Smithtown 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

Smithtown Bancorp, Inc. Summary: According to a press release dated February 25, 2010, the complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, defendants failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company’s true financial condition, business and prospects. Specifically, the complaint alleges that defendants failed to disclose: (i) that the Company’s financial results were artificially inflated due to SBI’s material understatement of its loan loss reserves and SBI’s failure to state certain of its assets at their true fair value; (ii) that the Company improperly delayed the recognition of its impaired assets in order to inflate its reported income and asset quality; (iii) that the Company’s internal and disclosure controls were materially deficient; and (iv) that the Company, through its subsidiary, was engaged in unsafe and/or unsound banking practices.

On February 1, 2010, SBI issued a press release announcing its fourth quarter and full year 2009 results, which included a loss of $19.8 million for the fourth quarter of 2009, or ($1.34) per fully diluted share. In response to this announcement, on the next trading day, shares of the Company stock fell approximately 15%, to close at $4.60 per share, on extremely heavy trading volume.

On May 31, 2011, Magistrate Judge Ramon E. Reyes, Jr., issued a Report and Recommendations recommending that the Plaintiffs' motion for consolidation, appointment of lead plaintiff, and appointment of counsel be granted in its entirety. On August 10, 2011, Judge Sandra L. Townes adopted the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation. Waterford Township Police & Fire Retirement System and Michael L. Cox have been appointed lead plaintiffs and Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP have been appointed lead counsel. A Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint was filed on October 17, 2011.

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

COMPANY/ISSUER NAME:	Smithtown Bancorp, Inc.
COMPANY/ISSUER TICKER:	SMTB
COMPANY WEBSITE:	http://www.smithtownbancorp.com

FIRST IDENTIFIED COMPLAINT IN THE DATABASE

Waterford Township Police and Fire Retirement System, et al. v. Smithtown Bancorp, Inc., et al.

COURT: E.D. New York	DOCKET NUMBER: 10-CV-00864
JUDGE NAME: Hon. Sandra L. Townes
DATE FILED: 02/25/2010	SOURCE:
CLASS PERIOD START: 03/13/2008	CLASS PERIOD END: 02/01/2010
TYPE OF COMPLAINT: Complaint (Unamended and Unconsolidated)
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP (Melville) 200 Broadhollow, Suite 406, Melville, NY, 11747 (voice) 631.367.7100, (fax) 631.367.1173, info@csgrr.com/ _____________________________________________ TOTAL NUMBER OF PLAINTIFF FIRMS: 1

DOCUMENTS FOR THE FIRST IDENTIFIED COMPLAINT
Class Action Complaint
Type: Complaint		Date on the document: 02/25/2010
Report & Recommendation
Type: Other		Date on the document: 05/31/2011
Memorandum & Order
Type: Order Appointing LP/LC		Date on the document: 08/10/2011

REFERENCE COMPLAINT

Waterford Township Police and Fire Retirement System, et al. v. Smithtown Bancorp, Inc., et al.

COURT: E.D. New York	DOCKET NUMBER: 10-CV-00864
JUDGE NAME:
DATE FILED: 10/17/2011	SOURCE:
CLASS PERIOD START: 03/13/2008	CLASS PERIOD END: 02/01/2010
TYPE OF COMPLAINT: First Amended and Consolidated
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP (Melville) 58 South Service Road, Suite 200, Melville, NY, 11747 (voice) 631.367.7100, (fax) 631.367.1173, _____________________________________________ TOTAL NUMBER OF PLAINTIFF FIRMS: 1

DOCUMENTS FOR THE REFERENCE COMPLAINT
Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint
Type: Complaint		Date on the document: 10/17/2011
U.S. District Court Civil Docket
Type: Docket		Date on the document: 10/17/2011

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

