IndyMac Bancorp, Inc. : Option ARM Summary: The original complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants issued materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business and financial results. Specifically, defendants downplayed and concealed IndyMac's growing exposure to non-performing assets, particularly loans in its pay-option adjustable-rate mortgage ("Option ARM") and homebuilder construction portfolios, and made numerous positive representations regarding the Company's capital position to alleviate investors' fears concerning the Company's capital erosion. As a result of defendants' false statements, IndyMac stock traded at artificially inflated prices during the Class Period, reaching a Class Period high of $24.55 per share in October 2007.
Then on May 12, 2008, IndyMac announced its first quarter 2008 financial results, including a net loss of $184.2 million, or ($2.27) per share, compared with net earnings of $52.4 million, or $0.70 per share, in the first quarter of 2007. On this news, IndyMac's stock dropped to close at $2.32 per share - a two-day decline of $1.11 per share, or 32%, and a decline of 91% from $24.55 per share on October 2, 2007.
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: (a) the Company was not adequately reserving for its losses on mortgage-related assets in violation of generally accepted accounting principles; (b) the Company had far greater exposure to anticipated losses and defaults concerning its book of business related to its homebuilder and Option ARM portfolios than it had previously disclosed; (c) the Company's capital base was not adequate enough to withstand the significant deterioration in the credit and real estate markets and could jeopardize the Company's status as "well capitalized;" (d) IndyMac had not adequately reserved for Option ARMs; and (e) given the Company's exposure to the increased volatility in the credit and real estate markets, the Company had no reasonable basis to make projections about its earnings.
The court granted consolidation of related cases, selected a lead plaintiff and granted his selection of lead counsel on September 12, 2008. The Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint was filed on January 27, 2009. On March 20, 2009, the lead plaintiff filed a Second Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint. On April 24, 2009, the defendants filed three motions to dismiss the Second Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint. On August 31, 2009, the hearing was held before Judge George H. Wu. The motions are tentatively granted with leave to amend.
On October 9, 2009, the lead plaintiff filed a Third Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint. The defendants responded by filing several motions to dismiss the Third Amended Consolidated Complaint in November 2009. On August 9, 2010, the motions were granted with leave to amend. On September 9, 2010, the plaintiff filed a Fourth Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint and then a Fifth Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint on May 27, 2011.
By the Order entered on October 3, 2011, defendants shall file their motions to dismiss and memoranda of points and authorities in support thereof on or before Friday, February 24, 2012; 2. Plaintiff shall file his opposition briefs on or before Monday, April 2, 2012; and 3. Defendants shall file their reply briefs on or before Tuesday, April 24, 2012.
On June 06, 2012, the Court issued an Order Dismissing Fifth Amended Complaint with Prejudice as to a single Defendant. Case continues against other defendants.
On August 10, 2012, the Court issued an Order preliminarily approving the settlement.
SIC Code: 6035
Industry: S&Ls/Savings Banks
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