Securities

Insurance

Consumer

Antitrust

Securities

Other

Join the mailing list

June 9, 2008 – Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP (“Coughlin Stoia”) (http://www.csgrr.com/cases/franklinbank/) today announced that a class action has been commenced on behalf of an institutional investor in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas on behalf of purchasers of Franklin Bank Corp. (“Franklin”) (NASDAQ:FBTX) common stock during the period between April 26, 2007 and May 1, 2008 (the “Class Period”).

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than 60 days from June 6, 2008. If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions concerning this notice or your rights or interests, please contact plaintiff’s counsel, Darren Robbins of Coughlin Stoia at 800/449-4900 or 619/231-1058, or via e-mail at djr@csgrr.com. If you are a member of this class, you can view a copy of the complaint as filed or join this class action online at http://www.csgrr.com/cases/franklinbank/. Any member of the purported class may move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member.

The complaint charges Franklin and certain of its officers and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Franklin operates as the bank holding company for Franklin Bank, S.S.B. (the “Bank”), a savings bank that provides community banking products and services, and commercial banking services to corporations and other business clients, and originates single family residential mortgage loans primarily in Texas.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants issued materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company’s business and financial results. As a result of defendants’ false statements, Franklin’s stock traded at artificially inflated prices during the Class Period, reaching a high of $16.89 per share in May 2007. While Franklin’s stock was inflated due to defendants’ improper accounting and false assurances about its business, defendants completed a $25 million secondary offering of the Company’s stock.

On March 14, 2008, Franklin filed with the SEC a Form NT 10-K to reflect the anticipated delay in filing its Form 10-K due to possible accounting, disclosure and other issues related to single-family residential mortgages and residential real estate owned (“REO”) that could affect Franklin’s 2007 financial statements.

Then, on May 1, 2008, after the market closed, Franklin issued a press release stating that the Bank had submitted to the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (the “FDIC”) its call report for the quarter ended March 31, 2008. In addition, the Bank also submitted to the FDIC amended call reports for the periods ended September 30, 2007 and December 31, 2007. Based on Franklin’s ongoing review and evaluation of its 2007 financial statements, certain changes to the Bank’s previously submitted call reports were necessary. On this news, Franklin’s stock dropped from $1.72 per share on May 1, 2008 to $1.29 per share on May 2, 2008, and to $1.03 per share by May 5, 2008.

According to the complaint, the true facts, which were known by the defendants but concealed from the investing public during the Class Period, were as follows: (a) defendants’ assets contained tens of millions of dollars worth of impaired and risky securities, many of which were backed by mortgage loans; (b) defendants failed to properly account for Franklin’s mortgage-related assets, failing to adequately reflect impairment in the loans; (c) defendants had not properly accounted for single family loans serviced by third parties that became delinquent; and (d) Franklin’s call reports filed with the FDIC beginning with the September 2007 quarter, at the latest, and its Form 10-Q for the September 2007 quarter were in error due to the Company’s failure to properly account for losses on mortgage loans and REO properties.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers of Franklin common stock during the Class Period (the “Class”). The plaintiff is represented by Coughlin Stoia, which has expertise in prosecuting investor class actions and extensive experience in actions involving financial fraud.

Coughlin Stoia, a 190-lawyer firm with offices in San Diego, San Francisco, Los Angeles, New York, Boca Raton, Washington, D.C., Philadelphia and Atlanta, is active in major litigations pending in federal and state courts throughout the United States and has taken a leading role in many important actions on behalf of defrauded investors, consumers, and companies, as well as victims of human rights violations. The Coughlin Stoia Web site (http://www.csgrr.com) has more information about the firm.