This securities fraud lawsuit alleges that executives at Pier 1 Imports systemically understated the cost to move into online retail channels and systemically overstated forecasted future revenues.
What investors are part of this class action? This case covers all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired shares of Pier 1 from December 19, 2013 through February 10, 2015 inclusive (the "Class Period"). Pier 1 Imports, Inc. common stock trades on the NYSE under the symbol PIR.
Procedural Status: The lawsuit was filed on August 27, 2015 and is captioned Kenney v. Pier 1 Imports, Inc. et al. It was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas. Its civil docket number os 3:15cv02798. The lead plaintiff deadline is October 26, 2015.
Pier 1 Imports is a retailer of decorative home furnishings and gifts imported from locations around the globe. The company maintains over 1,000 physical stores in the U.S. and Cananda. In December of 2013, the company announced improvements in its financial condition and its plans to launch a new business initiative aimed at blending e-commerce functions and in-store purchasing to build a unified experience for customers and boost overall sales figures. In subsequent months, however, it is alleged that Pier 1 engaged in the making of false and misleading statements and failed to provide investors and the public with the truth about its true business prospects and financial condition. Specifically, it is alleged that:
- on December 19, 2013, the company announced improvements in it financial condition, touting "solid third quarter fiancial results" and the "resounding success" and strong future prospects of its e-commerce initiatives,
- in April of 2014, the company promoted additional success of its "1 Pier 1" strategy, citing increased website traffic and sales;
- on July 19, 2014, the company issued a press release heralding further sales growth and projecting e-commerce sales of at least $200 million in fiscal year 2015 and $400 million in fiscal year 2016, respectively, and
- the company made a series of Form 10-Q filings with the SEC in which it repeated the claims previously made to the public.
However, roughly two weeks before the company's year end, Pier 1 shocked investors iwth the news of reduced financial guidance for the 2015 fiscal year, cited softer than anticipated sales in the prior two months, discussed unplanned supply chain costs and the unexpected "retirement" of veteran Chief Financial Officer Charles H. Turner. These revelations caused shares of Pier 1 to drop to $12.84, a decrease of nearly 25% on trading of over 36 million shares.
The plaintiff in this case alleges that as a result of Pier 1's violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5, company stock traded at artificially inflated prices during the Class Period, causing herself and other Class Members significant losses and damages.