Case Page

 

Case Status:    DISMISSED    
On or around 12/27/2012 (Other)

Filing Date: April 15, 2010

According to a press release dated April 15, 2010, 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 Frontier’s investors by failing to disclose the extent of seriously delinquent commercial real estate loans and construction and land loans. The Company also failed to adequately and timely record losses for its impaired loans, causing its financial results and its Tier 1 capital ratio to be materially false. As a result of defendants’ false and misleading statements, Frontier stock traded at artificially inflated prices during the Class Period, reaching a high of $186.00 per share on September 19, 2008.

In July 2008, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp (“FDIC”) and the state of Washington’s Department of Financial Institutions (“DFI”) conducted an investigation into Frontier’s banking practices and cited Frontier with engaging in certain “unsafe and unsound” practices. In March 2009, Frontier entered into a cease-and-desist order with banking regulators and agreed to take certain corrective actions related to the findings of the July 2008 report by the FDIC and DFI.

Then on March 16, 2010, after the market closed, Frontier announced that it had received a Supervisory Prompt Corrective Action Directive from the FDIC. The FDIC warned that the Company was “critically undercapitalized” which could lead to Frontier being placed into conservatorship or receivership, raising doubt about the ability of the Company to continue as a going concern. Frontier further restated its previously announced fourth quarter and year end 2009 results as the FDIC determined that Frontier’s loan loss provision and its valuation adjustment of other real estate owned were understated by $30 million and $3.5 million, respectively. On this news, Frontier’s stock dropped $1.35 per share to close at $2.89 per share on March 17, 2010, a one-day decline of nearly 32%, on volume of 710,400 shares, and a decline of 98% from the stock’s Class Period high.

According to the Order, signed by Judge John C. Coughenour, on August 3, 2010, the Court hereby orders that the above-captioned securities class action lawsuits be consolidated as a single action, hereafter James Hammer, et al., v. Frontier Financial Corporation, et al., Case No. 10-0643-JCC. All future filings shall be submitted under this caption only. Plaintiff James Hammer’s motions for appointment as lead plaintiff and for approval of counsel are granted. The Consolidated Complaint was filed on October 15, 2010, adding the Chief Credit Officer as named defendant in the action. On December 16, 2010, the defendants responded by filing a motion to dismiss the Consolidated Complaint.

On September 7, 2011, Judge John C. Coughenour granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint. Plaintiff may amend the complaint within 20 days, which they did on October 14, 2011. The defendants responded by filing a motion to dismiss on November 18, 2011.

On April 20, 2012, Judge John C. Coughenour granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint. The Clerk was directed to close the case.

On December 27, 2012, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued an Order granting appellant's motion to dismiss this appeal voluntarily with prejudice.

COMPANY INFORMATION:

Sector: Financial
Industry: Regional Banks
Headquarters: United States

SECURITIES INFORMATION:

Ticker Symbol: FTBK
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: W.D. Washington
DOCKET #: 10-CV-00643
JUDGE: Hon. Ricardo S Martinez
DATE FILED: 04/15/2010
CLASS PERIOD START: 07/22/2008
CLASS PERIOD END: 03/16/2010
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Dyer & Berens LLP
    303 East 17th Avenue, Suite 300, Dyer & Berens LLP, CO 80203
    303.861.1764 303.861.1764 ·
  2. Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP (New Seattle)
    1918 Eighth Ave. Suite 3300, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP (New Seattle), WA 98101
    206.623.7292 206.623.0594 ·
  3. Holzer Holzer & Fistel, LLC (Atlanta)
    200 Ashford Center North, Suite 300, Holzer Holzer & Fistel, LLC (Atlanta), GA 30338
    770.392.0090 770.392.0090 ·
  4. Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP (San Diego)
    655 West Broadway, Suite 1900, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP (San Diego), CA 92101
    619.231.1058 619.231.7423 ·
No Document Title Filing Date
COURT: W.D. Washington
DOCKET #: 10-CV-00643
JUDGE: Hon. Ricardo S Martinez
DATE FILED: 10/14/2011
CLASS PERIOD START: 07/22/2008
CLASS PERIOD END: 03/25/2009
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Gold Bennett Cera & Sidener LLP
    595 Market Street, Suite 2300, Gold Bennett Cera & Sidener LLP, CA 94105-2835
    800.778.1822 415.777.5189 · info@gbcsf.com
No Document Title Filing Date