Dynex Capital, Inc. : Merit Securities Corporation Collateralized Bonds Series 13

Company and Case Information

IMPORTANT INFORMATION | INDEX OF FILINGS | SEARCH

Home

Index of Filings

News and Press Releases

Filings

Decisions

Settlements

Litigation Activity Indices

Top Ten List

Annual/Quarterly Updates

Clearinghouse Research

Articles & Papers

Search

Related Sites

About Us

Local Rules

Sponsors

Register

_______________
Copyright (c) 2001
Stanford Law School

Dynex Capital, Inc. : Merit Securities Corporation Collateralized Bonds Series 13 Summary: According to a press release dated June 21, 2006, Defendants Dynex Capital, Inc. ('Dynex') and Merit Securities Corporation ('Merit ') (collectively, 'Dynex'or 'defendants') move for reconsideration of or, in the alternative, for leave to take an interlocutory appeal from my Opinion and Order dated February 10, 2006 denying in part defendants' motion to dismiss. Dynex's motion for reconsideration is denied. The judge hereby certified this matter for interlocutory appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b).

As previously disclosed by the Company’s FORM 10-Q for the quarterly period March 31, 2006, on May 31, 2005, the plaintiffs filed an amended class action complaint. The amended complaint dropped all state common law claims but added federal securities claims related to the MERIT Series 12 securitization financing bonds. On July 15, 2005, the defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint. On February 10, 2006, the District Court dismissed the claims against Messrs. Benedetti and Potts, but did not dismiss the claims against Dynex and MERIT. On February 24, 2006, Dynex and MERIT moved for reconsideration and interlocutory appeal of the District Court's order denying the motion to dismiss Dynex and MERIT.

The original class action lawsuit on behalf of all persons and entities that purchased Merit Securities Corporation Collateralized Bonds Series 13. The claims asserted arise under Sections 10 and 20 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Named as defendants in the suit are Dynex Capital, Inc. (Merit's parent corporation), Merit Securities Corp., and Greenwich Capital Markets, Inc.

The complaint alleges that, during the Class Period, the prospectus disseminated by Merit, in connection with the offering of the Bonds, contained materially false and misleading information concerning the manufactured housing loans originated during 1997 through 1999, which were pooled together to serve as collateral for the Bonds. These misstatements included that the Bonds were originated in compliance with underwriting standards, when in fact, those procedures were largely disregarded. These misstatements resulted in an artificially high credit ratings and pricing. It is further alleged that the Bonds prices were inflated due to misrepresentations of the true repossession rates. The truth only began to emerge, following the disclosure of corrected repossession and foreclosure rates on February 24, 2004, as the Bonds were dramatically downgraded. Moreover, ensuing disclosures in April 2004 revealed that even Merit's "current manufactured housing collateral may be deemed impaired."

On August 06, 2008, a second amended complaint was filed. Lastly, on August 19, 2008, a stipulated scheduling order was entered. The order announced the deadlines for the defendants and plaintiffs to file any motion to dismiss by September 11, 2008 and October 16, 2008, respectively.

On October 19, 2009, an order in response to Defendants' motion was granted in part and denied in part. With respect to such claims and the corresponding Section 20(a) claims, Defendants' motion to dismiss was denied. With respect to claims of securities fraud based upon other allegedly false and misleading statements, Defendants' motion to dismiss was granted.

On October 19, 2009, Defendants' motion to dismiss was granted in part and denied in part. With respect to such claims and the corresponding Section 20(a) claims, Defendants' motion to dismiss was denied. With respect to claims of securities fraud based upon other allegedly false and misleading statements under Section 10(b), Defendants' motion to dismiss is granted.

On March 07, 2011, the Lead Plaintiffs’ motion for class certification was Granted by the Court.

INDUSTRY CLASSIFICATION:
SIC Code: 6798
Sector: Services
Industry: Real Estate Operations

COMPANY/ISSUER NAME:	Dynex Capital, Inc.
COMPANY/ISSUER TICKER:	DX
COMPANY WEBSITE:	http://www.dynexcapital.com

FIRST IDENTIFIED COMPLAINT IN THE DATABASE

Teamsters Local 445 Freight Division Pension Fund, et al. v. Dynex Capital, Inc., et al.

