On or around 03/03/2020 (Date of last review)
Filing Date: May 22, 2019
According to the Complaint, PriceSmart owns and operates membership-shopping warehouse clubs in Central America, the Caribbean, and Colombia.
The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company’s business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, the Complaint alleges Defendants failed to disclose to investors: (1) that the Company’s omni-channel business strategy had failed to reach key operating goals; (2) that the Company’s South America distribution strategy had failed to realize key cost saving goals; (3) that the Company had invested Trinidad and Tobago dollars into certificates of deposits with financial institutions; (4) that these investments had been improperly classified as cash and cash equivalents; (5) that the relevant corrections would materially impact financial statements; (6) that there was a material weakness in the Company’s internal controls over financial reporting; (7) that increasing competition negatively impacted the Company’s revenue and profitability; and (8) that, as a result of the foregoing, Defendants’ positive statements about the Company’s business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.
On October 7, 2019, the Court issued an Order appointing Lead Plaintiff and Counsel. Lead Plaintiff filed a consolidated Complaint on January 3, 2020.
Company & Securities Information
Defendant: PriceSmart, Inc.
Industry: Retail (Department & Discount)
Headquarters: United States
Ticker Symbol: PSMT
Company Market: NASDAQ
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.
First Identified Complaint
Max Morris Harari, et al. v. PriceSmart, Inc., et al.
COURT: S.D. California
DOCKET #: 19-CV-00958
JUDGE: Hon. Jeffrey T. Miller
DATE FILED: 05/22/2019
CLASS PERIOD START: 10/26/2017
CLASS PERIOD END: 10/25/2018
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP
First Identified Complaint (FIC) Filings:
Class Action Complaint for Violations of the Federal Securities Laws
U.S. District Court Civil Docket
Order (1) Granting Motion for Appointment as Lead Plaintiff, and (2) Approving Choice of Counsel