Guess?, Inc. - Securities Class Action

Company and Case Information

IMPORTANT INFORMATION | INDEX OF FILINGS | SEARCH

Home

Index of Filings

News and Press Releases

Filings

Litigation Activity Indices

Annual/Quarterly Updates

Clearinghouse Research

Articles & Papers

Search

Related Sites

About Us

Local Rules

Sponsors

Register

_______________
Copyright (c) 2001
Stanford Law School

Guess?, Inc. Conclusion: According to a press release dated April 5, 2002, Guess?, Inc. (NYSE:GES) announced that all pending class action and derivative shareholder lawsuits against the Company and certain of its officers and directors have been dismissed, without settlement. Goldman v. Isaacs, a shareholder derivative action filed in Delaware state court, was dismissed without prejudice in February 2002. In re Guess?, Inc. Securities Litigation, a federal class action case which resulted from the consolidation of several other class action cases, was dismissed without prejudice earlier this month. Finally, the plaintiff in Bell v. Marciano, a derivative action filed in federal district court in Los Angeles, has been voluntarily dismissed by stipulation and order by the court dated March 28, 2002. The Company is not aware of any other shareholder litigation pending against it.

The original complaint charges that Guess and certain of its officers and directors with issuing false and misleading statements concerning the Company's business and financial condition. Specifically, the complaint alleges that on November 9, 2000, after defendants had sold over $2.2 million of their own Guess shares, they revealed that Guess would earn only $0.13 per share in the 3rd Quarter fiscal 2000, compared to analysts' revised estimates of $0.33 per share. The Company would early only $0.08 per share in the 4th Quarter Fiscal 2000 compared to an estimated $0.44 per share, and for Fiscal 2001, $0.95 per share compared to $1.85 per share. Defendants also revealed that Guess would record a loss of over $4.7 million related to below cost sales of inventory, and an additional charge of $5.4 million to increase reserves for impaired or worthless inventory.

Further, the complaint alleges that on January 26, 2001, defendants issued another press release which admitted that throughout the Class Period, they had artificially and improperly inflated its earnings by failing to expense costs or record accruals relating to the value of its substantially impaired inventory. As a result of the Company's accounting improprieties, Guess was forced to restate its financial results for the 1stQ, 2ndQ and 3rdQ of Fiscal 2000.

INDUSTRY CLASSIFICATION:
SIC Code: 5621
Sector: Consumer Cyclical
Industry: Apparel/Accessories

COMPANY/ISSUER NAME:	Guess?, Inc.
COMPANY/ISSUER TICKER:	GES
COMPANY WEBSITE:	http://www.guess.com

FIRST IDENTIFIED COMPLAINT IN THE DATABASE

David Osher, et al. v. Guess?, Inc., et al.

COURT: C.D. California	DOCKET NUMBER: 01-CV-00871
JUDGE NAME: Hon. Lourdes G. Baird
DATE FILED: 01/30/2001	SOURCE: Business Wires
CLASS PERIOD START: 02/14/2000	CLASS PERIOD END: 01/26/2001
TYPE OF COMPLAINT: Unamended/Unconsolidated
PLAINTIFF FIRMS IN THIS OR SIMILAR CASE:
Berman DeValerio Pease Tabacco Burt & Pucillo (MA) One Liberty Square, Boston, MA, 2109 (voice) 617.542.8300, (fax) 617.230.0903, info@bermanesq.com Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP (San Diego, CA) 12544 High Bluff Drive, Suite 150, San Diego, CA, 92130 (voice) 858.793.0070, (fax) 858.793.0323, blbg@blbglaw.com Law Offices of Charles J. Piven, P.A. World Trade Center-Baltimore,401 East Pratt Suite 2525, Baltimore, MD, 21202 (voice) 410.332.0030, (fax) , pivenlaw@erols.com Leo W. Desmond 2161 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard, Suite 204, West Palm Beach, FL, 33409 (voice) 561.712.8000, (fax) , stocklaw@bellsouth.net Schatz & Nobel, P.C. 330 Main Street, Hartford, CT, 06106 (voice) 800.797.5499, (fax) 860.493.6290, sn06106@AOL.com Stull, Stull & Brody (New York) 6 East 45th Street, New York, NY, 10017 (voice) 310.209.2468, (fax) 310.209.2087, SSBNY@aol.com Weiss & Yourman (New York, NY) The French Building, 551 Fifth Ave., Suite 1600, New York, NY, 10126 (voice) 212.682.3025, (fax) 212.682.3010, info@wyca.com _____________________________________________ TOTAL NUMBER OF PLAINTIFF FIRMS: 7

