Risk Factors

For a discussion of certain risk factors you should consider before making an investment, see “Risk Factors” beginning on page 12.

Company Information

Our principal executive offices are located at 2500 Weston Road, Suite 300, Weston, Florida 33331, and our telephone number is (954) 984-3313. Our website address is www.floridacommunitybank.com . The information and other content contained on our website are not part of this prospectus.

6

RISK FACTORS

Investing in our Class A Common Stock involves a high degree of risk. You should carefully consider the following risk factors, as well as the other information in this prospectus, before deciding whether to invest in our Class A Common Stock. If any of the events highlighted in the following risks actually occurs, our business, results of operations or financial condition would likely suffer. In such an event, the trading price of our Class A Common Stock could decline and you could lose all or part of your investment.

Risks Related to Our Business and Industry

We completed nine acquisitions between 2010 and 2014 and thus have a limited operating history as a single entity from which investors can evaluate our profitability and prospects.

The Company was organized in April 2009, acquired certain of the assets and assumed certain liabilities of eight failed banks in 2010 and 2011, and made a significant acquisition of an open bank—Great Florida Bank—which closed in January 2014. We have completed the process of integrating all of the acquired banking platforms into a single unified operating platform; however our limited time as the assignee of certain of the assets and liabilities of the Old Failed Banks and the successor to the operations of Great Florida Bank may make it difficult to predict our future prospects and financial performance based on the prior performance of the Old Failed Banks and Great Florida Bank.

We may not be able to effectively manage our growth.

We became a relatively large organization in a short period of time.  Our operating results depend, to a large extent, on our ability to successfully manage our rapid growth and our ability to continue to recruit and retain qualified employees, especially seasoned relationship bankers. Our business plan includes, and is dependent upon, hiring and retaining highly qualified and motivated executives and employees at every level and, in particular, bankers that have long-standing relationships within their communities in order to grow our organic banking business.  We expect these professionals will bring with them valuable customer relationships, and they will be an integral part of our ability to attract and grow deposits, generate new loan origination and grow in our market areas. We expect to experience substantial competition in our endeavor to identify, hire and retain the top-quality employees that we believe are key to our success. If we are unable to continue to hire and retain qualified employees, we may not be able to successfully execute our business strategy. If we are unable to effectively manage and grow the Bank, our business and our consolidated results of operations and financial condition could be materially and adversely impacted.

Our current asset mix and our current investments may not be indicative of our future asset mix and investments, which may make it difficult to predict our future financial and operating performance.

Certain factors make it difficult to predict our future financial and operating performance including, among others: (i) our current asset mix may not be representative of our anticipated future asset mix and may change as we continue to execute on our plans for organic loan origination and banking activities and potentially grow through future acquisitions; (ii) our significant liquid securities portfolio may not necessarily be representative of our future liquid securities position; and (iii) our cost structure and capital expenditure requirements during the periods for which financial information is available may not be reflective of our anticipated cost structure and capital spending as we continue to realize efficiencies in our business, integrate future acquisitions and continue to grow our organic banking platform.

Since a significant portion of our revenue since inception was generated from accretion income on acquired loans, which over time has largely been replaced with performing interest-earning assets, the failure to generate sufficient new loan origination and other asset growth could have an adverse impact on our future financial condition and earnings.

As a result of our FDIC-assisted acquisitions, a significant portion of our current interest income has been derived from the realization of accretable discounts on acquired loans. For the year ended December 31, 2013, we recognized $64.9 million of interest income, or 44.6% of total interest income, and for the year ended December 31, 2012, we recognized $90.6 million of interest income, or 60.9% of total interest income, in each case, from the accretable discounts on our acquired loans. While our new loan portfolio has grown significantly over the last two years and represents 66% of our outstanding loans at March 31, 2014, if we are unable to continue to replace the remaining acquired loans and related interest income with new performing loans, our financial condition and earnings may be adversely affected.

12

Failure to comply with the terms of our loss sharing agreements with the FDIC may result in significant losses and the expiration of certain loss share agreements will result in the conversion of Covered Loans to Uncovered Loans.

We purchased certain of the assets and assumed certain of the liabilities of the Old Failed Banks from the FDIC, and presently a substantial portion of our revenue is derived from those assets. A significant portion of the losses related to the Covered Assets acquired in six of those transactions will be borne by the FDIC. We are subject to audit by the FDIC at its discretion to ensure we are in compliance with the terms of the corresponding loss sharing agreements. We may experience difficulties in complying with the terms of such loss sharing agreements, which could result in the loss of some or all of the loss sharing coverage and our being required to recognize the full amount of any such uncovered losses. Any significant loss of coverage would have a material adverse effect on our business. Further, each loss share agreement with the FDIC expires after 10 years for residential loans and 5 years for commercial loans. Thus, certain of our loss share agreements with the FDIC begin to expire in January 2015, thus essentially converting the Covered Loans to which such agreements relate into Uncovered Loans.

If we fail to effectively manage credit risk, our business and financial condition will suffer.

There are risks inherent in making any loan, including risks with respect to the period of time over which the loan may be repaid, risks relating to proper loan underwriting and guidelines, risks resulting from changes in economic and industry conditions, risks inherent in dealing with individual borrowers and risks resulting from uncertainties as to the future value of collateral. As of March 31, 2014, approximately 34% of loans held by the Bank were acquired through the Acquisitions. In addition, we continue to grow our commercial loan origination business.  There is no assurance that our credit risk monitoring and loan approval procedures are or will be adequate or will reduce the inherent risks associated with lending. Our credit administration personnel, policies and procedures may not adequately adapt to changes in economic or any other conditions affecting customers and the quality of our loan portfolio. Any failure to manage such credit risks may materially adversely affect our business and our consolidated results of operations and financial condition.

Economic and market developments, including the potential for inflation, may have an adverse effect on our business, possibly in ways that are not predictable or that we may fail to anticipate.

Economic and market disruptions that have existed in recent years and the potential for future economic disruptions and increase in inflation present considerable risks and challenges to us. Dramatic declines in the housing market and increasing business failures in the recent past have negatively impacted the performance of mortgage, commercial and construction loans and resulted in significant write downs of assets by many financial institutions. General downward economic trends, reduced availability of commercial credit and high unemployment have also negatively impacted the credit performance of commercial and consumer loans, resulting in additional write downs. These risks and challenges have significantly diminished overall confidence in the national economy, the financial markets and many financial institutions. This reduced confidence could further compound the overall market disruptions and risks to banks and bank holding companies, including us. These conditions, among others, are some of the factors that ultimately led to the failure of the failed banks whose assets we purchased from the FDIC, as receiver. Although, as a new market entrant in 2010, we benefited from these market dislocations as reflected in our purchase price for the acquired assets, continuation or further deterioration of weak real estate markets and related impacts, including increasing foreclosures, business failures and unemployment, may adversely affect our results of operations, especially as we attempt to increase our loan origination activities which will not be protected by loss sharing arrangements with the FDIC. A decline in real estate values could also lead to higher charge-offs in the event of defaults in our real estate loan portfolio. To the extent that our business may be similar in certain respects to the failed banks whose assets and liabilities we acquired, and that we may be serving the same general customer base with portions of a product mix which may be similar to that of the failed banks, there is no guarantee that similar economic conditions to those which adversely affected the failed banks’ results of operations will not similarly adversely affect our results of operations.

Our business and operations are located in Florida, which experienced economic difficulties worse than many other parts of the United States during the last economic cycle, and as a result we are highly susceptible to downturns in the Florida economy.

In addition to general, regional, national and international economic conditions, our operating performance will be impacted by the economic conditions in Florida. During the most recent economic downturn, Florida was affected disproportionately relative to the rest of the country. As of December 2007, Florida’s unemployment rate was in line with the national average at 4.7% compared to 4.5% for the nation. By December 2009, Florida’s state unemployment rate was 11.6% relative to the national average of 8.8%, as reported by SNL Financial. Additionally, Florida’s GDP was significantly impacted. In 2009, Florida’s GDP decreased 5.9% nearly double the national average of a 3.3% decline, as reported by the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis. Furthermore, Florida experienced significant volatility in real estate prices with home prices decreasing by approximately 50% from peak to trough in Miami, Orlando, and Tampa. These factors along with disruption in the credit markets and decreased availability of financing for commercial borrowers in Florida resulted in low consumer confidence, depressed real estate markets and a regional economic performance that trailed the United States as a

13

whole. These conditions may continue or worsen in Florida, even if the general economic conditions in the United States show continued signs of improvement. In addition, the Florida economy is largely dependent on the tourism industry. If there is a significant decline in tourism, the resulting economic effect could have a material negative impact on our operating results by reducing our growth prospects, affecting the ability of our customers to repay their loans to us and generally adversely affecting our financial condition.

