Rigrodsky & Long, P.A. Announces A Securities Fraud Class Action Lawsuit Has Been Filed Against Walter Investment Management Corp.

Rigrodsky & Long, P.A.:

• Do you, or did you, own shares of Walter Investment Management Corp. (NYSE: WAC)?
• Did you purchase your shares before May 9, 2012, or between May 9, 2012 and June 6, 2013, inclusive?
• Did you lose money in your investment in Walter Investment Management Corp.?
• Do you want to discuss your rights?

Rigrodsky & Long, P.A., including former Special Assistant United States Attorney, Timothy J. MacFall, announces that a complaint has been filed in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida on behalf of all persons or entities that purchased the common stock of Walter Investment Management Corp. (“Walter Investment” or the “Company”) (NYSE: WAC) between May 9, 2012 and June 6, 2013, inclusive (the “Class Period”), alleging violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against the Company and certain of its officers (the “Complaint”).

If you purchased shares of Walter Investment during the Class Period, or purchased shares prior to the Class Period and still hold Walter Investment, and wish to discuss this action or have any questions concerning this notice or your rights or interests, please contact Timothy J. MacFall, Esquire or Peter Allocco of Rigrodsky & Long, P.A., 825 East Gate Boulevard, Suite 300, Garden City, NY at (888) 969-4242, by e-mail to info@rl-legal.com, or at: http://www.rigrodskylong.com/investigations/walter-investment-management-corp-wac.

Walter Investment is a fee-based business services provider to the residential mortgage industry. The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, defendants made materially false and misleading statements, and omitted materially adverse facts, about the Company’s business, operations and prospects. Specifically, the Complaint alleges that the defendants concealed from the investing public that: (1) the Company lacked adequate internal controls over financial accounting; (2) the Company’s internal controls were not effective; (3) the Company’s financial statements contained false and misleading statements; (4) the Company had failed to disclose material weaknesses in the internal controls of Reverse Mortgage Solutions, Inc. (“RMS”); (5) the Company had overstated the value of its recent acquisition, RMS; and (6) as a result of the foregoing, the Company’s statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. As a result of defendants’ false and misleading statements, the Company’s stock traded at artificially inflated prices during the Class Period. During this time, Company insiders utilized these inflated prices to sell over $6.9 million worth of their Company shares.

According to the Complaint, on November 7, 2012, the Company announced that it had completed the acquisition of RMS, a mortgage company with a similar business model to Walter Investment, for consideration of approximately $120 million, $95 million of which was cash consideration and the remainder with 891,265 of the Company’s shares.

On March 18, 2013, the Company shocked investors by disclosing, based on an evaluation by the Company’s Board of Directors and management, that a material weakness had been identified in the Company’s internal control over financial reporting. On this news, shares in Walter Investment dropped more than 20%, closing at $32.98 per share on March 19, 2013, on heavy trading volume of over 9 million shares.

The Company addressed the totality of the weaknesses in its financial reporting practices on June 6, 2013. Among other things, the Company stated that as a result of “a failure to record certain estimated liabilities to investors relating the servicing errors by RMS . . . the RMS Historical Financial Statements, and the related report of RMS’ historical independent registered public accounting firm, should no longer be relied upon, and should be restated to reflect the error described above.”

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than September 23, 2013. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. In order to be appointed lead plaintiff, the Court must determine that the class member’s claim is typical of the claims of other class members, and that the class member will adequately represent the class. Your ability to share in any recovery is not, however, affected by the decision whether or not to serve as a lead plaintiff. Any member of the proposed 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.

While Rigrodsky & Long, P.A. did not file the Complaint in this matter, the firm, with offices in Wilmington, Delaware and Garden City, New York, regularly litigates securities class, derivative and direct actions, shareholder rights litigation and corporate governance litigation, including claims for breach of fiduciary duty and proxy violations in the Delaware Court of Chancery and in state and federal courts throughout the United States.

Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.