Case Page

 

Case Status:    DISMISSED    
On or around 01/03/2013 (Court's order of dismissal)

Filing Date: July 30, 2012

According to the Complaint, defendants had begun opening kiosks in Target stores to sell wireless products and had entered into a relationship with Verizon Wireless, the largest wireless provider, to sell Verizon wireless products.

The Complaint alleges that defendants knew, but did not accurately and timely disclose during the Class Period, the devastating adverse impact this corporate strategy was having and would continue to have throughout the Class Period on RadioShack's net income. In an attempt to cover-up the true financial realities facing the company, Defendants repeatedly emphasized returning value to the Shareholders by funding the stock repurchase program and the solid dividends. Unfortunately, both of these avenues had to be abruptly halted when the Defendants recognized their business model was a failure and they needed to save cash.

On October 19, 2012, the Court issued an Order appointing lead plaintiff and approving the selection of lead counsel.

On November 27, 2012, the Court issued an Order transferring this case to the Northern District of Texas.

On December 17, 2012, the Court issued an Order consolidating cases. Member case 4:12-cv-884-A was consolidated with lead case 4:12-cv-883-A.

On January 3, 2013, the Court issued an Order dismissing this case without prejudice, as a result of a draft of a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal sent to the Court by the plaintiff. On the same date, the Court issued a Final Judgment.

COMPANY INFORMATION:

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

SECURITIES INFORMATION:

Ticker Symbol: RSH
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 #: 12-CV-05825
JUDGE: Hon. Paul G. Gardephe
DATE FILED: 07/30/2012
CLASS PERIOD START: 07/26/2011
CLASS PERIOD END: 07/24/2012
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Abbey Spanier Rodd & Abrams, LLP (New York)
    212 East 39th Street, Abbey Spanier Rodd & Abrams, LLP (New York), NY 10016
    212-889-3700 212-684-519 · info@abbeyspanier.com
  2. Deborah H. Gross
    1515 Locust Street, 2nd Floor, Deborah H. Gross, PA 19102
    215.561.3600 ·
No Document Title Filing Date
COURT: N.D. Texas
DOCKET #: 12-CV-00883
JUDGE: Hon. Paul G. Gardephe
DATE FILED: 12/10/2012
CLASS PERIOD START:
CLASS PERIOD END:
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Levi & Korsinsky, LLP
    30 Broad Street, 15 1h Floor, Levi & Korsinsky, LLP, NY 10004
    212.363.7500 212.363-7171 ·
No Document Title Filing Date