Back

Silvergate Capital Corporation

Case Details

Class Period: November 9, 2021 - November 17, 2022
Date Filed: December 07, 2022
Case Number: 3:22cv01936
Jurisdiction: Southern District of California
icon-casetype Case Type: Securities Case

Case Summary

On November 15, 2022, Marcus Aurelius Research tweeted that “Recently subpoenaed Silvergate bank records reveal $425 million in transfers from $SI crypto bank accounts to South American money launderers. Affadavit from investigation into crypto crime ring linked to smugglers/drug traffickers.”

On this news, the Company’s Class A common stock price fell $6.13, or 17%, to close at $29.36 per share on November 15, 2022, on unusually heavy trading volume.

On November 17, 2022, The Bear Cave newsletter released an article about several companies with potential exposure to recently collapsed cryptocurrency exchange FTX, including Silvergate. The article highlighted the connection linking Silvergate to a money laundering operation that transferred $425 million off cryptocurrency trading platforms.

On this news, the Company’s Class A common stock price fell $3.00, or 10.7%, to close at $24.90 per share on November 18, 2022, 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’s platform lacked sufficient controls and procedures to detect instances of money laundering; (2) that Silvergate’s customers had engaged in money laundering in amounts exceeding $425 million; (3) that, as a result of the foregoing, the Company was reasonably likely to receive regulatory scrutiny and face damages, including penalties and reputational harm; and (4) that, as a result of the foregoing, Defendant’s positive statements about the Company’s business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

Documents
Complaint