Case Page

 

Case Status:    ONGOING    
On or around 11/03/2017 (Ongoing date of last review)

Filing Date: October 15, 2015

According to the law firm press release, BofI operates as the holding company for BofI Federal Bank, a provider of consumer and business banking products through the Internet in the United States. BofI Federal Bank’s most significant business is making mortgages to high-net worth individuals for the purchase of expensive properties though BofI Federal Bank’s Bank of Internet USA (“Bank of Internet”) brand.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company’s business, operational and compliance policies. Specifically, during the Class Period, defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) the Company’s internal controls were frequently disregarded; (ii) Bank of Internet’s borrowers included foreign nationals who should have been off-limits under federal anti-money-laundering laws; (iii) many Bank of Internet accounts lacked required tax identification numbers; (iv) Bank of Internet fired an internal auditor who raised the foregoing issues to management and to federal regulators; and (v) as a result of the above, the Company’s statements regarding its internal controls and other financial statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

Plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint on April 11, 2016.

An amended complaint was filed on November 25, 2016.

COMPANY INFORMATION:

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

SECURITIES INFORMATION:

Ticker Symbol: BOFI
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: S.D. California
DOCKET #: 15-CV-02324
JUDGE: Hon. Gonzalo P. Curiel
DATE FILED: 10/15/2015
CLASS PERIOD START: 09/04/2013
CLASS PERIOD END: 10/13/2015
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Pomerantz LLP (New York)
    600 Third Avenue, Pomerantz LLP (New York), NY 10016
    212.661.1100 212.661.8665 · info@pomerantzlaw.com/
No Document Title Filing Date
COURT: S.D. California
DOCKET #: 15-CV-02324
JUDGE: Hon. Gonzalo P. Curiel
DATE FILED: 11/25/2016
CLASS PERIOD START: 09/04/2013
CLASS PERIOD END: 02/03/2016
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann & Bernstein LLP
    Embarcadero Center West 275 Battery Street, Suite 3000, Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann & Bernstein LLP, CA 94111-3339
    415.956.1000 415.956.1008 ·
No Document Title Filing Date