SunTrust Banks, 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

SunTrust Banks, Inc. Summary: According to a press release dated March 06, 2009, the complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants made false and misleading statements about SunTrust's financial results and conditions. Specifically, the Company's publicly reported financial results and defendants' statements regarding the Company's business and capital position were materially false and/or misleading because they failed to disclose that: (a) defendants' assets, including loans and mortgage-related securities, were impaired to a much larger extent than the Company had disclosed; (b) defendants failed to properly record losses for impaired assets; (c) the Company's internal controls were inadequate to prevent the Company from improperly reporting the value of its assets; and (d) SunTrust was not as well capitalized as represented, and, notwithstanding the $3.5 billion the Company received on November 17, 2008 from the Troubled Asset Relief Program ("TARP"), the Company announced that it would have to raise an additional $1.4billion in TARP funds just three weeks later. As SunTrust's true condition slowly came to light in a series of write-downs, reserve increases and capital-raising, SunTrust's stock price dropped from a Class Period high of over $59 per share to less than $14 per share.

On August 31, 2009, the motion of Waterford Township General Employees Retirement System for appointment as lead plaintiff and Horwitz, Horwitz & Paradis, Attorneys at Law as lead counsel, was approved for the Class.

On December 23, 2009 an amended complaint against all defendants, was filed by the plaintiffs in this action.

On August 19, 2010, the Defendant’s motion to dismiss was granted based upon the Plaintiff’s allegations of loss causation were insufficient to state a claim. Because the Plaintiff had not adequately pled false representations or scienter or loss causation, the Court could not decide whether the Plaintiff has adequately pled the remaining elements of a § 10(b) claim or the elements of a § 20(a) claim, which depends on the existence of an underlying § 10(b) claim.

On August 20, 2010, a Clerk's Judgment entered dismissing the action.

INDUSTRY CLASSIFICATION:
SIC Code: 6021
Sector: Financial
Industry: Regional Banks

COMPANY/ISSUER NAME:	SunTrust Banks, Inc.
COMPANY/ISSUER TICKER:	STI
COMPANY WEBSITE:	http://www.suntrust.com

FIRST IDENTIFIED COMPLAINT IN THE DATABASE

Waterford Township General Employees Retirement System, et al. v. SunTrust Banks, Inc., et al.

COURT: N.D. Georgia	DOCKET NUMBER: 09-CV-00617
JUDGE NAME: Hon. Thomas W. Thrash, Jr
DATE FILED: 03/06/2009	SOURCE:
CLASS PERIOD START: 07/22/2008	CLASS PERIOD END: 01/21/2009
TYPE OF COMPLAINT: Complaint (Unamended and Unconsolidated)
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP (Atlanta) 3424 Peachtree Road, NE, Suite 1650, Atlanta, GA, 30326 (voice) 404.504.6500, (fax) 404.504.6500, 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
Class Action Complaint for Violation of the Federal Securities Laws - Demand for Jury Trial
Type: Complaint		Date on the document: 03/06/2009
Order For Appointment As Lead Plaintiff And Approval Of Selection Of Counsel
Type: Order Appointing LP/LC		Date on the document: 08/31/2009

REFERENCE COMPLAINT

Waterford Township General Employees Retirement System, et al. v. SunTrust Banks, Inc., et al.

COURT: N.D. Georgia	DOCKET NUMBER: 09-CV-00617
JUDGE NAME: Hon. Thomas W. Thrash, Jr
DATE FILED: 12/23/2009	SOURCE:
CLASS PERIOD START: 07/22/2008	CLASS PERIOD END: 01/21/2009
TYPE OF COMPLAINT: First Amended
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
Horwitz, Horwitz & Paradis 405 Lexington Ave., 61st Flr. , New York, NY, 10174 (voice) 212.986.4500, (fax) 212.986.4500, _____________________________________________ TOTAL NUMBER OF PLAINTIFF FIRMS: 1

DOCUMENTS FOR THE REFERENCE COMPLAINT
Lead Plaintiff's First Amended Class Action Complaint - Jury Trial Demanded
Type: Complaint		Date on the document: 12/23/2009
U.S. District Court Civil Docket
Type: Other		Date on the document: 02/17/2010
Order
Type: Order		Date on the document: 08/19/2010
Judgment
Type: Summary Judgment		Date on the document: 08/20/2010
U.S. District Court Civil Docket
Type: Docket		Date on the document: 08/24/2010

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

