SunTrust Banks, Inc. ("SunTrust" or the Company) is a provider of financial services for consumers, businesses, corporations, institutions and not-for-profit entities.

According to a press release dated March 06, 2009, the Complaint alleges that during the Class Period, Defendants made false and misleading statements about SunTrust's financial results and conditions. Specifically, the Company's publicly reported financial results and Defendants' statements regarding the Company's business and capital position were materially false and/or misleading because they failed to disclose that: (a) Defendants' assets, including loans and mortgage-related securities, were impaired to a much larger extent than the Company had disclosed; (b) Defendants failed to properly record losses for impaired assets; (c) the Company's internal controls were inadequate to prevent the Company from improperly reporting the value of its assets; and (d) SunTrust was not as well capitalized as represented, and, notwithstanding the $3.5 billion the Company received on November 17, 2008 from the Troubled Asset Relief Program ("TARP"), the Company announced that it would have to raise an additional $1.4 billion in TARP funds just three weeks later. As SunTrust's true condition slowly came to light in a series of write-downs, reserve increases and capital-raising, SunTrust's stock price dropped from a Class Period high of over $59 per share to less than $14 per share.

On August 31, 2009, the motion of Waterford Township General Employees Retirement System for appointment as lead Plaintiff and Horwitz, Horwitz & Paradis, Attorneys at Law as lead Counsel was approved for the Class.

On December 23, 2009 an amended Complaint against all Defendants was filed by the Plaintiffs in this action.

On August 19, 2010, the Defendant’s motion to dismiss was granted based upon the Plaintiff’s allegations of loss causation that were insufficient to state a claim. Because the Plaintiff had not adequately pled false representations or scienter or loss causation, the Court could not decide whether the Plaintiff has adequately pled the remaining elements of a § 10(b) claim or the elements of a § 20(a) claim, which depends on the existence of an underlying § 10(b) claim.

On August 20, 2010, a Clerk's Judgment entered dismissing the action.