As of March 31, 2014, approximately 48.6% of our loan portfolio was secured by commercial properties and approximately 23.2% of our loan portfolio was secured by residential properties, in each case including properties under construction, located primarily in Florida. A substantial portion of our future loan activities may involve commercial and residential properties in Florida. A concentration of our loans in Florida subjects us to the risk that a failure of the Florida economy to recover or a further downturn could result in a lower than expected loan origination volume and higher than expected delinquency and foreclosure rates or losses on loans. Further, if Florida real estate markets do not recover, it will become more difficult and costly for us to liquidate foreclosed properties. The occurrence of a natural disaster in Florida, such as a hurricane, tropical storm or other severe weather event, or a manmade disaster could negatively impact regional economic conditions, cause a decline in the value or destruction of mortgaged properties and an increase in the risk of delinquencies, foreclosures or loss on loans originated by us, damage our banking facilities and offices and negatively impact our growth strategy. In addition, many residents and businesses in Florida have incurred significantly higher property and casualty insurance premiums on their properties, which has and may continue to adversely affect real estate sales and values in our markets. We may suffer further losses due to the decline in the value of the properties underlying our mortgage loans, which could have a material adverse impact on our operations. Any individual factor or a combination of factors could materially negatively impact our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects. A high rate of foreclosures or loan delinquencies, particularly if those loans were not covered by loss sharing agreements, could have a material adverse effect on our operations and our business.

Changes in national and local economic conditions could lead to higher loan charge-offs which could have a material adverse impact on our business.

Although the loan portfolios acquired in the Failed Bank Acquisitions have been initially accounted for at fair value, impairment may result in additional charge-offs to the portfolio. The fluctuations in national, regional and local economic conditions, including those related to local residential, commercial real estate and construction markets, may increase the level of charge-offs that we make to our loan portfolio, including any loans we originate or acquire in the future, and, consequently, reduce our net income. These fluctuations are not predictable, cannot be controlled and may have a material adverse impact on our operations and financial condition even if other favorable events occur.

Although we have entered into loss sharing agreements with the FDIC in six of the eight Failed Bank Acquisitions, which provide that a significant portion of losses related to those Covered Assets will be borne by the FDIC, we are not protected against all losses resulting from charge-offs with respect to those loan portfolios. In addition, none of the Bank’s new loans nor any of the assets acquired in the acquisitions of Old Sunshine and Old FPB are covered by loss sharing agreements. Additionally, the loss sharing agreements have fixed terms. Any charge-off that we experience after the loss sharing agreements expire will not be reimbursed by the FDIC and would negatively impact our net income. If any of those events occur, our losses could increase. For a more detailed discussion of the loss sharing agreements, see “Business—Acquisitions.”

Many of our loans are to commercial borrowers, which have a higher degree of risk than other types of loans.

As of March 31, 2014, commercial and industrial loans constituted $825.7 million, or 28.1%, and commercial real estate loans constituted $1.26 billion, or 42.8%, of our total loan portfolio. We expect that over time, new loan originations will be more focused on commercial and industrial loans. To the extent that the Bank extends credit to commercial borrowers (both commercial and industrial borrowers and commercial real estate borrowers), such loans may involve greater risks than other types of lending. Because payments on such loans are often dependent on the successful operation or development of the property or business involved, repayment of such loans is more sensitive than other types of loans to adverse conditions in the real estate market or the general economy. Unlike residential mortgage loans, which generally are made on the basis of the borrowers’ ability to make repayment from their employment and other income and which are secured by real property whose value tends to be more easily ascertainable, commercial loans typically are made on the basis of the borrowers’ ability to make repayment from the cash flow of the related commercial venture. If the cash flow from business operations is reduced, the borrower’s ability to repay the loan may be impaired. Due to the larger average size of a commercial loan in comparison to other loans such as residential loans, as well as the collateral which is generally less readily-marketable, losses incurred on a small number of commercial loans, to the extent not covered by FDIC loss share arrangements, could have a material adverse impact on our financial condition and results of operations. In addition, commercial loan customers often have the ability to fund current interest payments through additional borrowings, and as a result the actual credit risk associated with these customers may be worse than anticipated.

14

The performance of our residential loan portfolio depends in part upon a third-party service provider and a failure by this third party to perform its obligations could adversely affect our results of operations or financial condition.

Substantially all of our residential loans are serviced by Dovenmuehle Mortgage, Inc., or DMI, which provides both primary servicing and special servicing. Primary servicing includes the collection of regular payments, processing of taxes and insurance, processing of payoffs, handling borrower inquiries and reporting to the borrower. Special servicing is focused on borrowers who are delinquent or on loans which are more complex or in need of more hands-on attention. If the housing market worsens, the number of delinquent mortgage loans serviced by DMI could increase. In the event that DMI, or any third-party servicer we may use in the future, fails to perform its servicing duties or performs those duties inadequately, we could experience a temporary interruption in collecting principal and interest, sustain credit losses on our loans or incur additional costs associated with obtaining a replacement servicer. Any of these events could have a material adverse impact on our results of operations or financial condition. Similarly, if DMI or any future third-party mortgage loan servicer becomes ineligible, unwilling or unable to continue to perform servicing activities, we could incur additional costs to obtain a replacement servicer and there can be no assurance that a replacement servicer could be retained in a timely manner or at similar rates.

We are exposed to risk of environmental liabilities with respect to properties to which we take title.

In the course of our business, we may own or foreclose and take title to real estate, and we could become subject to environmental liabilities with respect to these properties. We may be held liable to a governmental entity or to third parties for property damage, personal injury, investigation and clean-up costs incurred by these parties in connection with environmental contamination, or we may be required to investigate or clean up hazardous or toxic substances or chemical releases at a property. The costs associated with investigation or remediation activities could be substantial. In addition, if we were to become the owner or former owner of a contaminated site, we may be subject to common law claims by third parties based on damages and costs resulting from environmental contamination emanating from the property. If we ever become subject to significant environmental liabilities, our business, financial condition, liquidity and results of operations could be materially and adversely affected.

We are subject to losses due to the errors or fraudulent behavior of employees or third parties.

We are exposed to many types of operational risk, including the risk of fraud by employees and outsiders, clerical recordkeeping errors and transactional errors. Our business is dependent on our employees as well as third-party service providers to process a large number of increasingly complex transactions. We could be materially adversely affected if one of our employees causes a significant operational breakdown or failure, either as a result of human error or where an individual purposefully sabotages or fraudulently manipulates our operations or systems. When we originate loans, we rely upon information supplied by loan applicants and third parties, including the information contained in the loan application, property appraisal and title information, if applicable, and employment and income documentation provided by third parties. If any of this information is misrepresented and such misrepresentation is not detected prior to loan funding, we generally bear the risk of loss associated with the misrepresentation. Any of these occurrences could result in a diminished ability of us to operate our business, potential liability to customers, reputational damage and regulatory intervention, which could negatively impact our business, financial condition and results of operations.

Our deposit insurance premiums could be substantially higher in the future, which could have a material adverse effect on our future earnings.

The FDIC insures deposits at FDIC-insured depository institutions, such as the Bank, up to applicable limits. The amount of a particular institution’s deposit insurance assessment is based on that institution’s risk classification under an FDIC risk-based assessment system. An institution’s risk classification is assigned based on its capital levels and the level of supervisory concern the institution poses to its regulators. Recent market developments and bank failures significantly depleted the FDIC’s deposit insurance fund, or DIF, and reduced the ratio of reserves to insured deposits. As a result of recent economic conditions and the enactment of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010, or Dodd-Frank Act, banks are now assessed deposit insurance premiums based on the bank’s average consolidated total assets, and the FDIC has modified certain risk-based adjustments which increase or decrease a bank’s overall assessment rate. This has resulted in increases to the deposit insurance assessment rates and thus raised deposit premiums for insured depository institutions. If these increases are insufficient for the DIF to meet its funding requirements, further special assessments or increases in deposit insurance premiums may be required. We are generally unable to control the amount of premiums that we are required to pay for FDIC insurance. If there are additional bank or financial institution failures, we may be required to pay even higher FDIC premiums than the recently increased levels.  Any future additional assessments, increases or required prepayments in FDIC insurance premiums could reduce our profitability, may limit our ability to pursue certain business opportunities, or otherwise negatively impact our operations.

15

Changes in interest rates could negatively impact our net interest income, weaken demand for our products and services or harm our results of operations and cash flows.

Our earnings and cash flows are largely dependent upon net interest income, which is the difference between interest income earned on interest-earning assets such as loans and securities and interest expense paid on interest-bearing liabilities such as deposits and borrowed funds. Interest rates are highly sensitive to many factors that are beyond our control, including general economic conditions and policies of various governmental and regulatory agencies, particularly the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, or the Federal Reserve. Changes in monetary policy, including changes in interest rates, could influence the interest we receive on loans and securities and the amount of interest we pay on deposits and borrowings, but such changes could also adversely affect (1) our ability to originate loans and obtain deposits, (2) the fair value of our financial assets and liabilities, (3) our ability to realize gains on the sale of assets and (4) the average duration of our mortgage-backed investment securities portfolio. An increase in interest rates may reduce customers’ desire to borrow money from us as it increases their borrowing costs and may potentially adversely affect their ability to pay the principal or interest on loans. A portion of our loan portfolios are floating rate loans. Consequently, an increase in interest rates may lead to an increase in nonperforming assets and a reduction of income recognized, which could harm our results of operations and cash flows. In contrast, decreasing interest rates may have the effect of causing customers to refinance loans faster than originally anticipated. Any substantial, unexpected or prolonged change in market interest rates could have a material adverse effect on net interest income, asset quality, loan origination volume, financial condition, results of operations and loan prospects.

The fair value of our investment securities can fluctuate due to market conditions out of our control.

