Case Page

 

Case Status:    SETTLED
On or around 06/21/2010 (Date of order of final judgment)

Filing Date: March 28, 2008

The original complaint charges MoneyGram and certain of its officers and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. MoneyGram, through its subsidiaries, provides payment services in the United States, as well as through a network of retail agents in North America, Latin America, western Europe, eastern Europe, Africa, India, Asia Pacific, and the Middle East.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants issued materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company’s business and financial results related to its investments. As a result of defendants’ false statements, MoneyGram stock traded at artificially inflated prices during the Class Period, trading in the 30 per share range during most of the Class Period.

On January 14, 2008, the Company announced that it had completed a valuation of its investment portfolio and had experienced additional net unrealized losses of $571 million as of September 30, 2007, bringing its cumulative net unrealized losses to $860 million. In addition, the Company announced it had needed to obtain amendments and waivers under its credit agreements. On this news, MoneyGram’s stock declined to as low as $5.66 per share before closing at $6.15 per share on January 15, 2008, on volume of 19 million shares, a one-day decline of 50%.

Later, on March 25, 2008, the Company publicly disclosed that the SEC had launched an investigation into its financial statements, reporting and disclosures related to its investment portfolio.

According to the complaint, the true facts, which were known by the defendants but concealed from the investing public during the Class Period, were as follows: (a) the Company lacked requisite internal controls to ensure that the reserves for the Company’s investments in asset-backed securities were adequate, and, as a result, the Company’s projections and reported results issued during the Class Period were based upon defective assumptions and/or manipulated facts; and (b) the Company concealed the extent of its potential losses arising from its exposure to asset-backed securities containing uncollectible debt.

According to the Company’s Form 10-Q for the Quarterly Period Ended June 30, 2009, the Company and certain of its officers and directors are parties to a consolidated class action case in the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota captioned In re MoneyGram International, Inc. Securities Litigation. The Consolidated Complaint was filed on October 3, 2008, and alleges against each defendant violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”) and Rule 10b-5 under the Exchange Act and alleges against Company officers violations of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. The Consolidated Complaint alleges failure to adequately disclose, in a timely manner, the nature and risks of the Company’s investments, as well as unrealized losses and other-than-temporary impairments related to certain of the Company’s investments. The complainant seeks recovery of losses incurred by stockholder class members in connection with their purchases of the Company’s securities. On May 20, 2009, the Court granted in part and denied in part defendants’ motion to dismiss.

On June 30, 2009, the lead plaintiff filed a motion to certify the class. The parties engaged in discovered proceedings.

According to a press release dated February 25, 2010, MoneyGram International (NYSE:MGI), a global leader in the payment services industry, entered into memoranda of understanding to settle federal securities class and stockholder derivative actions pending in the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota. The claims arise out of the subprime related losses in 2007 and 2008. … Under terms of the securities class action memorandum of understanding, the plaintiffs agree in principle to settle the claims for an $80 million cash payment, all but $20 million of which will be paid by the Company’s insurance coverage. The derivative claims memorandum of understanding provides for changes to MoneyGram’s business, corporate governance and internal controls, some of which have already been implemented in whole or in part in connection with MoneyGram’s recent recapitalization. The memoranda of understanding are subject to negotiation and execution of definitive settlement documents containing usual and customary settlement agreement terms, notice to the class and shareholders, and approval of the Court.

On March 9, 2010, the lead plaintiff filed a motion for preliminary approval of the proposed class action settlement. The motion was approved the following day. On June 21, 2010, Judge David S. Doty approved the settlement and the action was dismissed with prejudice. The Court also awarded attorney's fees and expenses in the amount of $1,250,000.00.

COMPANY INFORMATION:

Sector: Financial
Industry: Misc. Financial Services
Headquarters: United States

SECURITIES INFORMATION:

Ticker Symbol: MGI
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: D. Minnesota
DOCKET #: 08-CV-00883
JUDGE: Hon. Ann D. Montgomery
DATE FILED: 03/28/2008
CLASS PERIOD START: 01/24/2007
CLASS PERIOD END: 01/14/2008
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP (Melville)
    58 South Service Road, Suite 200, Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP (Melville), NY 11747
    631.367.7100 631.367.1173 · info@csgrr.com/
  2. 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/
  3. Zimmerman Reed, LLP
    1100 IDS Center, 80 South 8th Street , Zimmerman Reed, LLP, MN 55402
    612.341.0400 612.341.0844 · info@zimmreed.com
No Document Title Filing Date
COURT: D. Minnesota
DOCKET #: 08-CV-00883
JUDGE: Hon. Ann D. Montgomery
DATE FILED: 10/03/2008
CLASS PERIOD START: 01/24/2007
CLASS PERIOD END: 01/14/2008
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Nix Patterson & Roach, LLP
    205 Linda Drive, Nix Patterson & Roach, LLP, TX 75638
    903.645.7333 ·
No Document Title Filing Date
No Document Title Filing Date