Pacific Capital Bancorp - 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

Pacific Capital Bancorp Summary: According to a press release dated September 08, 2009, the complaint alleges that Pacific Capital and certain of its senior executive officers issued materially false and misleading statements and/or concealed material information relating to the Company’s reserves for losses on its loan portfolio in violation of Exchange Act sections 10(b) and 20(a). The complaint also alleges that a stock analyst covering Pacific Capital issued a “buy” rating on the Company’s common stock despite knowingly or recklessly failing to conduct a standard analysis of Pacific Capital’s banking operations that would have revealed that it was not appropriate to issue a “buy” rating.

As alleged in the complaint, purchasers of Pacific Capital common stock during the Class Period were misled to believe that the Company was maintaining a strong allowance for loan losses which would enable it to absorb losses in its portfolio. As alleged in the complaint, defendants’ misstatements and omissions relating to Pacific Capital’s loan loss provision caused the Company’s common stock to trade at artificially inflated levels between April 30, 2009, when the Company reported that it maintained its loan loss provision at a very high level, through July 30, 2009, when the Company admitted that it had not adequately reserved for loan losses, had not applied a conservative reserve methodology, and needed to record an additional loan loss provision of $117 million. The “buy” rating issued by the analyst defendants on the Company’s common stock also contributed, as alleged, at certain times during the Class Period to the artificial inflation in the price of Pacific Capital stock.

The complaint alleges that investors who purchased the Company’s common stock at artificially inflated prices during the Class Period suffered damages when the truth about the Company’s financial condition was revealed to the market at certain times during the Class Period and the price of the Company’s common stock declined. According to the complaint, as the truth about the Company’s financial condition became known to the market, the price of the Company’s common stock declined from a closing price of $6.94 per share on April 30, 2009, to a closing price of $2.12 per share on July 31, 2009.

On September 29, 2009, a Notice of Dismissal pursuant Rule 41(a) or (c) F.R.Civ.P. was filed with the court dismissing only the defendant party by the name of Sandler O'neill Asset Management LLC.

On December 04, 2009, an order was granted: (i) Appointing the Pagano Family and Johnny Rios as lead Plaintiffs; (ii) Appointing Stull, Stull & Brody and Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP as lead Plaintiffs' counsel; and (iii) consolidating all related actions.

On April 07, 2010, this consolidated action was dismissed with prejudice in its entirety by final judgment order entered in favor of Defendants.

INDUSTRY CLASSIFICATION:
SIC Code: 6022
Sector: Financial
Industry: Regional Banks

COMPANY/ISSUER NAME:	Pacific Capital Bancorp
COMPANY/ISSUER TICKER:	PCBC
COMPANY WEBSITE:	http://www.pcbancorp.com

FIRST IDENTIFIED COMPLAINT IN THE DATABASE

William Jurkowitz , et al. v. Pacific Capital Bancorp, et al.

COURT: C.D. California	DOCKET NUMBER: 09-CV-06501
JUDGE NAME: Hon. R. Gary Klausner
DATE FILED: 09/08/2009	SOURCE:
CLASS PERIOD START: 04/30/2009	CLASS PERIOD END: 07/30/2009
TYPE OF COMPLAINT: Complaint (Unamended and Unconsolidated)
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
Stull, Stull & Brody (Los Angeles) 10940 Wilshire Boulevard - Suite 2300, Los Angeles, CA, 90024 (voice) 310.209.2468, (fax) , Stull, Stull & Brody (New York) 6 East 45th Street, New York, NY, 10017 (voice) 310.209.2468, (fax) 310.209.2087, SSBNY@aol.com _____________________________________________ TOTAL NUMBER OF PLAINTIFF FIRMS: 2

DOCUMENTS FOR THE FIRST IDENTIFIED COMPLAINT
Complaint For Violation Of Federal Securities Laws
Type: Complaint		Date on the document: 09/08/2009
Notice Of Dismissal Pursuant Rule 41(a) or (c) F.R.Civ.P.
Type: Other		Date on the document: 09/29/2009
Notice Of Dismissal Pursuant Rule 41(a) or (c) F.R.Civ.P.
Type: Notice		Date on the document: 09/29/2009
U.S. District Court Civil Docket
Type: Docket		Date on the document: 09/30/2009
Order Granting Sipulation To: (I) Appoint The Pagano Family And Johnny Rios As Lead Plaintiffs Ii) Appoint Stull & Brody And Glancy Binkow & Goldberg Llp As Lead Plaintiffs’ Counsel; And (Iii) Consolidate All Related Actions
Type: Order		Date on the document: 12/04/2009
Final Judgment
Type: Other		Date on the document: 04/07/2010
U.S. District Court Civil Docket
Type: Docket		Date on the document: 04/07/2010

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