As of March 31, 2014, the fair value of the Company’s investment securities portfolio was approximately $1.7 billion. Factors beyond our control can significantly influence the fair value of securities in our portfolio and can cause potential adverse changes to the fair value of these securities. These factors include but are not limited to rating agency downgrades of the securities, defaults by the issuer or with respect to the underlying securities, changes in market interest rates and continued instability in the credit markets. In addition, we have historically taken a conservative investment approach, with concentrations of government issuances of short duration. In the future, we may seek to increase yields through more aggressive investment strategies, which may include a greater percentage of corporate issuances and structured credit products. Any of these mentioned factors, among others, could cause other- than-temporary impairments in future periods and result in realized losses, which could have a material adverse effect on our business.

Any requested or required changes in how we determine the impact of loss share accounting on our financial information could have a material adverse effect on our reported results.

Our financial results are significantly affected by the application of loss share accounting, which is subject to assumptions and judgments made by us and the regulatory agencies to whom we report such information. Loss share accounting is a complex accounting methodology. If these assumptions are incorrect, any change or modification could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition, operations or our previously reported results. As such, any financial information generated through the use of loss share accounting is subject to modification or change. Any significant modification or change in such information could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations and our previously reported results.

Our financial information reflects the application of acquisition accounting. Any change in the assumptions used in such methodology could have an adverse effect on our results of operations.

As we acquired substantially all of our operating assets and assumed substantially all of our liabilities from third parties, our financial results are heavily influenced by the application of acquisition accounting. Acquisition accounting requires management to make assumptions regarding the assets purchased and liabilities assumed to determine their fair market value. If these assumptions are incorrect, any change or modification required could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition, operations or our previously reported results.

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

Our future success significantly depends on the continued services and performance of our key management personnel and our future performance will depend on our ability to motivate and retain these and other key personnel. The loss of the services of members of our senior management, or other key employees, or the inability to attract additional qualified personnel as needed, could materially and adversely affect our businesses and our consolidated results of operations and financial condition.

16

We may not be able to maintain a strong core deposit base or other low-cost funding sources.

We depend on checking, savings and money market deposit account balances and other forms of customer deposits as our primary source of funding for our lending activities. Our future growth will largely depend on our ability to maintain and grow a strong deposit base. We are also working to transition certain of our customers to lower cost traditional banking services as higher cost funding sources, such as high interest certificates of deposit, mature. There is no assurance customers will transition to lower yielding savings and investment products or continue their business with the Bank, which could adversely affect our operations. Further, even if we are able to grow and maintain our deposit base, the account and deposit balances can decrease when customers perceive alternative investments, such as the stock market, as providing a better risk/return tradeoff. If customers move money out of bank deposits and into investments (or similar deposit products at other institutions that may provide a higher rate of return), we could lose a relatively low cost source of funds, increasing our funding costs and reducing our net interest income and net income. Additionally, any such loss of funds could result in lower loan originations, which could materially negatively impact our growth strategy.

We may not be able to meet the cash flow requirements of our depositors and borrowers if we do not maintain sufficient liquidity.

Liquidity is the ability to meet current and future cash flow needs on a timely basis at a reasonable cost. The Bank’s liquidity is used to make loans and to repay deposit liabilities as they become due or are demanded by customers. Potential alternative sources of liquidity include federal funds purchased and securities sold under repurchase agreements. The Bank maintains a portfolio of investment securities that may be used as a secondary source of liquidity to the extent the securities are not pledged for collateral. However, we do not expect to maintain our current level of investment securities (relative to the size of our business) as we pursue our acquisition growth strategy. Other potential sources of liquidity include the sale or securitization of loans, the utilization of available government and regulatory assistance programs, the ability to acquire national market non-core deposits, the issuance of additional collateralized borrowings such as Federal Home Loan Bank of Atlanta, or FHLB, advances, the issuance of debt securities, issuance of equity securities and borrowings through the Federal Reserve’s discount window. However, there can be no assurance that these sources will continue to be available to us on terms acceptable to us or at all. Although we currently have sufficient liquidity to meet the anticipated cash flow requirements of our depositors and borrowers, there is no guarantee that we will continue to maintain such liquidity. Without sufficient liquidity, we may not be able to meet the cash flow requirements of our depositors and borrowers, which in turn could have a material adverse impact on our operations.

The borrowing needs of our clients may be unpredictable, especially during a challenging economic environment.  We may not be able to meet our unfunded credit commitments, or adequately reserve for losses associated with our unfunded credit commitments, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and reputation.

A commitment to extend credit is a formal agreement to lend funds to a client as long as there is no violation of any condition established under the agreement. The actual borrowing needs of our clients under these credit commitments have historically been lower than the contractual amount of the commitments. A significant portion of these commitments expire without being drawn upon. Because of the credit profile of our clients, we typically have a substantial amount of total unfunded credit commitments, which is reflected off our balance sheet. Actual borrowing needs of our clients may exceed our expected funding requirements, especially during a challenging economic environment when our client companies may be more dependent on our credit commitments due to the lack of available credit elsewhere, the increasing costs of credit, or the limited availability of financings from venture firms. In addition, limited partner investors of our venture capital clients may fail to meet their underlying investment commitments due to liquidity or other financing issues, which may increase our clients’ borrowing needs. Any failure to meet our unfunded credit commitments in accordance with the actual borrowing needs of our clients may have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and reputation.

An inadequate allowance for loan losses (ALL) would reduce our earnings.

Neither the loans acquired from Old Sunshine, Old FPB, or Great Florida Bank, nor any loan we originate (including loans in which we participate), are covered by any loss sharing arrangement with the FDIC.  As we increase our loan origination and other product offerings, the percentage of assets not covered by the FDIC loss sharing agreements that make up our loan portfolio will increase. As such, the long-term success of our business will be largely attributable to the quality of our assets, particularly newly-originated loans. The risk of loss on originated loans not covered by FDIC loss sharing agreements that we hold on our balance sheet will vary with, among other things, general economic conditions, the relative product mix of loans being made, the creditworthiness of the borrower over the term of the loan and, in the case of a collateralized loan, the quality of the collateral for the loan. For our new loans, we will maintain an allowance for loan losses, or ALL, based on, among other things, historical rates, an evaluation of economic conditions, regular reviews of

17

delinquencies and loan portfolio quality, and regulatory requirements. We account for loans acquired through business combination with deteriorated credit quality since origination under Financial Accounting Standards Board, or FASB, Accounting Standards Codification, or ASC, Topic 310-30, Loans and Debt Securities Acquired with Deteriorated Credit Quality, or ASC 310-30.  For ASC 310-30 pools, a specific valuation allowance is established when it is probable that the Company will be unable to collect all of the cash flows initially expected at the acquisition date. Based upon the foregoing factors, we make assumptions and judgments about the ultimate collectability of loans and provide an allowance for probable loan losses based upon a percentage of the outstanding balances and for specific loans when their ultimate collectability is considered questionable. If any of these assumptions are incorrect, it could have a material adverse effect on our earnings.

If borrowers and guarantors fail to perform as required by the terms of their loans, we will sustain losses.

Over time, as a more significant portion of our loan portfolio consists of loans originated by us or are otherwise not covered by any loss sharing arrangement, a significant source of risk arises from the possibility that losses will be sustained if the Bank’s borrowers and guarantors fail to perform in accordance with the terms of their loans and guaranties. This risk increases when the economy is weak. We have implemented underwriting and credit monitoring procedures and credit policies, including the establishment and review of the ALL, that we believe are appropriate to reduce this risk by assessing the likelihood of nonperformance and we are in the process of diversifying our credit portfolio. These policies and procedures, however, may not prevent unexpected losses that could materially adversely affect our results of operations.

Lack of seasoning of our loan portfolio may increase the risk of credit defaults in the future.

Due to the growth of the Bank over the past several years, a portion of the loans in our loan portfolio and our lending relationships are of relatively recent origin. As of March 31, 2014, new loans originated within the previous 24-month period totaled $1.67 million, or 86.5%, of total new loans held by the Company. In general, loans do not begin to show signs of credit deterioration or default until they have been outstanding for some period of time, a process we refer to as “seasoning.” As a result, a portfolio of older loans will usually behave more predictably than a portfolio of newer loans. Because our loan portfolio is relatively new, the current level of delinquencies and defaults may not be representative of the level that will prevail when the portfolio becomes more seasoned, which may be higher than current levels. If delinquencies and defaults increase, we may be required to increase our provision for loan losses, which would adversely affect our results of operations and financial condition.

Our acquisition of assets and assumption of deposits and other liabilities of failed banks involve a number of special risks.

Our acquisition of certain assets and assumption of certain liabilities of each of the Old Failed Banks followed the determination by these banks’ primary regulators that such banks had failed and the appointment of the FDIC as receiver. Although FDIC-assisted transactions mitigate certain risks, such as sharing exposure to loan losses and providing indemnification against certain liabilities of the failed institution (other than the acquisitions related to Old Sunshine and Old FPB), we are (and could be with respect to the Great Florida Acquisition and future similar transactions) subject to many of the same risks we would face in acquiring a non-failed bank in a negotiated transaction, including risks associated with stability of the deposit base, maintaining customer relationships and failure to realize the anticipated acquisition benefits in the amounts and within the timeframes we expect. In addition, because these acquisitions were conducted by the FDIC in a manner that did not allow us the time and access to information normally associated with preparing for and evaluating a negotiated acquisition, we may face additional risks, including additional strain on management resources, management of problem loans, integration of personnel and operating systems and impact to our capital resources requiring us to raise additional capital.

