According to the law firm press release, Target operates general merchandise discount stores throughout the U.S. The Company sells a wide variety of household essentials, music and movies, electronics, clothing, and other items, through its traditional stores, its website, and via direct shipment from vendors or third-parties. The Company distributes its merchandise through a network of distribution centers that rely on sophisticated supply chain management infrastructure and information technology systems.
On January 13, 2011, Target announced that it would expand its retail operations into Canada, with plans to open between 100 and 150 stores in the country during 2013 and 2014. Beginning on February 27, 2013, and continuing through the Class Period, Defendants repeatedly offered positive statements concerning Target’s current and projected operations in Canada. In part because of the purported success that Target was slated to achieve during fiscal 2013 in its Canadian segment, Defendants also provided the Company’s shareholders with strong financial and operational guidance for fiscal 2013. As a result of these misrepresentations, Target stock traded at artificially inflated prices during the Class Period.
Unbeknownst to investors, Target’s Canadian expansion encountered operational problems from the start. On May 20, 2014, prior to the trading session, news reports circulated that Target had fired the Company’s president of Canadian operations, confirming that the string of weak results from Target’s Canadian operations preceding the termination were not simply growing pains associated with normal store openings, but rather due to significant undisclosed operational issues. Eventually, after the Class Period on January 15, 2015, Target revealed the Company would discontinue its Canadian operations and that Target Canada Co. had filed for bankruptcy protection in Canada. Each of these disclosures caused a material decline in the price of Target stock.
On September 15, 2016, the Court issued an Order consolidating related actions, and appointing Lead Plaintiff and Lead Counsel. Lead Plaintiff filed a consolidated complaint on November 14.
On July 31, 2017, the court issued an Order granting Defendants' Motion to Dismiss. Lead Plaintiff filed a Motion for reconsideration on August 29. On March 19, 2018, the Court issued an Order denying Plaintiff's Motion for reconsideration. Lead Plaintiff filed a Notice appealing the Court's decision on April 18. On April 10, 2020, the Court of Appeals issued an Order affirming the judgment of the District Court.