Case Page

 

Case Status:    SETTLED
On or around 12/30/2016 (Date of order of final judgment)

Filing Date: February 02, 2011

According to a press release dated February 5, 2011, the complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants issued materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company’s business. Defendants concealed defects in the recording of mortgages and improprieties with respect to the preparation of foreclosure paperwork that harmed BofA’s investors when BofA had to temporarily discontinue foreclosures and admit to the problems it was experiencing. For much of the Class Period, defendants also concealed that BofA had previously engaged in a practice known as “dollar rolling,” wherein it omitted billions of dollars in debt from its balance sheet reported to the public. As a result of defendants’ false statements, BofA’s stock traded at artificially inflated prices during the Class Period, reaching a high of $19.48 per share on April 15, 2010.

Beginning in May 2010, BofA began disclosing aspects of its “repo-to-maturity” transactions (dollar rolling), claiming the transactions did not have a material impact on BofA’s balance sheet. Later, in October 2010, BofA announced a nationwide foreclosure halt pending a review of its foreclosure processes and whether there were irregularities with respect to its previously completed foreclosure activities. Then, on October 19, 2010, BofA announced its third quarter 2010 financial results, reporting a net loss of $7.3 billion and a diluted earnings per share loss of $0.77. BofA further reported receiving $18 billion in claims about faulty home loans that it may have to repurchase. On this news, BofA stock dropped $0.54 per share, to close at $11.80 per share on October 19, 2010 – a one-day decline of 5% and a nearly 42% decline from the stock’s Class Period high.

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) BofA did not have adequate personnel to process the huge numbers of foreclosed loans in its portfolio; (b) BofA had not properly recorded many of its mortgages when originated or acquired, which would severely complicate the foreclosure process if it became necessary; (c) defendants failed to maintain proper internal controls related to processing of foreclosures; (d) BofA’s failure to properly process both mortgages and foreclosures would impair the ability of BofA to dispose of bad loans; and (e) BofA had engaged in a practice known internally as “dollar rolling” to remove billions of dollars of debt from its balance sheet over the prior years.

On June 20, 2011, the Court released an order appointing the lead plaintiff and lead counsel.

On September 23, 2011, the plaintiffs filed a consolidated class action complaint.

On July 11, 2012, the Court issued an Order granting in part and denying in part Defendants' motions to dismiss. On August 13, 2012, plaintiffs filed their amended complaint. On August 28, 2012, the Court issued an Order denying defendant's motion for reconsideration.

On April 17, 2013, the Court issued an Order denying the Executive Defendants' motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint.

On March 12, 2016, the parties entered into a Stipulation of Settlement. The Settlement was preliminarily approved on June 15. The Settlement was granted final approval on December 30, and final judgment was entered in this case.

COMPANY INFORMATION:

Sector: Financial
Industry: Money Center Banks
Headquarters: United States

SECURITIES INFORMATION:

Ticker Symbol: BAC
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 #: 11-CV-0733
JUDGE: Hon. William H. Pauley, III
DATE FILED: 02/02/2011
CLASS PERIOD START: 01/20/2010
CLASS PERIOD END: 10/19/2010
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Barrack, Rodos & Bacine (former New York)
    170 E. 61st Street, Second Floor, Barrack, Rodos & Bacine (former New York), NY 10021
    212.688.0782 212.688.0783 · info@barrack.com
  2. 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 ·
  3. Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP (Melville)
    58 South Service Road, Suite 200, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP (Melville), NY 11747
    631.367.7100 631.367.1173 ·
  4. Sullivan, Ward, Asher & Patton, P.C.
    25800 Northwestern Highway, 1000 Maccabees Center, Sullivan, Ward, Asher & Patton, P.C., MI 48075-1000
    248.746.0700 248.746.0700 ·
No Document Title Filing Date
COURT: S.D. New York
DOCKET #: 11-CV-00733
JUDGE: Hon. William H. Pauley, III
DATE FILED: 09/23/2011
CLASS PERIOD START: 02/27/2009
CLASS PERIOD END: 10/19/2010
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Barrack, Rodos & Bacine (New York)
    1350 Broadway, Suite 1001, Barrack, Rodos & Bacine (New York), NY 10018
    212.688.0782 212.688.0782 ·
No Document Title Filing Date