Triad Guaranty Incorporated - 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

Triad Guaranty Incorporated 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. As a result of defendants’ false statements, Triad stock traded at artificially inflated prices during the Class Period, reaching its Class Period high of $58.45 per share in January 2007. However, beginning in late August 2007 and continuing throughout 2008, Triad began to acknowledge serious issues surrounding its exposure to anticipated losses and defaults related to its book of business for its Alt-A and pay-option adjustable rate mortgage (“ARM”) products written in 2006 and 2007 due to a failure to engage in proper underwriting practices, resulting in a decline in Triad’s stock price. Then, on November 10, 2008, Triad issued its financial results for the third quarter of 2008, reporting a net loss for the quarter ended September 30, 2008 of $160.1 million. On this news, Triad’s stock price dropped $0.11 per share to close at $0.70 per share on November 11, 2008.

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 accounting for its loss reserves in violation of Generally Accepted Accounting Principles, causing its financial results to be materially misstated; (b) the Company failed to engage in proper underwriting practices for its book of business related to insurance written in 2006 and 2007, including the insurance related to its Alt-A and pay-option ARM products; (c) the Company had far greater exposure to anticipated losses and defaults related to its book of business related to insurance written in 2006 and 2007, including its Alt-A and pay-option ARM portfolios, than it had previously disclosed; (d) the Company lacked effective internal controls to detect fraud and misrepresentations in the underwriting process; and (e) the Company failed to disclose the true risks associated with its ability to continue to write new business and, given rating downgrades and capital limitations, the Company would be forced to liquidate its Canadian subsidiary and stop writing new insurance policies and transition the business to run-off.

On April 16, 2009, the Court appointed Western Pennsylvania Electrical Employees Pension Fund as Lead Plaintiff and approved the law firms of Coughlin Stoia Gellar Rudman & Robbins LLP as Lead Counsel and McDaniel & Anderson, L.L.P. as Liaison Counsel. On June 22, 2009, the lead plaintiff filed an Amended Class Action Complaint. The defendants responded by filing a motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint on August 21, 2009. The motion is currently pending before the Court.

On March 30, 2012, the lead plaintiff filed a Second Amended Class Action Complaint.

INDUSTRY CLASSIFICATION:
SIC Code: 6351
Sector: Financial
Industry: Insurance (Prop. & Casualty)

COMPANY/ISSUER NAME:	Triad Guaranty Incorporated
COMPANY/ISSUER TICKER:	TGIC
COMPANY WEBSITE:	http://www.tgic.com

FIRST IDENTIFIED COMPLAINT IN THE DATABASE

James L. Phillips, et al. v. Triad Guaranty Incorporated, et al.

COURT: M.D. North Carolina	DOCKET NUMBER: 09-CV-00071
JUDGE NAME: Hon.N. C. Tilley, Jr.
DATE FILED: 01/28/2009	SOURCE:
CLASS PERIOD START: 10/26/2006	CLASS PERIOD END: 11/10/2008
TYPE OF COMPLAINT: Complaint (Unamended and Unconsolidated)
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
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/ Dyer & Berens LLP (former) 682 Grant Street, Denver, CO, 80203-3507 (voice) 303.861.1764, (fax) 303.861.1764, contact@dyerberens.com Holzer Holzer & Fistel, LLC (Atlanta) 200 Ashford Center North, Suite 300, Atlanta, GA, 30338 (voice) 770.392.0090, (fax) 770.392.0090, McDaniel & Anderson, LLP 4942 Windy Hill Drive; P.O. Box 58186, Raleigh, NC, 27658 (voice) 919.872.3000, (fax) , _____________________________________________ TOTAL NUMBER OF PLAINTIFF FIRMS: 4

DOCUMENTS FOR THE FIRST IDENTIFIED COMPLAINT
Complaint For Violation Of The Federal Securities Laws
Type: Complaint		Date on the document: 01/28/2009
Order Appointing The Western Pennsylvania Electrical Employees Pension Fund As Lead Plaintiff And Approving Lead Plaintiff’s Choice Of Lead Counsel
Type: Order Appointing LP/LC		Date on the document: 04/16/2009

REFERENCE COMPLAINT

James L. Phillips, et al. v. Triad Guaranty Incorporated, et al.

COURT: M.D. North Carolina	DOCKET NUMBER: 09-CV-00071
JUDGE NAME:
DATE FILED: 06/22/2009	SOURCE:
CLASS PERIOD START: 10/26/2006	CLASS PERIOD END: 04/01/2008
TYPE OF COMPLAINT: Consolidated Complaint
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP (Boca Raton) 120 East Palmetto Park Road, Suite 500, Boca Raton, FL, 33432 (voice) 561.750.3000, (fax) 561.750.3000, _____________________________________________ TOTAL NUMBER OF PLAINTIFF FIRMS: 1

DOCUMENTS FOR THE REFERENCE COMPLAINT
Amended Class Action Complaint
Type: Complaint		Date on the document: 06/22/2009
U.S. District Court Civil Docket
Type: Docket		Date on the document: 10/13/2011
Second Amended Class Action Complaint
Type: Complaint		Date on the document: 03/30/2012
U.S. District Court Civil Docket
Type: Docket		Date on the document: 03/30/2012

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

