Case Page

 

Case Status:    SETTLED
On or around 11/04/2011 (Date of order of distribution of settlement)

Filing Date: November 05, 2007

According to the Transfer Order from the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, dated February 21, 2008, several potentially related actions pending outside the Western District of Washington have been transferred to the Western District of Washington for coordinated or pretrial proceedings before the Honorable Marsha J. Pechman. On May 7, 2008, the Court entered the Order consolidating several cases into lead case 08-CV-0387, In Re Washington Mutual, Inc. Securities Litigation. The case is also being managed in multidistrict litigation In Re Washington Mutual, Inc., Securities, Derivative & "ERISA" Litigation, case number MDL 1919. The Court appointed Ontario Teachers' Pension Plan Board as lead plaintiff and appointed Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossman LLP and Byrnes & Keller LLP as lead counsel and liaison counsel, respectively. On September 30, 2008, defendant Washington Mutual Inc. filed a notice of bankruptcy.

Several, similar purported class action complaints been filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York and the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington. Specifically the complaint charges WaMu and certain of its officers and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. WaMu is a financial services company and the largest savings and loan bank in the United States. The Company was founded in 1889 and provides financial products and services to consumers and small to mid-sized businesses. The Company offers consumer banking, mortgage lending, commercial banking, and consumer finance throughout the United States.

The complaint alleges that, during the Class Period, defendants issued materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company’s business and financial results. WaMu’s loan portfolio contained more than $57 billion in adjustable-rate mortgages or Option-ARM loans. The complaint further alleges that the Company failed to disclose: (i) that it had far greater exposure to anticipated losses and defaults in its home loan portfolio, particularly with Option-ARMs, than it had previously disclosed; (ii) that defendants’ Class Period statements about the Company undertaking significant preparations and implementing defensive measures to weather the increasingly difficult credit and housing markets were patently false; (iii) that defendants had engaged in a conspiracy and scheme to inflate the appraisal value of homes with the intent to artificially increase the estimated loan-to-value ratio of its Option-ARM portfolio; and (iv) that due to the Company’s improper appraisal practices, the mortgages it had issued were much riskier than represented.

According to the complaint, on October 17, 2007, after the market closed, WaMu stunned investors by disclosing that it had suffered a 72% drop in third quarter of 2007 net income and would have to set aside up to $1.3 billion in the fourth quarter of 2007 to cover its loan losses. On this news, WaMu’s stock dropped from $33.07 per share to as low as $30 per share, closing at $30.52 per share on October 18, 2007 on volume of more than 36 million shares. Then, on November 1, 2007, News York’s Attorney General issued a press release announcing that a lawsuit was filed against First American Corporation and eAppraiseIT, alleging that they conspired with Washington Mutual to inflate Real Estate appraisals. Following this disclosure, WaMu’s stock dropped to as low as $23.59 per share before closing at $23.81 per share, on volume of 31 million shares.

On October 21, 2008, the lead plaintiff filed a Consolidated Class Action Complaint adding additional defendants as well as additional claims pursuant to the Securities Act.

On May 15, 2009, an Order On Defendants’ Motions To Dismiss was granted in part and denied in part.

On October 27, 2009, various orders granting in part and denying in part Motions to Dismiss were issued by the court in this matter.

On December 15, 2009, two separate amended complaints were filed by Plaintiff City of San Buenaventura and Plaintiff Lou Solton, Monterey County Treasurer against the defendants in this action.

Subsequently, on December 18, 2009, an Order of Consolidation was granted by the court which established the two cases be maintained in one file under Lead Case No. C09- 664.

On June 22, 2010, an Order Granting In Part and Denying In Part Lead Plaintiff’s Motion for Class Certification was issued by the Court.

On October 12, 2010, the Court issued an Order granting in part and denying in part the defendant’s motion to dismiss.

On October 25, 2010, another Order Denying In Part and Granting In Part Defendants’ Motions To Dismiss was issued by the Court.

On June 30, 2011, the Lead Plaintiff filed a Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement with the Court.

The Court released a Preliminary Order Prelimiarily Approving Proposed Settlements and Providing for Notices on July 21, 2011.

On November 4, 2011, pursuant to the Settlement Hearing an Order Approving
Plan of Allocation of Net Settlement Funds; a Judgment Approving Class Action Settlement with Individual Officer and Director Defendants and with Washington Mutual, Inc.; a Judgment Approving Class Action Settlement with Deloitte & Touche LLP; and a Judgment Approving Class Action Settlement with The Underwriter Defendants were entered by the Court.

On November 04, 2011, an Order Awarding Attorneys’ Fees and Expenses was also entered by the Court.

COMPANY INFORMATION:

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

SECURITIES INFORMATION:

Ticker Symbol: WM
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: W.D. Washington
DOCKET #: 07-CV-09801
JUDGE: Hon. Colleen McMahon
DATE FILED: 11/05/2007
CLASS PERIOD START: 07/19/2006
CLASS PERIOD END: 10/31/2007
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Wolf Popper, LLP
    845 Third Avenue, Wolf Popper, LLP, NY 10022-6689
    877.370.7703 212.486.2093 · IRRep@wolfpopper.com
No Document Title Filing Date
COURT: W.D. Washington
DOCKET #: 08-CV-00387
JUDGE: Hon. Colleen McMahon
DATE FILED: 10/21/2008
CLASS PERIOD START: 10/19/2005
CLASS PERIOD END: 07/23/2008
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP (New York, NY)
    1285 Avenue of the Americas, 33rd Floor, Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP (New York, NY), NY 10019
    212.554.1400 212.554.1444 · blbg@blbglaw.com
No Document Title Filing Date
No Document Title Filing Date
No Document Title Filing Date