 | ||
|
| Home Annual/Quarterly Updates About Us
|
Ambac Financial Group, Inc. Summary: According to a press release dated January 16, 2008, the complaint charges Ambac and certain of its officers and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Ambac is a holding company whose subsidiaries provide financial guarantee products and other financial services to clients in both the public and private sectors around the world. The Company and its subsidiaries operate in two segments: financial guarantee and financial services.
Specifically, the complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants issued materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company’s business and financial results related to its insurance coverage on collateralized debt obligations (“CDO”) contracts. According to the complaint, the true facts, which were known by the defendants but concealed from the investing public during the Class Period, were as follows: (i) that the Company lacked requisite internal controls to ensure that the Company’s underwriting standards and its internal rating system for its CDO contracts were adequate, and, as a result, the Company’s projections and reported results issued during the Class Period were based upon defective assumptions and/or manipulated facts; (ii) that the Company’s financial statements were materially misstated due to its failure to properly account for its mark-to-market losses; (iii) that, given the deterioration and the increased volatility in the mortgage market, the Company would be forced to tighten its underwriting standards related to its asset-backed securities, which would have a direct material negative impact on its premium production going forward; (iv) that the Company had far greater exposure to anticipated losses and defaults related to its CDO contracts containing subprime loans, including even highly rated CDOs, than it had previously disclosed; (v) that the Company had far greater exposure to a potential ratings downgrade from one of the credit ratings agencies than it had previously disclosed; and (vi) that defendants’ Class Period statements about the Company’s selective underwriting practices during the 2005 through 2007 timeframe related to its CDOs backed by subprime assets were patently false; as the Company’s underwriting standards were at best aggressive and at a minimum were completely inadequate. As the truth began to be disclosed, shares of Ambac common stock plummeted, causing substantial losses to investors.
INDUSTRY CLASSIFICATION:
SIC Code: 6351
Sector: Financial
Industry: Insurance (Prop. & Casualty)
| COMPANY/ISSUER NAME: | Ambac Financial Group, Inc. |
| COMPANY/ISSUER TICKER: | ABK |
| COMPANY WEBSITE: | http://www.ambac.com |
| FIRST IDENTIFIED COMPLAINT IN THE DATABASE | |||||||||||||||||
| Scott Reimer, et al. v. Ambac Financial Group, 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: 01/16/2008 | ||
| OTHER DOCUMENTS | |||
| Class Action Complaint for Violation of the Federal Securities Laws - Demand for Jury Trial | |||
| Case Name and/or Number: Marko Babic, et al. v. Ambac Financial Group, Inc., et al. | |||
| Type: Complaint | Date on the document: 02/07/2008 | ||
| Class Action Complaint for Violation of the Federal Securities Laws - Demand for Jury Trial | |||
| Case Name and/or Number: Kevin Parker, et al. v. Ambac Financial Group, Inc., et al. | |||
| Type: Complaint | Date on the document: 02/22/2008 | ||
| Class Action Complaint | |||
| Case Name and/or Number: Minneapolis Firefighters' Relief Association, et al. v. Ambac Financial Group, Inc., et al. | |||
| Type: Complaint | Date on the document: 02/25/2008 | ||
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