|[November 13, 2012]
Rigrodsky & Long, P.A. Announces A Securities Fraud Class Action Lawsuit Has Been Filed Against Blyth, Inc.
WILMINGTON, Del. --(Business Wire)--
& Long, P.A. announces that a complaint has been filed in the
United States District Court for the District of Connecticut on behalf
of all persons or entities that purchased the securities of Blyth, Inc.
("Blyth" or the "Company") (NYSE: BTH)
between March 14, 2012 and November 6, 2012, inclusive, (the "Class
Period"), alleging violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
against the Company, certain of its officers and directors (the
If you purchased shares of Blyth during the Class Period 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 firstname.lastname@example.org,
or at: http://www.rigrodskylong.com/investigations/blyth-inc-bth.
Blyth, a Delaware corporation headquartered in Greenwich, Connecticut,
is a direct to consumer business focused on direct selling and direct
marketing channels. The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class
Period, defendants made materially false and misleading statements
regarding the Company's business operations, financial condition and
prospects. Specifically, the Complaint alleges that the defendants
failed to disclose that the Company would not be able to complete the
announced initial public offering ("IPO") for ViSalus, Inc. ("ViSalus"),
a wholly-owned subsidiary of Blyth. As a result of defendants' false and
misleading statements, the Company's stock traded at artificially
inflated prices during the Class Period.
According to the Complaint, the Company acquired a 57.5% equity interest
ViSalus in a two phase takeover that was completed in April 2011. On
March 14, 2012, the Company announced that Blyth's FY 2012 earnings
would increase 39% over FY 2011 earnings, citing a purported strong
"growth in ViSalus." Again, in May and August of 2012, Defendants
increased Blyth's FY 2012 earnings guidance by approximately 10% each
time, again citing purported strong performance in its ViSalus unit.
On August 16, 2012, Blyth announced that the Company planned to spinoff
ViSalus by selling $175 million of its ViSalus stock through an IPO.
Certain other shareholders of ViSalus, including defendant Robert B.
Goergen, planned to sell in the IPO as well. Blyth would continue to own
more than 50% of ViSalus post-IPO, but conducting the IPO would relieve
the Company from the obligation to purchase the remaining shares of
ViSalus it did not already own.
The Company cancelled the ViSalus IPO on September 26, 2012. In a press
release issued that same day, the Company stated that "ViSalus has
achieved Net Sales growth in excess of 450% in the first half of 2012;
however, management believes that current market conditions are not
conducive to recognizing this level of achievement." Though shares in
Blyth were negatively affected by this news, the stock price remained
artificially inflated due to the misleading information regarding
ViSalus' strong operating and business metrics previously released by
The market would finally learn on November 2, 2012, that ViSalus' sales
had indeed significantly declined and would further learn on November 6,
2012, after the close of trading, that cancelling the IPO had also a
dramatic negative impact on investors, costing them $0.12 per share.
Finally, the Company issued a press release on November 6, 2012 updating
its 2012 earnings guidance. Reported earnings per share was now expected
to be $2.28 - $2.43 compared to prior guidance of reported earnings per
share of $2.47 - $2.62. On this news, shares in Blyth declined almost
8%, closing at $17.54 per share on November 7, 2012, on high trading
If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later
than January 14, 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 ]