasury’s investment or when all of the Preferred Shares have been redeemed or transferred, the Parent Corporation is not permitted to increase the amount of the quarterly cash dividend above $0.09 per share, which was the amount of the last regular dividend declared by the Parent Corporation prior to October 14, 2008.

Stockholders Return Comparison

Set forth below is a line graph presentation comparing the cumulative stockholder return on the Parent Corporation’s common stock, on a dividend reinvested basis, against the cumulative total returns of the Standard & Poor’s Composite and the SNL Mid-Atlantic Bank Index for the period from January 1, 2006 through December 31, 2010.

COMPARE 5-YEAR CUMULATIVE TOTAL RETURN AMONG CENTER BANCORP INC.,
S&P COMPOSITE AND SNL MID-ATLANTIC BANK INDEX

Assumes $100 invested on January 1, 2006
Assumes dividends reinvested
Year ended December 31, 2010

COMPARISON OF CUMULATIVE TOTAL RETURN OF ONE OR MORE
COMPANIES, PEER GROUPS, INDUSTRY INDEXES AND/OR BROAD MARKETS

		Fiscal Year Ending
Company/Index/Market		12/31/2005				12/31/2006				12/31/2007				12/31/2008				12/31/2009				12/31/2010
Center Bancorp, Inc.			100.00				148.38				111.68				85.74				96.47				89.46
S&P Composite			100.00				115.33				121.64				76.97				103.96				122.30
SNL Mid-Atlantic Bank Index			100.00				120.02				90.76				50.00				52.63				61.40

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Item 6. Selected Financial Data

The following tables set forth selected consolidated financial data as of the dates and for the periods presented. The selected consolidated statement of financial condition data as of December 31, 2010 and 2009 and the selected consolidated summary of income data for the years ended December 31, 2010, 2009 and 2008 have been derived from our audited consolidated financial statements and related notes that we have included elsewhere in this Annual Report. The selected consolidated statement of financial condition data as of December 31, 2008, 2007 and 2006 and the selected consolidated summary of income data for the years ended December 31, 2007 and 2006 have been derived from audited consolidated financial statements that are not presented in this Annual Report.

The selected historical consolidated financial data as of any date and for any period are not necessarily indicative of the results that may be achieved as of any future date or for any future period. You should read the following selected statistical and financial data in conjunction with the more detailed information contained in “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations” and our consolidated financial statements and the related notes that we have presented elsewhere in this Annual Report.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

SUMMARY OF SELECTED STATISTICAL INFORMATION AND FINANCIAL DATA

		Years Ended December 31,
		2010				2009				2008				2007				2006
		(Dollars in Thousands, Except per Share Data)
Summary of Income
Interest income		$	48,714			$	51,110			$	49,894			$	52,129			$	53,325
Interest expense			14,785				22,645				24,095				30,630				28,974
Net interest income			33,929				28,465				25,799				21,499				24,351
Provision for loan losses			5,076				4,597				1,561				350				57
Net interest income after provision for loan losses			28,853				23,868				24,238				21,149				24,294
Other income			2,472				3,906				2,644				4,372				633
Other expense			24,099				23,057				19,473				24,598				24,358
Income before income tax expense			7,226				4,717				7,409				923				569
Income tax expense (benefit)			222				946				1,567				(2,933	)			(3,329	)
Net income		$	7,004			$	3,771			$	5,842			$	3,856			$	3,898
Net income available to common stockholders		$	6,423			$	3,204			$	5,842			$	3,856			$	3,898
Statement of Financial Condition Data
Investments		$	378,080			$	298,124			$	242,714			$	314,194			$	381,733
Total loans			708,444				719,606				676,203				551,669				550,414
Goodwill and other intangibles			16,959				17,028				17,110				17,204				17,312
Total assets			1,207,385				1,195,488				1,023,293				1,017,645				1,051,384
Deposits			860,332				813,705				659,537				699,070				726,771
Borrowings			212,855				269,253				268,440				218,109				206,434
Stockholders’ equity			120,957				101,749				81,713				85,278				97,613
Dividends
Cash dividends		$	1,852			$	2,434			$	4,675			$	4,885			$	4,808
Dividend payout ratio			28.83	%			75.97	%			80.02	%			126.69	%			123.35	%
Cash Dividends Per Share(1)
Cash dividends		$	0.12			$	0.18			$	0.36			$	0.36			$	0.34
Earnings Per Share(1)
Basic		$	0.43			$	0.24			$	0.45			$	0.28			$	0.28
Diluted		$	0.43			$	0.24			$	0.45			$	0.28			$	0.28
Weighted Average Common Shares Outstanding(1)
Basic			15,025,870				13,382,614				13,048,518				13,780,504				13,959,684
Diluted			15,027,159				13,385,416				13,061,410				13,840,756				14,040,338
Operating Ratios
Return on average assets			0.59	%			0.31	%			0.58	%			0.38	%			0.37	%
Average stockholders’ equity to average assets			9.38	%			7.66	%			8.28	%			9.33	%			9.21	%
Return on average stockholders’ equity			6.30	%			4.02	%			7.03	%			4.09	%			4.04	%
Return on average tangible stockholders’ equity(2)			7.44	%			4.91	%			8.86	%			5.00	%			4.93	%
Book Value
Book value per common share(1)		$	6.83			$	6.32			$	6.29			$	6.48			$	7.02
Tangible book value per common share(1)(2)		$	5.79			$	5.15			$	4.97			$	5.17			$	5.77
Non-Financial Information
Common stockholders of record			592				605				640				679				717
Full-time equivalent staff			159				160				160				172				214

Notes to Selected Financial Data

TABLE OF CONTENTS

		2010				2009				2008				2007				2006
		(Dollars in Thousands, Except per Share Data)
Common shares outstanding			16,289,832				14,572,029				12,991,312				13,155,784				13,910,450
Stockholders’ equity		$	120,957			$	101,749			$	81,713			$	85,278			$	97,613
Less: Preferred Stock			9,700				9,619				—				—				—
Less: Goodwill and other intangible assets			16,959				17,028				17,110				17,204				17,312
Tangible Stockholders’ Equity		$	94,298			$	75,102			$	64,603			$	68,074			$	80,301
Book value per common share		$	6.83			$	6.32			$	6.29			$	6.48			$	7.02
Less: Goodwill and other intangible assets			1.04				1.17				1.32				1.31				1.25
Tangible Book Value per Common Share		$	5.79			$	5.15			$	4.97			$	5.17			$	5.77

All per common share amounts reflect all prior stock splits and dividends.

Return on average tangible stockholders’ equity, which is a non-GAAP financial measure, is computed by dividing net income by average stockholders’ equity less average goodwill and average other intangible assets. The following table reflects a reconciliation between average stockholders’ equity and average tangible stockholders’ equity and a reconciliation between return on stockholders’ equity and return on average tangible stockholders’ equity.

		2010				2009				2008				2007				2006
		(Dollars in Thousands)
Net income		$	7,004			$	3,771			$	5,842			$	3,856			$	3,898
Average stockholders’ equity		$	111,136			$	93,850			$	83,123			$	94,345			$	96,505
Less: Average goodwill and other intangible assets			16,993				17,069				17,158				17,259				17,378
Average Tangible Stockholders’ Equity		$	94,143			$	76,781			$	65,965			$	77,086			$	79,127
Return on average stockholders’ equity			6.30	%			4.02	%			7.03	%			4.09	%			4.04	%
Add: Average goodwill and other intangible assets			1.14				.89				1.83				0.91				0.89
Return on Average Tangible Stockholders’ Equity			7.44	%			4.91	%			8.86	%			5.00	%			4.93	%

The Corporation believes that in comparing financial institutions, investors desire to analyze tangible stockholders’ equity rather than stockholders’ equity, as they discount the significance of goodwill and other intangible assets.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Item 7. Management’s Discussion and Analysis (“MD&A”) of Financial Condition and Results of Operations

The purpose of this analysis is to provide the reader with information relevant to understanding and assessing the Corporation’s results of operations for each of the past three years and financial condition for each of the past two years. In order to fully appreciate this analysis, the reader is encouraged to review the consolidated financial statements and accompanying notes thereto appearing under Item 8 of this report, and statistical data presented in this document.

Cautionary Statement Concerning Forward-Looking Statements

See Item 1 of this Annual Report on Form 10-K for information regarding forward-looking statements.

