|
|
|
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP Files Class Action Suit
Class Action |
2012/01/26 12:40
|
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP today announced that a class action has been commenced on behalf of an institutional investor in the United States District Court for the District of Kansas on behalf of purchasers of Collective Brands, Inc. common stock during the period between December 1, 2010 and May 24, 2011.
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 Robbins Geller at 800/449-4900 or 619/231-1058, or via e-mail at djr@rgrdlaw.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.rgrdlaw.com/cases/collectivebrands/. Any member of the putative 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 Collective Brands and certain of its officers and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Collective Brands is the holding company for three lines of business: Payless ShoeSource (“Payless”), Collective Brands Performance + Lifestyle Group (“PLG”), and Collective Licensing. The Company was formerly known as Payless ShoeSource, Inc. and changed its name to Collective Brands in August 2007.
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, Collective Brands stock traded at artificially inflated prices during the Class Period, reaching a high of $23.44 per share on February 18, 2011.
On May 24, 2011, after the market closed, the Company announced its financial results for its first fiscal quarter ended April 30, 2011. The Company reported earnings of $26.4 million or $0.42 diluted earnings per share for the first quarter, which was nearly 50% less than the $0.82 diluted earnings per share expected by analysts. The Company further reported that net sales declined 1.1% to $869.0 million, due in substantial part to the Company’s 7.4% comparable store sales decline in its Payless domestic segment, offset by sales growth of 22.5% in PLG. On this news, Collective Brands stock collapsed $3.06 per share to close at $15.31 per share on May 25, 2011, a one-day decline of nearly 17%.
According to the complaint, the true facts, which were known by defendants but concealed from the investing public during the Class Period, were as follows: (a) the Company’s inventory level for Payless remained at excessively high levels and aging inventory for its Payless segment was a concern; (b) sales at the Company’s flagship Payless stores were significantly worse than expected due to deteriorating customer demand; and (c) the Company was forced to mark down Payless’s bloated inventory at significant discounts, which adversely affected the Company’s margins and financial results for its first quarter.
Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers of Collective Brands common stock during the Class Period (the “Class”). The plaintiff is represented by Robbins Geller, which has expertise in prosecuting investor class actions and extensive experience in actions involving financial fraud.
http://www.rgrdlaw.com |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Class action or a representative action is a form of lawsuit in which a large group of people collectively bring a claim to court and/or in which a class of defendants is being sued. This form of collective lawsuit originated in the United States and is still predominantly a U.S. phenomenon, at least the U.S. variant of it. In the United States federal courts, class actions are governed by Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule. Since 1938, many states have adopted rules similar to the FRCP. However, some states like California have civil procedure systems which deviate significantly from the federal rules; the California Codes provide for four separate types of class actions. As a result, there are two separate treatises devoted solely to the complex topic of California class actions. Some states, such as Virginia, do not provide for any class actions, while others, such as New York, limit the types of claims that may be brought as class actions. They can construct your law firm a brand new website, lawyer website templates and help you redesign your existing law firm site to secure your place in the internet. |
Law Firm Directory
|
|
Legal News RSS Feed
