Processing your request


please wait...

Case Page

 

Case Status:    DISMISSED    
On or around 10/31/2014 (Court's order of dismissal)

Filing Date: November 21, 2007

A related class action complaint was filed on January 18, 2008, in the Northern District of Ohio. On April 10, 2008, an order granted the motion by the Ohio Public Employees Retirement System ("OPERS") for Appointment as Lead Plaintiff and Approval of Its Selection of Counsel. On May 27, 2008, a First Amended Complaint was filed against the Defendants. On September 02, 2008, a Motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint with Prejudice was filed by the Defendants.

On January 22, 2008, a motion to appoint Ohio Public Employees Retirement System to serve as lead plaintiffs and for the approval of the selection of lead counsel was filed. However, on March 10, 2008, an Order granting the Notice of Voluntary Dismissal is valid and the case is hence closed. The complaint was first filed November 21, 2007 a class action was commenced on behalf of purchasers of Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation common stock during the class period. Specifically, the complaint charges Freddie Mac and certain of its officers and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Freddie Mac is a shareholder-owned company established by Congress in 1970 to support homeownership and rental housing.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants made false and misleading statements concerning Freddie Mac’s business, its risk management and the procedures it put in place to protect the Company from problems in the mortgage industry. In fact, during the Class Period, Freddie Mac was not adequately implementing risk control measures. Moreover, the Company’s procedures for appraisals led to many inflated appraisals, increasing the risk of defaults. Ultimately, the Company reported billions of dollars in losses, has been mentioned in investigations by the New York Attorney General and announced it must raise new capital to meet regulatory requirements. On this news, Freddie Mac stock fell over $10 per share to close at $26.74 on November 20, 2007.

According to the complaint, during the Class Period, defendants concealed the following information, which caused their statements to be materially false and misleading: (a) defendants were not implementing sufficient risk management controls to protect the Company from acquiring billions of dollars worth of mortgages with poor underwriting standards, causing the Company to have an untenable amount of risky loans; (b) defendants were not implementing controls to ensure that appraisals were done appropriately and to prevent collusion between lenders and appraisers, increasing the risk of defaults; (c) the Company was not adequately reserving for uncollectible loans, causing its financial results to be misleading; and (d) the Company had billions of dollars of bad loans which it would eventually have to write off, causing losses and capital deficiencies.

A similar, purported class action complaint has also been filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio.

On November 07, 2010, a Second Amended Class Action was filed by the plaintiffs in this action against the defendants.

On October 08, 2013, a motion to dismiss was filed for failure to state a claim filed by Defendant Patricia L. Cook.

On October 31, 2014, the Court issued an Order granting Defendants' Motions to Dismiss. Plaintiff's Third Amended Complaint was dismissed with prejudice.

COMPANY INFORMATION:

Sector: Financial
Industry: Consumer Financial Services
Headquarters: United States

SECURITIES INFORMATION:

Ticker Symbol: FRE
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: S.D. New York
DOCKET #: 07-CV-10526
JUDGE: Hon. John F. Keenan
DATE FILED: 11/21/2007
CLASS PERIOD START: 08/01/2006
CLASS PERIOD END: 11/19/2007
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Chitwood Harley Harnes LLP (Atlanta)
  2. Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP (Melville)
  3. Waite Schneider Bayless & Chesley Co. LPA (Cincinnati)
No Document Title Filing Date
COURT: N.D. Ohio
DOCKET #: 08-CV-00160
JUDGE: Hon. John F. Keenan
DATE FILED: 03/28/2012
CLASS PERIOD START: 08/01/2006
CLASS PERIOD END: 11/23/2007
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Attorney General of Ohio
  2. Chitwood Harley Harnes LLP (Atlanta)
  3. Waite Schneider Bayless & Chesley Co. LPA (Cincinnati)
No Document Title Filing Date
—Related District Court Filings Data is not available