There may be key employees that have more knowledge or expertise about the history, region or past practices of the Old Failed Banks. Such key employees may also have important relationship ties with the community and one or more significant existing or potential customers. If we lose such key employees or if we fail to attract qualified personnel to meet our needs, our ability to continue to maintain and grow our businesses may suffer and our consolidated results of operations and financial condition may be materially and adversely impacted.

There is no assurance that we will be successful in overcoming these risks or any other problems encountered in connection with our FDIC-assisted transactions. Although we have entered into loss sharing agreements with the FDIC in connection with our acquisitions of loans from each of the Old Failed Banks (except for Old Sunshine and Old FPB), we cannot guarantee that we will be able to adequately manage the acquired loan portfolios within the limits of the loss protections already provided by the FDIC or in any future FDIC-assisted acquisition. Further, we may determine even in the context of future acquisitions of failed banks from the FDIC to acquire such banks without the benefit of loss share protection, in whole or in part. Our inability to overcome these risks could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and operations.

18

We are dependent on our information technology and telecommunications systems and third-party servicers, and systems failures, interruptions or breaches of security could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition and results of operations.

Our business is highly dependent on the successful and uninterrupted functioning of our information technology and telecommunications systems and third-party servicers. We outsource many of our major systems, such as data processing, loan servicing and deposit processing systems. The failure of these systems, or the termination of a third-party software license or service agreement on which any of these systems is based, could interrupt our operations. Because our information technology and telecommunications systems interface with and depend on third-party systems, we could experience service denials if demand for such services exceeds capacity or such third-party systems fail or experience interruptions. If sustained or repeated, a system failure or service denial could result in a deterioration of our ability to process new and renewal loans, gather deposits and provide customer service, compromise our ability to operate effectively, damage our reputation, result in a loss of customer business and/or subject us to additional regulatory scrutiny and possible financial liability, any of which could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition and results of operations.

In addition, we provide our customers the ability to bank remotely, including online over the Internet. The secure transmission of confidential information is a critical element of remote banking. Our network could be vulnerable to unauthorized access, computer viruses, phishing schemes, spam attacks, human error, natural disasters, power loss and other security breaches. We may be required to spend significant capital and other resources to protect against the threat of security breaches and computer viruses, or to alleviate problems caused by security breaches or viruses. Further, we outsource some of the data processing functions used for remote banking, and accordingly we are dependent on the expertise and performance of our third-party providers. To the extent that our activities, the activities of our customers, or the activities of our third-party service providers involve the storage and transmission of confidential information, security breaches and viruses could expose us to claims, litigation and other possible liabilities. Any inability to prevent security breaches or computer viruses could also cause existing customers to lose confidence in our systems and could adversely affect our reputation, results of operations and ability to attract and maintain customers and businesses. In addition, a security breach could also subject us to additional regulatory scrutiny, expose us to civil litigation and possible financial liability and cause reputational damage.

We rely on third parties to provide us with a variety of financial service products to offer our customers.

We rely on third parties, including Elan Services, Raymond James Financial Services and PNC Financial Services Group, or PNC Financial, who provide us with a variety of financial service products such as derivative and trade finance products, including interest rate swaps, as well as the offering of various investment related products for our retail customers. Any failure by such third parties to continue to provide, and any interruption in our ability to continue to offer, such products to our customers could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations.

We face strong competition from financial services companies and other companies that offer banking services which could negatively affect our business.

We currently conduct our banking operations primarily in Miami-Dade, Broward, Collier, Lee, Hendry, Charlotte, Palm Beach, Volusia, Sarasota, Orange, Seminole, Brevard, Hernando, St. Lucie, Martin and Indian River counties, all of which are located in Florida. We may not be able to compete successfully against current and future competitors, which may result in fewer customers and reduced loans and deposits. Many competitors offer banking services identical to those offered by us in our service areas. These competitors include national banks, regional banks and community banks. We also face competition from many other types of financial institutions, including without limitation, savings and loan institutions, finance companies, brokerage firms, insurance companies, credit unions, mortgage banks and other financial intermediaries. Some of these competitors may have a long history of successful operations in our markets and have greater ties to local businesses and banking relationships, as well as a more well-established depositor base. Competitors with greater resources may possess an advantage by being capable of maintaining numerous banking locations in more convenient locations, owning more ATMs and conducting extensive promotional and advertising campaigns or operating at a lower fixed-cost basis through the Internet.

Additionally, banks and other financial institutions with larger capitalizations and financial intermediaries (some of which are not subject to bank regulatory restrictions) have larger lending limits than we have and thereby are able to serve the credit needs of larger customers. Specific areas of competition include interest rates for loans and deposits, efforts to obtain deposits and range and quality of products and services provided, including new technology-driven products and services. Technological innovation continues to contribute to greater competition in domestic and international financial services markets as technological advances enable more companies to provide financial services. Non-local banks with web-based banking are able to compete for business, further increasing competition without having a physical presence in the Florida market.

19

Our ability to compete successfully depends on a number of factors, including, among other things:

·

the ability to develop, maintain and build upon long-term customer relationships based on quality service, high ethical standards and safe, sound assets;

·

the ability to expand our market position;

·

the scope, relevance and pricing of products and services offered to meet customer needs and demands;

·

the rate at which we introduce new products and services relative to our competitors; and

·

customer satisfaction with our level of service.

Failure to perform in any of these areas could significantly weaken our competitive position, which could adversely affect our growth and profitability, which, in turn, could materially harm our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

The Bank’s ability to pay dividends or lend funds to us is subject to regulatory limitations, which, to the extent we are not able to access those funds, may impair our ability to accomplish our growth strategy and pay our operating expenses.

We have never paid a cash dividend; however, we may pay a cash dividend in the future. The payment of dividends in the future, if any, will be contingent upon our revenues and earnings, if any, capital requirements and our general financial conditions. We are a bank holding company and accordingly, any dividends paid by us are subject to various federal and state regulatory limitations. Since we are a bank holding company with no significant assets other than the capital stock of our banking subsidiary, if we exhaust the capital raised in the offering and our prior offerings, we will need to depend upon dividends from the Bank for substantially all of our income or raise capital through future offerings. Accordingly, at such time, our ability to pay dividends to our stockholders will depend primarily upon the receipt of dividends or other capital distributions from the Bank. The Bank’s ability to pay dividends to us is subject to, among other things, its earnings, financial condition and need for funds, as well as applicable governmental policies and regulations, which limit the amount that may be paid as dividends without prior approval. In addition, the OCC Agreement imposes restrictions on the Bank’s ability to pay dividends, including requiring prior approval from the OCC before any dividends are paid. As such, we will have no ability to rely on dividends from the Bank. As a result, you may only receive a return on your investment in shares of our Class A Common Stock if its market price increases. See “Dividend Policy.”

Risks Related to Future Acquisitions

Future growth and expansion opportunities through acquisition involves risks and may not be successful, and our market value and profitability may suffer.

Growth through acquisitions of banks in open or FDIC-assisted transactions, as well as the selective acquisition of assets, deposits and branches, represent an important component of our business strategy. Any future acquisitions will be accompanied by the risks commonly encountered in any acquisitions. These risks include, among other things: credit risk associated with the acquired bank’s loans and investments; difficulty of integrating operations; retaining and integrating key personnel; and potential disruption of our existing business. We expect that competition for suitable acquisition targets may be significant. We cannot assure you that we will be able to successfully identify and acquire suitable acquisition targets on terms and conditions we consider to be acceptable.

Failed bank acquisitions involve risks similar to acquiring open banks even though the FDIC might provide assistance to mitigate certain risks, such as sharing in exposure to loan losses and providing indemnification against certain liabilities of the failed institution. However, because these acquisitions are typically conducted by the FDIC in a manner that does not allow the time typically taken for a due diligence review or for preparing the integration of an acquired institution, we may face additional risks in transactions with the FDIC. These risks include, among other things, accuracy or completeness of due diligence materials, the loss of customers and core deposits, strain on management resources related to collection and management of problem loans and problems related to integration and retention of personnel and operating systems. There can be no assurance that we will be successful in overcoming these risks or any other problems encountered in connection with acquisitions (including FDIC-assisted transactions), nor that any FDIC-assisted opportunities will be available to the Bank in the Bank’s market. Our inability to overcome these risks could have a material adverse effect on our ability to achieve our business strategy and maintain our market value and profitability.

Competitive and regulatory dynamics may make FDIC-assisted acquisition opportunities unacceptable to us.

Our business strategy includes the consideration of potential acquisitions of failing banks that the FDIC plans to place in receivership. The FDIC may not place banks that meet our strategic objectives into receivership. Failed bank transactions are attractive opportunities in part because of loss sharing arrangements with the FDIC that limit the acquirer’s

20

downside risk on the purchased loan portfolio and, apart from our assumption of deposit liabilities, we have significant discretion as to the non-deposit liabilities that we assume. In addition, assets purchased from the FDIC are marked to their fair value and in many cases there is little or no addition to goodwill arising from an FDIC-assisted transaction.  

