Case Page

 

Case Status:    DISMISSED    
On or around 11/30/2012 (Date of order of final judgment)

Filing Date: November 09, 2009

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.

On November 30, 2012, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the Northern District of Texas' dismissal order in this case.

COMPANY INFORMATION:

Sector: Services
Industry: Retail (Specialty)
Headquarters: United States

SECURITIES INFORMATION:

Ticker Symbol: ZLC
Company Market: New York SE
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. Texas
DOCKET #: 09-CV-02133
JUDGE: Hon. Jorge A Solis
DATE FILED: 11/09/2009
CLASS PERIOD START: 11/16/2006
CLASS PERIOD END: 10/29/2009
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP (Los Angeles)
    1801 Ave. of the Stars, Suite 311, Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP (Los Angeles), CA 90067
    310.201.915 310. 201-916 · info@glancylaw.com
  2. Kendall Law Group, LLP
    3232 McKinney, Ste 700, Kendall Law Group, LLP, TX 75204
    214.744.3000 214.744.3000 ·
  3. Law Offices of Howard G. Smith
    3070 Bristol Pike, Suite 112, Law Offices of Howard G. Smith, PA 19020
    215.638.4847 215.638.4867 ·
No Document Title Filing Date
COURT: N.D. Texas
DOCKET #: 09-CV-02133
JUDGE: Hon. Jorge A Solis
DATE FILED: 05/23/2011
CLASS PERIOD START: 11/16/2006
CLASS PERIOD END: 10/29/2009
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP (San Diego)
    655 West Broadway, Suite 1900, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP (San Diego), CA 92101
    619.231.1058 619.231.7423 ·
No Document Title Filing Date
No Document Title Filing Date
No Document Title Filing Date