UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

JUSTIN G. LUBBERS, Individually and 

on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated,

Plaintiff(s),

v.

FLAGSTAR BANCORP INC.,

ALESSANDRO P. DINELLO, and 

PAUL D. BORJA,

Defendants.

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

Civil Action No.: 

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATION OF THE FEDERAL SECURITIES LAWS

Plaintiff Justin G. Lubbers (“Plaintiff”), individually and on behalf of all 

other persons similarly situated, by his undersigned attorneys, for his complaint 

against defendants, alleges the following based upon personal knowledge as to 

himself and his own acts, and information and belief as to all other matters, based 

upon, inter alia, the investigation conducted by and through his attorneys, which 

included, among other things, a review of the defendants’ public documents, 

conference calls and announcements made by defendants, United States Securities 

and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) filings, wire and press releases published by 

and regarding Flagstar Bancorp Inc., (“Flagstar” or the “Company”), analysts’ 

reports and advisories about the Company, and information readily obtainable on 

the Internet. Plaintiff believes that substantial evidentiary support will exist for the 

allegations set forth herein after a reasonable opportunity for discovery.

2:14-cv-13459-BAF-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 09/05/14 Pg 1 of 22 Pg ID 1
2

NATURE OF THE ACTION

This is a federal securities class action brought on behalf of a class 

consisting of all persons and entities, other than Defendants (defined below) and 

their affiliates, who purchased the securities of Flagstar from January 22, 2014 to 

August 26, 2014, inclusive (the “Class Period”). Plaintiff seeks to pursue remedies 

against Flagstar and certain of its officers and directors for violations of the federal 

securities laws under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”).

Defendant Flagstar is the holding company for Flagstar Bank, FSB 

(“Flagstar Bank”). Flagstar Bank accepts deposits from the general public and 

originates or acquires residential mortgage loans. Flagstar Bank also originates 

consumer, commercial real estate, and non-real estate commercial loans and it 

operates predominantly in Michigan and Indiana, as well as throughout the United 

States. The Company is a Michigan corporation whose shares trade on the New 

York Stock Exchange (“NYSE”) under the ticker symbol “FBC.” 

Throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or 

misleading statements, and failed to disclose material adverse facts about the 

Company’s business, operations, prospects, performance, and compliance with 

federal law. Specifically, during the Class Period, Defendants made false and/or 

misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) dating back to 2011, the 

Company’s loss mitigation practices and default servicing operations were not in 

2:14-cv-13459-BAF-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 09/05/14 Pg 2 of 22 Pg ID 2
3

compliance with various federal consumer financial laws promulgated by the 

Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (“CFPB”); (ii) the Company lacked proper 

internal controls; and (iii) as a result of the above, the Company’s financial 

statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. 

On August 26, 2014, the Company filed a Form 8-K with the SEC, 

announcing that it has begun settlement discussions with the CFPB over alleged 

violations of consumer finance laws dating back to 2011. In the 8-K, the Company 

stated, in part:

Flagstar Bancorp, Inc., the holding company of Flagstar Bank, 

FSB (the "Bank"), announced today that the Bank has 

commenced discussions with the Consumer Financial 

Protection Bureau, or CFPB, related to alleged violations of 

various federal consumer financial laws arising from the Bank's 

loss mitigation practices and default servicing operations dating 

back to 2011. The Bank previously provided the CFPB with 

documents and other information concerning the Bank’s loss 

mitigation practices and default servicing operations in 

response to Civil Investigative Demands received from the 

CFPB. While the Bank intends to vigorously defend against any 

enforcement action that may be brought, it has commenced 

discussions with the CFPB staff to determine if a settlement can 

be achieved. Those discussions are ongoing. 

As a result of these allegations, Mark Palmer, an analyst at BTIG, 

downgraded its rating on Flagstar to sell, noting that the “allegations raise 

questions regarding servicing operations amid uncertainty of potential rebound of 

its mortgage business.”

2:14-cv-13459-BAF-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 09/05/14 Pg 3 of 22 Pg ID 3
4

On this news, Flagstar stock fell $0.83, or almost 4.5%, on unusually

heavy trading volume, to close at $17.66 on August 27, 2014.

As a result of Defendants’ wrongful acts and omissions, and the 

precipitous decline in the market value of the Company’s securities, Plaintiff and 

other Class members have suffered significant losses and damages.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

The claims asserted herein arise under and pursuant to §§10(b) and 

20(a) of the Exchange Act (15 U.S.C. §§78j(b) and 78t(a)) and Rule 10b-5 

promulgated thereunder by the SEC (17 C.F.R. §240.10b-5). 

This Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this action under 

28 U.S.C. §1331 and §27 of the Exchange Act.

Venue is proper in this District pursuant to §27 of the Exchange Act

(15 U.S.C. §78aa) and 28 U.S.C. §1391(b), as a significant portion of the 

Defendants’ actions, and the subsequent damages, took place within this District. 

In connection with the acts, conduct and other wrongs alleged in this 

Complaint, Defendants, directly or indirectly, used the means and instrumentalities 

of interstate commerce, including but not limited to, the United States mail, 

interstate telephone communications and the facilities of the national securities 

exchange. 

2:14-cv-13459-BAF-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 09/05/14 Pg 4 of 22 Pg ID 4
5

PARTIES

Plaintiff, as set forth in the accompanying Certification, which is 

incorporated by reference herein, purchased the common stock of Flagstar at 

artificially inflated prices during the Class Period and was damaged upon the 

revelation of the alleged corrective disclosures. 

Defendant Flagstar is a Michigan corporation with its principal 

executive offices located at 5151 Corporate Drive, Troy, MI 48098-2639. 

Flagstar’s common stock trades on the NYSE under the ticker symbol “FBC.”

Defendant Alessandro P. DiNello (“DiNello”) has served as the 

Company’s President and Chief Executive Officer at all relevant times.

Defendant Paul D. Borja (“Borja”) has served as the Company’s

Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer at all relevant times.

Defendants referenced above in ¶¶ 14 and 15 are sometimes referred 

to herein, collectively, as the “Individual Defendants.”

Defendant Flagstar and the Individual Defendants are referred to 

herein, collectively, as the “Defendants.”

2:14-cv-13459-BAF-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 09/05/14 Pg 5 of 22 Pg ID 5
6

SUBSTANTIVE ALLEGATIONS

Background

Flagstar operates as the holding company for Flagstar Bank, which

provides various financial products and services to individuals and businesses in 

the United States. Flagstar Bank’s Mortgage Banking segment originates, 

acquires, sells, and services mortgage loans through home loan centers, national 

call centers, Internet, unaffiliated banks, and mortgage brokerage companies. Its 

Community Banking segment offers various financial products and services to 

individuals, small and middle market businesses, and mortgage lenders. 

The Company also offers telephone banking services; government 

banking products; and treasury management services, such as remote deposit and 

merchant services. 

As of December 31, 2013, Flagstar operated through a regional office 

in Jackson, Michigan; 111 banking centers in Michigan; 39 home loan centers in 

19 states; and 9 wholesale lending offices. Flagstar was founded in 1987.

2:14-cv-13459-BAF-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 09/05/14 Pg 6 of 22 Pg ID 6
7

Materially False and Misleading

Statements Issued During the Period

On January 22, 2014, the first day of the Class Period, the Company 

issued a press release and filed a Form 8-K with the SEC, announcing financial and 

operating results for the fourth quarter and full year ended December 31, 2013. 

For the fourth quarter, net income applicable to common stockholders was $161.91

million, or $2.77 per diluted share, compared to net income applicable to common 

stockholders of $68.19 million or $1.12 per diluted share for the same period in the 

prior year. For the year, net income applicable to common stockholders was 

$261.2 million or $4.37 per diluted share, compared to net income applicable to 

common stockholders of $68.38 million or $0.87 per diluted share for the prior 

year.

On March 5, 2014, the Company filed an annual report on Form 10-K 

with the SEC which was signed by defendants DiNello and Borja, and reiterated 

the Company’s previously announced quarterly and year-end financial results and 

financial position. In addition, the Form 10-K contained signed certifications 

pursuant to the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (“SOX”) by defendants DiNello and 

Borja, stating that the financial information contained in the Form 10-K was 

accurate and disclosed any material changes to the Company’s internal control 

over financial reporting. 

2:14-cv-13459-BAF-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 09/05/14 Pg 7 of 22 Pg ID 7
8

In the 10-K, the Company stated:

CFPB and Regulations Related to Mortgage Origination and 

Servicing. In January 2013, the CFPB issued a series of final 

rules related to mortgage loan origination and mortgage loan 

servicing. Compliance with these rules will likely increase our 

overall regulatory compliance costs. We continue to evaluate 

the rules to determine the level of their long-term impact on our 

mortgage loan origination and servicing activities. 

