|[February 06, 2013]
Rigrodsky & Long, P.A. Announces A Securities Fraud Class Action Lawsuit Has Been Filed Against Cirrus Logic, Inc.
WILMINGTON, Del. --(Business Wire)--
& Long, P.A. announces that a complaint has been filed in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on
behalf of all persons or entities that purchased the common stock of
Cirrus Logic (News - Alert), Inc. ("Cirrus" or the "Company") (NASDAQ GS: CRUS)
between July 31, 2012 and October 31, 2012 (the "Class Period"),
alleging violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against the
Company and certain of its officers (the "Complaint").
If you purchased shares of Cirrus during the Class Period, or purchased
shares prior to the Class Period and still hold Cirrus, and wish to
discuss this action or have any questions concerning this notice or your
rights or interests, please contact Timothy
J. MacFall, Esquire or Peter Allocco of Rigrodsky & Long, P.A., 825
East Gate Boulevard, Suite 300, Garden City, NY at (888) 969-4242, by
e-mail to email@example.com,
or at: http://www.rigrodskylong.com/investigations/cirrus-logic-inc-crus.
Cirrus develops high-precision, analog and missed-signal integrated
circuits ("ICs") for a broad range of audio and enegy markets. The
Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, defendants made
materially false and misleading statements, and omitted materially
adverse facts, about the Company's business, operations and prospects.
Specifically, the Complaint alleges that: (a) Cirrus' dependence on
Apple (News - Alert) for revenues was increasing not diminishing; (b) Cirrus' sales
growth was falling rather than increasing; (c) Difficulties in Cirrus'
supply chain and at its vendors were increasing costs and diminishing
the Company's profit margins going forward; (d) The launch of several
models of Cirrus' new LED lighting had been delayed; and (e) as a
result, Defendants knew Cirrus' increased FY13 guidance was not
attainable. As a result of defendants' false and misleading statements,
the Company's stock traded at artificially inflated prices during the
Class Period. Several Cirrus senior executives capitalized on these
inflated prices, selling more than $11 million of the Company's shares
during the Class Period.
According to the Complaint, after the close of trading on July 30, 2012,
Cirrus issued a press release which stated, in pertinent part, that
Defendants then "expect[ed] FY13 to be an outstanding year for Cirrus
Logic and our long term shareholders." As to the 2Q13 "Business
Outlook," the press release stated that "Revenue [was] expected to range
between $170 million and $190 million," up seventy percent sequentially
and handsomely beating current analyst consensus estimates of $129.65
million. The Company also announced in the press release that gross
margin, which Cirrus emphasized had come in at 54% in the 1Q13, was then
expected to come in "between 52 percent and 54 percent" in the 2Q13.
However, on October 31, 2012, Cirrus shocked the market by issuing
significantly lower guidance for FY13 than the market had been led to
expect. In its letter to shareholders issued that evening, Cirrus noted
that it was modeling revenue for the 4Q13 to be down 15% sequentially,
citing the "cyclical nature of [its] business." The Company also noted
that it then expected gross margins in the 3Q13 to come in "between 50
percent and 52 percent" and to remain in the low 50% range for
the foreseeable future, "due primarily to a combination of product mix
and increased pricing pressure." On this news, shares in Cirrus fell
over 11%, closing at $36.14 per share on November 1, 2012, from a close
of $40.78 per share on October 31, 2012, on volume of over 17 million
If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later
than April 5, 2013. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on
behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. In order to
be appointed lead plaintiff, the Court must determine that the class
member's claim is typical of the claims of other class members, and that
the class member will adequately represent the class. Your ability to
share in any recovery is not, however, affected by the decision whether
or not to serve as a lead plaintiff. Any member of the proposed class
may move the court to serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of their
choice, or may choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member.
& Long, P.A. did not file the Complaint in this matter, the
firm, with offices in Wilmington, Delaware and Garden City, New York, regularly
litigates securities class, derivative and direct actions, shareholder
rights litigation and corporate governance litigation, including
claims for breach of fiduciary duty and proxy violations in the Delaware
Court of Chancery and in state and federal courts throughout the United
Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.
[ Back To Technology News's Homepage ]