DOCUMENTS FOR THE FIRST IDENTIFIED COMPLAINT

Type:		Date on the document:

REFERENCE COMPLAINT

In Re: Guess?, Inc. Securities Litigation

COURT: C.D. California	DOCKET NUMBER: 01-CV-00871
JUDGE NAME: Hon. Lourdes G. Baird
DATE FILED: 07/09/2001	SOURCE: Business Wires
CLASS PERIOD START: 02/14/2000	CLASS PERIOD END: 01/26/2001
TYPE OF COMPLAINT: Consolidated and/or Amended
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
Berman DeValerio Pease Tabacco Burt & Pucillo (MA) One Liberty Square, Boston, MA, 02109 (voice) 617.542.8300, (fax) , Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP (San Diego, CA) 12544 High Bluff Drive, Suite 150, San Diego, CA, 92130 (voice) 858.793.0070, (fax) 858.793.0323, blbg@blbglaw.com Cauley Geller Bowman & Coates (Boca Raton, FL) 2255 Glades Road Suite 421A, Boca Raton, FL, 33431 (voice) 561.750.3000, (fax) , Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer, LLP (New York, NY) 805 Third Avenue, 22nd Floor, New York, NY, 10022 (voice) 212.687.1980, (fax) 212.687.7714, info@kaplanfox.com Law Offices of Bruce G. Murphy 265 Llwyds Lane, Vero Beach La, FL, 32963 (voice) 561.231.4202, (fax) , Law Offices of Charles J. Piven, P.A. World Trade Center-Baltimore,401 East Pratt Suite 2525, Baltimore, MD, 21202 (voice) 410.332.0030, (fax) , pivenlaw@erols.com Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP (San Diego) 401 B Street, Suite 1700, San Diego, CA, 92101 (voice) 206.749.5544, (fax) 206.749.9978, info@lerachlaw.com Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman LLP 355 South Grand Avenue, Suite 4170, Los Angeles (Former Location), CA, 90071 (voice) 213.617.9007, (fax) 213.617.9185, info@milbergweiss.com Schiffrin & Barroway LLP 3 Bala Plaza E, Bala Cynwyd, PA, 19004 (voice) 610.667.7706, (fax) 610.667.7056, info@sbclasslaw.com Stull, Stull & Brody (Los Angeles) 10940 Wilshire Boulevard - Suite 2300, Los Angeles, CA, 90024 (voice) 310.209.2468, (fax) , _____________________________________________ TOTAL NUMBER OF PLAINTIFF FIRMS: 10

DOCUMENTS FOR THE REFERENCE COMPLAINT
Order Granting Defendants' Motion To Dismiss For Failure To State A Claim
Type: Order		Date on the document: 11/28/2001
Order Granting Stipulation to Dismiss
Type: Order		Date on the document: 03/14/2002
U.S. District Court Civil Docket
Type: Docket		Date on the document: 03/14/2002

OTHER DOCUMENTS
Class Action Complaint for Violation of Federal Securities Laws
Case Name and/or Number: Jerry Sloan, et al. v. Guess?, Inc., et al.
Type: Complaint		Date on the document: 02/06/2001

WARNING AND DISCLAIMER OF LIABILITY:
The information included on this Web site, whether provided by personnel employed by Stanford Law School or by third parties, is provided for research and teaching purposes only. Neither Stanford University, Stanford Law School, nor any of their employees, agents, contractors, or affiliates warrant the accuracy or completeness of the information or analyses displayed herein, and we caution all readers that inclusion of any information on this site does not constitute an endorsement of the truthfulness or accuracy of that information. In particular, this Web site contains complaints and other documents filed in federal and state courts, which make allegations that may or may not be accurate. No reader should, on the basis of information contained in or referenced by this Web site, assume that any of these allegations are truthful.

Go to Search page | Go to Case Index page | Back to Top