On April 23, 2014, the Company issued a press release and filed a 

Form 8-K with the SEC, announcing financial and operating results for the first 

quarter ended March 31, 2014. Net loss applicable to common stockholders was

$78.9 million, or $1.51 loss per diluted share, compared to net income applicable 

to common stockholders of $22.2 million, or $0.33 per diluted share for the same 

period in the prior year. 

On May 9, 2014, the Company filed a quarterly report on Form 10-Q 

with the SEC which was signed by defendants DiNello and Borja, and reiterated 

the Company’s previously announced quarterly financial results and financial 

position. In addition, the Form 10-Q contained SOX certifications signed by 

defendants DiNello and Borja, stating that the financial information contained in 

the Form 10-Q was accurate and disclosed any material changes to the Company’s 

internal control over financial reporting. 

On July 22, 2014, the Company issued a press release and filed a 

Form 8-K with the SEC, announcing financial and operating results for the second 

2:14-cv-13459-BAF-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 09/05/14 Pg 8 of 22 Pg ID 8
9

quarter ended June 30, 2014. Net income applicable to common stockholders was

$25.5 million, or $0.33 per diluted share, compared to net income applicable to 

common stockholders $65.8 million, or $1.10 per diluted share, for the same 

period in the prior year.

On July 29, 2014, the Company filed a quarterly report on Form 10-Q 

with the SEC which was signed by defendants DiNello and Borja, and reiterated 

the Company’s previously announced quarterly financial results and financial 

position. In addition, the Form 10-Q contained SOX certifications signed by 

defendants DiNello and Borja, stating that the financial information contained in 

the Form 10-Q was accurate and disclosed any material changes to the Company’s 

internal control over financial reporting. 

The statements referenced in ¶¶ 21–27 above were materially false 

and/or misleading because they misrepresented and failed to disclose the following 

adverse facts pertaining to the Company’s business, operations, prospects, and 

compliance with federal law, which were known to Defendants and/or recklessly 

disregarded by them. Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading 

statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) dating back to 2011, the Company’s 

loss mitigation practices and default servicing operations were not in compliance 

with various federal consumer financial laws promulgated by the CFPB; (ii) the 

Company lacked proper internal controls; and (iii) as a result of the above, the 

2:14-cv-13459-BAF-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 09/05/14 Pg 9 of 22 Pg ID 9
10

Company’s financial statements were materially false and misleading at all 

relevant times. 

The Truth Begins to Emerge

On August 26, 2014, the Company filed a Form 8-K with the SEC, 

announcing that it has begun settlement discussions with the CFPB over alleged 

violations of consumer finance laws dating back to 2011. In the 8-K, the Company 

stated, in part:

Flagstar Bancorp, Inc., the holding company of Flagstar Bank, 

FSB (the "Bank"), announced today that the Bank has 

commenced discussions with the Consumer Financial 

Protection Bureau, or CFPB, related to alleged violations of 

various federal consumer financial laws arising from the Bank's 

loss mitigation practices and default servicing operations dating 

back to 2011. The Bank previously provided the CFPB with 

documents and other information concerning the Bank’s loss 

mitigation practices and default servicing operations in 

response to Civil Investigative Demands received from the 

CFPB. While the Bank intends to vigorously defend against any 

enforcement action that may be brought, it has commenced 

discussions with the CFPB staff to determine if a settlement can 

be achieved. Those discussions are ongoing. 

As a result of these allegations, Mark Palmer, an analyst at BTIG, 

downgraded its rating on Flagstar to sell, noting that the “allegations raise 

questions regarding servicing operations amid uncertainty of potential rebound of 

its mortgage business.”

On the news, Flagstar stock fell $0.83, or almost 4.5%, on unusually

heavy trading volume, to close at $17.66 on August 27, 2014.

2:14-cv-13459-BAF-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 09/05/14 Pg 10 of 22 Pg ID 10
11

As a result of Defendants’ wrongful acts and omissions, and the 

precipitous decline in the market value of the Company’s securities, Plaintiff and 

other Class members have suffered significant losses and damages.

PLAINTIFF’CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS

Plaintiff brings this action as a class action pursuant to Federal Rule of 

Civil Procedure 23(a) and (b)(3) on behalf of a Class, consisting of all those who 

purchased or otherwise acquired Flagstar securities during the Class Period (the 

“Class”); and were damaged upon the revelation of the alleged corrective 

disclosures. Excluded from the Class are Defendants herein, the officers and 

directors of the Company, at all relevant times, members of their immediate 

families and their legal representatives, heirs, successors or assigns and any entity 

in which Defendants have or had a controlling interest.

