Securities

Insurance

Consumer

Antitrust

Securities

Other

Join the mailing list

March 12, 2008 – Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP (“Coughlin Stoia”) (http://www.csgrr.com/cases/pmi/) today announced that a class action has been commenced in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on behalf of purchasers of The PMI Group, Inc. (“PMI”) (NYSE:PMI) common stock during the period between November 2, 2006 and March 3, 2008 (the “Class Period”).

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than 60 days from today. 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/pmi/. 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 PMI and certain of its officers and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. PMI, through its subsidiaries, provides credit enhancement products designed to promote homeownership and facilitate mortgage transactions in the capital markets in the United States, Australia, New Zealand and the European Union.

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, PMI stock traded at artificially inflated prices during the Class Period, reaching its Class Period high of $50.21 per share in February 2007. Then, on March 3, 2008, after the market closed, PMI announced its preliminary fourth quarter 2007 financial results and that it would be delayed in filing its Form 10-K for year-end 2007 because it was awaiting financial information from an equity investee, FGIC Corporation (“FGIC”), that was necessary for the Company to complete its financial statements. On this news, PMI’s stock collapsed to $6.43 per share on March 4, 2008, a one-day decline of 5% and an 87% decline from its Class Period high in February 2007.

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) the Company’s investment in FGIC was materially impaired as FGIC’s bond insurance arm, Financial Guaranty, had significant exposure to defaults on bonds it insured due to the plunge in value of mortgage debt; (b) the Company was materially overstating its financial results by failing to properly value its investment in FGIC and by failing to write down that investment in a timely fashion in violation of Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (“GAAP”); (c) the Company was not adequately accounting for its loss reserves in violation of GAAP, causing its financial results to be materially misstated; (d) the Company failed to engage in proper underwriting practices for its book of business related to insurance written in 2005 through most of 2007; (e) the Company had far greater exposure to anticipated losses and defaults related to its book of business related to insurance written in 2005 through most of 2007 than it had previously disclosed; (f) given the deterioration and the increased volatility in the subprime market, the Company would be forced to tighten its standards and stop writing insurance policies to certain categories of borrowers which would have a direct material negative impact on its book of business going forward; and (g) given the increased volatility in the subprime market, the Company had no reasonable basis to make projections about its incurred losses or about its new insurance written.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers of PMI 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.