Critical Accounting Policies and Estimates

The accounting and reporting policies followed by the Corporation conform, in all material respects, to U.S. GAAP. In preparing the consolidated financial statements, management has made estimates, judgments and assumptions that affect the reported amounts of assets and liabilities as of the dates of the consolidated statements of condition and results of operations for the periods indicated. Actual results could differ significantly from those estimates.

The Corporation’s accounting policies are fundamental to understanding this MD&A. The most significant accounting policies followed by the Corporation are presented in Note 1 of the Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements. The Corporation has identified its policies on the allowance for loan losses, other than temporary impairment of securities, income tax liabilities and goodwill and other identifiable intangible assets to be critical because management must make subjective and/or complex judgments about matters that are inherently uncertain and could be most subject to revision as new information becomes available. Additional information on these policies can be found in Note 1 of the Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements.

Allowance for Loan Losses and Related Provision

The allowance for loan losses represents management’s estimate of probable loan losses inherent in the loan portfolio. Determining the amount of the allowance for loan losses is considered a critical accounting estimate because it requires significant judgment and the use of estimates related to the amount and timing of expected future cash flows on impaired loans, estimated losses on pools of homogeneous loans based on historical loss experience, and consideration of current economic trends and conditions, all of which may be susceptible to significant change. The loan portfolio also represents the largest asset type on the Corporation’s Consolidated Statements of Condition.

The evaluation of the adequacy of the allowance for loan losses includes, among other factors, an analysis of historical loss rates by loan category applied to current loan totals. However, actual loan losses may be higher or lower than historical trends, which vary. Actual losses on specified problem loans, which also are provided for in the evaluation, may vary from estimated loss percentages, which are established based upon a limited number of potential loss classifications.

The allowance for loan losses is established through a provision for loan losses charged to expense. Management believes that the current allowance for loan losses will be adequate to absorb loan losses on existing loans that may become uncollectible based on the evaluation of known and inherent risks in the loan portfolio. The evaluation takes into consideration such factors as changes in the nature and size of the portfolio, overall portfolio quality, and specific problem loans and current economic conditions which may affect the borrowers’ ability to pay. The evaluation also details historical losses by loan category and the resulting loan loss rates which are projected for current loan total amounts. Loss estimates for specified problem loans are also detailed. All of the factors considered in the analysis of the adequacy of the allowance for loan losses may be subject to change. To the extent actual outcomes differ from management estimates, additional provisions for loan losses may be required that could materially adversely impact earnings in future periods. Additional information can be found in Note 1 of the Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Other-Than-Temporary Impairment of Securities

Securities are evaluated on at least a quarterly basis, and more frequently when market conditions warrant such an evaluation, to determine whether a decline in their value is other-than-temporary. FASB ASC 320-10-65 (previously FAS 115-2 and FAS 124-2, “Recognition and Presentation of Other-Than-Temporary Investments”), clarifies the interaction of the factors that should be considered when determining whether a debt security is other-than-temporarily impaired. For debt securities, management must assess whether (a) it has the intent to sell the security and (b) it is more likely than not that it will be required to sell the security prior to its anticipated recovery. These steps are done before assessing whether the entity will recover the cost basis of the investment. Previously, this assessment required management to assert it has both the intent and the ability to hold a security for a period of time sufficient to allow for anticipated recovery in fair value to avoid recognizing an other-than-temporary impairment. This change does not affect the need to forecast recovery of the value of the security through either cash flows or market price.

In instances when a determination is made that an other-than-temporary impairment exists but the investor does not intend to sell the debt security and it is not more likely than not that it will be required to sell the debt security prior to its anticipated recovery, FASB ASC 320-10-65 changes the presentation and amount of the other-than-temporary impairment recognized in the income statement. The other-than-temporary impairment is separated into (a) the amount of the total other-than-temporary impairment related to a decrease in cash flows expected to be collected from the debt security (the credit loss) and (b) the amount of the total other-than-temporary impairment related to all other factors. The amount of the total other-than-temporary impairment related to the credit loss is recognized in earnings. The amount of the total other-than-temporary impairment related to all other factors is recognized in other comprehensive income. Impairment charges on certain investment securities of approximately $5.6 million were recognized in earnings during the year ended December 31, 2010. Of this amount, $1.8 million related to charges taken on two pooled trust preferred securities owned by the Corporation, $360,000 on a variable rate private label collateralized mortgage obligation (“CMO”), $398,000 in principal losses on a variable rate private label CMO and $3.0 million on a trust preferred security. The Corporation’s approach to determining whether or not other-than-temporary impairment exists for any of these investments was consistent with the accounting guidance in effect at that time. For the year ended December 31, 2010, the Corporation primarily relied upon the guidance in FASB ASC 320-10-65 (previously FAS 115-2 and 124-2), FASB ASC 820-10-65 (previously FASB FAS 157-4) and FASB ASC 310-10-35 (previously FAS 114). Additional information can be found in Note 4 of the Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements.

Impairment charges on certain investment securities of approximately $4.2 million were recognized during the year ended December 31, 2009. Of this amount $3.4 million related to charges taken on two pooled trust preferred securities owned by the Corporation, $188,000 related to a private label CMO, $140,000 on a Lehman holding and $113,000 on an equity holding; additionally, the Corporation recorded a $364,000 charge related to a court order for the liquidation of the Reserve Primary Fund. The Corporation’s approach to determining whether or not other-than-temporary impairment exists for any of these investments was consistent with the accounting guidance in effect at that time. For the year ended December 31, 2009, the Corporation primarily relied upon the guidance in FASB ASC 320-10-35 (previously FSP FAS 115-1 and 124-1), FASB ASC 820-10-35 (previously FASB FAS 157-3) and FASB ASC 325-40 (previously EITF 99-20).

Income Taxes

The objectives of accounting for income taxes are to recognize the amount of taxes payable or refundable for the current year and deferred tax liabilities and assets for the future tax consequences of events that have been recognized in an entity’s financial statements or tax returns. Judgment is required in assessing the future tax consequences of events that have been recognized in the Corporation’s consolidated financial statements or tax returns.

Fluctuations in the actual outcome of these future tax consequences could impact the Corporation’s consolidated financial condition or results of operations. Notes 1 (under the caption “Use of Estimates”) and 11 of the Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements include additional discussion on the accounting for income taxes.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Goodwill

The Corporation adopted the provisions of FASB ASC 350-10-05 (previously SFAS No. 142, “Goodwill and Other Intangible Assets”), which requires that goodwill be reported separate from other intangible assets in the Consolidated Statements of Condition and not be amortized but tested for impairment annually or more frequently if impairment indicators arise for impairment. No impairment charge was deemed necessary for the years ended December 31, 2010 and 2009.

Fair Value of Investment Securities

In October 2008, the FASB issued FASB ASC 820-10-35 (previously FASB Staff Position 157-3, “Determining the Fair Value of a Financial Asset When The Market for That Asset Is Not Active”), to clarify the application of the provisions of FASB ASC 820-10-05 in an inactive market and how an entity would determine fair value in an inactive market. FASB ASC 820-10-35 was applied to the Corporation’s December 31, 2008 consolidated financial statements. Changes in the Corporation’s methodology occurred for the quarter ended June 30, 2009 as new accounting guidance was released in April of 2009 with mandatory adoption required in the second quarter. The Corporation relied upon the guidance in FASB ASC 820-10-65 (previously FASB FAS 157-4) when determining fair value for the Corporation’s pooled trust preferred securities and private issue corporate bond. See Note 18 of the Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements, Fair Value Measurements and Fair Value of Financial Instruments, for further discussion.

Introduction

The following introduction to Management’s Discussion and Analysis highlights the principal factors that contributed to the Corporation’s earnings performance in 2010.

The year 2010 was a challenging one for the banking industry and for the Corporation. The current global financial crisis and difficult economic climate has created challenges to financial institutions both domestically and abroad. Interest rates in 2010 and 2009 were reflective of significantly lower short-term interest rates in an effort to stimulate the economy. Competition for deposits in the Corporation’s marketplace remained intense while customers’ preference in seeking safety through full FDIC insured products and more liquidity became paramount in light of the financial crisis. Market conditions remained volatile during 2010 and 2009, related to global instability in the markets in connection with the sub-prime crises. While we continue to see an improvement in balance sheet strength and core earnings performance, we are still concerned with the credit stability of the broader markets. As a result, the Federal Reserve kept overnight borrowing rates at zero to 25 basis points throughout the course of 2010. Short-term interest rates remained lower than longer term rates resulting in an improved steepening of the yield curve. This resulted in an expansion of the Corporation’s net interest income, which is the Corporation’s primary source of income. The Corporation also took action throughout the year to reduce further exposure to interest rates through a reduction in higher cost funding and non-core balances in the deposit mix and improvement in the earning asset mix. The Corporation’s continued progress in growing and improving its balance sheet earning asset mix has helped to expand its spread and margin. We intend to continue to use a portion of the proceeds of maturing investments to help fund new loan growth.

