Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (Freddie Mac)

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

Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (Freddie Mac) Conclusion: A related class action complaint was filed on January 18, 2008, in the Northern District of Ohio. On April 10, 2008, an order granted the motion by the Ohio Public Employees Retirement System ("OPERS") for Appointment as Lead Plaintiff and Approval of Its Selection of Counsel. On May 27, 2008, a First Amended Complaint was filed against the Defendants. On September 02, 2008, a Motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint with Prejudice was filed by the Defendants.

On January 22, 2008, a motion to appoint Ohio Public Employees Retirement System to serve as lead plaintiffs and for the approval of the selection of lead counsel was filed. However, on March 10, 2008, an Order granting the Notice of Voluntary Dismissal is valid and the case is hence closed. The complaint was first filed November 21, 2007 a class action was commenced on behalf of purchasers of Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation common stock during the class period. Specifically, the complaint charges Freddie Mac and certain of its officers and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Freddie Mac is a shareholder-owned company established by Congress in 1970 to support homeownership and rental housing.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants made false and misleading statements concerning Freddie Mac’s business, its risk management and the procedures it put in place to protect the Company from problems in the mortgage industry. In fact, during the Class Period, Freddie Mac was not adequately implementing risk control measures. Moreover, the Company’s procedures for appraisals led to many inflated appraisals, increasing the risk of defaults. Ultimately, the Company reported billions of dollars in losses, has been mentioned in investigations by the New York Attorney General and announced it must raise new capital to meet regulatory requirements. On this news, Freddie Mac stock fell over $10 per share to close at $26.74 on November 20, 2007.

According to the complaint, during the Class Period, defendants concealed the following information, which caused their statements to be materially false and misleading: (a) defendants were not implementing sufficient risk management controls to protect the Company from acquiring billions of dollars worth of mortgages with poor underwriting standards, causing the Company to have an untenable amount of risky loans; (b) defendants were not implementing controls to ensure that appraisals were done appropriately and to prevent collusion between lenders and appraisers, increasing the risk of defaults; (c) the Company was not adequately reserving for uncollectible loans, causing its financial results to be misleading; and (d) the Company had billions of dollars of bad loans which it would eventually have to write off, causing losses and capital deficiencies.

A similar, purported class action complaint has also been filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio.

On November 07, 2010, a Second Amended Class Action was filed by the plaintiffs in this action against the defendants.

INDUSTRY CLASSIFICATION:
SIC Code: 6111
Sector: Financial
Industry: Consumer Financial Services

COMPANY/ISSUER NAME:	Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation
COMPANY/ISSUER TICKER:	FRE
COMPANY WEBSITE:	http://www.freddiemac.com

FIRST IDENTIFIED COMPLAINT IN THE DATABASE

Scott Reimer, et al. v. Federal Home Mortgage Corproation, et al.

COURT: S.D. New York	DOCKET NUMBER: 07-CV-10526
JUDGE NAME: Hon. John F. Keenan
DATE FILED: 11/21/2007	SOURCE: Notice of Filing
CLASS PERIOD START: 08/01/2006	CLASS PERIOD END: 11/19/2007
TYPE OF COMPLAINT: Complaint (Unamended and Unconsolidated)
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
Chitwood Harley Harnes LLP (Atlanta) 2300 Promenade II; 1230 Peachtree Street, N.E., Atlanta, GA, 30309 (voice) 888.873.3999, (fax) 404.876.4476, info@chitwoodlaw.com Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP (Melville) 200 Broadhollow, Suite 406, Melville, NY, 11747 (voice) 631.367.7100, (fax) 631.367.1173, info@csgrr.com/ Waite Schneider Bayless & Chesley Co. LPA (Cincinnati) 1513 Fourth & Vine Tower, One West Fourth Street, Cincinnati, OH, 45202 (voice) 513.621.026, (fax) 513.381.2375, wsbclaw@aol.com _____________________________________________ TOTAL NUMBER OF PLAINTIFF FIRMS: 3

DOCUMENTS FOR THE FIRST IDENTIFIED COMPLAINT
Complaint For Violation Of The Federal Securities Laws
Type: Complaint		Date on the document: 11/21/2007
Order
Type: Order		Date on the document: 3/10/2008
US District Court Civil Docket
Type: Docket		Date on the document: 3/10/2008

REFERENCE COMPLAINT

Ohio Public Employees Retirement, et al. v. Federal Home Mortgage Corproation, et al.

COURT: N.D. Ohio	DOCKET NUMBER: 08-CV-00160
JUDGE NAME: Hon.John R. Adams
DATE FILED: 01/18/2008	SOURCE: Docket
CLASS PERIOD START: 08/01/2006	CLASS PERIOD END: 11/19/2007
TYPE OF COMPLAINT: First Amended
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
Chitwood Harley Harnes LLP (Atlanta) 1230 Peachtree Street, N.E., 2300 Promenade II, Atlanta, GA, 30309 (voice) 888.873.3999, (fax) 404.873.4476, info@chitwoodlaw.com Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP (Melville) 58 South Service Road, Suite 200, Melville, NY, 11747 (voice) 631.367.7100, (fax) 631.367.1173, info@csgrr.com/ _____________________________________________ TOTAL NUMBER OF PLAINTIFF FIRMS: 2

DOCUMENTS FOR THE REFERENCE COMPLAINT
Class Action Complaint For Violations Of Federal Securities Laws
Type: Complaint		Date on the document: 1/18/2008
Order Appointing Lead Plaintiff And Co-Lead Counsel
Type: Order		Date on the document: 4/10/2008
First Amended Class Action Complaint For Violations Of Federal Securities Laws
Type: Complaint		Date on the document: 5/27/2008
Defendants' Motion To Dismiss The Amended Complaint With Prejudice
Type: Motion		Date on the document: 9/2/2008
U.S. District Court Civil Docket
Type: Docket		Date on the document: 10/20/2008
Second Amended Complaint For Violations Of Federal Securities Laws - Jury Trial Demanded
Type: Complaint		Date on the document: 11/07/2008
Order
Type: Order		Date on the document: 12/18/2008
Lead Plaintiff's Motion To Partially Lift The PSLRA Discovery Stay And Memorandum Of Points And Authorities In Support Thereof
Type: Motion		Date on the document: 05/21/2009
U.S. District Court Civil Docket
Type: Docket		Date on the document: 02/18/2010
Memorandum Of Opinion And Order
Type: Memorandum		Date on the document: 04/22/2010
U.S. District Court Civil Docket
Type: Docket		Date on the document: 08/08/2011

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

