Case Page

 

Case Status:    DISMISSED    
On or around 03/19/2009 (Date of order of final judgment)

Filing Date: August 04, 2005

The original Complaint alleges that Defendants caused IFIN shares to trade at artificially inflated levels through the issuance of false and misleading financial statements and guidance. The Company's statements served to convince investors that the Company's financial statements were accurate, including results for revenues, growth and interest income, and the Company had shrewdly built into its models and assumptions the impact of continued interest rate compression and flattening of the US interest rate yield curve.

In October 2004, the Company surprised the market when they finally revealed the need to restate financial results over a three-year period. On October 21, 2004, the price of IFIN stock plummeted, from its previous close of $43.70 to $36.50, on volume of over 11 million shares. Later, the Company revealed that during the period from 2001 to 2004, Investors had overstated net interest income by as much as $6.2 million.

The complaint further alleges that on or around July 14, 2005, IFIN dropped 15% after the financial back-office company slashed earnings guidance, citing interest rate pressure. Once again, the Company announced an unprecedented "reset" of their 2005 quarterly and 2005 yearly guidance. Defendants did this, allegedly, to bring their numbers in line with the "new" realities of market-driven rates and rate spreads. The Complaint alleges further that IFIN's assertions that an interest rate event peculiar to the second quarter served as the purported "trigger" for the Company's changed circumstances. This was false. In fact, the Complaint alleges, the change in the Company's fortunes was a direct result of the dramatic flattening of the yield curve and contraction of rate spreads. The Company cited a flatter-than-expected yield curve; narrower-than-expected reinvestment spreads; weaker-than-expected market-sensitive revenues, which included fees, linked to both the equity and foreign currency markets; and continued investments in headcount and technology to support new and existing clients.

On July 15, 2005, the price of IFIN shares plummeted from its previous close of $41.52 to $34.05 for a loss 17.9% percent of their value on unprecedented volume of over 22 million shares. The Class Period high was $53.44; it now trades under $35 per share.

Investors Financial Services Corp. ("IFIN") operates as a bank holding company for Investors Bank & Trust Company that provides asset managers with services including global custody, multi-currency accounting and mutual fund administration in the United States.

According to the Company’s FORM 10-Q for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2006, the U.S. District Court has consolidated three purported class action complaints and appointed a lead plaintiff, who filed a consolidated complaint against the Company and seven of its current and former officers on February 3, 2006. Among other things, the consolidated complaint asserts that the defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the period April 10, 2001 until July 15, 2005. The allegations in the consolidated complaint predominantly relate to: (1) the Company’s October 2004 restatement of its financial results, and (2) the Company’s July 2005 revision of public guidance regarding its future financial performance. The consolidated complaint seeks unspecified damages, interest, fees, and costs. On May 14, 2006, the Company filed a motion to dismiss all claims asserted in the consolidated complaint. That motion is currently pending before the Court.

On July 31, 2007, the Court entered the Order dismissing the complaint without prejudice. On October 30, 2007, the plaintiffs filed a First Amended Consolidated Complaint, and on January 11, 2008, the defendants responded by filing a motion to dismiss the First Amended Consolidated Complaint.

According to the docket, the Magistrate Judge entered a Reports and Recommendation to the court stating the case should be dismissed with prejudice on January 13, 2009. On March 19, 2009 the judge entered a Final Order dismissing the case with prejudice and closing the docket.

COMPANY INFORMATION:

Sector: Financial
Industry: Investment Services
Headquarters: United States

SECURITIES INFORMATION:

Ticker Symbol: IFIN
Company Market: NASDAQ
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: D. Massachusetts
DOCKET #: 05-CV-11627
JUDGE: Hon. Reginald C. Lindsay
DATE FILED: 08/04/2005
CLASS PERIOD START: 10/15/2003
CLASS PERIOD END: 07/15/2005
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Federman & Sherwood (Oklahoma City)
    120 North Robinson, Suite 2720, Federman & Sherwood (Oklahoma City), OK 73102
    405-235-1560 · wfederman@aol.com
  2. Law Offices of Brian M. Felgoise, P.C.
    Esquire at 261 Old York Road, Suite 423, Law Offices of Brian M. Felgoise, P.C., PA 19046
    215.886.1900 · securitiesfraud@comcast.net
  3. Schiffrin & Barroway LLP
    3 Bala Plaza E, Schiffrin & Barroway LLP, PA 19004
    610.667.7706 610.667.7056 · info@sbclasslaw.com
  4. Scott & Scott LLC (Connecticut)
    P.O. Box 192, 108 Norwich Avenue, Scott & Scott LLC (Connecticut), CT 06415
    860.537.5537 860.537.4432 · scottlaw@scott-scott.com
  5. Wechsler Harwood LLP
    488 Madison Avenue 8th Floor, Wechsler Harwood LLP, NY 10022
    212.935.7400 · info@whhf.com
No Document Title Filing Date
COURT: D. Massachusetts
DOCKET #: 05-CV-11627
JUDGE: Hon. Reginald C. Lindsay
DATE FILED: 10/30/2007
CLASS PERIOD START: 04/10/2001
CLASS PERIOD END: 07/15/2005
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP (San Diego)
    655 West Broadway, Suite 1900, Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP (San Diego), CA 92101
    619.231.1058 619.231.7423 · info@csgrr.com/
  2. Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP (San Francisco)
    100 Pine Street, Suite 2600, Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP (San Francisco), CA 94111
    415.288.4545 415.288.4534 ·
  3. Gilman & Pastor LLP (Saugus)
    Stonehill Corporate Center 999 Broadway Suite 500, Gilman & Pastor LLP (Saugus), MA 01906
    781.231.7850 781.231.7840 ·
  4. Krakow & Souris, LLC
    225 Friend Street, Krakow & Souris, LLC, MA 02114
    617.723.8440 617.723.8443 ·
  5. Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbin (San Francisco)
    100 Pine Street, Suite 2600, Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbin (San Francisco), CA 94111
    415.288.4545 415.288.4534 · info@lerachlaw.com
  6. Schiffrin & Barroway LLP
    3 Bala Plaza E, Schiffrin & Barroway LLP, PA 19004
    610.667.7706 610.667.7056 · info@sbclasslaw.com
  7. Shapiro Haber & Urmy LLP (Boston)
    75 State Street, Shapiro Haber & Urmy LLP (Boston), MA 02109
    617.439.3939 617.439.0134 · info@shulaw.com
No Document Title Filing Date
No Document Title Filing Date