Company and Case Information

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


Big Lots, Inc.
Summary: According to the law firm press release, the complaint charges Big Lots and certain of its officers and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Big Lots, through its wholly owned subsidiaries, operates as a broadline closeout retailer in the United States and Canada.

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, Big Lots stock traded at artificially inflated prices during the Class Period, reaching a high of $46.81 per share on March 27, 2012.

On April 23, 2012, after the market closed, Big Lots issued a press release announcing updates to its first quarter 2012 retail sales guidance. The Company forecast a decline in first-quarter same-store sales, slightly negative in comparison to its prior guidance, which estimated a comparable stores sales increase of 2% to 4%. In particular, the Company’s consumables business declined significantly. On this news, Big Lots stock collapsed $11 per share to close at $34.71 per share on April 24, 2012, a one-day decline of 24% on volume of 13.2 million shares.

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) Big Lots’ consumables line (consisting of household, beauty and health items), which represented a third of Big Lots’ business, was deteriorating; and (b) the Company’s electronic products business was being adversely affected as shoppers were increasingly looking at online deals for these big ticket products, which adversely affected the Company’s margins and prospects.

On March 05, 2013, the Court Granted the Motion for Appointment of Lead Plaintiff and Approval of Lead Plaintiffs’ Selection of Lead Counsel.

On April 4, 2013, the plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint for Violations of The Federal Securities Laws against the defendants.

INDUSTRY CLASSIFICATION:
SIC Code: 5331
Sector: Services
Industry: Retail (Specialty)


COMPANY/ISSUER NAME: Big Lots, Inc.
COMPANY/ISSUER TICKER: BIG
COMPANY WEBSITE: http://www.biglots.com

FIRST IDENTIFIED COMPLAINT IN THE DATABASE
Alan Willis, et al. v. Big Lots, Inc., et al.
 COURT: S.D. Ohio  DOCKET NUMBER: 12-CV-00604
 JUDGE NAME: Hon. Gregory L Frost
 DATE FILED: 07/09/2012  SOURCE: 
 CLASS PERIOD START: 02/02/2012  CLASS PERIOD END: 04/23/2012
 TYPE OF COMPLAINT: Complaint (Unamended and Unconsolidated)
 PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  • Chapin Fitzgerald Sullivan & Bottini LLP
      550 West C Street, Suite 2000, San Diego , CA, 92101
       (voice) 619-241-4810 , (fax) ,
  • Murray Murphy Moul + Basil LLP
      1533 Lake Shore Drive, Columbus, OH, 43204
       (voice) 614.488.0400, (fax) 614.488.0401, murphy@mrnmb.com
  • Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP (San Diego)
      655 West Broadway, Suite 1900, San Diego, CA, 92101
       (voice) 619.231.1058, (fax) 619.231.7423,
    _____________________________________________
     TOTAL NUMBER OF PLAINTIFF FIRMS:  3

  •  DOCUMENTS FOR THE FIRST IDENTIFIED COMPLAINT
    Complaint for Violation of the Federal Securities Laws
    Type: Brief Date on the document: 07/09/2012
    U.S. District Court Civil Docket
    Type: Docket Date on the document: 07/09/2012
    Order Appointing Lead Plaintiff and Approving Lead and Liaison Counsel
    Type: Order Date on the document: 03/05/2013

    REFERENCE COMPLAINT
    Alan Willis, et al. v. Big Lots, Inc., et al.
     COURT: S.D. Ohio  DOCKET NUMBER: 12-CV-00604
     JUDGE NAME: 
     DATE FILED: 04/04/2013  SOURCE: 
     CLASS PERIOD START: 02/02/2012  CLASS PERIOD END: 08/23/2012
     TYPE OF COMPLAINT: First Amended
     PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  • Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP (Melville)
      58 South Service Road, Suite 200, Melville, NY, 11747
       (voice) 631.367.7100, (fax) 631.367.1173,
    _____________________________________________
     TOTAL NUMBER OF PLAINTIFF FIRMS:  1

  •  DOCUMENTS FOR THE REFERENCE COMPLAINT
    Class Action
    Type: Complaint Date on the document: 04/04/2013
    U.S. District Court Civil Docket
    Type: Docket Date on the document: 04/08/2013

     OTHER DOCUMENTS
    Case Name and/or Number: 
    Type:  Date on the document: 

    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