Lawsuit Overview
August 7, 2020 - The court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss.
March 4, 2020 - A motion to dismiss the amended consolidated complaint was filed.
January 31, 2020 - An amended consolidated complaints filed.
September 16, 2019 - An investor in shares of Cadence Bancorporation (NYSE: CADE) filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas over alleged violations of Federal Securities Laws by Cadence Bancorporation in connection with certain allegedly false and misleading statements made between July 23, 2018 and July 22, 2019.
Houston, TX based Cadence Bancorporation, a financial holding company, through its subsidiary, Cadence Bank, National Association, provides commercial banking products and services to middle-market commercial businesses, high net worth individuals, business owners, and retail customers in the United States.
Cadence Bancorporation reported that its annual Total Revenue rose from $416.35 million in 2017 to $469.67 million in 2018 and that its Net Income increased from $102.35 million to $166.26 million in 2018. Shares of Cadence Bancorporation (NYSE: CADE) grew from $20.49 per share in September 2017 to as high as $31.44 per share in June 2019.
On July 22, 2019, Cadence Bancorporation disclosed that “higher credit costs including net charge-offs of $18.6 million and loan provisions of $28.9 million” negatively impacted its second quarter 2019 financial results. Shares of Cadence Bancorporation (NYSE: CADE) declined to as low as $15.55 per share on July 22, 2019.
According to the complaint the plaintiff alleges on behalf of purchasers of Cadence Bancorporation (NYSE: CADE) common shares between July 23, 2018 and July 22, 2019, that the defendants violated Federal Securities Laws.
More specifically, the plaintiff claims that between July 23, 2018 and July 22, 2019, 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, as a result, the Company was reasonably likely to incur significant losses for certain loans, that the Company’s financial results would suffer a material adverse impact, 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.