Cirrus Logic, Inc. Summary: According to the law firm press release, Cirrus develops high-precision, analog and mixed-signal integrated circuits (“ICs”) for a broad range of audio and energy markets, including consumer and commercial audio, automotive entertainment, and targeted industrial and energy-related applications.
The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants issued materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company’s financial performance and future prospects. According to the complaint, the true facts, which were known or recklessly disregarded by each of the defendants but concealed from the investing public during the Class Period, were as follows: (i) Cirrus’s dependence on Apple, Inc. (its biggest customer) for revenues was increasing rather than diminishing; (ii) Cirrus’s sales growth was falling rather than increasing; (iii) difficulties in Cirrus’s supply chain and at its vendors were increasing costs and diminishing the Company’s profit margins going forward; (iv) the launch of several models of Cirrus’s new LED lighting had been delayed; and (v) as a result, defendants knew Cirrus’s increased fiscal 2013 guidance was not attainable.
According to the complaint, on October 31, 2012, after the close of trading, Cirrus shocked the market by issuing significantly lower guidance for fiscal 2013 than the market had been led to expect, modeling revenues to be down 15% sequentially for its 2013 fourth quarter. In response to the Company’s announcement, the complaint alleges that the price of Cirrus stock fell precipitously.
On April 19, 2013, the Court issued an Order appointing lead plaintiff and approving the selection of lead counsel. On May 1, a Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint was filed by the lead plaintiff.
SIC Code: 3674
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