The Corporation’s net income in 2010 was $7.0 million or $0.43 per fully diluted common share, compared with net income of $3.8 million or $0.24 per fully diluted common share in 2009. A substantial portion of our earnings in 2010 and 2009 was from core operations.

Earnings for 2010 were positively impacted by net interest income and spread expansion through both balance sheet improvements and a lower cost of funds as compared to 2009 and reductions in other real estate owned, marketing expenses and occupancy expenses. These improvements were somewhat offset by higher loan loss provisions as well as higher salaries and employee benefits, FDIC insurance, professional and consulting fees and computer expenses. Other expense for the twelve-months ended December 31, 2010 totaled $24.1 million, an increase of $1.0 million, or 4.5 percent, from the twelve-months ended December 31, 2009 due principally to the items mentioned above.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

The Corporation previously announced a strategic outsourcing agreement with Fiserv to provide core account processing services, which is consistent with the Corporation’s other strategic initiatives to streamline operations, reduce operating overhead and allow the Corporation to focus on core competencies of customer service and product development. This coupled with previously initiated cost reduction plans are intended to improve operating efficiencies, business and technical operations. The core processing transition was consummated during the fourth quarter of 2009. Additionally, the consolidation of the Corporation’s branch office on 392 Springfield Avenue in Summit, New Jersey during the first quarter of 2009 into its new office on 545 Morris Avenue in Summit, New Jersey resulted in improved efficiency and increased customer service.

For the twelve months ended December 31, 2010, total salaries and benefits increased by $850,000 or 8.6 percent to $10.8 million primarily attributable to additions to official staff and merit increases for existing staff of approximately $720,000 and increased medical insurance expense of $130,000.

The decreased tax rate resulted in part from the measurement and reassessment of the technical merits which led the Corporation to conclude that its position of the recognition of $2.6 million on a previously unrecognized tax benefit was sustainable. This in turn resulted in recognition of tax benefits previously unrecognized due to changes in the Corporation’s business entity structure during 2007 and into 2008 offset by a higher proportion of taxable income versus tax-exempt income in 2010 versus 2009. The decreased tax rate benefit was offset, in part, due to the surrender of Bank Owned Life Insurance Policies resulting in a $633,000 income tax expense in 2010.

Total non-interest income decreased as a percentage of total revenue, which is the sum of interest income and non-interest income, in 2010 largely due to $1.3 million in net securities losses as compared to $491,000 in net securities gains in 2009 as gains from sales of $4.9 million in 2010 were offset by losses of $6.2 million. For the twelve months ended December 31, 2010, total other income decreased $1.4 million as compared with the twelve months ended December 31, 2009, from $3.9 million to $2.5 million. Excluding net securities gains and losses in the respective periods, the Corporation recorded total other income of $3.8 million in the twelve months ended December 31, 2010, compared to $3.4 million in the twelve months ended December 31, 2009, representing an increase of $396,000 or 11.6 percent. This increase was primarily attributable to increases of $189,000 and $140,000 in other income and service charges, commissions and fees respectively. Increases in other income for the twelve months ended December 31, 2010 were recorded primarily in loan fees of $137,000 and bank-owned life insurance income of $70,000.

Total assets at December 31, 2010 were $1.207 billion, an increase of 1.00 percent from assets of $1.195 billion at December 31, 2009. The increase in assets reflects the growth of $80 million in our investment securities portfolio as the Corporation sought to adjust its earning asset mix to improve its return in the face of soft loan demand. The growth in the investment securities portfolio was funded primarily through reductions in cash and due from banks of $51.7 million and loans net of the allowance for loan losses of $11.3 million. The Corporation has made a concerted effort to reduce non-core balances and, as mentioned in the preceding sentence, its uninvested cash position was reduced by $51.7 million in 2010. Additionally, there has been a concerted effort to reduce higher costing retail deposits.

Loan demand slowed in 2010. Overall, the portfolio declined year over year by approximately $11.3 million or 1.59 percent from 2009. While the year end balance in the net loan portfolio declined it should be noted that the average balance for the year actually increased by $15.9 million or 2.3 percent in the same period. Demand for commercial real estate loans prevailed throughout the year in the Corporation’s market in New Jersey, despite the economic climate at both the state and national levels and market turmoil from the sub-prime markets. The Corporation is encouraged by loan demand and positive momentum is expected to return in growing that segment of earning assets in 2011. However, the Corporation continues to remain concerned with the credit stability of the broader markets due to the weakened economic climate.

Asset quality continues to remain high and credit culture conservative. Even so, the stability of the economy and credit markets remains uncertain and as such, has had an impact on certain credits within our portfolio. The Corporation continued to make provisions to the allowance for loan losses as efforts are made to stabilize credit quality issues. At December 31, 2010, non-performing assets totaled $11.9 million or 0.98 percent of total assets, as compared with $13.7 million, or 1.12 percent, at September 30, 2010 and

TABLE OF CONTENTS

$11.3 million or 0.94 percent at December 31, 2009. The increase in non-performing assets from December 31, 2009 was primarily attributable to the addition of three large commercial loans and an increase in troubled debt restructurings.

At December 31, 2010, the total allowance for loan losses amounted to approximately $8.9 million, or 1.25 percent of total loans. The allowance for loan losses as a percent of total non-performing loans amounted to 74.6 percent at December 31, 2010 as compared with 74.7 percent at September 30, 2010 and 77.2 percent at December 31, 2009. This decrease in the ratio from December 31, 2009 to December 31, 2010 was due to the increase the level of non performing assets offset by increases in the provision for loan loss of $479,000 in 2010 over 2009.

Deposit growth was strong in 2010, reflective of customers’ desire for safety and liquidity and flight to quality in light of the financial crisis. At December 31, 2010, total deposits for the Corporation were $860.3 million. Non-interest-bearing core deposits, a low cost source of funding, continue to be a key funding source. At December 31, 2010, this source of funding amounted to $144.2 million or 13.4 percent of total funding sources and 16.8 percent of total deposits.

Certificates of deposit $100,000 and greater decreased to 13.9 percent of total deposits at December 31, 2010 from 17.8 percent one year earlier. With the current turmoil in the financial markets, some of the Corporation’s depositors have become sensitive to obtaining full FDIC insurance for their time deposits. To accommodate its customers, the Corporation began offering Certificates of Deposit Account Registry Service (CDARS) in 2008. As a result of that offering and the temporary increase in insurance coverage by the FDIC to $250,000, the Corporation reported a decrease of $25.1 million in certificates of deposit greater than $100,000 at December 31, 2010 as compared to year-end 2009.

Total stockholders’ equity increased 18.9 percent in 2010 to $121.0 million, and represented 10.02 percent of total assets at year-end. Book value per common share (total common stockholders’ equity divided by the number of shares outstanding) increased to $6.83 as compared with $6.32 a year ago, primarily as a result of the $12.1 million capital raise from the Corporation’s stock offering consummated in September 2010 and earnings of $7.0 million in 2010. Tangible book value per common share (which excludes goodwill and other intangibles from common stockholders’ equity) increased to $5.79 from $5.15 a year ago; see Item 6 of this Annual Report on Form 10-K for a reconciliation of tangible book value (which is a non-GAAP financial measure) to book value. Return on average stockholders’ equity for the year ended December 31, 2010 was 6.30 percent compared to 4.02 percent for 2009. This increase was attributable to higher earnings in 2010 compared with 2009 coupled with higher average equity due primarily to both the capital raise from the 2010 stock offering and a full year benefit from the capital received under the U.S. Treasury Capital Purchase Program and a rights offering during 2009. The Tier I Leverage capital ratio increased to 9.90 percent of total assets at December 31, 2010, as compared with 7.73 percent at December 31, 2009.

The Corporation’s capital base includes $12.1 and $11.0 million in capital raised from the stock and rights offerings completed in 2010 and 2009 respectively, as well as the $10 million of capital received from the U.S. Treasury under the Capital Purchase Program. It also includes $5.2 million in subordinated debentures at December 31, 2010 and December 31, 2009. This issuance of $5.0 million in floating rate MMCapS^(SM) Securities occurred on December 19, 2003. These securities presently are included as a component of Tier I capital for regulatory capital purposes. In accordance with FASB ASC 810, these securities are classified as subordinated debentures on the Corporation’s Consolidated Statements of Condition.

