First Republic Bank

On October 14, 2022, First Republic released its third quarter 2022 financial results, reporting a slowdown of the Company’s net interest income growth to 20.6% year-over-year and a net interest margin decrease to 2.71%. The Company explained that the decrease was due to “average funding costs increasing more rapidly than the offsetting increase in the average yields on interest-earning assets.” On this news, First Republic’s stock price fell $22.14, or 16.4%, to close at $112.59 per share on October 14, 2022, thereby injuring investors.

Then, following the collapse of SVB Financial Group (“SVB”) on March 10, 2023, First Republic investors began to question the Company’s ability to withstand the interest rate environment and remain solvent. In response, First Republic’s stock price fell $83.79, or 72.9%, to close at $31.21 per share on March 13, 2023.

Then, on March 13, 2023, several analysts downgraded their ratings of First Republic due to the risks of deposit outflows leading to increased funding costs, observing that the Company’s “funding and liquidity profile has changed and represents a ‘weakest link.’” On this news, First Republic’s stock price fell $8.47, or 21.4%, to close at $31.16 per share on March 15, 2023, thereby injuring investors further.

The complaint filed in this class action alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company’s business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants misrepresented the strength of the Company’s balance sheet and liquidity position, while also understating the significant pressure rising interest rates posed to First Republic’s business model. Defendants also misrepresented the strength of the Company’s ability to deliver consistent results across different interest rate environments, the diversity of the Company’s deposit funding base, and the Company’s ability to generate net interest income growth and maintain stable net interest margin, and as a result, Defendants’ positive statements about the Company’s business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times.