PacWest Bancorp

On May 3, 2023, Bloomberg published an article reporting that PacWest was “weighing strategic options including a sale” and that “[t]he sector has been under pressure as rising interest rates lowered the value of their longer-term investments while increasing the cost of funding and spurring depositors to move cash into higher-yielding money market funds.” Forbes also reported that “[h]igher interest rates intensify the spread of the latest bank failure virus that drives deposits out of vulnerable banks, tanks their stock prices, and ultimately prompts an FDIC-enabled rescue[,]” and “the big loss an acquirer would incur to mark down the value of some PacWest loans makes it unlikely a buyer will emerge for the entire bank.” On this news, PacWest’s stock price fell $2.84, or 44.2%, to close at $3.59 per share on May 4, 2023, thereby injuring investors.

Then, on May 11, 2023, PacWest disclosed that it had lost a significant percentage of its deposits following the publications of the Bloomberg and Forbes reports. On this news, PacWest’s stock price fell $1.38, or 22.8%, to close at $4.68 per share on May 11, 2023.

Then, on July 25, 2023, an announcement was made that PacWest had entered into an agreement to be purchased by Banc of California, Inc. Under the terms of the agreement, PacWest shareholders would receive 0.6569 of a share of Banc of California common stock for each share of PacWest common stock.

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 failed to disclose to investors that: (1) PacWest had understated the impact of interest rate hikes on PWB, a smaller bank with excessive concentration in specific industries; (2) accordingly, the Company had overstated the stability and/or sustainability of its deposit base; (3) as a result, PacWest was exceptionally vulnerable to excessive deposit flows and/or a liquidity crisis; and (4) 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.