Case Page

 

Case Status:    DISMISSED    
On or around 09/20/2006 (Date of order of final judgment)

Filing Date: September 24, 2004

On June 29, 2007, the Court entered the Memorandum of Decision and Order denying the plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration of the Court’s earlier decision to grant the defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint. Another Notice of Appeal was filed by the Lead Plaintiff. The appeal is currently pending in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

On September 19, 2006, the Court entered the Memorandum and Opinion granting the Defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim. That day, the Court also entered the Clerk’s Judgment. On October 19, 2006, a notice of appeal was filed.

As disclosed by the Company’s FORM 10-Q For the Quarterly Period Ended June 30, 2006, in 2004, the Company and various executive officers and directors were named in certain putative securities law class action lawsuits brought in the United States District Court, Eastern District of New York, and one class action lawsuit brought in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Kings County, that was later removed by the defendants to federal court. On August 9, 2005, the court consolidated the actions and appointed a Lead Plaintiff. On October 6, 2005, the Lead Plaintiff filed a consolidated amended complaint on behalf of a putative class of persons and entities, other than defendants, who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company’s securities from June 27, 2003 to July 1, 2004, alleging claims under Sections 11 and 12 of the Securities Act of 1933, Sections 10 and 14 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5, promulgated pursuant to Section 10 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Plaintiffs allege, among other things, that the Registration Statement issued in connection with the Company’s merger with Roslyn Bancorp, Inc. and other documents and statements made by executive management were inaccurate and misleading, contained untrue statements of material facts, omitted other facts necessary to make the statements made not misleading, and concealed and failed to adequately disclose material facts, pertaining to, among other things, the Company’s business plans and its exposure to interest rate risk. The defendants moved to dismiss the action on December 19, 2005. That motion remains pending, during which period discovery is stayed pursuant to the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995.

The original complaint charges New York Community Bancorp, Inc. (NYB), and individual defendants with violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The Bank's principal business consists of accepting retail deposits from the general public in the areas surrounding its branch offices and investing those deposits, together with funds generated from operations and borrowings, into multi-family, commercial real estate, and construction loans. More specifically, the complaint alleges that the Company failed to disclose and misrepresented the following material adverse facts which were known to defendants or recklessly disregarded by them: (1) that defendants manipulated the Company's financial results in order to appear more attractive for potential merger deals; (2) that this was accomplished through leveraged growth funded by short-term funding; (3) the Company's projections about growth and interest rate sensitivity were lacking in any reasonable basis when made; and (4) that the Company's financial results were materially inflated at all relevant times.

On Sunday, May 9, 2004, NYB announced that its Board of Directors had authorized the Company's management team to engage Bear Stearns & Co., Inc., Citigroup Global Markets, Inc., and Sandler O'Neill & Partners, L.P. to assist NYB in undertaking a review of its strategic alternatives, including remaining independent.

The complaint further alleges that on Sunday, May 9, 2004, NYB announced that its Board of Directors had authorized the Company's management team to engage Bear Stearns & Co., Inc., Citigroup Global Markets, Inc., and Sandler O'Neill & Partners, L.P. to assist the Company in undertaking a review of its strategic alternatives, including remaining independent. News of the engagement of three financial firms to 'review strategic alternatives' was the market's first indication that NYB's strategy may not be working as planned. For months, and in numerous interviews, filings, and press releases, defendant Ficalora maintained that NYB would not only do better than its rivals in its sector, but even thrive in an environment of rising interest rates. Following NYB's announcement, in intra-day trading on Monday, May 10, 2004, NYB dropped over $2.53 per share from its previous close, on May 7, 2004, of $24.13 per share, or 10.5%, to close at a low of $21.60 per share. At the close of trading, NYB had fallen $1.33 per share, or 5.5%, to close at $21.80 per share on volume of 9 million shares.

COMPANY INFORMATION:

Sector: Financial
Industry: S&Ls/Savings Banks
Headquarters: United States

SECURITIES INFORMATION:

Ticker Symbol: NYB
Company Market: New York SE
Market Status: Public (Listed)

About the Company & Securities Data


"Company" information provides the industry and sector classification and headquarters state for the primary company-defendant in the litigation. In general, "Securities" information provides the ticker symbol, market, and market status for the underlying securities at issue in the litigation.

In most cases, the primary company-defendant actually issued the securities that are the subject of the litigation, and the securities information and company information relate to the same entity. In a small subset of cases, however, the primary company-defendant is not the issuer (for example, cases against third party brokers/dealers), and the securities information and company information do not relate to the same entity.
COURT: E.D. New York
DOCKET #: 04-CV-4165
JUDGE: Hon. Denis R. Hurley
DATE FILED: 09/24/2004
CLASS PERIOD START: 06/27/2003
CLASS PERIOD END: 05/09/2004
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Law Offices of Charles J. Piven, P.A.
    World Trade Center-Baltimore,401 East Pratt Suite 2525, Law Offices of Charles J. Piven, P.A., MD 21202
    410.332.0030 · pivenlaw@erols.com
  2. Murray, Frank & Sailer LLP
    275 Madison Ave 34th Flr, Murray, Frank & Sailer LLP, NY 10016
    212.682.1818 212.682.1892 · email@murrayfrank.com
  3. Schatz & Nobel, P.C.
    330 Main Street, Schatz & Nobel, P.C., CT 06106
    800.797.5499 860.493.6290 · sn06106@AOL.com
  4. Schiffrin & Barroway LLP
    3 Bala Plaza E, Schiffrin & Barroway LLP, PA 19004
    610.667.7706 610.667.7056 · info@sbclasslaw.com
No Document Title Filing Date
COURT: E.D. New York
DOCKET #: 04-CV-4165
JUDGE: Hon. Denis R. Hurley
DATE FILED: 10/06/2005
CLASS PERIOD START: 06/27/2003
CLASS PERIOD END: 07/01/2004
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Kantrowitz, Goldhamer & Graifman
    747 Chestnut Ridge Road, Kantrowitz, Goldhamer & Graifman, NY 10977
    845.356.2570. 845.356.4335 ·
  2. Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman LLP (New York)
    One Pennsylvania Plaza, 49th Floor, Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman LLP (New York), NY 10119
    212.594.5300 212.868.1229 · info@milbergweiss.com
  3. Murray, Frank & Sailer LLP
    275 Madison Ave 34th Flr, Murray, Frank & Sailer LLP, NY 10016
    212.682.1818 212.682.1892 · email@murrayfrank.com
  4. Stull, Stull & Brody (New York)
    6 East 45th Street, Stull, Stull & Brody (New York), NY 10017
    310.209.2468 310.209.2087 · SSBNY@aol.com
No Document Title Filing Date
No Document Title Filing Date