The City Attorney of San Francisco Matter. On November 21, 2023, TBBK Card Services, Inc. (“TBBK Card”), a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Bank, was served with a complaint filed in the Superior Court of the State of California (the “California Superior Court”), captioned People of the State of California, acting by and through San Francisco City Attorney David Chiu, Plaintiff v. InComm Financial Services, Inc., TBBK Card Services, Inc., Sutton Bank, Pathward, N.A., and Does 1-10, Defendants. The complaint principally alleges that the defendants engaged in unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent business acts and practices related to the packaging of “Vanilla” prepaid cards and the refund process for unauthorized transactions that occurred due to card draining practices. On December 14, 2023, the case was removed to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. On March 26, 2024, the case was remanded to the California

Superior Court. TBBK Card has vigorously defended against the claims. On May 6, 2024, TBBK Card filed a motion to quash service of the summons as to TBBK Card for lack of personal jurisdiction. TBBK Card’s motion to quash, and subsequent related appeals, were denied. On December 12, 2025, an amended complaint containing additional factual allegations was filed in the California Superior Court. The Company is not yet able to determine whether the ultimate resolution of this matter will have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial condition or operations.

The Oxygen Matter. On November 25, 2024, the Bank commenced arbitration through the American Arbitration Association seeking approximately $1.808 million from Oxygen, Inc. (“Oxygen”) owed under a Private Label Account Program Agreement related to unpaid invoices and indemnification obligations owed by Oxygen. On January 13, 2025, Oxygen answered the Bank’s arbitration demand, generally denying the allegations made by the Bank, and filed a Counterclaim against the Bank. The Counterclaim alleges (i) that the termination of the Private Label Account Program Agreement was pretextual, (ii) the Bank breached its notification obligations in terminating the Private Label Account Program Agreement, (iii) the Bank breached the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and (iv) conversion of $1.2 million by the Bank. The ad damnum clause of the Counterclaim also seeks compensatory damages in an amount not less than $40 million. The Bank believes it has meritorious defenses and intends to vigorously defend against the Counterclaim. The Company is not yet able to determine whether the ultimate resolution of this matter will have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial condition or operations.

The Putative Class Action Matter. On March 14, 2025, Nathan Linden filed a putative securities class action complaint captioned Nathan Linden v. The Bancorp, Inc., et al. in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware against the Company and certain of its current and former officers. The complaint asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder and purports to assert a class action on behalf of persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired Company securities between January 25, 2024 and March 4, 2025. The complaint alleges, among other things, that the defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements and omissions about the Company’s business, prospects, and operations, with a focus on the Company’s commercial real estate bridge loan (“REBL”) portfolio and related provision for credit losses. On September 29, 2025, the court appointed Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority (“SEPTA”) as lead plaintiff; the case is now captioned Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority v. The Bancorp, Inc., et al. On December 22, 2025, SEPTA filed its amended class action complaint, which alleges that between January 26, 2024 and March 25, 2025, the defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements and omissions about certain loans in the Company’s REBL portfolio and related provision for credit losses. The named plaintiff seeks unspecified damages, fees, interest, and costs. The Company intends to vigorously defend against the allegations in the amended complaint. On February 20, 2026, the Company filed its motion to dismiss the amended complaint. On April 21, 2026, SEPTA filed its opposition to the Company’s motion to dismiss. On June 5, 2026, the Company filed its reply in support of its motion to dismiss. The Court’s decision on the Company’s motion to dismiss the amended complaint remains pending.. The Company is not yet able to determine whether the ultimate resolution of the matter will have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial condition or operations.

The Ingenium Matter. On February 2, 2026, the Bank was made aware of a complaint filed in the Delaware Superior Court, Complex Commercial Division by Ingenium Capital Group, LLC (“Ingenium”) captioned as Ingenium Capital Group, LLC v. The Bancorp Bank, N.A., C.A. No. N26C-01-487 PAW CCLD. Prior to service of the complaint, on February 19, 2026, Ingenium filed its amended complaint. In the amended complaint, Ingenium alleges that the Bank committed fraud or breached a letter of understanding signed in January 2023 by inducing Ingenium to invest upwards of $10 million in Oxygen, Inc. (the same entity that the Bank is arbitrating against in the Oxygen Matter described above) and then by terminating its contract with Oxygen in February 2024. The amended complaint seeks not less than $10 million in damages, plus costs of litigation, and interest. The Bank intends to vigorously defend against the claims. On May 19, 2026, the Bank filed its motion to dismiss the amended complaint. On June 26, 2026, Ingenium filed its opposition to the Bank’s motion to dismiss. As of June 30, 2026, briefing on the Bank’s motion to dismiss had not yet been completed. We are not yet able to estimate any potential liability of the Bank.