Like some editors we know, many judges have a sore spot for disorganized, confusing or wordy complaints. As we reported earlier this year, Seattle federal district court Judge Marsha Pechman didn’t much care for how Bernstein Litowitz Berger and Grossmann presented their allegations in a 388-page complaint against various former Washington Mutual officers and directors, underwriters and the auditing firm Deloitte & Touche. But she apparently liked the revision. In a decision issued on Tuesday, Pechman allowed most of the claims to move forward and declined to dismiss any of the defendants from the case.

The allegations in the case center on Washington Mutual’s residential lending practices. The plaintiffs contend that the bank’s standards were relaxed to meet consumer demand and bolster the company’s stock price. While Pechman found the first complaint “verbose” and “disorganized,” she described the allegations in the 267-page amended complaint as “cogent and concise.”

This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.

To view this content, please continue to their sites.

Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Why am I seeing this?

LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.

For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]