The bidding process for failing banks in our desired markets has become very competitive, and the increased competition may make it more difficult for us to bid on terms we consider to be acceptable. Our prior acquisitions should be viewed in the context of the recent opportunities available to us as a result of the confluence of our access to capital at a time when market dislocations of historical proportions resulted in what we perceived as attractive asset acquisition opportunities.

Additionally, pursuant to the FDIC Policy, we are subject to significant regulatory burdens as a result of having previously acquired failed banks, including heightened capital requirements. For specific details of these requirements and restrictions see “Supervision and Regulation—FDIC Statement of Policy on Qualifications for Failed Bank Acquisitions.” The FDIC has informed us that these requirements and restrictions of the FDIC Policy could be extended or reinstated if we complete additional failed bank acquisitions. As a result, we would consult closely with the FDIC prior to making any bid for a failed bank. It is possible that these regulatory burdens would make any failed bank acquisition undesirable and we would not place a bid. As economic and regulatory conditions change, we may be unable to execute this aspect of our growth strategy, which could impact our future earnings, reputation and results of operations.

As a result of acquisitions, we may be required to take write-downs or write-offs, as well as restructuring and impairment or other charges that could have a significant negative effect on our financial condition and results of operations.

We have conducted diligence in connection with our past acquisitions and must conduct due diligence investigations of any potential acquisition targets. Intensive due diligence is time consuming and expensive due to the operations, accounting, finance and legal professionals who must be involved in the due diligence process and the fact that such efforts do not always lead to a consummated transaction. Even if we conduct extensive due diligence on an entity we decide to acquire, this diligence may not reveal all material issues that may affect a particular entity. In addition, factors outside the control of the entity and outside of our control may later arise. If, during the diligence process, we fail to identify issues specific to an entity or the environment in which the entity operates, we may be forced to later write down or write off assets, restructure our operations, or incur impairment or other charges that could result in other reporting losses. In addition, charges of this nature may cause us to violate net worth or other covenants to which we may become subject if we obtain debt financing. The diligence process in failed bank transactions is also expedited due to the short acquisition timeline that is typical for failing depository institutions. There can be no assurance that we will not have to take write-downs or write-offs in connection with the acquisitions of certain of the assets and assumption of certain liabilities of each of the Old Banks, or any depository institution which we later acquire, a portion of which may not be covered by loss sharing agreements.

We may acquire entities with significant leverage, increasing the entity’s exposure to adverse economic factors.

Our future acquisitions could include entities whose capital structures may have significant leverage. Although we will seek to use leverage in a manner we believe is prudent, any leveraged capital structure of such investments will increase the exposure of the acquired entity to adverse economic factors such as rising interest rates, downturns in the economy or deteriorations in the condition of the relevant entity or their industries. If an entity cannot generate adequate cash flow to meet its debt obligations, we may suffer a partial or total loss of capital invested in such entity. To the extent there is not ample availability of financing for leveraged transactions (e.g., due to adverse changes in economic or financial market conditions or a decreased appetite for risk by lenders), our ability to consummate certain transactions could be impaired.

Risks Related to the Regulation of Our Industry

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

We are subject to extensive regulation, supervision and legislation that govern almost all aspects of our operations. Regulatory bodies are generally charged with protecting the interests of customers, depositors and the deposit insurance fund, or DIF (but not holders of our securities, such as our Class A Common Stock) and the integrity and stability of the U.S. financial system as a whole. The laws and regulations to which we are subject, among other things, prescribe minimum capital requirements, impose limitations on our business activities and restrict the Bank’s ability to guarantee our debt and engage in certain transactions with us. As discussed herein, if we continue to grow, we may become subject to additional regulatory requirements and supervision, which could increase our costs or limit our ability to pursue our business strategy. Further, our failure to comply with any laws or regulations applicable to us could subject us to restrictions on our business activities, fines and other penalties, any of which could adversely affect our results of operations, cash flows and financial condition.

21

The Bank and, with respect to certain provisions, the Company are subject to an Order of the FDIC, dated January 22, 2010, or the Order, issued in connection with the FDIC’s approval of the Bank’s application for deposit insurance. The Bank is also subject to the OCC Agreement entered into in connection with the acquisition of Old Premier. A failure to comply with the requirements of the Order or the OCC Agreement, or our inability to obtain the non-objection of the OCC to certain transactions or changes in our strategy, could prevent us from executing our business strategy and materially and adversely affect our business, results of operations and financial condition. See “Supervision and Regulation—The Bank as a National Bank” for additional information on the Order and the OCC Agreement.

Federal bank regulatory agencies periodically conduct examinations of us and the Bank, including for compliance with laws and regulations, and our failure to comply with any supervisory actions to which we are or become subject as a result of such examinations may adversely affect us.

The Federal Reserve may conduct examinations of our business and any nonbank subsidiary, including for compliance with applicable laws and regulations. In addition, the OCC periodically conducts examinations of the Bank, including for compliance with applicable laws and regulations. If, as a result of an examination, the Federal Reserve or the OCC determines that the financial condition, capital resources, asset quality, asset concentrations, earnings prospects, management, liquidity, sensitivity to market risk, or other aspects of any of our or the Bank’s operations are unsatisfactory, or that we or our management are in violation of any law, regulation or guideline in effect from time to time, the Federal Reserve or the OCC may take a number of different remedial actions, including the power to enjoin “unsafe or unsound” practices, to require affirmative actions to correct any conditions resulting from any violation or practice, to issue an administrative order that can be judicially enforced, to direct an increase in our or the Bank’s capital, to restrict our growth, to change the composition of our concentrations in portfolio or balance sheet assets, to assess civil monetary penalties against officers or directors, to remove officers and directors and, if such conditions cannot be corrected or there is an imminent risk of loss to depositors, the FDIC may terminate the Bank’s deposit insurance. Further, either the OCC or the FDIC may determine at any time to preclude us from participation in the bidding for failed banks or from acquiring banks in open bank transactions.

The Federal Reserve may require us to commit capital resources to support the Bank.

As a matter of policy, the Federal Reserve has historically expected a bank holding company to act as a source of financial and managerial strength to a subsidiary bank and to commit resources to support its subsidiary bank. Under the “source of strength” doctrine, which the Dodd-Frank Act codified as a statutory requirement, the Federal Reserve may require a bank holding company to make capital injections into a troubled subsidiary bank and may charge the bank holding company with engaging in unsafe and unsound practices for failure to commit resources to such a subsidiary bank. Under this requirement, in the future, we could be required to provide financial assistance to the Bank, including at times when we would otherwise determine not to provide such assistance.

A capital injection may be required at times when we do not have the resources to provide it and therefore we may be required to raise capital or borrow funds. Any loans by a holding company to its subsidiary bank are subordinate in right of payment to deposits and to certain other indebtedness of the subsidiary bank. In the event of a bank holding company’s bankruptcy, the bankruptcy trustee will assume any commitment by the holding company to a federal bank regulatory agency to maintain the capital of a subsidiary bank. Moreover, bankruptcy law provides that claims based on any such commitment will be entitled to a priority of payment over the claims of the holding company’s general unsecured creditors, including the holders of its note obligations. Thus, any borrowing or capital raising that must be done by the holding company in order to make the required capital injection may be difficult and expensive and may adversely impact the holding company’s cash flows, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

Regulatory developments, in particular the Dodd-Frank Act, have altered the regulatory framework within which we operate.

The key effects of recent regulatory developments, including the Dodd-Frank Act, on our business are changes to regulatory capital requirements, the creation of prescriptive regulatory liquidity requirements, the creation of new regulatory agencies, limitations on federal preemption, changes to deposit insurance assessments, changes to regulation of insured depository institutions, new requirements regarding mortgage loan origination and risk retention, and restrictions on investments in covered funds under the Volcker Rule. These and other changes resulting from regulatory developments may impact the profitability of our business activities, require changes to certain of our business practices, impose more stringent capital, liquidity and leverage requirements, require us to dispose of securities or otherwise adversely affect our business. These changes may also require us to invest significant management attention and resources to evaluate and make any changes necessary to comply with new requirements. Failure to comply with the new requirements may negatively impact our results of operations and financial condition. For additional information on regulatory developments, including the Dodd-Frank Act, see “Supervision and Regulation—Changes in Laws, Regulations, or Policies and the Dodd-Frank Act.”

22

The Volcker Rule collateralized loan obligation provisions could adversely affect our results of operations or financial condition.

The Volcker Rule restricts our ability to sponsor or invest in covered funds (as defined in the rule) and engage in certain types of proprietary trading. We have investments in special purpose entities that securitize a portfolio of primarily broadly syndicated loans.  These entities are called collateralized loan obligations, or CLOs. CLOs are vehicles that, based on the existing characteristics of the securities and the CLO vehicles, are covered by the Volcker Rule and the final rules implementing the Volcker Rule. When the final rules were issued, the Federal Reserve provided that the time period for conformance of activities covered by the Volcker Rule expires as of July 21, 2015. In April 2014, the Federal Reserve announced that it intends to extend the conformance period by two additional one-year extensions for ownership of certain non-conforming CLO securities until July 21, 2017. We are continuing to evaluate the impact of the Volcker Rule and the final rules on our business and operations, and we take into account the prohibitions and applicable conformance periods under the Volcker Rule in managing our portfolio of investment securities. As of March 31, 2014, we owned $340.4 million of CLO securities with a weighted average yield of 2.70% that do not conform with the Volcker Rule. If we decide, or are required, to sell these securities, our future net interest income could be adversely impacted if alternative investment opportunities yield a lower rate. Further, if we are not able to continue to hold non-conforming CLO securities, we may be required to recognize losses on CLO securities that we hold or to sell CLO securities at times or prices at which we would otherwise determine not to sell them.

