Driver Management Condemns Effort by First United and Maryland Regulator to Undermine Shareholder Democracy Through Unconstitutional Abuse of Seldom-Used Protectionist Statute

Driver Management Company LLC (together with its affiliates, “Driver” or “we”), the largest shareholder of First United Corporation (NASDAQ: FUNC) (“First United” or the “Company”), today disclosed that it has received a letter from the Maryland Commissioner of Financial Regulation (the “Maryland Commissioner”) questioning Driver’s ability to vote its shares at First United’s Annual Meeting of Shareholders (the “Annual Meeting”) on June 11, 2020. First United’s lobbying of the Maryland Commissioner puts any shareholder of a Maryland bank at risk of disenfranchisement if they express a view regarding that bank’s management, board of directors or strategic direction. This makes a mockery of the notion of shareholder rights, such as the right for shareholders to submit proposals pursuant to federal securities laws, nominate directors, call special meetings and generally communicate their views to management, boards of directors and fellow shareholders.

Driver has nominated a slate of three highly-qualified, independent nominees for election to First United’s eleven-member Board of Directors (the “Board”) at the Annual Meeting. We urge shareholders to vote to elect Driver’s entire slate on the WHITE Proxy Card.

To lend context, Driver has issued the below open letter to shareholders today:

Fellow Shareholders,

It is truly mind-boggling that the Maryland Commissioner—the same regulator that was asleep at the switch in the years leading up to the 2007-2009 financial crisis, when the reckless actions of First United’s Board destroyed millions in shareholder value—is spending time and energy trying to tip the scales in this year’s election contest. It is equally appalling that taxpayer dollars are funding this patent use of public resources to further First United’s private aims. If anything, the Maryland Commissioner should be working to ensure that First United does not repeat history and again destroy millions in shareholder value in an economic downturn.

Based on the totality of the facts and circumstances, there is no conclusion to draw other than that the Maryland Commissioner’s action was initiated at the urging of First United. It should now be abundantly clear that First United and a state regulator with dwindling relevance have gamed the timing of the Maryland Commissioner’s letter in an attempt to disrupt shareholder democracy for their own mutual benefit less than 30 days before the Annual Meeting.