You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.

In re Bofi Holding, Inc.

Citation: 302 F. Supp. 3d 1128Docket: Case No.: 3:15–cv–02324–GPC–KSC

Court: District Court, S.D. California; March 21, 2018; Federal District Court

Narrative Opinion Summary

In this securities fraud case, a motion to dismiss was granted concerning the Third Amended Class Action Complaint against BofI Holding, Inc. and several corporate officers. The Lead Plaintiff alleged violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, but the court found that the complaint failed to meet the necessary pleading standards. Initially, a First Amended Complaint was dismissed for not adequately alleging scienter. Subsequent amendments also faced dismissal, the court finding that corrective disclosures did not sufficiently reveal fraud to the market. Under Rule 12(b)(6) and Rule 9(b), the court required more specific factual allegations and a stronger inference of scienter, which were not provided. The Third Amended Complaint introduced new claims regarding internal controls, underwriting standards, and regulatory investigations but still failed to establish loss causation or actionable misrepresentations. Consequently, the court dismissed the claims with prejudice, emphasizing the inadequacy of the allegations under the heightened standards of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act (PSLRA) and rejecting any potential for further amendments.

Legal Issues Addressed

Corrective Disclosures

Application: Corrective disclosures must relate directly to the misrepresentation and reveal the fraud; public information without new analysis does not qualify.

Reasoning: A corrective disclosure typically must reveal new information that demonstrates the misrepresentation's falsity; mere repetition of public information does not qualify as corrective.

Heightened Pleading Standard under Rule 9(b) for Fraud

Application: The Lead Plaintiff's allegations did not meet the heightened standard required by Rule 9(b) for claims of fraud, lacking specificity in the circumstances of the fraud.

Reasoning: Specificity is required under Rule 9(b) for claims of fraud, which mandates that the circumstances of the fraud, including the time, place, false representations, and identities involved, must be clearly delineated.

Loss Causation in Securities Fraud Claims

Application: The Lead Plaintiff failed to demonstrate loss causation, as the cited corrective disclosures did not reveal fraud to the market.

Reasoning: The Court agreed, stating that the corrective disclosures cited were either irrelevant or did not reveal fraud to the market, granting the Lead Plaintiff leave to amend the complaint.

Reliance on Public Information

Application: The court rejected articles based on public information as corrective disclosures, as they did not provide new insights or analysis.

Reasoning: The TAC fails to provide a valid reason why the market would not have already drawn similar conclusions from the available information.

Rule 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss

Application: The complaint did not contain sufficient factual allegations to establish a plausible claim for relief, failing the Rule 12(b)(6) standard.

Reasoning: The legal standard for a Rule 12(b)(6) motion requires that a complaint must contain sufficient factual allegations to establish a plausible claim for relief.

Section 20(a) Claims

Application: The Section 20(a) claims failed as they were contingent upon the inadequately pleaded Section 10(b) claims.

Reasoning: Since the Section 20(a) claims are dependent on the Section 10(b) claims, which the court finds inadequate, the Section 20(a) claims also fail.

Securities Fraud under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934

Application: The Lead Plaintiff failed to adequately plead essential elements of securities fraud claims, leading to dismissal with prejudice.

Reasoning: The Court, led by Judge Gonzalo P. Curiel, determined that the Lead Plaintiff did not adequately plead essential elements of its securities fraud claims, thus granting the motion to dismiss with prejudice.