Case Page

 

Case Status:    ONGOING    
On or around 12/01/2014 (Ongoing date of last review)

Filing Date: September 17, 2014

According to the law firm press release, Lumber Liquidators is one of the largest retailers of hardwood flooring in North America. The Company prides itself on its commitment to in-stock inventory levels and a focused supply chain that allow it to consistently meet customers' expectations.

As alleged in the Complaint, Defendants misrepresented that quality control requirements implemented by Lumber Liquidators would neither affect its extensive and diverse supplier network, nor impact its revenue, earnings, or margins. In addition, Lumber Liquidators continually touted that it would continue to experience revenue and earnings growth and margin expansion. As a result of these misrepresentations, Lumber Liquidators stock traded at artificially inflated prices during the Class Period.

On July 9, 2014, the Company announced poor financial results, which it attributed to lower than planned inventory levels stemming from production delays as Lumber Liquidators enhanced its quality assurance requirements. Lumber Liquidators also revealed that heavy discounting during the Class Period caused margins to contract in the second quarter compared to the same quarter in 2013. These disclosures caused a material decline in the price of Lumber Liquidators stock.

COMPANY INFORMATION:

Sector: Services
Industry: Retail (Home Improvement)
Headquarters: United States

SECURITIES INFORMATION:

Ticker Symbol: LL
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: E.D. Virginia
DOCKET #: 14-CV-01227
JUDGE: Hon. Anthony J Trenga
DATE FILED: 09/17/2014
CLASS PERIOD START: 11/25/2013
CLASS PERIOD END: 07/09/2014
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP (New York, NY)
    1285 Avenue of the Americas, 33rd Floor, Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP (New York, NY), NY 10019
    212.554.1400 212.554.1444 · blbg@blbglaw.com
  2. Law Offices of Susan R. Podolsky
    1800 Diagonal Road, Suite 600, Law Offices of Susan R. Podolsky, VA 22314
    571.366.1702 703.647.6009 ·
No Document Title Filing Date