The federal banking agencies have adopted new capital rules that will require insured depository institutions and their holding companies to hold more capital and have also adopted and proposed new liquidity standards. The impact of the new and proposed rules is uncertain but could be adverse to our business, results of operations or financial condition or the market price of our Class A Common Stock.

In July 2013, the federal banking agencies adopted final rules establishing a new comprehensive capital framework for U.S. banking organizations that substantially revise the risk-based capital requirements applicable to bank holding companies and their depository institution subsidiaries, including us and the Bank, as compared to the current U.S. general risk-based capital rules.  For institutions such as us and the Bank, the rules phase in over time beginning January 1, 2015, and the increased minimum capital ratios will be fully phased in as of January 1, 2019.  In October 2013, the federal banking agencies issued a proposal on minimum liquidity standards for globally large, internationally active banking organizations and bank holding companies with $50 billion or more in total consolidated assets, and, in February 2014, the Federal Reserve adopted complementary enhanced liquidity standards for bank holding companies with $50 billion or more in total consolidated assets. Although the October 2013 proposal and February 2014 rules would not apply directly to us, they may inform regulators’ assessments of our or the Bank’s liquidity. See “Supervision and Regulation—Regulatory Capital and Liquidity Requirements” for additional information on the new and proposed rules relating to capital and liquidity.

The application of more stringent capital or liquidity requirements could, among other things, result in lower returns on equity, require us to raise additional capital, alter our funding, increase our holdings of liquid assets or decrease our holdings in certain illiquid assets or limit our ability to make acquisitions, grow our business, pay dividends or repurchase our common stock. Any such impact could have an adverse effect on our business, results of operations or financial condition or the market price of our Class A Common Stock.

We will face additional regulatory requirements if we or the Bank have more than $10 billion in total consolidated assets, which could strain our resources and divert management’s attention.

Certain recent regulatory changes apply only to bank holding companies or depository institutions with more than $10 billion in total consolidated assets. Such changes include requirements to undergo company-run stress tests, establish an enterprise-wide board-level risk committee and develop and implement a compliance program under the Volcker Rule; limitations on debit card interchange fees; increased assessments for FDIC deposit insurance; and direct supervision and examination by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Although we and the Bank each had less than $10 billion in total consolidated assets as of March 31, 2014, our business strategy contemplates additional acquisitions and organic growth, and if we or the Bank have more than $10 billion in total assets, our business and results of operations could be impacted as a result of these additional requirements.

We face a risk of noncompliance and enforcement action with the Bank Secrecy Act and other anti-money laundering statutes and regulations.

The federal Bank Secrecy Act, the Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001, or Patriot Act, and other laws and regulations require financial institutions, among other duties, to institute and maintain an effective anti-money laundering program and file suspicious activity and currency

23

transaction reports as appropriate. The federal Financial Crimes Enforcement Network, established by the U.S. Department of the Treasury to administer the Bank Secrecy Act, is authorized to impose significant civil money penalties for violations of those requirements, and has recently engaged in coordinated enforcement efforts with the individual federal banking regulators, as well as the U.S. Department of Justice, Drug Enforcement Administration, and Internal Revenue Service. There is also increased scrutiny of compliance with the rules enforced by the Office of Foreign Assets Control, or OFAC. If our policies, procedures and systems are deemed deficient or the policies, procedures and systems of the financial institutions that we have already acquired or may acquire in the future are deficient, we could be subject to liability, including significant fines and other regulatory actions, such as restrictions on our ability to pay dividends and the necessity to obtain regulatory approvals to proceed with certain aspects of our business plan, including our acquisition plans and cost of compliance.

We and certain of our stockholders are required to comply with the applicable provisions of the FDIC Statement of Policy on Qualifications for Failed Bank Acquisitions.

The Order requires that we, the Bank, our founders and certain of our existing and future stockholders comply with the applicable provisions of the FDIC Policy, including, among others, a higher capital requirement for the Bank, a three-year restriction on the sale or transfer of our securities by certain stockholders subject to the FDIC Policy following our first acquisition of a failed bank from the FDIC following such stockholders’ acquisitions of their securities, limitations on transactions with affiliates and cross-support undertakings by stockholders with an 80% or greater interest in us and one or more other depository institutions. The FDIC Policy applies to certain of our existing stockholders and, subject to certain exceptions, it will apply to any other person (or group of persons acting in concert) that directly or indirectly owns, controls or has the power to vote more than 5% of our Class A Common Stock or is otherwise determined to be engaged in concerted action with other stockholders. The FDIC has informed us that the requirements and restrictions under the FDIC Policy could be extended or reinstated if we complete additional failed bank acquisitions. It is possible that the potential extension or reinstatement of the requirements under the FDIC Policy could make a prospective failed bank acquisition undesirable and that we would, therefore, not place a bid. For example, the FDIC could condition the Bank’s ability to bid on a failed institution on additional stockholders of the Company, including purchasers of our Class A Common Stock in the offering or subsequent to the offering, agreeing to be bound by provisions of the FDIC Policy which could be impracticable and could render us unable to bid on a failed institution. We may thus be less able or unable to execute our growth strategy, which could impact our business, results of operations and financial condition. Additionally, the FDIC Policy could discourage third parties from seeking to acquire significant interests in us or attempting to acquire control of us, which could adversely affect the market price of our Class A Common Stock. See “Supervision and Regulation—FDIC Statement of Policy on Qualifications for Failed Bank Acquisitions” for additional information on the requirements imposed by the FDIC Policy.

If we and certain of our stockholders are not in compliance with the applicable provisions of the FDIC Policy, we may be unable to bid on failed institutions in the future.

As the agency responsible for resolving the failure of banks, the FDIC has discretion to determine whether a party is qualified to bid on a failed institution. The FDIC Policy imposes restrictions and requirements on certain institutions—including the Company and the Bank—and our stockholders. If we and certain of our stockholders are not in compliance with the FDIC Policy, then the FDIC may not permit us to bid on a failed institution. As a condition to the Bank’s bidding on a failed institution, the FDIC could require that one or more of our existing or future stockholders, including purchasers of our Class A Common Stock in the offering or subsequent to the offering, agree to be bound by provisions of the FDIC Policy. The FDIC Policy includes a three-year prohibition on transfers of our common stock without FDIC consent, which could impact existing or future stockholders. If the FDIC were to take this position, affected stockholders would need to agree to be bound by the FDIC Policy or the Bank would not be permitted to bid on the failed institution. Our inability to bid on failed institutions may limit our ability to grow. See “—Risks Related to the Regulation of Our Industry—We and certain of our stockholders are required to comply with the applicable provisions of the FDIC Statement of Policy on Qualifications for Failed Bank Acquisitions.”

We are subject to the Community Reinvestment Act and fair lending laws, and failure to comply with these laws could lead to material penalties.

The Community Reinvestment Act, or CRA, the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, the Fair Housing Act and other fair lending laws and regulations impose nondiscriminatory lending requirements on financial institutions. The Department of Justice and other federal agencies are responsible for enforcing these laws and regulations. A successful challenge to an institution’s performance under the CRA or fair lending laws and regulations could result in a wide variety of sanctions, including the required payment of damages and civil money penalties, injunctive relief, imposition of restrictions on mergers and acquisitions activity, and restrictions on expansion activity. Private parties may also have the ability to challenge an institution’s performance under fair lending laws in private class action litigation.

24

Many of our new activities and expansion plans require regulatory approvals, and failure to obtain them may restrict our growth.

We may seek to complement and expand our business by pursuing strategic acquisitions of the assets and assuming the liabilities of failed banks, banks and other financial institutions. We must generally receive federal regulatory approval before we can acquire an institution or business. In determining whether to approve a proposed acquisition, federal bank regulators will consider, among other factors, the effect of the acquisition on competition, our financial condition, and our future prospects. The regulators also review current and projected capital ratios and levels, the competence, experience, and integrity of management and its record of compliance with laws and regulations, the convenience and needs of the communities to be served (including the acquiring institution’s record of compliance under the CRA) and the effectiveness of the acquiring institution in combating money laundering activities. Such regulatory approvals may not be granted on terms that are acceptable to us, or at all. We may also be required to sell branches as a condition to receiving regulatory approval, which condition may not be acceptable to us or, if acceptable to us, may reduce the benefit of any acquisition.

In addition to the acquisition of financial institutions, as opportunities arise, we plan to continue de novo branching as a part of our organic growth strategy. De novo branching carries with it numerous risks, including the inability to obtain all required regulatory approvals or the branch’s failing to perform as expected. The failure to obtain regulatory approvals for potential de novo branches or the failure of those branches to perform may impact our business plans, restrict our growth and adversely affect our results of operations.

Stockholders may be deemed to be acting in concert or otherwise in control of the Bank, which could impose prior approval requirements and result in adverse regulatory consequences for such holders.

