Processing your request


please wait...

Case Page

 

Case Status:    ONGOING    
On or around 03/04/2020 (Date of last review)

Filing Date: September 16, 2019

According to the Complaint, Cadence is a financial holding company that focuses on middle-market commercial lending, complemented by retail banking and wealth management services, and purportedly provides banking services to businesses, high net worth individuals, and business owners.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company’s business, operations, and prospects. The Complaint alleges that specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to investors: (1) that the Company lacked adequate internal controls to assess credit risk; (2) that, as a result, certain of the Company’s loans posed an increased risk of loss; (3) that, as a result, the Company was reasonably likely to incur significant losses for certain loans; (4) that the Company’s financial results would suffer a material adverse impact; and (5) that, as a result of the foregoing, Defendants’ positive statements about the Company’s business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

On November 15, 2019, the Court issued an Order consolidating cases. On December 10, the Court issued an Order appointing Lead Plaintiff. On December 18, the Court approved Lead Plaintiff's selection of counsel. Lead Plaintiff filed an amended consolidated Complaint on January 31, 2020.

COMPANY INFORMATION:

Sector: Financial
Industry: Regional Banks
Headquarters: United States

SECURITIES INFORMATION:

Ticker Symbol: CADE
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. Texas
DOCKET #: 19-CV-03492
JUDGE: Hon. David Hittner
DATE FILED: 09/16/2019
CLASS PERIOD START: 07/23/2018
CLASS PERIOD END: 07/22/2019
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP
  2. Kendall Law Group, LLP
No Document Title Filing Date
COURT: S.D. Texas
DOCKET #: 19-CV-03492
JUDGE: Hon. David Hittner
DATE FILED: 01/31/2020
CLASS PERIOD START: 07/23/2018
CLASS PERIOD END: 01/23/2020
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP
  2. Pomerantz Haudek Block Grossman & Gross LLP (Chicago)
No Document Title Filing Date
—Related District Court Filings Data is not available