April 4, 2014
/PRNewswire/ -- Pomerantz LLP has filed a class action lawsuit against Walter Investment Management Corporation ("Walter Investment" or the "Company") (NYSE: WAC) and certain of its officers. The class action, filed in United States District Court, Middle District of
, and docketed under 1:14-cv-20880, is on behalf of a class consisting of all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired Walter Investment securities between
May 9, 2012
February 26, 2014
, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"). This class action seeks to recover damages against Defendants for alleged violations of the federal securities laws pursuant to Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.
If you are a shareholder who purchased Walter Investment securities during the Class Period, you have until
May 6, 2014
to ask the Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class. A copy of the Complaint can be obtained at
. To discuss this action, contact
Robert S. Willoughby
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.
Walter Investment is a loan servicer and business solutions provider focused on generating recurring, fee-based revenues from an "asset-light" platform.
The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) the Company lacked adequate internal controls over financial accounting and compliance with applicable laws; (2) the Company's internal controls were not effective; (3) the Company's financial statements contained false and misleading statements; (4) the Company had failed to disclose material weaknesses in the internal controls of its recently acquired subsidiary, RMS; (5) the Company had overstated the value of its RMS acquisition; (6) the Company was in violation of applicable laws, rules and regulations; (7) the Company's business practices violated consumer financial protection laws, thereby jeopardizing future revenues and profits; and, (8) as a result of the foregoing, the Company's statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.