We are a bank holding company regulated by the Federal Reserve. Any entity owning 25% or more of the outstanding shares of any class of our voting securities (such as our Class A Common Stock), or a lesser percentage if such holder otherwise exercises a “controlling influence” over us, may be subject to regulation as a “bank holding company” in accordance with the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956, as amended, or BHCA. In addition, (1) any bank holding company or foreign bank with a U.S. branch or agency is required to obtain the approval of the Federal Reserve under the BHCA to acquire or retain 5% or more of the outstanding shares of any class of our voting securities (such as our Class A Common Stock) and (2) any person (or group of persons acting in concert) other than a bank holding company may be required to obtain prior regulatory approval under the Change in Bank Control Act to acquire or retain 10% or more of the outstanding shares of any class of our voting securities (such as our Class A Common Stock). Any stockholder that is deemed to “control” the Company for bank regulatory purposes would become subject to prior approval requirements and ongoing regulation and supervision. Such a holder may be required to divest 5% or more of the voting shares of investments that may be deemed incompatible with bank holding company status, such as an investment in a company engaged in non-financial activities. Regulatory determination of “control” of a depository institution or holding company is based on all of the relevant facts and circumstances. Potential investors are advised to consult with their legal counsel regarding the applicable regulations and requirements.

Our common stock owned by holders determined by a bank regulatory agency to be acting in concert would be aggregated for purposes of determining whether those holders have control of a bank or bank holding company. Each stockholder obtaining control would be required to register as a bank holding company. “Acting in concert” generally means knowing participation in a joint activity or parallel action towards the common goal of acquiring control of a bank or a parent company, whether or not pursuant to an express agreement. How this definition is applied in individual circumstances can vary among the various federal bank regulatory agencies and cannot always be predicted with certainty. Many factors can lead to a finding of acting in concert, including where stockholders are: commonly controlled or managed; the holders are parties to an oral or written agreement or understanding regarding the acquisition, voting or transfer of control of voting securities of a bank or bank holding company; the holders each own stock in a bank and are also management officials, controlling stockholders, partners or trustees of another company; or both a holder and a controlling stockholder, partner, trustee or management official of the holder own equity in the bank or bank holding company.

Risks Related to the Offering

There has been no prior public market for our common stock and an active trading market in our common stock may not develop or be sustained.

Prior to the offering, there has been no public market for our common stock. Although we have applied to have our Class A Common Stock listed on the New York Stock Exchange, we do not know whether third parties will find our common stock to be attractive or whether firms will be interested in making a market for our common stock and an active trading market in our common stock may not develop or be sustained after the offering. As a result, stockholders may be unable to liquidate their investments, or may encounter considerable delay in selling shares of our common stock.

25

Our Class A Common Stock price could be highly volatile and the market price of our Class A Common Stock could drop unexpectedly.

The initial public offering price for our Class A Common Stock will be determined through negotiations with the underwriters and such initial public offering price may vary from the market price of our Class A Common Stock after the offering. The market price of our Class A Common Stock could be subject to wide fluctuations in response to, among other things, the following factors:

·

our limited time running the operations of the banks from which we have acquired assets and assumed deposits and other liabilities may make it difficult to predict our future prospects and financial performance;

·

any adverse change in the terms of, or loss of coverage under, our loss sharing arrangements with the FDIC;

·

the rapid growth and evolution of our business;

·

quarterly variations in our results of operations or the quarterly financial results of companies perceived to be similar to us;

·

changes in estimates of our financial results or recommendations by market analysts;

·

any announcements by us or our competitors of significant acquisitions, strategic alliances or joint ventures, particularly as a result of the highly acquisitive nature of our business;

·

changes in our capital structure, such as future issuances of securities or the incurrence of debt;

·

the use of our common stock as consideration in connection with an acquisition;

·

additions or departures of key personnel;

·

investors’ general perception of us; and

·

changes in general economic, industry and market conditions in the United States, Florida or international markets.

Many of these factors are beyond our control. Any of the foregoing factors could cause the stock price of our Class A Common Stock to fall and may expose us to securities class action litigation. Any securities class action litigation could result in substantial costs and the diversion of management’s attention and resources.

We will retain broad discretion in using the net proceeds from the offering and we may not promptly deploy the capital raised in the offering. We may not receive a favorable return on our investment of the proceeds of the offering or the proceeds from prior offerings and may not use the proceeds effectively, which could negatively impact our return on equity and the trading price of our Class A Common Stock.

Although we expect to use the net proceeds from the offering for general working capital purposes and to implement our business strategy, including the acquisition of additional depository institutions, we have not designated the amount of net proceeds we will use for any particular purpose. Accordingly, our management will retain broad discretion to allocate the net proceeds of the offering. The net proceeds may be applied in ways with which you and other investors in the offering may not agree.

We may not immediately deploy the capital raised in the offering and we have some funds from our 2009 and 2010 private placement financings that remain undeployed. In the event that we do not immediately deploy the capital raised in the offering, we expect to invest the offering proceeds, and we have invested the proceeds from the prior offerings, in securities until we are able to deploy the proceeds, which provides lower margins than we would expect to earn on loans, potentially adversely affecting equity holder returns, including earnings per share of common stock, return on assets and return on equity. To the extent we are unable to deploy the capital raised in the offering or the prior offerings to our banking operations, our return on such funds may be very low. If return rates decrease on the investments in which we invest such funds, our margin in such funds will be adversely affected.

Moreover, our management may use the proceeds for corporate purposes that may not increase our market value or make us profitable. In connection with deploying the funds from the offering or any other funds held by us, management will consider a variety of factors, including the availability of attractive assets and the ability for the Bank to bid for another failed institution in an FDIC auction. There is no guarantee that we will find an attractive opportunity to deploy any such funds and the failure to spend the proceeds effectively or at all could materially and adversely affect our businesses and our consolidated results of operations and financial condition, as well as the trading price of our Class A Common Stock.

Purchasers of our Class A Common Stock in the offering will experience immediate and substantial dilution.

We expect the initial public offering price of our Class A Common Stock in the offering will be substantially higher than the net tangible book value per share of our Class A Common Stock immediately after the offering. Therefore, if you purchase our Class A Common Stock in the offering, you will incur an immediate dilution of $7.54 in net tangible book value per share from the price you paid, based on an assumed initial offering price of $25.50 per share (the midpoint of the range set forth on the cover page of this prospectus). For a further description of the dilution you will experience immediately after the offering, see the section entitled “Dilution.”

26

A significant portion of our total outstanding shares may be sold into the public market in the near future, which could cause the market price of our Class A Common Stock to drop.

We are authorized to issue 150,000,000 shares of common stock and 10,000,000 shares of preferred stock. As of June 30, 2014, there were 35,892,154 shares of common stock outstanding and no shares of preferred stock issued and outstanding, which does not include shares held in treasury, shares of common stock reserved for issuance upon the exercise of outstanding options or warrants or additional shares reserved for issuance under our 2009 Option Plan or the 2013 Stock Incentive Plan.

As of June 30, 2014, we had outstanding warrants to purchase 3,310,428 shares of Class A Common Stock, 6,356,500 shares subject to outstanding options and under restricted stock units, and an aggregate of 344,660 additional shares of common stock reserved for issuance under our 2009 Option Plan and 2013 Stock Incentive Plan, all of which will become eligible for sale in the public market after the offering to the extent permitted by any applicable vesting requirements, the lock-up agreements and Rule 144 and Rule 701 under the Securities Act. In addition, approximately 28,293,811 shares of our common stock held by existing stockholders will become available for sale in the public market following the offering after the expiration of the 90-day lock-up period in the registration rights agreements and certain lock-up arrangements to the extent permitted by Rule 144 and Rule 701 under the Securities Act. See “Shares Eligible for Future Sale—Sale of Registered Shares.” Moreover, after the offering and the expiration of the 90-day and 180-day lock-up agreements, these holders and holders of approximately 3,200,093 shares of our common stock, respectively, will also have rights, subject to some conditions, to require us to file registration statements covering their shares within certain time periods after the offering or to include their shares in registration statements that we may file for ourselves or other stockholders. We also intend to register all shares of common stock that we may issue under our 2009 Option Plan and 2013 Stock Incentive Plan. Future sales of shares of our common stock by these stockholders, or the perception that such sales may occur, could adversely affect the market price of shares of our Class A Common Stock.

Once we register these shares, they can be freely sold in the public market upon issuance, subject to the lock-up agreements and the restrictions imposed on our affiliates under Rule 144. We cannot predict what effect, if any, future sales of shares of our common stock, or the availability of shares for future sale, may have on the trading price of our Class A Common Stock. Future sales of shares of our common stock by our existing stockholders and other stockholders or by us, or the perception that such sales may occur, could adversely affect the market price of shares of our Class A Common Stock and may make it more difficult for you to sell your shares of our Class A Common Stock at a time and price that you determine appropriate. See “Shares Eligible for Future Sale.”

In addition, under most circumstances, our Board of Directors has the right, without stockholder approval, to issue authorized but unissued and nonreserved shares of our common stock. If a substantial number of these shares were issued, it would dilute the existing stockholders ownership and may depress the price of our Class A Common Stock. In addition, subject to the rules of the New York Stock Exchange, our Board of Directors has the authority, without stockholder approval, to create and issue additional stock options, warrants and one or more series of preferred stock and to determine the voting, dividend and other rights of the holders of such preferred stock. Depending on the rights, preferences and privileges granted when the preferred stock is issued, it may have the effect of delaying, deferring or preventing a change in control without further action by the stockholders, may discourage bids for our Class A Common Stock at a premium over the market price of the Class A Common Stock and may adversely affect the market price of and voting and other rights of the holders of our Class A Common Stock.

