December 2, 2020 - The court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss.
March 10, 2020 - A motion to dismiss the amended complaint was filed.
January 10, 2020 - An amended complaint was filed.
May 30, 2019 - An investor in shares of Metro Bank PLC (OTC: MBNKF) filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Cetnral District of California over alleged violations of Federal Securities Laws by Metro Bank PLC in connection with certain allegedly false and misleading statements made between March 6, 2018 through May 1, 2019.
London based Metro Bank PLC, together with its subsidiaries, provides retail and commercial banking services in the United Kingdom. Metro Bank PLC reported that its annual Total Revenue rose from $285.6 million in 2017 to $396.1 million in 2018 and that its Net Income increased from $10.8 million in 2017 to $27.1 million in 2018.
On May 1, 2019, Metro Bank disclosed that in January 2019, it uncovered an accounting error that resulted in adverse sentiment towards the Company amongst its customers. This error led to the loss of a small number of large commercial and partnership customers. The loss of these customers resulted in a drop in profits for the first quarter of 2019.
Shares of Metro Bank PLC (OTC: MBNKF) declined from $57.36 per share in March 2018 to as low as $.699 per share on May 10, 2019.
According to the complaint the plaintiff alleges on behalf of purchasers of Metro Bank PLC (OTC: MBNKF) common shares between March 6, 2018 through May 1, 2019, that the defendants violated Federal Securities Laws. More specifically, the plaintiff claims that between March 6, 2018 through May 1, 2019, the defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that Metro Bank misclassified the risk terms of many of its loans, that accordingly, Metro Bank failed to maintain sufficient capital, that this conduct would lead to investigations by the Prudential Regulation Authority and Financial Conduct Authority, that this conduct would also lead to the reduction of deposits at Metro Bank from larger commercial and partnership clients, and that as a result, defendants’ public statements were materially false and/or misleading at all relevant times.