|
Teamsters Local 445 Freight Division Pension Fund et al v. Dynex Capital, Inc.
et al
USDC SD New York
Disclosure
Background
|
 Company
background
Litigation
background
- USDC SD New York (Foley
Square) 05-cv-01897-HB
- Teamsters Local 445 Freight Division Pension Fund et al v. Dynex Capital, Inc.
et al
- Filed 2.07.05
Lead
plaintiffs
- Teamsters Local 445 Freight Division Pension Fund
SEC
disclosures
- Form 10-Q
8.11.08 At page 49
Dynex Capital, Inc. and MERIT Securities Corporation, a subsidiary, were
defendants in a putative class action complaint alleging violations of the
federal securities laws in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York (District Court) by the Teamsters Local 445 Freight
Division Pension Fund (Teamsters). The complaint was filed on February 7,
2005, and purported to be a class action on behalf of purchasers between
February 2000 and May 2004 of MERIT Series 12 and MERIT Series 13 securitization
financing bonds (the Bonds), which are collateralized by manufactured housing
loans. The complaint sought unspecified damages and alleged, among other things,
misrepresentations in connection with the issuance of and subsequent reporting
on the Bonds. The complaint initially named our former president and our current
Chief Operating Officer as defendants. On February 10, 2006, the District Court
dismissed the claims against our former president and current Chief Operating
Officer, but did not dismiss the claims against us or MERIT. We and MERIT
petitioned for an interlocutory appeal with the United States Court of Appeals
for the Second Circuit (Second Circuit). The Second Circuit granted our
petition on September 15, 2006 and heard oral argument on the appeal on January
30, 2008. On June 27, 2008, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit ruled in our favor ordering the District Court to dismiss the litigation
against us and MERIT, but with leave for Teamsters to amend and replead.
Teamsters filed an amended complaint on August 6, 2008 with the District Court.
We are currently evaluating the amended complaint and intend to vigorously
defend ourselves in this matter. Although no assurance can be given with respect
to the ultimate outcome of this matter, we believe the resolution of this matter
will not have a material effect on our consolidated balance sheet but could
materially affect our consolidated results of operations in a given year or
period.
|
Claims
|
Complaint Answer
|
Motion to
Dismiss Denied / Granted
|
Motion
to dismiss
Opinion
Motion
to reconsider Denied
Opinion
|
Motion to Dismiss Second Amended Complaint Pending
|
Motion
to dismiss
|
Appeal to Second Circuit
SEC_CODE_REF_0090001192884
|
Opinion
- For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the
district
court is VACATED insofar as it denied the motion to dismiss defendants Dynex and
Merit. The case is REMANDED with instructions to dismiss as to these two
defendants with leave to replead.
|
Commentary
|
Commentary
|
Counsel
|
Lead
plaintiff
Company
defense
|
Related Topics
|
