PFF Bancorp, Inc. - Securities Class Action

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

PFF Bancorp, Inc. Summary: According to a press release dated January 05, 2009, the complaint charges certain of PFF’s officers and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. PFF operates as a holding company for PFF Bank & Trust, which provides community banking services to individuals and companies in Southern California.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants issued materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company’s business and financial results and engaged in improper behavior, which harmed PFF’s customers and investors in its common stock, including lending to borrowers with little ability to repay the amount loaned and failing to inform investors of the impact of changes in the real estate market in San Bernardino and Riverside counties. As a result of defendants’ false statements, PFF’s stock traded at artificially inflated prices during the Class Period, reaching a high of $35.45 per share in December 2006.

On November 21, 2008, after the market closed, the Bank was closed by regulators and taken over by U.S. Bancorp. Following this announcement, PFF’s stock declined to $0.01 per share – a total loss for investors.

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) PFF’s assets contained hundreds of millions of dollars worth of impaired and risky securities, many of which were backed by real estate that was rapidly dropping in value; (b) prior to and during the Class Period, PFF had been extremely aggressive in generating loans, including being heavily involved in offering Home Equity Lines of Credit, which would be enormously problematic if the value of residential real estate did not continue to increase; (c) defendants failed to properly account for PFF’s real estate loans, failing to reflect impairment in the loans; (d) PFF’s business prospects were much worse than represented due to problems in the Inland Empire market, which was a key focus of PFF’s business; and (e) PFF had not adequately reserved for loan losses on HELOCs and on other real estate-related assets.

On September 14, 2009, the Court granted the motion for appointment as lead plaintiff filed by the Plaintiffs and approved their selection of lead counsel.

On October 10, 2010, a first amended complaint was filed by the plaintiffs against defendants.

On February 08, 2010, an Order by Judge Andrew J. Guilford on the Motion to dismiss was granted. Since Defendants have not established that there is no possibility Plaintiffs could cure the Complaint’s deficiencies, Plaintiffs shall have leave to amend their Complaint.

On March 8, 2010, a second amended complaint was filed by the plaintiffs against the defendants.

On August 9, 2010, the Court denied defendants' motion to dismiss the second amended complaint.

On March 26, 2012, the Court entered an Order preliminarily approving the Stipulation of Settlement.

INDUSTRY CLASSIFICATION:
SIC Code: 6035
Sector: Financial
Industry: S&Ls/Savings Banks

COMPANY/ISSUER NAME:	PFF Bancorp, Inc.
COMPANY/ISSUER TICKER:	PFFBQ
COMPANY WEBSITE:	http://www.pffbank.com

FIRST IDENTIFIED COMPLAINT IN THE DATABASE

Menachem Maiman, et al. v. PFF Bancorp, Inc., et al.

COURT: C.D. California	DOCKET NUMBER: 09-CV-00012
JUDGE NAME: Hon. Andrew J. Guilford
DATE FILED: 01/05/2009	SOURCE:
CLASS PERIOD START: 10/23/2006	CLASS PERIOD END: 11/21/2008
TYPE OF COMPLAINT: Complaint (Unamended and Unconsolidated)
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
Abraham, Fruchter & Twersky (New York, One Pennsylvania Plaza) One Pennsylvania Plaza, Suite 1910, New York, NY, 10119 (voice) 212.279.5050, (fax) 212.279.3655, JFruchter@FruchterTwersky.com Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP (San Diego) 655 West Broadway, Suite 1900, San Diego, CA, 92101 (voice) 619.231.1058, (fax) 619.231.7423, info@csgrr.com/ _____________________________________________ TOTAL NUMBER OF PLAINTIFF FIRMS: 2

DOCUMENTS FOR THE FIRST IDENTIFIED COMPLAINT
Complaint For Violation Of The Federal Securities Laws
Type: Complaint		Date on the document: 01/05/2009
U.S. District Court Civil Docket
Type: Docket		Date on the document: 02/03/2009
Order Concerning Motions To Appoint Lead Plaintiff And Counsel
Type: Order Appointing LP/LC		Date on the document: 09/14/2009

REFERENCE COMPLAINT

Menachem Maiman, et al. v. PFF Bancorp, Inc., et al.

COURT: C.D. California	DOCKET NUMBER: 09-CV-00012
JUDGE NAME:
DATE FILED: 10/14/2009	SOURCE:
CLASS PERIOD START: 10/23/2006	CLASS PERIOD END: 11/21/2008
TYPE OF COMPLAINT: First Amended
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
The Shuman Law Firm 885 Arapahoe Avenue, Denver, CO, 80302 (voice) 303.861.3003, (fax) 303.861.3003, _____________________________________________ TOTAL NUMBER OF PLAINTIFF FIRMS: 1

DOCUMENTS FOR THE REFERENCE COMPLAINT
Consolidated Amended Complaint For Violation Of The Federal Securities Laws
Type: Complaint		Date on the document: 10/14/2009
Order Granting Motion To Dismiss
Type: Order		Date on the document: 02/08/2010
U.S. District Court Civil Docket
Type: Docket		Date on the document: 02/08/2010
Consolidated Second Amended Complaint For Violation Of The Federal Securities Laws
Type: Complaint		Date on the document: 03/08/2010
Order Denying Motion To Dismiss
Type: Order		Date on the document: 08/09/2010
Stipulation of Settlement
Type: Settlement		Date on the document: 09/27/2011
Third Revised Order Preliminarily Approving Settlement And Providing For Notice
Type: Order		Date on the document: 03/26/2012
U.S. District Court Civil Docket
Type: Docket		Date on the document: 03/26/2012

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

