Mostly went BOFI's way. I am not an attorney, but the conclusion says:Specifically, the Court grants BofI's motion to dismiss Erhart's first and second claims and dismisses these claims with leave to amend. The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Erhart's remaining claims and therefore dismisses these claims without prejudice. In addition, the Court denies BofI's motion to strike. If Erhart chooses to file a First Amended Complaint, he must do so no later than October 17, 2016.http://www.leagle.com/decision/In%20FDCO%2020160926G14/ERHAR....
While it was a "partial" win for BOFI, it is not over by a long shot. The Court simply found that Plaintiff had not specifically related his accusations of wrongdoing to a specific sectional violation of either the Sarbanes-Oxley or Frank Dodd Acts. In other words, the Court found that Plaintiff did not allege which specific facts constituted an alleged violation of which specific sub-section of either act. The Court granted leave to amend by October 17, 2016 to allege the violations more specifically.The Court did not address the other 8 causes of action under supplemental jurisdiction as it had dismissed the first two, with leave to amend.What does this mean? Plaintiff has until 10/17/16 to file a First Amended Complaint to state which alleged wrongful acts violated specific provisions of these acts. While this is a pretty low standard, Defendant could again bring a 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss if the allegations are insufficient.My analysis: This was BOFI's riposte in response to the Complaint, but expect to see a FAC filed by 10/17/16.DISCLOSURE: I am an attorney but do not practice in this area of law. I hold a position in BOFI.
I had expected the favourable court decision to give a boost to BOFI's stock price, which it did, temporarily. Since then it has dropped then yo-yoed down and up. I find this all very hard to understand, particularly in view of BOFI's sound financial reports.For the long haul I think that problems surfacing at Wells Fargo will not only damage peoples confidence in WFC, but will also sour public perception of all big banks. This may well work in BOFI's favour. If the big banks lose a small percentage of their customers and BOFI picks up a similar small fraction of these accounts it could give a huge boost to their customer base given the differences in size.
SpinDoctor, or anyone else familiar with this process...I just did a google search for Case No. 15-cv-02287-BAS (The Erhart case) and don't see anything since September. I believe they had until the middle of October to amend their case...Is this "over?"
Best Of |
Favorites & Replies |
Start a New Board |
My Fool |