I assume this is the reason for the small share price “pop” today.
A highlight:
The latest hit piece, posted on a blog, claims that a “recent” lawsuit raised new allegations against BofI. In fact, this lawsuit is old news. Back on October 15, 2015, known “repeat player” strike suit attorneys filed a securities class action against BofI. An amendment to this old lawsuit has now been filed. After months of harassing our ex-employees, the lawyers’ amendment fails to raise any credible or systemic problems at BofI.
Another highlight from their press release:
What the anonymous short-sellers and the strike suit attorneys fail to highlight is that BofI, like other banks, is regularly examined by its federal regulators, external auditors, and internal auditors. The absence of public enforcement actions highlight how disconnected these allegations are from the reality of BofI’s highly compliant and top-performing business.
I thought it was very weak and worrisome that they said “outright misrepresentations” as opposed to “outright lies”.
These press releases are meant to be very formal. Correct me if anyone disagrees but saying someone lied is a bit informal and can be taken as attacking/confrontational. Given the problems the October webcast response presented I am sure they are being extremely cautious about their wording. I thought it sounded well written and professional while still addressing the concern at hand.
Ok they could have said completely without merit which is what everyone says. I have never heard of any company saying misinterpretation. Usually there is a categorical refutation.
A
Ok they could have said completely without merit which is what everyone says. I have never heard of any company saying misinterpretation. Usually there is a categorical refutation.
They actually didn’t say “misinterpretation” they said “misrepresentation”, which is a little stronger.
Also they said all the following at various points through the release:
…these anonymous pieces are based on speculation, innuendo, and outright misrepresentations…referring to them as “articles”, as if they were factual and unbiased…the amended complaint is riddled with numerous and material factual inaccuracies, erroneous conclusions, and mistaken applications of legal standards, which will be addressed in court…
I thought those were some pretty strong refutations, at least as strong as you want to go without overdoing it.