According to the law firm press release, the complaint charges Prudential and certain of its officers and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Prudential is a financial services company that offers a wide array of financial products and services, including life insurance, annuities, retirement-related services, mutual funds, investment management, and real estate services.
The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants caused the Company to issue materially false and misleading statements concerning the Company’s current and future financial condition, including its reserves and its potential liability to policyholders, their beneficiaries or relevant state authorities for millions of dollars in benefits that should have been paid out to policyholders or escheated to the states, and the extent of the Company’s exposure to claims of state and federal law violations.
On August 5, 2011, the Company filed a Form 10-Q with the SEC for the quarter ended June 30, 2011. The Form 10-Q discussed that the Company was currently being investigated by a third party auditor on behalf of 33 jurisdictions concerning state unclaimed property laws and disclosed for the first time that it had been subpoenaed by the New York Attorney General regarding its unclaimed property procedures. Then on November 2, 2011, the Company reported its third quarter fiscal 2011 financial results, including third quarter 2011 earnings results that missed Wall Street analyst consensus expectations, and that it had taken a $99 million charge to increase reserves related to its death benefits practices. On this news, the Company’s share price declined from a close of $53.67 per share on November 2, 2011 to $53.05 per share on November 3, 2011 and to $52.19 per share on November 4, 2011.
According to the complaint, defendants’ financial reports and related disclosures during the Class Period were each materially false and misleading in that defendants knew or recklessly disregarded that the Company had not properly or adequately reserved for the payment of benefits to policyholders’ beneficiaries when it knew or had reason to know the policyholders were deceased causing the Company’s financial results and guidance for its operating earnings or income during the Class Period to be false.
On February 6, 2014 it was ordered that the motion to dismiss the amended complaint was denied in part and granted in part. The Complaint was dismissed as to Defendant Sayre and 20(b) allegations. All other allegations would remain.
On April 18, 2016, the parties entered into a Stipulation of Settlement. This Settlement was preliminarily approved by the Court on June 20.