Zale Corporation - Securities Class Action

Company and Case Information

IMPORTANT INFORMATION | INDEX OF FILINGS | SEARCH

Home

Index of Filings

News and Press Releases

Filings

Decisions

Settlements

Litigation Activity Indices

Top Ten List

Annual/Quarterly Updates

Clearinghouse Research

Articles & Papers

Search

Related Sites

About Us

Local Rules

Sponsors

Register

_______________
Copyright (c) 2001
Stanford Law School

Zale Corporation Summary: According to the complaint filed November 09, 2009, throughout the Class Period, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose: (1) that the Company improperly recorded certain advertising costs as prepaid advertising rather than recording the cost as an expense; (2) that the Company improperly accounted for intercompany accounts receivable associated with its wholly owned insurance subsidiaries; (3) that, as a result, the Company’s financial results were overstated during the Class Period; (4) that the Company’s financial results were not prepared in accordance with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (“GAAP”); (5) that the Company lacked adequate internal and financial controls; and (6) that, as a result of the above, the Company's financial statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

On June 10, 2010, the Court issued an Order Consolidating Actions, Appointing Lead Plaintiff and Approving Selection of Counsel.

On August 9, 2010, a Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint for Violations of the Federal Securities Laws against the defendants was filed by the lead plaintiffs.

On April 7, 2011, the Court granted the Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss. The Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint was dismissed without prejudice.

On May 23, 2011, the plaintiffs filed an Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint.

According to a press release dated August 2, 2011, Weil, Gotshal and Manges helped secure dismissal, with prejudice, of a purported shareholder’s class action brought against jewelry retailer Zale Corporation and certain of its officers and directors in federal court in Texas. ... In her ruling on the Zale defendants’ motion, issued August 1, 2011, US District Judge Jane L. Boyle found that the accounting problems that led to the restatement were more the result of the former executive trying to meet a department budget rather than an attempt to “initiate companywide fraud.” She agreed with defendants that, because plaintiffs had failed to plead scienter with respect to the action of the former executive, who was later fined by the SEC over the alleged accounting problems, scienter could not, therefore, be imputed onto the corporation or any of the individual defendants.

On August 30, 2011, the plaintiff filed a motion to alter or amend the judgment entered on August 2, 2011. The motion was denied by Judge Jane J. Boyle on August 31, 2011.

On September 29, 2011, the plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.

INDUSTRY CLASSIFICATION:
SIC Code: 5944
Sector: Services
Industry: Retail (Specialty)

COMPANY/ISSUER NAME:	Zale Corporation
COMPANY/ISSUER TICKER:	ZLC
COMPANY WEBSITE:	http://www.zalecorp.com

FIRST IDENTIFIED COMPLAINT IN THE DATABASE

Bill Rains, et al. v. Zale Corporation, et al.

COURT: N.D. Texas	DOCKET NUMBER: 09-CV-02133
JUDGE NAME: Hon. Jorge A Solis
DATE FILED: 11/09/2009	SOURCE:
CLASS PERIOD START: 11/16/2006	CLASS PERIOD END: 10/29/2009
TYPE OF COMPLAINT: Complaint (Unamended and Unconsolidated)
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP (Los Angeles) 1801 Ave. of the Stars, Suite 311, Los Angeles, CA, 90067 (voice) 310.201.915, (fax) 310. 201-916, info@glancylaw.com Kendall Law Group, LLP 3232 McKinney, Ste 700, Dallas, TX, 75204 (voice) 214.744.3000, (fax) 214.744.3000, Law Offices of Howard G. Smith 3070 Bristol Pike, Suite 112, Bensalem, PA, 19020 (voice) 215.638.4847, (fax) 215.638.4867, _____________________________________________ TOTAL NUMBER OF PLAINTIFF FIRMS: 3

DOCUMENTS FOR THE FIRST IDENTIFIED COMPLAINT
Class Action Complaint For Violations Of The Federal Securities Laws
Type: Complaint		Date on the document: 11/09/2009
Order Consolidating Actions, Appointing Lead Plaintiff And Approving Selection Of Counsel
Type: Order of Consolidation		Date on the document: 06/10/2010
U.S. District Court Civil Docket
Type: Docket		Date on the document: 10/12/2010

REFERENCE COMPLAINT

In re Zale Corporation Securities Litigation

COURT: N.D. Texas	DOCKET NUMBER: 09-CV-02133
JUDGE NAME:
DATE FILED: 05/23/2011	SOURCE:
CLASS PERIOD START: 11/16/2006	CLASS PERIOD END: 10/29/2009
TYPE OF COMPLAINT: First Amended and Consolidated
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP (Los Angeles) 1801 Ave. of the Stars, Suite 311, Los Angeles, CA, 90067 (voice) 310.201.915, (fax) 310. 201-916, info@glancylaw.com _____________________________________________ TOTAL NUMBER OF PLAINTIFF FIRMS: 1

DOCUMENTS FOR THE REFERENCE COMPLAINT
Consolidated Class Action Complaint For Violations Of The Federal Securities Laws And Jury Demand
Type: Complaint		Date on the document: 08/09/2010
Order
Type: Order		Date on the document: 04/07/2011
Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint For Violations Of The Federal Securities Laws And Jury Demand
Type: Complaint		Date on the document: 05/23/2011
Final Judgment
Type: Summary Judgment		Date on the document: 08/01/2011
Memorandum Opinion And Order
Type: Order		Date on the document: 08/01/2011
U.S. District Court Civil Docket
Type: Docket		Date on the document: 08/31/2011
Lead Plaintiff's Notice of Appeal
Type: Notice		Date on the document: 09/29/2011

OTHER DOCUMENTS
Class Action Complaint for Violation of the Federal Securities Laws - Demand for Jury Trial
Case Name and/or Number: Brian A. Lawyer, et al. v. Zale Corporation, et al.
Type: Complaint		Date on the document: 11/19/2009

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