The members of the Class are so numerous that joinder of all 

members is impracticable. Throughout the Class Period, Flagstar securities were 

actively traded on the NYSE. While the exact number of Class members is 

unknown to Plaintiff at this time and can be ascertained only through appropriate 

discovery, Plaintiff believes that there are hundreds or thousands of members in the 

proposed Class. Record owners and other members of the Class may be identified 

from records maintained by Flagstar or its transfer agent and may be notified of the 

2:14-cv-13459-BAF-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 09/05/14 Pg 11 of 22 Pg ID 11
12

pendency of this action by mail, using the form of notice similar to that 

customarily used in securities class actions.

Plaintiff’s claims are typical of the claims of the members of the Class 

as all members of the Class are similarly affected by Defendants’ wrongful 

conduct in violation of federal law that is complained of herein.

Plaintiff will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the 

members of the Class and has retained counsel competent and experienced in class 

and securities litigation. Plaintiff has no interests antagonistic to or in conflict with 

those of the Class.

Common questions of law and fact exist as to all members of the 

Class and predominate over any questions solely affecting individual members of 

the Class. Among the questions of law and fact common to the Class are:

 whether the federal securities laws were violated by 

Defendants’ acts as alleged herein;

 whether statements made by Defendants to the investing public 

during the Class Period misrepresented material facts about the 

business, operations and management of Flagstar;

 whether the Individual Defendants caused Flagstar to issue 

false and misleading financial statements during the Class 

Period;

 whether Defendants acted knowingly or recklessly in issuing 

false and misleading financial statements;

 whether the prices of Flagstar securities during the Class Period 

2:14-cv-13459-BAF-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 09/05/14 Pg 12 of 22 Pg ID 12
13

were artificially inflated because of the Defendants’ conduct 

complained of herein; and,

 whether the members of the Class have sustained damages and, 

if so, what is the proper measure of damages.

A class action is superior to all other available methods for the fair 

and efficient adjudication of this controversy since joinder of all members is 

impracticable. Furthermore, as the damages suffered by individual Class members 

may be relatively small, the expense and burden of individual litigation make it 

impossible for members of the Class to individually redress the wrongs done to 

them. There will be no difficulty in the management of this action as a class 

action.

Plaintiff will rely, in part, upon the presumption of reliance 

established by the fraud-on-the-market doctrine in that:

 Defendants made public misrepresentations or failed to disclose 

material facts during the Class Period;

 the omissions and misrepresentations were material;

 Flagstar securities are traded in efficient markets;

 the Company’s shares were liquid and traded with moderate to 

heavy volume during the Class Period;

 the Company traded on the NYSE, and was covered by multiple 

analysts;

 the misrepresentations and omissions alleged would tend to 

induce a reasonable investor to misjudge the value of the 

2:14-cv-13459-BAF-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 09/05/14 Pg 13 of 22 Pg ID 13
14

Company’s securities; and

 Plaintiff and members of the Class purchased and/or sold 

Flagstar securities between the time the Defendants failed to 

disclose or misrepresented material facts and the time the true 

facts were disclosed, without knowledge of the omitted or 

misrepresented facts.

Based upon the foregoing, Plaintiff and the members of the Class are 

entitled to a presumption of reliance upon the integrity of the market. 

Alternatively, Plaintiffs and the members of the Class are entitled to 

the presumption of reliance established by the Supreme Court in Affiliated Ute 

Citizens of the State of Utah v. United States, 406 U.S. 128, 92 S. Ct. 2430 (1972), 

as Defendants omitted material information in their Class Period statements in 

violation of a duty to disclose such information, as detailed above.

COUNT I

Violations of Section 10(b) of The Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 

Against All Defendants

Plaintiff repeats and realleges each and every allegation contained 

above as if fully set forth herein.

This Count is asserted against Defendants and is based upon Section 

10(b) of the Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C. § 78j(b), and Rule 10b-5 promulgated 

thereunder by the SEC.

