Processing your request


please wait...

Case Page

 

Case Status:    ONGOING    
On or around 06/07/2019 (Ongoing date of last review)

Filing Date: June 07, 2019

According to the Complaint, Ascena is a leading national specialty retailer of apparel for women and tween girls. In August 2015, Ascena completed the acquisition of Ann Inc., the parent company of Ann Taylor and LOFT.

The Complaint alleges that during the Class Period, Defendants made materially misleading statements and/or failed to disclose adverse information regarding Ascena’s business and operations. Specifically, the Complaint alleges Defendants failed to disclose that the Ann Acquisition was a complete disaster for the Company as Ann’s operations were in far worse condition than had been represented to the public; that, in order to mask the true condition of Ann, Defendants improperly delayed recognizing an impairment charge to the value of Ann’s goodwill and, as a result, Ascena’s reported income and assets were materially overstated and the Company’s financial results were not prepared in conformity with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (“GAAP”); and that many of the brands acquired in the Ann Acquisition were in steep decline and were also materially overvalued on Ascena’s Class Period financial statements.

COMPANY INFORMATION:

Sector: Consumer Cyclical
Industry: Apparel/Accessories
Headquarters: United States

SECURITIES INFORMATION:

Ticker Symbol: ASNA
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.
COURT: D. New Jersey
DOCKET #: 19-CV-13529
JUDGE: Hon. Kevin McNulty
DATE FILED: 06/07/2019
CLASS PERIOD START: 09/16/2015
CLASS PERIOD END: 06/08/2017
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Johnson Fistel, LLP (Marietta)
    40 Powder Springs Street, Johnson Fistel, LLP (Marietta), GA 30064
    770.200.3104 770.200.3104 ·
  2. Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP (Melville)
    58 South Service Road, Suite 200, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP (Melville), NY 11747
    631.367.7100 631.367.1173 ·
  3. Seeger Weiss LLP (Newark)
    550 Broad Street, Seeger Weiss LLP (Newark), NJ 07102
    973.639.9100 · info@seegerweiss.com
No Document Title Filing Date
—Reference Complaint Complaint Related Data is not available
—Related District Court Filings Data is not available