Synovus Financial Corporation - 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

Synovus Financial Corporation Summary: According to a press release dated July 7, 2009, the complaint charges Synovus and certain of its officers and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Synovus is a diversified financial services company and a registered bank holding company.

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 Synovus’ investors by failing to disclose the extent of its large exposure to the Sea Island Company (Sea Island), a resort in Georgia, and the deteriorating condition of Sea Island. The Company also failed to adequately and timely record losses for its impaired loans, causing its financial results to be materially false. As a result of defendants’ false statements, Synovus stock traded at artificially inflated prices during the Class Period, reaching a high of $13.49 per share on February 1, 2008.

Then, on January 22, 2009, Synovus reported a net loss for the fourth quarter of 2008 of $637 million, or $1.93 per share. The fourth quarter 2008 results included provision expense of $364 million and a $443 million non-cash goodwill impairment charge. On this news, Synovus stock fell to as low as $4.52 before it closed at $4.75 per share on January 22, 2009.

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) defendants’ 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 for which Synovus had failed to record adequate loan loss reserves; (b) prior to and during the Class Period, Synovus had been extremely aggressive in granting credit, including to Sea Island, where top officers of each company sat on each other’s boards and whose enormous development projects were highly risky and would be enormously problematic if the value of residential real estate did not continue to increase and if the tourism market slowed, which was then already happening; (c) Synovus’ largest customer, Sea Island, was performing extremely poorly; (d) defendants failed to properly account for Synovus’ real estate loans, failing to reflect impairment in the loans; (e) Synovus’ balance sheet included hundreds of millions of dollars in impaired goodwill which had not been recorded as losses on a timely basis; (f) Synovus had not adequately reserved for loan losses and goodwill impairment such that its financial statements were presented in violation of Generally Accepted Accounting Principles; and (g) Synovus was not on track to report the earnings being forecast for it by analysts covering the Company and relying on Company statements.

According to the Order dated February 2, 2010, the Canadian Labourers and Sheet Metal are appointed Co-Lead Plaintiffs. Coughlin Stoia and Motley Rice are appointed Co-Lead Counsel. The Law Offices of David A. Bain LLC, is Liaison Counsel. In the Derivative Action, Charles K. Miller is appointed as Lead Plaintiff and The Weiser Law Firm, P.C. and Holzer, Holzer, & Fistel, P.C. are Lead Counsel. On June 11, 2010, the lead plaintiff filed an Amended Class Action Complaint, and the defendants responded by filing a motion to dismiss on August 13, 2010. On May 19, 2011, the defendants motion to dismiss was denied.

On June 20 and 27, 2011, the plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Complaint. The defendants have responded by filing a motion to dismiss.

INDUSTRY CLASSIFICATION:
SIC Code: 6021
Sector: Financial
Industry: Consumer Financial Services

COMPANY/ISSUER NAME:	Synovus Financial Corporation
COMPANY/ISSUER TICKER:	SNV
COMPANY WEBSITE:	http://www.synovus.com

FIRST IDENTIFIED COMPLAINT IN THE DATABASE

City Of Pompano Beach General Employees' Retirement System, et al. v. Synovus Financial Corp., et al.

COURT: N.D. Georgia	DOCKET NUMBER: 09-CV-01811
JUDGE NAME: Hon. J. Owen Forrester
DATE FILED: 07/06/2009	SOURCE:
CLASS PERIOD START: 01/24/2008	CLASS PERIOD END: 01/21/2009
TYPE OF COMPLAINT: Complaint (Unamended and Unconsolidated)
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
Cohen & Rind, P .A . 8100 Oak Lane, Suite 403, Miami Lakes, FL, (voice) 305.823.1212, (fax) 305.823-7778, 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: 3

DOCUMENTS FOR THE FIRST IDENTIFIED COMPLAINT
Complaint For Violation Of The Federal Securities Laws
Type: Complaint		Date on the document: 07/06/2009
Opinion & Order
Type: Order of Consolidation		Date on the document: 12/01/2009
Opinion & Order
Type: Order Appointing LP/LC		Date on the document: 02/02/2010

REFERENCE COMPLAINT

In Re: Synovus Financial Corporation

COURT: N.D. Georgia	DOCKET NUMBER: 09-CV-01811
JUDGE NAME:
DATE FILED: 06/27/2011	SOURCE:
CLASS PERIOD START: 10/26/2007	CLASS PERIOD END: 04/22/2009
TYPE OF COMPLAINT: Second Amended
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, Motley Rice LLC (Atlanta) One Georgia Center; 600 West Peachtree Street, Suite 800, Atlanta, GA, 30308 (voice) 1-800-768-4026, (fax) , inquiry@motleyrice.com _____________________________________________ TOTAL NUMBER OF PLAINTIFF FIRMS: 2

DOCUMENTS FOR THE REFERENCE COMPLAINT
Amended Class Action Complaint
Type: Complaint		Date on the document: 06/11/2010
Opinion & Order
Type: Order		Date on the document: 05/19/2011
Second Amended Class Action Complaint
Type: Complaint		Date on the document: 06/20/2011
Second Amended Class Action Complaint
Type: Complaint		Date on the document: 06/27/2011
U.S. District Court Civil Docket
Type: Docket		Date on the document: 09/09/2011

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

