According to the law firm press release, Conn’s, based in The Woodlands, Texas, is a specialty retailer of home appliances, furniture, mattresses and consumer electronics and a provider of consumer credit. For the twelve months ended January 31, 2013, the Company financed approximately 70.9% of its retail sales, including down payments, under Conn’s in-house financing plan.
The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants issued false and misleading statements or failed to disclose adverse facts regarding Conn’s business and prospects, including the extent to which Conn’s growth was attributable to utilizing underwriting and collections practices that weakened its portfolio quality and left it susceptible to substantial increases in bad debt, and that Conn’s faced increased delinquency and charge off rates in its credit segment. As a result of the defendants’ false statements, Conn’s stock traded at artificially inflated levels throughout the Class Period, reaching a high of $79.24 per share on December 26, 2013.
On February 20, 2014, the Company issued a press release announcing preliminary fourth quarter fiscal 2014 results and updating its fiscal 2015 earnings guidance. The press release revealed that the Company’s “[c]redit segment provision for bad debts as a percentage of the average outstanding portfolio balance is expected to exceed previously issued full-year fiscal 2014 guidance,” and that the “percentage of the customer portfolio balance 60-plus days delinquent was 8.8% at January 31, 2014, an increase of 30 basis points from October 31, 2013.” In the press release, the Company also revealed that it was lowering its recently issued fiscal 2015 earnings guidance. On this news, the price of Conn’s common stock fell $23.91 per share, or almost 43%, on extremely heavy trading volume.
On June 3, 2014, the Court issued an Order consolidating related cases, appointing lead plaintiff, and approving the selection of lead counsel. Lead plaintiffs filed a consolidated and amended complaint on July 21.
On October 29, 2014, a Second Amended Consolidated Complaint was filed.
On April 10, 2015, a Third Amended Consolidated Complaint was filed.
On July 21, 2015, a Fourth Amended Consolidated Complaint was filed.
On May 5, 2016, the Court issued an Order granting in part and denying in part Defendant's Motion to Dismiss.