The Corporation’s risk-based capital ratios at December 31, 2010 were 13.28 percent for Tier I capital and 14.29 percent for total risk-based capital. Total Tier I capital increased to approximately $116.6 million at December 31, 2010 from $98.5 million at December 31, 2009. The increase in Tier I capital primarily reflects the new capital received during 2010.

The Corporation announced an increase in its common stock buyback program on September 28, 2007 and June 26, 2008, under which the Parent Corporation was authorized to purchase up to 2,039,731 shares of Center Bancorp’s outstanding common stock. As of December 31, 2010, the Corporation had repurchased

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1,386,863 shares under the program at an average cost of $11.44 per share. As repurchases are now restricted pursuant to the Parent Corporation’s participation in TARP there were no repurchases during 2010. See Item 5 of this Annual Report on Form 10K.

The following sections discuss the Corporation’s Results of Operations, Asset and Liability Management, Liquidity and Capital Resources.

Results of Operations

Net income for the year ended December 31, 2010 was $7,004,000 as compared to $3,771,000 earned in 2009 and $5,842,000 earned in 2008, an increase of 85.73 percent from 2009 to 2010. For 2010, the basic and fully diluted earnings per common share was $0.43 per share as compared with $0.24 per share in 2009 and $0.45 per share in 2008.

For the year ended December 31, 2010, the Corporation’s return on average stockholders’ equity (“ROE”) was 6.30 percent and its return on average assets (“ROA”) was 0.59 percent. The Corporation’s return on average tangible stockholders’ equity (“ROATE”) was 7.44 percent for 2010. The comparable ratios for the year ended December 31, 2009, were ROE of 4.02 percent, ROA of 0.31 percent, and ROATE of 4.91 percent. See the discussion and reconciliation of ROATE, which is a non-GAAP financial measure, under Item 6 of this Annual Report on Form 10-K.

Earnings for 2010 were negatively impacted by an increase in other expense, due primarily to a higher provision for loan losses coupled with increases in salaries and benefits, FDIC insurance, professional and consulting fees, computer expense and other expenses and a reduction in non-interest income due to net securities losses in 2010 as compared to gains in 2009. These factors were offset, in part, by an improvement in net interest income, due primarily to a lower cost of funds. Earnings in 2010 also benefitted from reductions in occupancy expense, marketing and OREO expense.

Net Interest Income

The following table presents the components of net interest income on a tax-equivalent basis for the past three years

		2010												2009												2008
		Amount				Increase (Decrease) from Prior Year				Percent Change				Amount				Increase (Decrease) from Prior Year				Percent Change				Amount				Increase (Decrease) from Prior Year				Percent Change
		(Dollars in Thousands)
Interest income:
Investments		$	11,059			$	(3,279	)			(22.9	)		$	14,338			$	(67	)			(0.47	)		$	14,405			$	(4,850	)			(25.19	)
Loans, including fees			37,200				449				1.22				36,751				641				1.78				36,110				2,583				7.70
Federal funds sold and securities purchased under agreements to resell			0				0				0.00				0				(113	)			(100.00	)			113				(491	)			(81.29	)
Restricted investment in bank stocks			568				37				6.97				531				(63	)			(10.61	)			594				45				8.20
Total interest income			48,827				(2,793	)			(5.41	)			51,620				398				0.78				51,222				(2,713	)			(5.03	)
Interest expense:
Deposits			6,006				(6,302	)			(51.20	)			12,308				(979	)			(7.37	)			13,287				(7,548	)			(36.23	)
Borrowings			8,779				(1,558	)			(15.07	)			10,337				(471	)			(4.36	)			10,808				1,013				10.34
Total interest expense			14,785				(7,860	)			(34.71	)			22,645				(1,450	)			(6.02	)			24,095				(6,535	)			(21.34	)
Net interest income on a fully tax-equivalent basis			34,042				5,067				17.49				28,975				1,848				6.81				27,127				3,822				16.40
Tax-equivalent adjustment			(113	)			397				(77.84	)			(510	)			818				(61.60	)			(1,328	)			478				(26.47	)
Net interest income		$	33,929			$	5,464				19.20			$	28,465			$	2,666				10.33			$	25,799			$	4,300				20.00

Note: The tax-equivalent adjustment was computed based on an assumed statutory Federal income tax rate of 34 percent. Adjustments were made for interest earned on tax-advantaged instruments.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Historically, the most significant component of the Corporation’s earnings has been net interest income, which is the difference between the interest earned on the portfolio of earning assets (principally loans and investments) and the interest paid for deposits and borrowings, which support these assets. There were several factors that affected net interest income during 2010, including the volume, pricing, mix and maturity of interest-earning assets and interest-bearing liabilities and interest rate fluctuations.

Net interest income is directly affected by changes in the volume and mix of interest-earning assets and interest-bearing liabilities, which support those assets, as well as changes in the rates earned and paid. Net interest income is presented in this financial review on a tax equivalent basis by adjusting tax-exempt income (primarily interest earned on various obligations of state and political subdivisions) by the amount of income tax which would have been paid had the assets been invested in taxable issues, and then in accordance with the Corporation’s consolidated financial statements. Accordingly, the net interest income data presented in this financial review differ from the Corporation’s net interest income components of the Consolidated Financial Statements presented elsewhere in this report.

Net interest income, on a fully tax-equivalent basis, for the year ended December 31, 2010 increased $5.0 million, or 17.2 percent, to $34.0 million, from $29.0 million for 2009. The Corporation’s net interest margin increased 45 basis points to 3.30 percent from 2.85 percent. From 2008 to 2009, net interest income on a tax equivalent basis increased by $1.9 million and the net interest margin decreased by 11 basis points. During 2010, our net interest margin was positively impacted by increases in the investment portfolio funded by decreases in cash and due from banks and net loans, increases in core deposits, a decrease in high yielding time deposits in excess of $100,000 and reductions in borrowings. In 2009 the net interest margin was adversely impacted by the high level of uninvested cash, which accumulated due to the strong deposit growth.

The change in net interest income from 2009 to 2010 was attributable in part to the reduction in short-term interest rates that occurred in 2008 and have remained at historic low levels throughout 2010 coupled with a sustained steepening of the interest rate yield curve. Steps were taken during 2009 and 2010 to improve the Corporation’s net interest margin by continuing to lower rates in concert with the decline in market benchmark rates. However, in light of the financial crisis, the Corporation experienced growth of $13.7 million in non-interest bearing deposits during 2010 and, $58.1 million in savings, money market and time deposits under $100,000 during 2010 as customers’ desire for safety and liquidity remained paramount in light of their overall investment concerns. During the fourth quarter of 2010, the Corporation made a concerted effort to reduce non-core, single service deposits, and accordingly its uninvested cash position, which had an adverse impact on the Corporation’s net interest margin during 2010. However, during the twelve months ended December 31, 2010, the Corporation’s net interest spread improved by 34 basis points as a 33 basis point decrease in the average yield on interest-earning assets was more than offset by a 67 basis point decrease in the average interest rates paid on interest-bearing liabilities.

For the year ended December 31, 2010, average interest-earning assets increased by $12.3 million to $1.031 billion, as compared with the year ended December 31, 2009. The 2010 change in average interest-earning asset volume was primarily due to increased loan volume, which is consistent with the balance sheet strategies of changing and improving the mix of average earning assets. Increased average loan volume in 2010 was funded primarily by the reduction of its uninvested cash position. Average interest-bearing liabilities decreased by $72.1 million, due primarily to a decrease in CDARS Reciprocal deposits.

For the year ended December 31, 2009, average interest-earning assets increased by $102.4 million to $1.018 billion, as compared with the year ended December 31, 2008. The 2009 change in average interest-earning asset volume was primarily due to increased volumes of investment securities, lower short-term investments and increased loan volume.

The factors underlying the year-to-year changes in net interest income are reflected in the tables presented on pages 38 and 40, each of which have been presented on a tax-equivalent basis (assuming a 34 percent tax rate). The table on page 42 (Average Statements of Condition with Interest and Average Rates) shows the Corporation’s consolidated average balance of assets, liabilities and stockholders’ equity, the amount of income produced from interest-earning assets and the amount of expense incurred from interest-bearing liabilities, and net interest income as a percentage of average interest-earning assets.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Net Interest Margin

The following table quantifies the impact on net interest income (on a tax-equivalent basis) resulting from changes in average balances and average rates over the past three years. Any change in interest income or expense attributable to both changes in volume and changes in rate has been allocated in proportion to the relationship of the absolute dollar amount of change in each category.