To the extent shares of our common stock or preferred stock are issued, or options or warrants are exercised, investors in our securities may experience further dilution and the presence of such derivative securities may make it more difficult to obtain any future financing. In addition, in the event any future financing should be in the form of, or be convertible into or exchangeable for, equity securities, upon the issuance of such equity securities, investors may experience additional dilution.

Certain of our existing stockholders could exert significant control over the Company and may not make decisions that further the best interests of all stockholders.

As of June 30, 2014, our executive officers, directors and four principal stockholders (holders of greater than 5% of our Class A Common Stock) together control outstanding shares representing, in the aggregate, approximately 35% of the presently outstanding shares of our Class A Common Stock (and after giving effect to the exercise of presently outstanding options could control up to approximately 44% of the outstanding shares of Class A Common Stock), including approximately 6.4% of the presently outstanding shares of Class A Common Stock held by Bond Street Investors LLC, in which six of our directors have an ownership interest, and for which three of such directors act as managers of the managing member. As a result, these stockholders, if they act individually or together, may exert a significant degree of influence over our management and affairs and over matters requiring stockholder approval, including the election of directors and approval of significant corporate transactions. Furthermore, the interests of this concentration of ownership may not always coincide with the interests of other stockholders and, accordingly, they could cause us to enter into transactions or agreements which we might not otherwise

27

consider. In addition, this concentration of ownership of the Company’s Class A Common Stock may delay or prevent a merger or acquisition or other transaction resulting in a change in control of the Company even when other stockholders may consider the transaction beneficial, and might adversely affect the market price of our Class A Common Stock.

Provisions in our charter documents, applicable laws and certain provisions of the loss share agreements with the FDIC may prevent or delay a change of control of us and could also limit the market price of our Class A Common Stock.

Certain provisions of Delaware law and applicable regulatory law, and of our certificate of incorporation and bylaws could have the effect of making it more difficult for a third party to acquire, or of discouraging a third party from attempting to acquire, control of us, even if such a change in control would be beneficial to our stockholders or result in a premium for your shares of our Class A Common Stock.

These provisions may also prevent or frustrate attempts by our stockholders to replace or remove our management. These provisions include:

·

limitations on the removal of directors;

·

the ability of our Board of Directors, without stockholder approval, to issue preferred stock with terms determined by our Board of Directors and to issue additional shares of our common stock;

·

vacancies on our Board of Directors, and any newly created director positions created by the expansion of the Board of Directors, may be filled only by a majority of remaining directors then in office;

·

actions to be taken by our stockholders may only be effected at an annual or special meeting of our stockholders and not by written consent;

·

advance notice requirements for stockholder proposals and nominations;

·

the ability of our Board of Directors to make, alter or repeal our bylaws without stockholder approval; and

·

certain regulatory ownership restrictions imposed on holders of our common stock because we are a bank holding company, as more fully described in “Supervision and Regulation—Regulatory Notice and Approval Requirements” and “Supervision and Regulation—FDIC Statement of Policy on Qualifications for Failed Bank Acquisitions.”

Moreover, because our Board of Directors has the power to make, alter or repeal our bylaws without stockholder approval, our Board of Directors could amend our bylaws in the future in a manner which could further impact the interests of stockholders or the potential market price of our Class A Common Stock in the future in a manner which could further impact the interests of stockholders in a way they deem unfavorable, or negatively affect the market price of our Class A Common Stock.

Our certificate of incorporation also currently divides our Board of Directors into three classes, with each class serving for a staggered three-year term, which would prevent stockholders from electing an entirely new board of directors at any one annual meeting.

In addition, upon the listing of our Class A Common Stock on the New York Stock Exchange, we will be subject to the provisions of Section 203 of the General Corporation Law of the State of Delaware, or DGCL, which limits business combination transactions with stockholders of 15% or more of our outstanding voting stock that our Board of Directors has not approved. These provisions and other similar provisions make it more difficult for stockholders or potential acquirers to acquire us without negotiation. These provisions may apply even if some stockholders may consider the transaction beneficial to them.

Furthermore, banking laws impose notice, approval and ongoing regulatory requirements on any stockholder or other party that seeks to acquire direct or indirect “control” of an FDIC-insured depository institution. These laws include the BHCA and the Change in Bank Control Act. These laws could delay or prevent an acquisition.

In addition, our loss sharing agreements with the FDIC require that in order to maintain loss share coverage we must receive FDIC consent prior to us or certain of our stockholders engaging in certain transactions. When the consent of the FDIC is required under the loss sharing agreements, the FDIC may withhold its consent or may condition its consent on terms that we do not find acceptable. If the FDIC does not grant its consent to a transaction we would like to pursue, or conditions its consent on terms that we do not find acceptable, we may be unable to engage in certain corporate or strategic transactions that might otherwise benefit our stockholders or we may elect to pursue a transaction without obtaining FDIC consent. If we failed to obtain prior FDIC consent and the FDIC withdrew its loss share protection, there could be a material adverse effect on our financial condition, results of operations and cash flows.

These provisions and laws could limit the price that investors are willing to pay in the future for shares of our Class A Common Stock. These provisions might also discourage a potential acquisition proposal or tender offer, even if the acquisition proposal or tender offer is at a premium over the then current market price for our Class A Common Stock.

28

Shares of our Class A Common Stock will not be an insured deposit.

An investment in our Class A Common Stock will not be a bank deposit and will not be insured or guaranteed by the FDIC or any other government agency. An investment in our Class A Common Stock will be subject to investment risk, and each investor must be capable of affording the loss of its entire investment.

We are an “emerging growth company” and we cannot be certain if the reduced disclosure requirements applicable to emerging growth companies will make our common stock less attractive to investors.

We are an “emerging growth company,” as defined in the JOBS Act. As such, we are eligible to take advantage of certain exemptions from various reporting requirements that are generally unavailable to other public companies. As an emerging growth company:

·

we may present in our initial equity offering registration statement, of which this prospectus forms a part, only two years of audited financial statements and only two years of related Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations and provide less than five years of selected financial data;

·

we are exempt from the requirements to obtain an attestation and report from our auditors on management’s assessment of our internal control over financial reporting under Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002;

·

we are permitted to have less extensive disclosure regarding executive compensation in our periodic reports and proxy statements; and

·

we are not required to seek from our stockholders a nonbinding advisory vote on executive compensation or golden parachute payments.

We have elected in this prospectus to take advantage of the scaled disclosure related to financial statement presentation, including less than five years of selected financial data. We have also elected in this prospectus to take advantage of scaled disclosure related to executive compensation.  Following our public offering, we may continue to take advantage of some or all of the reduced regulatory and reporting requirements that will be available to us as long as we continue to qualify as an emerging growth company. It is possible that some investors could find our common stock less attractive because we may take advantage of these reduced requirements. If some investors find our common stock less attractive, there may be a less active trading market for our common stock and our stock price may be more volatile.

In addition, Section 107 of the JOBS Act also provides that an emerging growth company can take advantage of the extended transition period provided in Section 7(a)(2)(B) of the Securities Act for complying with new or revised accounting standards affecting public companies. In other words, an emerging growth company can delay the adoption of certain accounting standards until those standards would otherwise apply to private companies. We have elected to use the extended transition period provided in Section 7(a)(2)(B) of the Securities Act until the earlier of the date we (i) are no longer an emerging growth company or (ii) affirmatively and irrevocably opt out of the extended transition period provided in Section 7(a)(2)(B).  As a result of this election, our financial statements may not be comparable to the financial statements of other public companies.

We could remain an emerging growth company for up to five years from the effective date of this initial equity registration statement, or until the earliest of (a) the last day of the first fiscal year in which our annual gross revenues exceed $1 billion, (b) the date on which we are deemed to be a “large accelerated filer,” which will occur at such time as (i) the market value of our common stock that is held by non-affiliates exceeds $700 million as of the last business day of our most recently completed second fiscal quarter, (ii) we have been required to file annual and quarterly reports under the Exchange Act for a period of at least 12 months and (iii) we have filed at least one annual report pursuant to the Exchange Act or (c) the date on which we have issued more than $1 billion in non-convertible debt during the preceding three-year period.

The requirements of being a public company may strain our resources, divert management’s attention and affect our ability to attract and retain executive management and qualified board members.

As a public company, we will be subject to the reporting requirements of the Exchange Act, the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the Dodd-Frank Act, the listing requirements of the New York Stock Exchange and other applicable securities rules and regulations. Compliance with these rules and regulations will increase our legal and financial compliance costs, make some activities more difficult, time-consuming or costly and increase demand on our systems and resources, particularly after we are no longer an “emerging growth company.” The Exchange Act requires, among other things, that we file annual, quarterly and current reports with respect to our business and operating results. The Sarbanes-Oxley Act requires, among other things, that we maintain effective disclosure controls and procedures and internal control over financial reporting. In order to maintain and, if required, improve our disclosure controls and procedures and internal control over financial reporting to meet this standard, significant resources and management oversight may be required. As a result, management’s attention may be diverted from other business concerns, including the integration of our acquired banks, which could adversely affect our business and operating results. Although we have already hired additional employees to comply with these requirements, we may need to hire more employees in the future or engage outside consultants, which will increase our costs and expenses.

29