Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP Files Class Action
Legal Marketing
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP today announced that a class action has been commenced in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of purchasers of the common stock of Aeropostale, Inc. between February 3, 2011 and August 3, 2011, inclusive (the “Class Period”).
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, Samuel H. Rudman or David A. Rosenfeld 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/aeropostale/. 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 Aeropostale and certain of its officers and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Aeropostale operates as a mall-based specialty retailer of casual apparel and accessories. It designs, markets, and sells merchandise principally targeting 14 to 17 year-old women and men.
The complaint alleges that, during the Class Period, defendants issued materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company’s business and prospects. Specifically, defendants misrepresented and/or failed to disclose the following adverse facts: (i) that Aeropostale was experiencing declining demand for its women’s fashion division, which makes up 70% of the Company’s sales; (ii) that Aeropostale was enduring pressure on its profit margins as a result of increasing inventory and higher discounts on its clothing; and (iii) that, as a result of the foregoing, defendants lacked a reasonable basis for their positive statements about the Company and its prospects.
On August 4, 2011, Aeropostale provided a business update for the second quarter of 2011. For the quarter, the Company reported net sales of $468.2 million, a decrease of 5% from the second quarter of 2010, and expected net earnings to be in the range of $0.02 to $0.03 per share – well below the Company’s guidance of $0.11 to $0.16 per share. In reaction to the Company’s announcement, on August 4, 2011, the price of Aeropostale stock fell $3.99 per share, or 24%, to close at $12.53 per share, on extremely heavy trading volume.
Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers of Aeropostale 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.
Robbins Geller, a 180-lawyer firm with offices in San Diego, San Francisco, New York, Boca Raton, Washington, D.C., Philadelphia and Atlanta, is active in major litigations pending in federal and state courts throughout the United States and has taken a leading role in many important actions on behalf of defrauded investors, consumers, and companies, as well as victims of human rights violations. The Robbins Geller Web site (http://www.rgrdlaw.com) has more information about the firm.
Related listings
-
Scott Cole & Associates Announces Update for Class Action
Legal Marketing 10/06/2011According to Scott Cole, within days of being hit with a class action lawsuit for failing to offer meal and rest breaks to its California workforce, Guitar Center fired the man who pioneered the lawsuit and allowed its workers to parade the named pla...
-
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP Files Class Action
Legal Marketing 09/26/2011Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP announced that a class action has been commenced in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado on behalf of a proposed class of Allos Therapeutics, Inc. shareholders who held Allos common stock ...
-
2 Attorneys From Girard Gibbs Selected to Best Lawyers in America 2012
Legal Marketing 09/25/2011Girard Gibbs LLP (www.GirardGibbs.com) announced today that two attorneys in the firm’s San Francisco office were recently selected by their peers for inclusion in The Best Lawyers in America® 2012 (Copyright 2011 by Woodward/White, Inc., of Aiken, S...
Workers’ Compensation Subrogation of Administrative Fees and Costs
When a worker covered by workers’ compensation makes a claim against a third party, the workers’ compensation insurance retains the right to subrogate against any recovery from that third party for all benefits paid to or on behalf of a claimant injured at work. When subrogating for more than basic medical and indemnity benefits, the Texas workers’ compensation subrogation statute provides that “the net amount recovered by a claimant in a third‑party action shall be used to reimburse the carrier for benefits, including medical benefits that have been paid for the compensable injury.” TX Labor Code § 417.002.
In fact, all 50 states provide for similar subrogation. However, none of them precisely outlines which payments or costs paid by a compensation carrier constitute “compensation” and can be recovered. The result is industry-wide confusion and an ongoing debate and argument with claimants’ attorneys over what can and can’t be included in a carrier’s lien for recovery purposes.
In addition to medical expenses, death benefits, funeral costs and/or indemnity benefits for lost wages and loss of earning capacity resulting from a compensable injury, workers’ compensation insurance carriers also expend considerable dollars for case management costs, medical bill audit fees, rehabilitation benefits, nurse case worker fees, and other similar fees. They also incur other expenses in conjunction with the handling and adjusting of workers’ compensation claims. Workers’ compensation carriers typically assert, of course, that, they are entitled to reimbursement for such expenditures when it recovers its workers’ compensation lien. Injured workers and their attorneys disagree.