Analysis of Variance in Net Interest Income Due to Volume and Rates

		2010/2009 Increase (Decrease) Due to Change in:												2009/2008 Increase (Decrease) Due to Change in:
		Average Volume				Average Rate				Net Change				Average Volume				Average Rate				Net Change
		(Dollars in Thousands)
Interest-earning assets:
Investment securities:
Taxable		$	700			$	(2,813	)		$	(2,113	)		$	3,553			$	(1,355	)		$	2,198
Non-Taxable			(1,122	)			(44	)			(1,166	)			(2,463	)			86				(2,377	)
Loans, net of unearned discount			1,002				(553	)			449				3,864				(3,223	)			641
Federal funds sold and securities purchased under agreements to resell			(0	)			(0	)			(0	)			(56	)			(57	)			(113	)
Restricted investment in bank stocks			(12	)			49				37				25				24				49
Total interest-earning assets			568				(3,361	)			(2,793	)			4,923				(4,525	)			398
Interest-bearing liabilities:
Money market deposits			54				(749	)			(695	)			(545	)			(1,298	)			(1,843	)
Savings deposits			286				(1,110	)			(824	)			1,017				483				1,500
Time deposits			(1,905	)			(2,262	)			(4,167	)			3,648				(3,050	)			598
Other interest-bearing deposits			309				(925	)			(616	)			204				(1,438	)			(1,234	)
Borrowings and subordinated debentures			(709	)			(849	)			(1,558	)			(463	)			(8	)			(471	)
Total interest-bearing liabilities			(1,965	)			(5,895	)			(7,860	)			3,861				(5,311	)			(1,450	)
Change in net interest income		$	2,533			$	2,534			$	5,067			$	1,062			$	786			$	1,848

Interest income on a fully tax-equivalent basis for the year ended December 31, 2010 decreased by approximately $2.8 million or 5.4 percent as compared with the year ended December 31, 2009. This decrease was due primarily to a decrease in balances of the Corporation’s tax exempt investment securities portfolios offset in part by an increase in the loan portfolio and a decline in rates due to the actions taken by the Federal Reserve to lower market interest rates. The Corporation’s loan portfolio increased on average $15.8 million to $708.4 million from $692.6 million in 2009, primarily driven by growth in commercial loans and commercial real estate.

The loan portfolio represented approximately 68.7 percent of the Corporation’s interest-earning assets (on average) during 2010 and 68.0 percent for 2009. Average investment securities decreased during 2010 by $3.3 million compared to 2009 as the Corporation has continued to reduce its concentration in tax-exempt securities and focused on purchases of lower risk-based mortgage backed securities. The average yield on interest-earning assets decreased from 5.07 percent in 2009 to 4.74 percent in 2010. The volume of Federal Funds sold and securities purchased under agreement to resell remained at $0 on average for both 2010 and 2009.

The increase in the volume of loans in 2010 primarily reflected increases in commercial and commercial real estate loans. The increase in the average volume on total interest-earning assets created an increase in interest income of $568,000, as compared with a decline of $3.4 million attributable to rate decreases in most interest-earning assets.

Interest income (fully tax-equivalent) increased by $398,000 from 2008 to 2009 primarily due to an increase in loan volume, offset in large part by a decline in yield. The decrease in average yield on total

TABLE OF CONTENTS

interest-earning assets created a $4.5 million reduction to interest income as compared with a contribution of $4.9 million attributable to volume increases, principally loans.

The Federal Open Market Committee (“FOMC”) kept the Federal Funds target rate at zero to 0.25 percent throughout 2010. This action by the FOMC allowed the Corporation to reduce liability costs throughout 2010.

Interest expense for the year ended December 31, 2010 was principally impacted by rate related factors. The rate related changes resulted in decreased expense on most interest-bearing deposits and borrowings in 2010 coupled with a decline in average volume of time deposits and borrowings during 2010. For the year ended December 31, 2010, interest expense decreased $7.9 million or 34.7 percent as compared with 2009. During 2010, the Corporation continued to lower rates in concert with the decline in market benchmark rates. The result was an improvement in the Corporation’s cost of funds and net interest spread. Average interest-bearing liabilities decreased $72.1 million, primarily in CDARS Reciprocal deposits and in borrowings.

For the year ended December 31, 2009, interest expense decreased $1.5 million or 6.0 percent as compared with 2008. Total interest-bearing liabilities increased on average $193.9 million, primarily in money market deposits and CDARS Reciprocal deposits. The Corporation’s net interest spread on a tax-equivalent basis (i.e., the average yield on average interest-earning assets, calculated on a tax equivalent basis, minus the average rate paid on interest-bearing liabilities) increased 34 basis points to 3.13 percent in 2010 from 2.79 percent for the year ended December 31, 2009. The increase in 2010 reflected an expansion of spreads between yields earned on loans and investments and rates paid for supporting funds. During 2010, spreads improved due in part to monetary policy maintained by the FOMC keeping the Federal funds rate at zero to 0.25 percent throughout 2010 coupled with a steepening of the yield curve that occurred during 2010.

The net interest spread increased 21 basis points in 2009 as compared with 2008, primarily as a result of an expansion of spreads between yields earned on loans and investments and rates paid for supporting funds. During 2009, spreads improved due to a steepening of the yield curve during 2009.

The cost of total average interest-bearing liabilities decreased to 1.61 percent, a decrease of 67 basis points, for the year ended December 31, 2010, from 2.28 percent for the year ended December 31, 2009, which followed a decrease of 73 basis points from 3.01 percent for the year ended December 31, 2008.

The contribution of non-interest-bearing sources (i.e., the differential between the average rate paid on all sources of funds and the average rate paid on interest-bearing sources) decreased to 21 basis points, a decrease of 5 basis points in 2010 from 2009. Comparing 2009 and 2008, there was a decrease of 11 basis points to 26 basis points on average from 37 basis points on average during the year ended December 31, 2008.

The following table, “Average Statements of Condition with Interest and Average Rates”, presents for the years ended December 31, 2010, 2009 and 2008, the Corporation’s average assets, liabilities and stockholders’ equity. The Corporation’s net interest income, net interest spreads and net interest income as a percentage of interest-earning assets (net interest margin) are also reflected.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

AVERAGE STATEMENTS OF CONDITION WITH INTEREST AND AVERAGE RATES

		Years Ended December 31,
		2010												2009												2008
(Tax-Equivalent Basis)		Average Balance				Income/ Expense				Yield/ Rate				Average Balance				Income/ Expense				Yield/ Rate				Average Balance				Income/ Expense				Yield/ Rate
		(Dollars in Thousands)
ASSETS
Interest-earning assets:
Investment securities:(1)
Taxable		$	305,927			$	10,726				3.51	%		$	289,414			$	12,839				4.44	%		$	211,185			$	10,529				4.99	%
Non-taxable			5,880				333				5.66	%			25,677				1,499				5.84	%			67,890				3,876				5.71	%
Loans, net of unearned income:(2)			708,425				37,200				5.25	%			692,562				36,751				5.31	%			622,533				36,110				5.80	%
Federal funds sold and securities purchased under agreements to resell			—				—				—				—				—				—	%			4,047				113				2.79	%
Restricted investment in bank stocks			10,293				568				5.52	%			10,526				531				5.04	%			10,104				594				5.88	%
Total interest-earning assets			1,030,525				48,827				4.74	%			1,018,179				51,620				5.07	%			915,759				51,222				5.59	%
Non-interest-earning assets:
Cash and due from banks			81,681												128,156												16,063
Bank owned life insurance			27,045												24,941												22,627
Intangible assets			16,993												17,069												17,158
Other assets			36,817												42,980												37,602
Allowance for loan losses			(8,579	)											(6,916	)											(5,681	)
Total non-interest earning assets			153,957												206,230												87,769
Total assets		$	1,184,482											$	1,224,409											$	1,003,528
LIABILITIES & STOCKHOLDERS’ EQUITY
Interest-bearing liabilities:
Money market deposits		$	127,614			$	940				0.74	%		$	123,427			$	1,635				1.32	%		$	150,373			$	3,478				2.31	%
Savings deposits			168,591				1,226				0.73	%			145,536				2,050				1.41	%			63,192				550				0.87	%
Time deposits			210,565				2,683				1.27	%			319,639				6,850				2.14	%			178,761				6,252				3.50	%
Other interest-bearing deposits			169,479				1,157				0.68	%			140,890				1,773				1.26	%			131,452				3,007				2.29	%
Short-term and long-term borrowings			239,777				8,568				3.57	%			258,607				10,146				3.92	%			270,390				10,501				3.88	%
Subordinated debentures			5,155				211				4.09	%			5,155				191				3.71	%			5,155				307				5.96	%
Total interest-bearing liabilities			921,181				14,785				1.61	%			993,254				22,645				2.28	%			799,323				24,095				3.01	%
Non-interest-bearing liabilities:
Demand deposits			142,364												124,966												114,400
Other non-interest-bearing deposits			0												333												368
Other liabilities			9,801												12,003												6,314
Total non-interest-bearing liabilities			152,165												137,302												121,082
Stockholders’ equity			111,136												93,853												83,123
Total liabilities and stockholders’ equity		$	1,184,482											$	1,224,409											$	1,003,528
Net interest income (tax-equivalent basis)							34,042												28,975												27,127
Net interest spread											3.13	%											2.79	%											2.58	%
Net interest income as percent of earning assets (margin)											3.30	%											2.85	%											2.96	%
Tax-equivalent adjustment(3)							(113	)											(510	)											(1,328	)
Net interest income						$	33,929											$	28,465											$	25,799