2:14-cv-13459-BAF-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 09/05/14 Pg 14 of 22 Pg ID 14
15

During the Class Period, Defendants engaged in a plan, scheme, 

conspiracy and course of conduct, pursuant to which they knowingly or recklessly 

engaged in acts, transactions, practices and courses of business which operated as a 

fraud and deceit upon Plaintiff and the other members of the Class; made various 

untrue statements of material facts and omitted to state material facts necessary in 

order to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which they 

were made, not misleading; and employed devices, schemes and artifices to 

defraud in connection with the purchase and sale of securities. Such scheme was 

intended to, and, throughout the Class Period, did: (i) deceive the investing public, 

including Plaintiff and other Class members, as alleged herein; (ii) artificially 

inflate and maintain the market price of Flagstar securities; and (iii) cause Plaintiff 

and other members of the Class to purchase or otherwise acquire Flagstar securities 

and options at artificially inflated prices. In furtherance of this unlawful scheme, 

plan and course of conduct, Defendants, and each of them, took the actions set 

forth herein.

Pursuant to the above plan, scheme, conspiracy and course of conduct, 

each of the Defendants participated directly or indirectly in the preparation and/or

issuance of the quarterly and annual reports, SEC filings, press releases and other 

statements and documents described above, including statements made to 

securities analysts and the media that were designed to influence the market for 

2:14-cv-13459-BAF-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 09/05/14 Pg 15 of 22 Pg ID 15
16

Flagstar securities. Such reports, filings, releases and statements were materially 

false and misleading in that they failed to disclose material adverse information 

and misrepresented the truth about Flagstar’s finances and business prospects.

 By virtue of their positions at Flagstar, Defendants had actual 

knowledge of the materially false and misleading statements and material 

omissions alleged herein and intended thereby to deceive Plaintiff and the other 

members of the Class, or, in the alternative, Defendants acted with reckless 

disregard for the truth in that they failed or refused to ascertain and disclose such 

facts as would reveal the materially false and misleading nature of the statements 

made, although such facts were readily available to Defendants. Said acts and 

omissions of Defendants were committed willfully or with reckless disregard for 

the truth. In addition, each defendant knew or recklessly disregarded that material 

facts were being misrepresented or omitted as described above.

Defendants were personally motivated to make false statements and 

omit material information necessary to make the statements not misleading in order 

to personally benefit from the sale of Flagstar securities from their personal 

portfolios.

Information showing that Defendants acted knowingly or with 

reckless disregard for the truth is peculiarly within Defendants’ knowledge and 

2:14-cv-13459-BAF-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 09/05/14 Pg 16 of 22 Pg ID 16
17

control. As the senior managers and/or directors of Flagstar, the Individual 

Defendants had knowledge of the details of Flagstar’s internal affairs.

The Individual Defendants are liable both directly and indirectly for 

the wrongs complained of herein. Because of their positions of control and 

authority, the Individual Defendants were able to and did, directly or indirectly, 

control the content of the statements of Flagstar. As officers and/or directors of a 

publicly-held company, the Individual Defendants had a duty to disseminate 

timely, accurate, and truthful information with respect to Flagstar’s businesses, 

operations, future financial condition and future prospects. As a result of the 

dissemination of the aforementioned false and misleading reports, releases and 

public statements, the market price of Flagstar securities was artificially inflated 

throughout the Class Period. In ignorance of the adverse facts concerning 

Flagstar’s business and financial condition which were concealed by Defendants, 

Plaintiff and the other members of the Class purchased or otherwise acquired 

Flagstar securities at artificially inflated prices and relied upon the price of the 

securities, the integrity of the market for the securities and/or upon statements 

disseminated by Defendants, and were damaged thereby.

During the Class Period, Flagstar securities were traded on an active 

and efficient market. Plaintiff and the other members of the Class, relying on the 

materially false and misleading statements described herein, which the Defendants 

2:14-cv-13459-BAF-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 09/05/14 Pg 17 of 22 Pg ID 17
18

made, issued or caused to be disseminated, or relying upon the integrity of the 

market, purchased or otherwise acquired shares of Flagstar securities at prices 

artificially inflated by Defendants’ wrongful conduct. Had Plaintiff and the other 

members of the Class known the truth, they would not have purchased or otherwise 

acquired said securities, or would not have purchased or otherwise acquired them 

at the inflated prices that were paid. At the time of the purchases and/or 

acquisitions by Plaintiff and the Class, the true value of Flagstar securities was 

substantially lower than the prices paid by Plaintiff and the other members of the 

Class. The market price of Flagstar securities declined sharply upon public 

disclosure of the facts alleged herein to the injury of Plaintiff and Class members.

