Case Page

 

Case Status:    ONGOING    
On or around 07/29/2015 (Ongoing date of last review)

Filing Date: February 18, 2011

According to the complaint filed February 18, 2011, the complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants made false and misleading statements concerning demand for the Company’s consumer electronics product offerings and the Company’s true financial condition. Specifically, the complaint alleges that the following facts were known to defendants or deliberately disregarded during the Class Period: (a) demand for Best Buy consumer electronics product offerings was weak or declining and could not support the Company’s aggressive fiscal year (“FY”) 2011 sales, revenue, and earnings forecasts; (b) the Company’s FY 2011 earnings forecast could not be achieved without substantial earnings management and, in particular, a sharp reduction and curtailment of SG&A expenses and aggressive share repurchases which reduced the Company’s outstanding shares and increased reported earnings; and (c) despite defendants’ statements to the contrary, and because of weak sales demand known to defendants or deliberately disregarded, as of September 14, 2010, the Company was not “on track to deliver and exceed [its] annual EPS guidance” of $3.70 per share.

On December 14, 2010, the Company reported its third quarter 2011 financial results. According to the complaint, the Company reported that as product sales it knew to be weak or declining even as early as June 2010 had continued across the board, it had missed Wall Street revenue expectations by a wide margin, reporting $0.54 per share, compared to Wall Street consensus estimates of $0.61. In addition, as a result of weak sales demand and despite the increased FY 2011 earnings forecast in September 2010, the Company slashed its FY 2011 earnings forecast of $3.55-$3.70 to $3.20-$3.40 – well below even the initial FY 2011 earnings forecasts set in March 2010. Finally, the Company disclosed that it had repurchased 11 million shares in the quarter, for atotal of more than 31 million shares repurchased during the first three quarters of FY 2011, which would have a $0.12 per share positive impact on the reduced FY 2011 EPS forecast of $3.20-$3.40. On this news there was an immediate and massive sell off of the Company’s shares on December 14, 2010, and a stock price decline of 22% from a Class Period high of $45.63 per share to close at $35.52 per share on December 14, 2010.

On June 7, 2011, the Court entered the Order consolidating two related actions and appointing Marion Haynes as lead plaintiff. The law firms of Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP and Head, Seifert & Vander Weide, P.A. are hereby appointed as Lead and Liaison Counsel, respectively. On July 22, 2011, the plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss on September 20th.

On March 20, 2012, the Court entered the Order granting defendants' motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' amended complaint with prejudice.

According to the Order of this Court entered on October 22, 2012, the judgment in this case is vacated and the Plaintiffs are given leave to file an amended complaint. On October 29, 2012, the Plaintiffs filed their amended complaint.

On August 5, 2013, the Court issued a Memorandum and Order granting in part and denying in part Defendants' Motion to Dismiss.

On August 6, 2014, the Court issued an Order granting Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification.

COMPANY INFORMATION:

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

SECURITIES INFORMATION:

Ticker Symbol: BBY
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: D. Minnesota
DOCKET #: 11-CV-00429
JUDGE: Hon. Paul A. Magnuson
DATE FILED: 02/18/2011
CLASS PERIOD START: 09/14/2010
CLASS PERIOD END: 12/13/2010
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Head, Seifert & Vander Weide
    333 South Seventh Street, Suite 1140, Head, Seifert & Vander Weide, MN 55402
    612-339-1601 ·
  2. Marion & Conroy LLC
    301 Wharton St., Marion & Conroy LLC, PA 19147
    (215) 462-3200 ·
  3. 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 ·
  4. Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP (San Francisco)
    100 Pine Street, Suite 2600, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP (San Francisco), CA 94111
    415.288.4545 415.288.4534 ·
No Document Title Filing Date
COURT: D. Minnesota
DOCKET #: 11-CV-00429
JUDGE: Hon. Paul A. Magnuson
DATE FILED: 07/22/2011
CLASS PERIOD START: 09/14/2010
CLASS PERIOD END: 12/13/2010
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP (San Francisco)
    100 Pine Street, Suite 2600, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP (San Francisco), CA 94111
    415.288.4545 415.288.4534 ·
No Document Title Filing Date
No Document Title Filing Date