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Investment Portfolio

For the year ended December 31, 2010, the average volume of investment securities decreased by $3.3 million to approximately $311.8 million or 30.3 percent of average earning assets, from $315.1 million on average, or 30.9 percent of average earning assets, in 2009. At December 31, 2010, the total investment portfolio amounted to $378.1 million, an increase of $80.0 million from December 31, 2009. The increase at year-end but decrease in the average volume of investment securities reflects the fact that the Corporation invested in the investment portfolio during the fourth quarter of 2010. With the strong deposit growth experienced during 2010 and large buildup of liquidity, the Corporation began to prudently expand the size of its investment portfolio in an effort to deploy excess cash into earning assets. At December 31, 2010, the principal components of the investment portfolio are U.S. Treasury and U.S. Government Agency Obligations, Federal Agency Obligations including mortgage-backed securities, Obligations of U.S. states and political subdivision, corporate bonds and notes, and other debt and equity securities.

In the past, the Corporation’s investment portfolio also consisted of overnight investments that were made in the Reserve Primary Fund (the “Fund”), a money market fund registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission as an investment company under the Investment Company Act of 1940. On September 22, 2008, the Fund announced that redemptions of shares of the Fund were suspended pursuant to an SEC order so that an orderly liquidation could be effected for the protection of the Fund’s investors. Through December 31, 2010, the Corporation received six distributions from the Fund, totaling approximately 99 percent of its outstanding balance. During the fourth quarter of 2009, the Corporation recorded a $364,000, or approximately 1 percent, other-than-temporary impairment charge to earnings relating to this court ordered liquidation of the Fund. The Corporation’s outstanding carrying balance in the Fund as of December 31, 2010 was zero and recorded to earnings approximately $30,000 as partial recovery of the OTTI charge. Future liquidation distributions received by the Corporation, if any, will be recorded to earnings.

During the twelve month period ended December 31, 2010, volume related factors decreased investment revenue by $422,000, while rate related factors decreased investment revenue by $2.8 million. The tax-equivalent yield on investments decreased by 100 basis points to 3.55 percent from a yield of 4.55 percent during the year ended December 31, 2009. The reductions in the investment portfolio, primarily in the tax-exempt sector, were made during the first three quarters of 2010 to reduce exposure to these particular sectors of the portfolio while continuing to provide cash flow for loan funding and forecasted liability outflows. The yield on the portfolio declined compared to 2009 due primarily to sales as well as the impact that the lower interest rate environment had on higher yielding securities that had either matured, were prepaid, or were called. Since loan demand slowed during 2010, the Corporation invested in the investment portfolio to realign the earning asset mix in the fourth quarter of 2010.

Improvement in yield has been limited by reinvesting opportunities. During the first quarter of 2009, the Corporation recorded a $140,000 other-than-temporary impairment charge on its Lehman Brothers bond holding. Through June 30, 2009, other-than-temporary impairment charges taken on this bond amounted to $1,440,000. As part of the Corporation’s tax strategies, management elected to sell the Lehman bond holding during the third quarter of 2009.

The Corporation owns two pooled trust preferred securities (“Pooled TRUPS”), which consists of securities issued by financial institutions and insurance companies. The Corporation holds the mezzanine tranche of these securities. Senior tranches generally are protected from defaults by over-collateralization and cash flow default protection provided by subordinated tranches, with senior tranches having the greatest protection and mezzanine tranches subordinated to the senior tranches. One of the Pooled TRUPS, ALESCO 6, has incurred its seventh interruption of cash flow payments to date. Management reviewed the expected cash flow analysis and credit support to determine if it was probable that all principal and interest would be repaid, and recorded a $33,000 other-than-temporary impairment charge for the three months ended December 31, 2010 and $500,000 for the twelve months ended December 31, 2010, which represents 15.6 percent of the par amount of $3.2 million. The new cost basis for this security has been written down to $228,000. The other Pooled TRUP, ALESCO 7 incurred its fifth interruption of cash flow payments to date. Management determined that an other-than-temporary impairment exists on this security as well and recorded a $677,000 charge during the fourth quarter of 2010, and $1.3 million for the twelve months ended

TABLE OF CONTENTS

December 31, 2010 which represents 41.9 percent of the par amount of $3.1 million. The new cost basis for this security has been written down to $778,000.

One of the Pooled TRUPS incurred its third interruption of cash flow payments in 2009. Management reviewed the cash flow analysis and credit support to determine if it was probable that all principal and interest would be repaid, and recorded a $1.1 million other-than-temporary impairment charge for the three months ended December 31, 2009 and $2.5 million for the twelve months ended December 31, 2009, which represented 78.7 percent of the par amount of $3.1 million. At December 31, 2009 the new cost basis for this security has been written down to $665,000. The other Pooled TRUP incurred its first interruption of cash flow payments in the fourth quarter of 2009. Management determined that an other-than-temporary impairment existed on this security as well and recorded a $1.0 million charge during the fourth quarter of 2009, which represented 32.3 percent of the par amount of $3.0 million. At December 31, 2009 the new cost basis for this security has been written down to $2.0 million.

The Corporation owns a variable rate private label collateralized mortgage obligations (CMO), which were also evaluated for impairment. Management had applied aggressive default rates to identify if any credit impairment exists, as these bonds were downgraded to below investment grade. The Corporation recorded $398,000 in principal losses on these bonds in 2010, and expects additional losses in future periods. As such, management determined that an other-than-temporary impairment charge exists and recorded a $360,000 write down to the bonds, which represents 8.0 percent of the par amount of $4.5 million. The new cost basis for these securities has been written down to $3.9 million.

During 2009, the Corporation recorded $113,000 of other-than-temporary impairment charges relating to one equity holding in bank stocks. Due to the deterioration in that bank’s financial condition and that near term prospects in market value recovery appear remote, management determined that the expectation to recover its cost is not temporary. As such, this equity was written down to fair market value at the time of evaluation, which was December 31, 2009.

Securities available-for-sale are a part of the Corporation’s interest rate risk management strategy and may be sold in response to changes in interest rates, changes in prepayment risk, liquidity management and other factors. The Corporation continues to reposition the investment portfolio as part of an overall corporate-wide strategy to produce reasonable and consistent margins where feasible, while attempting to limit risks inherent in the Corporation’s balance sheet.

At December 31, 2010, the net unrealized loss carried as a component of accumulated other comprehensive income and included in stockholders’ equity, net of tax, amounted to a net unrealized loss of $5.3 million as compared with a net unrealized loss of $8.4 million at December 31, 2009, resulting from changes in market conditions and interest rates at period-end December 31, 2010. As a result of the inactive condition of the markets amidst the financial crisis, the Corporation elected to treat certain securities under a permissible alternate valuation approach at December 31, 2010 and 2009. For additional information regarding the Corporation’s investment portfolio, see Note 4 and Note 18 of the Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements.

