Case Page

 

Case Status:    SETTLED
On or around 09/07/2012 (Date of order of final judgment)

Filing Date: January 05, 2009

According to a press release dated January 05, 2009, the complaint charges certain of PFF’s officers and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. PFF operates as a holding company for PFF Bank & Trust, which provides community banking services to individuals and companies in Southern California.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants issued materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company’s business and financial results and engaged in improper behavior, which harmed PFF’s customers and investors in its common stock, including lending to borrowers with little ability to repay the amount loaned and failing to inform investors of the impact of changes in the real estate market in San Bernardino and Riverside counties. As a result of defendants’ false statements, PFF’s stock traded at artificially inflated prices during the Class Period, reaching a high of $35.45 per share in December 2006.

On November 21, 2008, after the market closed, the Bank was closed by regulators and taken over by U.S. Bancorp. Following this announcement, PFF’s stock declined to $0.01 per share – a total loss for investors.

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) PFF’s assets contained hundreds of millions of dollars worth of impaired and risky securities, many of which were backed by real estate that was rapidly dropping in value; (b) prior to and during the Class Period, PFF had been extremely aggressive in generating loans, including being heavily involved in offering Home Equity Lines of Credit, which would be enormously problematic if the value of residential real estate did not continue to increase; (c) defendants failed to properly account for PFF’s real estate loans, failing to reflect impairment in the loans; (d) PFF’s business prospects were much worse than represented due to problems in the Inland Empire market, which was a key focus of PFF’s business; and (e) PFF had not adequately reserved for loan losses on HELOCs and on other real estate-related assets.

On September 14, 2009, the Court granted the motion for appointment as lead plaintiff filed by the Plaintiffs and approved their selection of lead counsel.

On October 10, 2010, a first amended complaint was filed by the plaintiffs against defendants.

On February 08, 2010, an Order by Judge Andrew J. Guilford on the Motion to dismiss was granted. Since Defendants have not established that there is no possibility Plaintiffs could cure the Complaint’s deficiencies, Plaintiffs shall have leave to amend their Complaint.

On March 8, 2010, a second amended complaint was filed by the plaintiffs against the defendants.

On August 9, 2010, the Court denied defendants' motion to dismiss the second amended complaint.

On March 26, 2012, the Court entered an Order preliminarily approving the Stipulation of Settlement.

On July 9, 2012, the Court issued an Order Approving Plan of Allocation of Settlement Proceeds. On the same date, the Court also issued an order awarding attorneys' fees and expenses.

On July 9, 2012, the Court entered a Final Judgment and issued an order of dismissal with prejudice.

COMPANY INFORMATION:

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

SECURITIES INFORMATION:

Ticker Symbol: PFFBQ
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: C.D. California
DOCKET #: 09-CV-00012
JUDGE: Hon. Andrew J. Guilford
DATE FILED: 01/05/2009
CLASS PERIOD START: 10/23/2006
CLASS PERIOD END: 11/21/2008
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Abraham, Fruchter & Twersky (New York, One Pennsylvania Plaza)
    One Pennsylvania Plaza, Suite 1910, Abraham, Fruchter & Twersky (New York, One Pennsylvania Plaza), NY 10119
    212.279.5050 212.279.3655 · JFruchter@FruchterTwersky.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/
No Document Title Filing Date
COURT: C.D. California
DOCKET #: 09-CV-00012
JUDGE: Hon. Andrew J. Guilford
DATE FILED: 10/14/2009
CLASS PERIOD START: 10/23/2006
CLASS PERIOD END: 11/21/2008
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Cavanagh & O'Hara
    407 East Adams Street, Cavanagh & O'Hara, IL 62701
    217.544.1771 217.544.1771 ·
  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. The Shuman Law Firm (former Denver)
    885 Arapahoe Avenue, The Shuman Law Firm (former Denver), CO 80302
    303.861.3003 303.861.3003 ·
No Document Title Filing Date