 | ||
|
| Home Annual/Quarterly Updates About Us
|
Fifth Third Bancorp: First Charter Acquisition Summary: According to a law firm press release, a class action was filed in connection with Fifth Third's acquisition of First Charter on June 6, 2008, and on behalf of shareholders of First Charter as of November 26, 2007 and were solicited to vote on this acquisition.
On August 16, 2007, First Charter announced that it signed a definitive agreement to be acquired by Fifth Third for $31.00 per share, which would be paid in the form of 70% Fifth Third common stock and 30% cash. In connection with Fifth Third's acquisition of First Charter, Fifth Third filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission a Registration Statement and Prospectus on Form S-4 on November 7, 2007, amended on November 29, 2007 ("Registration/Proxy Statement"). The complaint alleges that Fifth Third and some of its senior officers and directors violated the federal securities laws by filing a Registration/Proxy Statement that was materially false and misleading. The complaint alleges, among other things, that the Registration/Proxy Statement failed to disclose: (a) the Company's increasing exposure to certain poorly performing real estate markets, including Florida, Ohio, and Michigan; (b) the Company's growing exposure to late payments and defaults on mortgages and other non-performing loans; (c) the extent of the decline in the quality of the Company's Tier 1 capital base; (d) the deteriorating credit trends and increasing expenses in the Company's consumer loan portfolio; (e) the negative trends in the Company's home equity and commercial construction loans; and (f) the deterioration in the credit quality of its loans.
The truth began to emerge on June 18, 2008, when Fifth Third announced that it was in need of capital and was planning a $1 billion convertible preferred stock offering, a sale of "non-core businesses" to raise an additional $1 billion in capital, and a 66% reduction of its quarterly dividend, from $0.44 per share to $0.15 per share. On this news, the price of Fifth Third common stock declined 27% from its previous close of $12.73 per share, to close on June 18, 2008 at $9.26 per share on very heavy volume. The June 18, 2008 announcement of the previously concealed material facts revealed that the market price of Fifth Third stock on the five trading days prior to the June 6, 2008 closing of the merger, upon which the exchange ratio of First Charter shares was based, did not reflect the true value of Fifth Third shares. The true value of Fifth Third shares during the five day valuation period was materially less than the market value of Fifth Third shares because of the non-disclosure of these material facts. As a result, First Charter shareholders did not receive Fifth Third shares worth $31.00, but instead received Fifth Third shares worth substantially less and should have received additional Fifth Third shares in order to receive the $31 value merger consideration that they agreed to, pursuant to the Prospectus/Proxy statement.
A similar class action was filed earlier in the year on behalf of purchasers of 7.25% Trust Preferred Securities. The two cases may become consolidated at a later time.
INDUSTRY CLASSIFICATION:
SIC Code: 6022
Sector: Financial
Industry: Regional Banks
| COMPANY/ISSUER NAME: | Fifth Third Bancorp |
| COMPANY/ISSUER TICKER: | FITB |
| COMPANY WEBSITE: | http://www.53.com |
| FIRST IDENTIFIED COMPLAINT IN THE DATABASE | |||||||||||||||||
| Sam McGee, et al. v. Fifth Third Banc | |||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||
| DOCUMENTS FOR THE FIRST IDENTIFIED COMPLAINT | |||
| Class Action Complaint | |||
| Type: Complaint | Date on the document: 8/12/2008 | ||
| U.S. District Court Civil Docket | |||
| Type: Docket | Date on the document: 10/1/2008 | ||
| 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