Anixter International Inc. ("Anixter" or the Company) is an American company that distributes network and security, electrical, and utility power products.

According to a press release dated September 11, 2009, the Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made numerous positive statements regarding the Company's financial condition, business and prospects. The Complaint further alleges that these statements were materially false and misleading because Defendants failed to disclose the following adverse facts, among others: (i) that the Company was in a pricing dispute with one of its Original Equipment Manufacturer (“OEM”) customers, which would cost the Company approximately $3 million; (ii) that the Company was experiencing a decrease in sales in the European and Asian markets due to decreased demand for the Company’s products; (iii) that the Company was experiencing operating margin pressure due to slower sales in its OEM supply business, which traditionally produce higher operating margins; and (iv) as a result of the foregoing, Defendants lacked a reasonable basis for their positive statements about the Company and its prospects.

On October 21, 2008, Anixter announced its financial results for the third quarter of 2008, the period ending September 26, 2008. For the quarter, the Company reported sales of $1.59 billion and net income of $61.7 million, or $1.58 per diluted share. In response to this announcement, the price of Anixter common stock fell $18.76 per share, or approximately 40%, over the next five trading days, to close at $29.06 per share, on October 27, 2008, on heavy trading volume.

On November 18, 2009, the Court entered the Minute Entry before the Honorable Robert M. Dow, Jr. The Indiana Laborers Pension Fund has been appointed lead Plaintiff and lead Plaintiff’s selection of lead and liaison Counsel was approved. Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP was appointed lead Counsel for the class and Lasky & Rifkind, Ltd. was appointed liaison Counsel. Plaintiff was given until January 6, 2010 to file a consolidated Complaint. On January 6, 2010, the Plaintiffs filed an Amended Class Action Complaint. On February 19, 2010, the Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint.

On March 31, 2011, the Court entered the Memorandum Opinion and Order, Defendants’ motion to dismiss was granted and Plaintiffs Complaint is dismissed without prejudice. Plaintiffs were given 28 days to replead if they believe that they can cure the deficiencies.

On April 28, 2011, the Plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Complaint. The Defendants responded by filing a motion to dismiss on May 26, 2011.

On March 29, 2012, the Court entered the Memorandum Opinion and Order, Defendants’ motion to dismiss was granted and Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint was dismissed with prejudice.