New York Community Bancorp, Inc.

On March 20, 2023, the Company’s entered into a Purchase and Assumption Agreement to acquire certain assets and assume certain liabilities of Signature Bridge Bank, N.A. (“Signature”).

On January 31, 2024, before the market opened, NYCB announced its fiscal fourth quarter 2023 financial results. The Company reported a fourth quarter net loss of $252 million due to “a $552 million provision for loan losses,” which was “primarily attributable to higher net charge-offs” and “a significant increase in the ACL [allowance for credit losses]” coverage ratio. Additionally, the Company disclosed that it would cut its quarterly dividend to $0.05 per common share. The Company further explained that these actions were “necessary enhancements” after NYCB “crossed th[e] important threshold [of becoming a $100 billion bank] sooner than anticipated as a result of the Signature transaction.” Crossing this $100 billion threshold subjected NYCB to enhanced banking standards and requirements.

On this news, NYCB’s stock price fell $3.90, or 37.57%, to close at $6.47 per share on January 31, 2024, on unusually heavy trading volume.

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: (1) that the Company was experiencing higher net charge-offs and deterioration in its office portfolio; (2) that, as a result, NYCB was reasonably likely to incur higher loan losses; (3) that, as a result of the foregoing and NYCB’s status as Category IV bank, the Company was reasonably likely to increase its allowance for credit losses; (4) that the Company’s financial results would be adversely affected; (5) that, to preserve capital, the Company would reduce quarterly common dividend to $0.05 per common share; and (6) that, as a result of the foregoing, Defendants’ positive statements about the Company’s business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.