Shareholders With Losses on Their Investment in The Bancorp, Inc. of Class Action Lawsuit and Upcoming Deadline

Class action lawsuits lawfuel

Pomerantz Law Firm Reminds Shareholders With Losses on Their Investment in The Bancorp, Inc. of Class Action Lawsuit and Upcoming Deadline — TBBK

NEW YORK, Sept. 1, 2014 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — Pomerantz LLP has filed a class action lawsuit against The Bancorp, Inc. (“The Bancorp” or the “Company”) (Nasdaq:TBBK) and certain of its officers. The class action, filed in United States District Court, District of Delaware, and docketed under 14-cv-00952-UNA, is on behalf of a class consisting of all persons or entities who purchased The Bancorp securities between April 24, 2013 and June 10, 2014, inclusive (the “Class Period”). This class action seeks to recover damages against Defendants for alleged violations of the federal securities laws under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”).

If you are a shareholder who purchased The Bancorp securities during the Class Period, you have until September 16, 2014 to ask the Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class. A copy of the Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com. To discuss this action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at rswilloughby@pomlaw.com or 888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll free, x237. Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their mailing address, telephone number, and number of shares purchased.

The Bancorp, Inc. operates as the financial holding company for The Bancorp Bank, which provides various commercial, retail, and related banking products and services to small and mid-size businesses. The Company provides services in Philadelphia, Delaware, Chester, Montgomery, Bucks, and Lehigh counties in Pennsylvania; New Castle County in Delaware; and Mercer, Burlington, Camden, Ocean, and Cape May Counties in New Jersey.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company’s business, operational, and compliance policies. Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) the Company had under-reserved for loan losses due to adverse loans; (2) Bancorp’s operations and credit practices were in violation of the Bank Secrecy Act (“BSA”); and (3) as a result of the above, the Company’s financial statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

On April 23, 2014, after the market close, Bancorp announced financial results for the first quarter of 2014, reporting that net income for the period decreased to $298,000, or fully diluted earnings per share of $.01, compared to net income of $7.4 million or $.20 per diluted share for the comparable period in 2013. According to Bancorp’s Chief Executive Officer, the quarter was significantly impacted by an additional loan loss provision of $11.8 million principally related to “newly identified adversely classified loans”.

On this news, Bancorp shares fell $2.76, or over 15%, to close at $15.84 on April 24, 2014, on unusually heavy trading volume.

On June 10, 2014, the Company filed a Form 8-K with the SEC, announcing that it had entered into a Stipulation and Consent to the Issuance of a Consent Order with the FDIC. The Order became effective on June 5, 2014, and requires the bank to correct the weaknesses in its Bank Secrecy Act Compliance Program.

On this news, shares of Bancorp fell $4.66, or over 28%, on extremely heavy volume, to close at $11.54 on June 11, 2014.

The Pomerantz Firm, with offices in New York, Chicago, Florida, and San Diego, is acknowledged as one of the premier firms in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust class litigation. Founded by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as the dean of the class action bar, the Pomerantz Firm pioneered the field of securities class actions. Today, more than 70 years later, the Pomerantz Firm continues in the tradition he established, fighting for the rights of the victims of securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, and corporate misconduct. The Firm has recovered numerous multimillion-dollar damages awards on behalf of class members. See www.pomerantzlaw.com.


Lawyers Fight for Marriage Equality Case in Supreme Court

Enhanced buzz 15794 1409266136 30

It’s become one of the most vocal and visible social issues of recent times: marriage equality. Now LGBT lawyers are waiting to file with the US Supreme Court asking the top court to hear their case. But the question now is: which case will the Justices hear?



Technically, the lawyers were responding to Supreme Court filings by state or county officials in Oklahoma, Virginia, and Utah that ask the justices to hear their case in order to uphold bans on same-sex couples’ marriages.

Although the justices won’t consider whether to take any of the cases until, at the earliest, the end of September, the four filings this week showed how focused lawyers across the country supporting marriage equality are on getting a case — and, they hope, their case — before the justices in the next year.

The filings in cases challenging the bans on same-sex couples’ marriages in Oklahoma, Utah, and Virginia start from the unusual posture that all of the same-sex couples who filed lawsuits have won in the lower courts that heard their cases. Nonetheless, the importance of the issue has led all four legal teams — there are two in Virginia — to ask the Supreme Court to resolve the issue.

The filings share one thing: They argue that the justices should take a marriage case to resolve the issue, as the Virginia class-action plaintiffs put it, “so that the constitutional rights of same-sex couples in Virginia and elsewhere may be enforced without delay.”

Although all four filings agree on that point, the four teams differ on which case or cases to take and why. Each explains why their case is the best “vehicle” for resolving the question, focusing on the distinctions between the cases.

One distinction is whether the justices will hear a case only asking whether same-sex couples can marry or whether the case will also address bans on recognition of out-of-state marriages of same-sex couples.

About The Author