COURT: S.D. New York	DOCKET NUMBER: 05-CV-1897
JUDGE NAME: Hon. Harold Baer
DATE FILED: 02/07/2005	SOURCE: Notice of Filing
CLASS PERIOD START: 08/11/1999	CLASS PERIOD END: 05/11/2004
TYPE OF COMPLAINT: Complaint (Unamended and Unconsolidated)
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
Schoengold & Sporn PC (New York) 233 Broadway 39Th Floor, New York, NY, 10279 (voice) 212.964.0046, (fax) , _____________________________________________ TOTAL NUMBER OF PLAINTIFF FIRMS: 1

DOCUMENTS FOR THE FIRST IDENTIFIED COMPLAINT
Class Action Complaint for Violation of Federal Securities Laws
Type: Complaint		Date on the document: 2/7/2005
Opinion & Order
Type: Order		Date on the document: 06/02/2006

REFERENCE COMPLAINT

In Re: Dynex Capital, Inc. Securities Litigation

COURT: S.D. New York	DOCKET NUMBER: 05-CV-1897
JUDGE NAME:
DATE FILED: 08/06/2008	SOURCE: Docket
CLASS PERIOD START: 02/07/2000	CLASS PERIOD END: 05/13/2004
TYPE OF COMPLAINT: Second Amended
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
Schoengold Sporn Laitman & Lometti PC 19 Fulton Street, Suite 406, New York, NY, 10038 (voice) 212.964.0046, (fax) 212.267-8137, shareholderrelations@spornlaw.com _____________________________________________ TOTAL NUMBER OF PLAINTIFF FIRMS: 1

DOCUMENTS FOR THE REFERENCE COMPLAINT
Amended Class Action Complaint
Type: Complaint		Date on the document: 05/31/2005
Opinion & Order
Type: Order		Date on the document: 02/10/2006
Second Amended Class Action Complaint
Type: Complaint		Date on the document: 8/6/2008
Notice Of Motion
Type: Notice		Date on the document: 9/11/2008
Amended Judgment
Type: Order		Date on the document: 9/29/2008
Scheduling Order
Type: Order		Date on the document: 10/7/2008
Opinion & Order
Type: Order		Date on the document: 10/19/2009
U.S. District Court Civil Docket
Type: Docket		Date on the document: 07/19/2010
Opinion & Order
Type: Other		Date on the document: 03/07/2011
U.S. District Court Civil Docket
Type: Docket		Date on the document: 05/02/2011
U.S. District Court Civil Docket
Type: Docket		Date on the document: 05/13/2011
Mandate
Type: Other		Date on the document: 06/02/2011
Opinion & Order
Type: Other		Date on the document: 06/21/2011
Lead Plaintiff’s Unopposed Motion For Preliminary Approval Of Settlement
Type: Motion		Date on the document: 11/15/2011
Stipulation Of Settlement
Type: Other		Date on the document: 11/15/2011
U.S. District Court Civil Docket
Type: Docket		Date on the document: 11/15/2011

OTHER DOCUMENTS
Order
Case Name and/or Number: Teamsters Local 445 Freight Division Pension Fund, et al. v. Dynex Capital, Inc., et al.
Type: Order		Date on the document: 09/14/2006
Appeal
Case Name and/or Number: Teamsters Local 445 Freight Division Pension Fund, et al. v. Dynex Capital, Inc., et al.
Type: Other		Date on the document: 09/18/2006

WARNING AND DISCLAIMER OF LIABILITY:
The information included on this Web site, whether provided by personnel employed by Stanford Law School or by third parties, is provided for research and teaching purposes only. Neither Stanford University, Stanford Law School, nor any of their employees, agents, contractors, or affiliates warrant the accuracy or completeness of the information or analyses displayed herein, and we caution all readers that inclusion of any information on this site does not constitute an endorsement of the truthfulness or accuracy of that information. In particular, this Web site contains complaints and other documents filed in federal and state courts, which make allegations that may or may not be accurate. No reader should, on the basis of information contained in or referenced by this Web site, assume that any of these allegations are truthful.

Go to Search page | Go to Case Index page | Back to Top

