 | ||
|
| Home Annual/Quarterly Updates About Us
|
NovaStar Financial, Inc. Summary: According to an article dated June 6, 2008, a federal judge in the Western District of Missouri has dismissed a securities class - action lawsuit against the company. In a June 4 opinion, Judge Ortrie Smith found that the amended complaint against the Kansas City-based subprime lender missed several procedural filing requirements. … Smith's opinion didn't leave the door open for an amended complaint, saying "such an effort would be futile" because the lawsuit either couldn't do a better job of framing the complaint or didn't think Smith would figure that the complaint was inadequate.
On August 20, 2007, the Court approved Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP as designating class counsel. On October 19, 2007, a Consolidated Complaint For Violation Of The Federal Securities Laws was filed. The defendants responded by filing a motion to dismiss the Consolidated Complaint.
In a press release dated August 15, 2007, on July 9, 2007, the district court consolidated the actions. The district court found that Dr. Kevin Lester, who purchased 73,750 net shares during the class period, had the largest financial interest because he held the most shares and suffered the greatest loss. The district court appointed Lester as the lead plaintiff.
The original Complaint alleges that NovaStar and certain of its officers and directors violated Federal Securities laws. Specifically, defendants concealed the following facts: (i) NovaStar lacked requisite internal controls, and, as a result, the projections and reported results were based upon defective assumptions about loan delinquencies; (ii) NovaStar's financial statements were materially misstated due to its failure to properly account for its allowance for loan losses; (iii) given the deterioration and the increased volatility in the subprime market, NovaStar would be forced to tighten its underwriting guidelines which would have a direct material negative impact on its loan production going forward; and (iv) given the increased volatility in the lending market, NovaStar had no reasonable basis to make projections about its ability to maintain its Real Estate Investment Trust ("REIT") taxable income, which drives dividends, and potentially even its very status as a REIT. As a result, NovaStar's projections issued during the Class Period about its REIT taxable income and dividends were at a minimum reckless.
The complaint further alleges that on or around February 20, 2007, after the markets closed, NovaStar announced disappointing fourth quarter and year-end 2006 results and further warned that it expected to earn little, if any, taxable income in the next five years. On this news, NovaStar's stock fell 42% to close at $10.10 per share on February 21, 2007.
INDUSTRY CLASSIFICATION:
SIC Code: 6798
Sector: Services
Industry: Real Estate Operations
| COMPANY/ISSUER NAME: | NovaStar Financial, Inc. |
| COMPANY/ISSUER TICKER: | NFI |
| COMPANY WEBSITE: | http://www.novastaris.com |
| FIRST IDENTIFIED COMPLAINT IN THE DATABASE | |||||||||||||||||
| Robert W. Boyd, III, et al. v. NovaStar Financial, Inc., et al. | |||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||
| DOCUMENTS FOR THE FIRST IDENTIFIED COMPLAINT | |||
| Class Action Complaint for Violation of the Federal Securities Laws - Demand for Jury Trial | |||
| Type: Complaint | Date on the document: 02/23/2007 | ||
| Order And Opinion Consolidating Actions, Designating Dr. Kevin Lester As Lead Plaintiff, And Directing Submission Of Additional Information Regarding Lead Counsel | |||
| Type: Order of Consolidation | Date on the document: 7/9/2007 | ||
| Order Designating Class Counsel And Establishing Certain Deadlines | |||
| Type: Order Appointing LP/LC | Date on the document: 8/20/2007 | ||
| REFERENCE COMPLAINT | |||||||||||||||||
| In re 2007 Novastar Financial Inc. Securities Litigation | |||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||
| DOCUMENTS FOR THE REFERENCE COMPLAINT | |||
| Consolidated Complaint For Violation Of The Federal Securities Laws | |||
| Type: Complaint | Date on the document: 10/19/2007 | ||
| Order And Opinion (1) Granting In Part And Denying In Part Defendants' Motion Requesting The Court Take Judicial Notice And (2) Granting Defendants' Motion To Dismiss | |||
| Type: Order | Date on the document: 6/4/2008 | ||
| U.S. District Court Civil Docket | |||
| Type: Docket | Date on the document: 6/4/2008 | ||
| OTHER DOCUMENTS | |||
| Case Name and/or Number: | |||
| Type: | Date on the document: | ||
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