Lawsuit Overview
October 23, 2020 - A second amended complaint was filed.
April 3, 2020 - The court granted in part and denying in part the defendants' motion to dismiss.
August 20, 2019 - A motion to dismiss the amended complaint was filed.
June 21, 2019 - An amended complaint was filed.
October 26, 2018 - An investor in shares of Bank OZK (NASDAQ: OZK) filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas over alleged violations of Federal Securities Laws by Bank OZK in connection with certain allegedly false and misleading statements made between February 19, 2016 and October 18, 2018.
Little Rock, AZ based Bank OZK provides a range of retail and commercial banking services to businesses, individuals, and non-profit and governmental entities. Bank OZK reported that its annual Total Revenue rose from $679.3 million in 2016 to $913.19 million in 2017 and that its Net Income increased from $269.97 million in 2016 to $421.89 million in 2017.
On October 19, 2018, Bank OZK announced its third-quarter earnings that missed expectations, including charge-offs of $45.5 million on two Real Estate Specialties Group credits for unrelated projects in South and North Carolina. Shares of Bank OZK (NASDAQ: OZK) declined from over $40 per share in September 2018 to as low as $24,21 per share on October 24, 2018.
According to the complaint the plaintiff alleges on behalf of purchasers of Bank OZK (NASDAQ: OZK) common shares between February 19, 2016 and October 18, 2018, that the defendants violated Federal Securities Laws. More specifically, the plaintiff claims that between February 19, 2016 and October 18, 2018, the Defendants failed to disclose to investors that the Company lacked adequate internal controls to assess credit risk, that, as a result, certain of the Company’s loans posed an increased risk of loss, that certain substandard loans were reasonably likely to lead to charge-offs, and 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.