During 2010, securities sold from the Corporation’s available-for-sale portfolio amounted to $644.1 million, as compared with $665.8 million in 2009. The gross realized gains on securities sold amounted to approximately $4,872,000 in 2010 compared to $5,897,000 in 2009, while the gross realized losses amounted to approximately $635,000 in 2010 compared to $1,168,000 in 2009. During 2010, the Corporation recorded a $3.0 million other-than-temporary charge on its trust preferred securities, $1.8 million on two pooled trust preferred securities and $360,000 on a variable rate private label CMO and $398,000 in principal losses on this variable rate private label CMO. During 2009, the Corporation recorded a $140,000 other-than-temporary impairment charge on its Lehman Brothers corporate bond, $3,433,000 on two pooled trust preferred securities, $188,000 on a variable rate private label CMO, $364,000 on a charge to earnings relating to the court ordered liquidation of the Reserve Primary Fund, and $113,000 of write-downs relating to a single equity holding in bank stocks.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

The table below illustrates the maturity distribution and weighted average yield on a tax-equivalent basis for investment securities at December 31, 2010, on a contractual maturity basis.

		US Treas & Agency Securities				Federal Agency Obligations				Mortgage Backed Securities				Obligations in U.S. States & Political Subdivisions				Trust Preferred				Corp Bonds & Notes				Collateralized Mortgage Obligations				Equity Securities				Total
Due in 1 year or less
Amortized Cost		$	—			$	—			$	—			$	—			$	—			$	1,503			$	—			$	—			$	1,503
Market Value		$	—			$	—			$	—			$	—			$	—			$	1,500			$	—			$	—			$	1,500
Weighted Average Yield			—	%			—	%			—	%			—	%			—	%			1.35	%			—	%			—	%			1.35	%
Due after one year through five years
Amortized Cost		$	—			$	55			$	—			$	—			$	—			$	19,130			$	—			$	—			$	19,185
Market Value		$	—			$	55			$	—			$	—			$	—			$	18,755			$	—			$	—			$	18,810
Weighted Average Yield			—	%			0.91	%			—	%			—	%			—	%			2.50	%			—	%			—	%			2.50	%
Due after five years through ten years
Amortized Cost		$	7,123			$	57			$	5,165			$	18,002			$	—			$	37,930			$	—			$	—			$	68,277
Market Value		$	6,995			$	57			$	5,044			$	17,577			$	—			$	36,829			$	—			$	—			$	66,502
Weighted Average Yield			3.23	%			1.85	%			3.41	%			5.67	%			—	%			4.21	%			—	%			—	%			4.43	%
Due after ten years
Amortized Cost		$	—			$	67,939			$	174,872			$	20,310			$	21,222			$	4,484			$	3,941			$	5,135			$	297,903
Market Value		$	—			$	68,369			$	172,689			$	19,648			$	18,731			$	4,350			$	2,728			$	4,753			$	291,268
Weighted Average Yield			—	%			2.57	%			2.37	%			5.39	%			6.85	%			6.00	%			3.21	%			0.02	%			2.97	%
Total
Amortized Cost		$	7,123			$	68,051			$	180,037			$	38,312			$	21,222			$	63,047			$	3,941			$	5,135			$	386,868
Market Value		$	6,995			$	68,481			$	177,733			$	37,225			$	18,731			$	61,434			$	2,728			$	4,753			$	378,080
Weighted Average Yield			3.23	%			2.57	%			2.40	%			5.52	%			6.85	%			3.75	%			3.21	%			0.02	%			3.19	%

For information regarding the carrying value of the investment portfolio, see Note 4 and Note 18 of the Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements.

The securities listed in the table above are either rated investment grade by Moody’s and/or Standard and Poor’s or have shadow credit ratings from a credit agency supporting investment grade and conform to the Corporation’s investment policy guidelines. There were no municipal securities of any single issuer exceeding 10 percent of stockholders’ equity at December 31, 2010.

Equity securities included in other debt and equity securities do not have a contractual maturity and are included in the Due after ten years maturity in the table above.

The following table sets forth the carrying value of the Corporation’s investment securities, as of December 31 for each of the last three years.

		2010				2009				2008
		(Dollars in Thousands)
Securities Available-for-Sale:
U.S. Treasury & Agency Securities		$	6,995			$	2,089			$	100
Federal Agency Obligations			68,481				128,365				7,239
Mortgage-backed securities			177,733				86,220				75,558
Obligations of U.S. States and political subdivisions			37,225				19,281				52,094
Trust Preferred Securities			18,731				26,715				31,771
Corporate bonds & notes			61,434				22,655				17,955
Collateralized mortgage obligations			2,728				7,266				41,407
Equity securities			4,753				5,533				16,590
Total Investment Securities Available-for-Sale		$	378,080			$	298,124			$	242,714

TABLE OF CONTENTS

For other information regarding the Corporation’s investment securities portfolio, see Note 4 and Note 18 of the Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements.

Loan Portfolio

Lending is one of the Corporation’s primary business activities. The Corporation’s loan portfolio consists of both retail and commercial loans, serving the diverse customer base in its market area. The composition of the Corporation’s loan portfolio continues to change due to the local economy. Factors such as the economic climate, interest rates, real estate values and employment all contribute to these changes. Loan growth has been generated through business development efforts via repeat customer business and new borrower requests.

At December 31, 2010, total loans amounted to $708.4 million, a decrease of 1.6 percent or $11.2 million as compared to December 31, 2009. However, the average volume of loans was $708.4 million during 2010, as compared with $692.6 million during 2009. The $449,000 or 1.2 percent increase in interest income on loans for the twelve months ended December 31, 2010 was the result of the increase in average volume during 2010 offset in part by a lower interest rate environment as compared with 2009. Even though the Corporation continues to be challenged by the heightened competition for lending relationships that exists within its market, strong growth in volume has been achieved through successful lending sales efforts to build on continued customer relationships.

Total average loan volume increased $15.9 million or 2.3 percent in 2010, while the portfolio yield decreased by 6 basis points compared with 2009. The increased total average loan volume reflected both increased repeat customer activity and new lending relationships. The volume related factors during the period contributed increased revenue of $1.0 million, while the rate related changes decreased revenue by $553,000. Total average loan volume increased to $708.4 million with a net interest yield of 5.25 percent, compared to $692.6 million with a yield of 5.31 percent for the year ended December 31, 2009. The Corporation seeks to create growth in commercial lending by offering products and competitive pricing and by capitalizing on new and existing relationships in its market area. Products are offered to meet the financial requirements of the Corporation’s clients. It is the objective of the Corporation’s credit policies to diversify the commercial loan portfolio to limit concentrations in any single industry.

The following table presents information regarding the components of the Corporation’s loan portfolio on the dates indicated.

		December 31,
		2010				2009				2008				2007				2006
		(Dollars in Thousands)
Real estate – residential mortgage		$	165,154			$	191,199			$	240,885			$	266,251			$	269,486
Real estate – commercial mortgage			421,745				410,056				358,394				219,356				206,044
Commercial and industrial			121,034				117,912				75,415				65,493				74,179
Installment			511				439				1,509				569				705
Total loans			708,444				719,606				676,203				551,669				550,414
Less:
Allowance for loan losses			8,867				8,711				6,254				5,163				4,960
Net loans		$	699,577			$	710,895			$	669,949			$	546,506			$	545,454

Included in the loan balances above are net deferred loan costs of $272,000, $391,000 and $572,000 at December 31, 2010, 2009 and 2008, respectively.

Over the past five years, demand for the Bank’s commercial and commercial real estate loan products has increased.

The increase in commercial loans in 2010 was a result of the expansion of the Corporation’s customer base, aggressive business development and marketing programs coupled with positive market trends for the Corporation. While growth in certain sectors of the Banks’ market, such as consumer real estate products, was severely stressed during most of 2008, the Corporation experienced an increased growth in its commercial lending sales efforts during 2009 and 2010 as it continued to benefit from the Corporation’s primary core customer base.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Average commercial loans, which include commercial real estate and construction, increased to $532.4 million at December 31, 2010 compared to $476.1 million at December 31, 2009 or by approximately $56.3 million or 11.8 percent in 2010 compared with 2009. The Corporation seeks to create growth in the commercial lending sector by offering competitive products and pricing and by capitalizing on new relationships in its market area. Over the last several years, the expansion of the Bank’s marketplace has aided in this growth. Products are offered to meet the financial requirements of the Corporation’s clients. It is an objective of the Corporation’s credit policies to diversify the commercial loan portfolio to limit concentrations in any single industry.

The Corporation’s commercial loan portfolio includes, in addition to real estate development, loans to manufacturing, automobile, professional and retail trade sectors, and to specialized borrowers, such as operators of private educational facilities, for example. A large proportion of the Corporation’s commercial loans have interest rates that reprice with changes in short-term market interest rates or mature in one year or less.

