Case Page

 

Case Status:    DISMISSED    
On or around 11/10/2010 (Court's order of dismissal)

Filing Date: July 17, 2009

The complaint charges Bare Escentuals and certain of its executives with violations of the Exchange Act. Bare Escentuals, together with its subsidiaries, engages in the development, marketing, and sale of cosmetics, and skin care and body care products under bareMinerals, RareMinerals, Buxom, and md formulations brands worldwide.

The complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, defendants failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company’s true financial condition, business and prospects. Specifically, the complaint alleges that defendants failed to disclose the following adverse facts, among others: (i) that the Company’s infomercial business was not performing according to internal expectations and would need to be substantially revamped; (ii) that the Company’s new infomercial had led to an immediate decrease in sales and was not performing to internal expectations; and (iii) as a result, the Company’s growth rate would be slowing from historical growth rates.

On August 1, 2007, Bare Escentuals announced its financial results for the second quarter of fiscal 2007, the period ended July 1, 2007. That same day, the Company held a conference call with investors and analysts to discuss the Company’s earnings and operations, during which it was revealed that its infomercial sales were weakening. In response to this announcement, the price of Bare Escentuals common stock fell $3.55 per share, or approximately 13%, to close at $24.75 per share, on extremely heavy trading volume.

On October 31, 2007, Bare Escentuals announced its financial results for the third quarter of fiscal 2007, the period ended September 30, 2007. Following the press release, the Company held a conference call with investors and analysts to discuss the Company’s earnings and operations, during which it was revealed that the Company had seen continued weakness in its infomercial business. In response to this announcement, the price of Bare Escentuals common stock fell $2.24 per share, or approximately 8%, to close at $24.70 per share, on extremely heavy trading volume.

Then, on November 26, 2007, the Company announced that President of Wholesale Sales Diane Miles had resigned to “pursue other opportunities, effective immediately,” which resulted in shares of the Company’s stock falling $3.42 per share over the next two trading days, to close at $19.75 per share on November 28, 2007.

On October 15, 2009, Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton granted the motion to consolidate several actions and granted the motion to appoint Westmoreland County Retirement System and Vincent J. Takas as lead plaintiffs and Scott & Scott LLP as lead counsel. On December 23, 2009, the lead plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Complaint adding directors and underwriters of the company as named defendants as well as certain additional claims. On February 11, 2010, the plaintiffs filed a Corrected Consolidated Complaint, correcting the class end date. On February 26, 2010, the defendants filed two motions to dismiss. On September 30, 2010, Judge Hamilton granted in part and denied in part the motion to dismiss.

The plaintiffs have elected not to file an amended complaint. On November 10, 2010, Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton signed the Stipulation and Order of Dismissal and Final Judgment. The lead plaintiffs and the defendants agree that this action is dismissed with prejudice.

COMPANY INFORMATION:

Sector: Consumer Non-Cyclical
Industry: Personal & Household Products
Headquarters: United States

SECURITIES INFORMATION:

Ticker Symbol: BARE
Company Market: NASDAQ
Market Status: Public (Listed)

About the Company & Securities Data


"Company" information provides the industry and sector classification and headquarters state for the primary company-defendant in the litigation. In general, "Securities" information provides the ticker symbol, market, and market status for the underlying securities at issue in the litigation.

In most cases, the primary company-defendant actually issued the securities that are the subject of the litigation, and the securities information and company information relate to the same entity. In a small subset of cases, however, the primary company-defendant is not the issuer (for example, cases against third party brokers/dealers), and the securities information and company information do not relate to the same entity.
COURT: N.D. California
DOCKET #: 09-CV-03268
JUDGE: Hon. Phyllis J. Hamilton
DATE FILED: 07/17/2009
CLASS PERIOD START: 11/07/2006
CLASS PERIOD END: 11/26/2007
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Bisceglie & De Marco, LLC
    365 Rifle Camp Road, Bisceglie & De Marco, LLC, NJ 07424
    973/742-8900 973/742-8394 ·
  2. Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP (Melville)
    58 South Service Road, Suite 200, Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP (Melville), NY 11747
    631.367.7100 631.367.1173 · info@csgrr.com/
  3. Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP (San Francisco)
    100 Pine Street, Suite 2600, Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP (San Francisco), CA 94111
    415.288.4545 415.288.4534 ·
No Document Title Filing Date
COURT: N.D. California
DOCKET #: 09-CV-03268
JUDGE: Hon. Phyllis J. Hamilton
DATE FILED: 02/11/2010
CLASS PERIOD START: 09/28/2006
CLASS PERIOD END: 10/30/2008
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Scott & Scott LLC (Connecticut)
    P.O. Box 192, 108 Norwich Avenue, Scott & Scott LLC (Connecticut), CT 06415
    860.537.5537 860.537.4432 · scottlaw@scott-scott.com
  2. Scott & Scott LLP (San Diego)
    600 B Street, Suite 1500, Scott & Scott LLP (San Diego), CA 92101
    619.233.4565 619.233.4565 · scottlaw@scott-scott.com
No Document Title Filing Date
No Document Title Filing Date