By reason of the conduct alleged herein, Defendants knowingly or 

recklessly, directly or indirectly, have violated Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act 

and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ wrongful conduct, 

Plaintiff and the other members of the Class suffered damages in connection with 

their respective purchases, acquisitions and sales of the Company’s securities 

during the Class Period, upon the disclosure that the Company had been 

disseminating misrepresented financial statements to the investing public.

2:14-cv-13459-BAF-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 09/05/14 Pg 18 of 22 Pg ID 18
19

COUNT II

Violations of Section 20(a) of The Exchange Act 

Against The Individual Defendants

Plaintiff repeats and realleges each and every allegation contained in 

the foregoing paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.

During the Class Period, the Individual Defendants participated in the 

operation and management of Flagstar, and conducted and participated, directly 

and indirectly, in the conduct of Flagstar’s business affairs. Because of their senior 

positions, they knew the adverse non-public information about Flagstar’s 

misstatement of income and expenses and false financial statements.

As officers and/or directors of a publicly owned company, the 

Individual Defendants had a duty to disseminate accurate and truthful information 

with respect to Flagstar’s financial condition and results of operations, and to 

correct promptly any public statements issued by Flagstar which had become 

materially false or misleading.

Because of their positions of control and authority as senior officers, 

the Individual Defendants were able to, and did, control the contents of the various 

reports, press releases and public filings which Flagstar disseminated in the 

marketplace during the Class Period concerning Flagstar’s results of operations. 

Throughout the Class Period, the Individual Defendants exercised their power and 

authority to cause Flagstar to engage in the wrongful acts complained of herein. 

2:14-cv-13459-BAF-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 09/05/14 Pg 19 of 22 Pg ID 19
20

The Individual Defendants therefore, were “controlling persons” of Flagstar within 

the meaning of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. In this capacity, they 

participated in the unlawful conduct alleged which artificially inflated the market 

price of Flagstar securities.

Each of the Individual Defendants, therefore, acted as a controlling 

person of Flagstar. By reason of their senior management positions and/or being 

directors of Flagstar, each of the Individual Defendants had the power to direct the 

actions of, and exercised the same to cause, Flagstar to engage in the unlawful acts 

and conduct complained of herein. Each of the Individual Defendants exercised 

control over the general operations of Flagstar and possessed the power to control 

the specific activities which comprise the primary violations about which Plaintiff 

and the other members of the Class complain.

By reason of the above conduct, the Individual Defendants are liable 

pursuant to Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act for the violations committed by 

Flagstar.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendants as follows:

A. Determining that the instant action may be maintained as a class 

action under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and certifying 

Plaintiff as the Class representative; 

2:14-cv-13459-BAF-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 09/05/14 Pg 20 of 22 Pg ID 20
21

B. Requiring Defendants to pay damages sustained by Plaintiff and the 

Class by reason of the acts and transactions alleged herein;

C. Awarding Plaintiff and the other members of the Class prejudgment 

and post-judgment interest, as well as their reasonable attorneys’ fees, expert fees 

and other costs; and

D. Awarding such other and further relief as this Court may deem just 

and proper.

DEMAND FOR TRIAL BY JURY

Plaintiff hereby demands a trial by jury.

Dated: September 5, 2014 

Respectfully submitted,

POMERANTZ LLP

/s/ Jeremy A. Lieberman 

Jeremy A. Lieberman

Gustavo F. Bruckner

Francis P. McConville

600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor

New York, New York 10016

Telephone: (212) 661-1100

Facsimile: (212) 661-8665

E-mail: jalieberman@pomlaw.com

gfbruckner@pomlaw.com

fmcconville@pomlaw.com

2:14-cv-13459-BAF-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 09/05/14 Pg 21 of 22 Pg ID 21
22

POMERANTZ LLP

Patrick V. Dahlstrom

Ten South LaSalle Street, Suite 3505

Chicago, Illinois 60603

Telephone: (312) 377-1181

Facsimile: (312) 377-1184

E-mail: pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com

CAFFERTY CLOBES MERIWETHER 

& SPRENGEL LLP

Patrick E. Cafferty

101 North Main Street, Suite 565

Ann Arbor, MI 48104

Telephone: (734)769-2144

Facsimile: (734) 769-1207

E-mail: pcafferty@caffertyclobes.com

Mich. Bar No. P35613

Attorneys for Plaintiff

 

2:14-cv-13459-BAF-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 09/05/14 Pg 22 of 22 Pg ID 22