Average commercial real estate loans, which amounted to $296.6 million in 2010, increased $27.3 million or 10.1 percent as compared with average commercial real estate loans of $269.3 million in 2009 (which reflected a 27.5 percent increase over 2008). The Corporation’s long-term mortgage portfolio includes both residential and commercial financing. Growth during the past two years largely reflected brisk activity in new lending activity and mortgage financing. The interest rates on a portion of the Corporation’s commercial mortgages adjust to changes in indices such as the 5 and 10-year Treasury Notes, and the Federal Home Loan Bank of New York 5 and 10-year advance rate. Interest rate changes usually occur at each five-year anniversary of the loan.

The average volume of residential mortgage loans, including home equity loans, declined $40.3 million or 18.7 percent in 2010 as compared to 2009. During 2010, residential loan growth was affected by the slowdown in the housing market, brisk refinancing activity into fixed rate loans due principally to the current historic low rate environment and competition among lenders. Fixed rate residential and home equity loans have recently become a popular choice among homeowners, either through refinancing or new loans, as consumers wish to lock in historically low fixed rates.

Average construction loans and other temporary mortgage financing increased by $4.4 million to $53.8 million in 2010 from $49.4 million in 2009. The average volume of such loans increased by $1.4 million from 2008 to 2009. The change in construction and other temporary mortgage lending in 2010 was achieved in the face of a severely distressed market. Interest rates on such mortgages are generally tied to key short-term market interest rates. Funds are typically advanced to the builder or developer during various stages of construction and upon completion of the project. It is contemplated that the loans will be repaid by cash flows derived from sales within the project or, where appropriate, conversion to permanent financing.

Loans to individuals include personal loans, student loans, and home improvement loans, as well as financing for automobiles. Such loans averaged $704,000 in 2010, compared with $773,000 in 2009 and $973,000 million in 2008. The decrease in loans to individuals during 2010 was due in part to decreases in volumes of new personal loans (single-pay).

Home equity loans, inclusive of home equity lines, as well as traditional secondary mortgage loans, are popular with consumers due to their tax advantages over other forms of consumer borrowing. Home equity loans and secondary mortgages averaged $70.7 million in 2010, a decrease of $18.5 million or 20.7 percent compared to an average of $89.2 million in 2009 and $109.6 million in 2008. Interest rates on floating rate home equity lines are generally tied to the prime rate while most other loans to individuals, including fixed rate home equity loans, are medium-term (ranging between one-to-ten years) and carry fixed interest rates. The decrease in home equity loans outstanding during 2010 was due in part to the recent slowdown in the housing market and lower consumer spending. Additionally, floating rate home equity lines and closed-end fixed rate home equity loans became less attractive during 2010 as consumers took advantage of historically low interest rates or opted to convert these loan balances into fixed rate loan products.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

At December 31, 2010, the Corporation had total loan commitments outstanding of $179.9 million, of which approximately 61.5 percent were for commercial loans, commercial real estate loans and construction loans.

The maturities of loans at December 31, 2010 are listed below.

		At December 31, 2010, Maturing
		In One Year or Less				After One Year through Five Years				After Five Years				Total
		(Dollars in Thousands)
Construction loans		$	41,952			$	500			$	7,292			$	49,744
Commercial real estate loans			59,125				184,915				127,961				372,001
Residential real estate loans			38,854				29,984				96,316				165,154
Commercial and industrial			74,534				40,739				5,761				121,034
All other loans			366				100				45				511
Total		$	214,831			$	256,238			$	237,375			$	708,444
Loans with:
Fixed rates		$	78,468			$	102,669			$	213,374			$	394,511
Variable rates			136,363				153,569				24,001				313,933
Total		$	214,831			$	256,238			$	237,375			$	708,444

For additional information regarding loans, see Note 5 of the Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements.

Allowance for Loan Losses and Related Provision

The purpose of the allowance for loan losses (“allowance”) is to absorb the impact of probable losses inherent in the loan portfolio. Additions to the allowance are made through provisions charged against current operations and through recoveries made on loans previously charged-off. The allowance for loan losses is maintained at an amount considered adequate by management to provide for potential credit losses based upon a periodic evaluation of the risk characteristics of the loan portfolio. In establishing an appropriate allowance, an assessment of the individual borrowers, a determination of the value of the underlying collateral, a review of historical loss experience and an analysis of the levels and trends of loan categories, delinquencies and problem loans are considered. Such factors as the level and trend of interest rates, current economic conditions and peer group statistics are also reviewed. At year-end 2010, the level of the allowance was $8,867,000 as compared to a level of $8,711,000 at December 31, 2009. The Corporation made loan loss provisions of $5,076,000 in 2010 compared with $4,597,000 in 2009 and $1,561,000 in 2008. The level of the allowance during the respective annual periods of 2010 and 2009 reflects the change in average volume, credit quality within the loan portfolio, the level of charge-offs, loan volume recorded during the periods and the Corporation’s focus on the changing composition of the commercial and residential real estate loan portfolios.

At December 31, 2010, the allowance for loan losses amounted to 1.25 percent of total loans. In management’s view, the level of the allowance at December 31, 2010 is adequate to cover losses inherent in the loan portfolio. Management’s judgment regarding the adequacy of the allowance constitutes a “Forward Looking Statement” under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. Actual results could differ materially from management’s analysis, based principally upon the factors considered by management in establishing the allowance.

Although management uses the best information available, the level of the allowance for loan losses remains an estimate, which is subject to significant judgment and short-term change. Various regulatory agencies, as an integral part of their examination process, periodically review the Corporation’s allowance for loan losses. Such agencies may require the Corporation to increase the allowance based on their analysis of information available to them at the time of their examination. Furthermore, the majority of the Corporation’s loans are secured by real estate in the State of New Jersey. Future adjustments to the allowance may be necessary due to economic factors impacting New Jersey real estate and further deterioration of the economic

TABLE OF CONTENTS

climate as well as operating, regulatory and other conditions beyond the Corporation’s control. The allowance for loan losses as a percentage of total loans amounted to 1.25 percent, 1.21 percent and 0.92 percent at December 31, 2010, 2009 and 2008, respectively.

Net charge-offs were $4,920,000 in 2010, $2,140,000 in 2009 and $470,000 in 2008. During 2010, the Corporation experienced an increase in charge-offs compared to 2009 as the Corporation took further write downs of $1.9 million associated with a previously disclosed construction project related to industrial warehouses. In addition, distress in the single family housing market caused the Corporation to recognize write downs of $1.6 million and 2 commercial and industrial loans were the prime contributors of the write downs of $1.1 million in commercial and industrial loans. In 2009 charge-offs principally related to four commercial and commercial real estate credits taken during the fourth quarter of 2009 totaling $1.1 million, coupled with a $900,000 charge-off in connection with a $5.1 million commercial real estate construction project of industrial warehouses, which was placed in non-accrual status during the first quarter of 2009. As previously disclosed, during the fourth quarter of 2009, the Corporation took steps to terminate a participation agreement with another New Jersey bank, as the participation ended on December 31, 2009. The other bank objected to the Corporation’s interpretation of the agreement and subsequent actions. Accordingly, the Corporation filed suit for the return of the outstanding principal and reclassified the outstanding loan as a non-performing asset on its balance sheet.

Five-Year Statistical Allowance for Loan Losses

The following table reflects the relationship of loan volume, the provision and allowance for loan losses and net charge-offs (recoveries) for the past five years.

		Years Ended December 31,
		2010				2009				2008				2007				2006
		(Dollars in Thousands)
Average loans outstanding		$	708,425			$	692,562			$	622,533			$	541,297			$	522,352
Total loans at end of period		$	708,444			$	719,606			$	676,203			$	551,669			$	550,414
Analysis of the Allowance for Loan Losses
Balance at the beginning of year		$	8,711			$	6,254			$	5,163			$	4,960			$	4,937
Charge-offs:
Commercial			3,348				2,122				444				45				—
Residential			1,552				4				20				80				50
Installment loans			40				26				35				31				29
Total charge-offs			4,940				2,152				499				156				79
Recoveries:
Commercial			13				2				10				2				19
Residential			1				4				13				—				—
Installment loans			6				6				6				7				26
Total recoveries			20				12				29				9				45
Net charge-offs (recoveries)			4,920				2,140				470				147				34
Provision for loan losses			5,076				4,597				1,561				350				57
Balance at end of year		$	8,867			$	8,711			$	6,254			$	5,163			$	4,960
Ratio of net charge-offs during the year to average loans outstanding during the year			0.69	%			0.31	%			0.08	%			0.03	%			0.01	%
Allowance for loan losses as a percentage of total loans at end of year			1.25	%			1.21	%			0.92	%			0.94	%			0.90	%