Company and Case Information

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


Levitt Corporation
Summary: According to a press release dated January 25, 2008, the complaint charges Levitt and certain of its officers and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Levitt, together with its subsidiaries, operates as a homebuilding and real estate development company in the southeastern United States.

According to the complaint, on January 31, 2007, Levitt announced that it agreed to merge with BFC Financial Corp (“BFC”). Based on BFC stock’s closing price on the previous trading day, the proposed transaction valued Levitt stock at $14.41 per share - a premium of 32 percent over the closing price of $10.88 per share on the previous trading day. The complaint alleges that, during the Class Period, defendants issued materially false and misleading statements and failed to disclose: (i) that the Company’s Levitt and Sons subsidiary was in much worse financial condition than publicly represented. Levitt and Sons was saddled with excessive amounts of unneeded and overpriced land which would not be feasible to develop for some time. Furthermore, Levitt and Sons was struggling to complete projects it had already begun and in many instances was failing to complete construction of homes that it had already sold as it lacked the financial resources to follow through on its contracts; (ii) that as a result of the foregoing, the Company was materially overstating its financial results because it was failing to timely record an impairment in the value of its homebuilding inventory at Levitt and Sons. Although Defendants acknowledged the difficult housing market, their public statements failed to advise investors of the true financial condition of the Company; (iii) that the Company’s loans and advances to Levitt and Sons would not be recovered as the subsidiary lacked the financial resources to pay now and in the foreseeable future; and (iv) that Levitt and Sons was insolvent.

Then, on August 15, 2007, the Company announced that the merger agreement with BFC had been terminated, without giving any explanation. Upon this news, shares of the Company’s stock fell $0.79 per share, or over 21%, to close at $2.96 per share. Subsequently, on November 9, 2007, it was announced that Levitt and Sons filed for bankruptcy under Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code.

INDUSTRY CLASSIFICATION:
SIC Code: 1520
Sector: Capital Goods
Industry: Construction Services


COMPANY/ISSUER NAME: Levitt Corporation
COMPANY/ISSUER TICKER: LEV
COMPANY WEBSITE: http://www.levittcorporation.com

FIRST IDENTIFIED COMPLAINT IN THE DATABASE
Robert D. Dance, et al. v. Levitt Corporation, et al.
 COURT: S.D. Florida  DOCKET NUMBER: 08-CV-60111
 JUDGE NAME: Hon. Donald L. Graham
 DATE FILED: 01/25/2008  SOURCE: Notice of Filing
 CLASS PERIOD START: 01/31/2007  CLASS PERIOD END: 08/14/2007
 TYPE OF COMPLAINT: Unamended/Unconsolidated
 PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  • Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP (Florida)
      197 S. Federal Highway, Suite 20, Boca Raton, FL, 33432
       (voice) 561-750-3000, (fax) 561-750-3364, info@csgrr.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 FIRST IDENTIFIED COMPLAINT
    Class Action Complaint for Violations of Federal Securities Laws - Demand for Jury Trial
    Type: Complaint Date on the document: 01/25/2008

     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