WILMINGTON, Del.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Rigrodsky & 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, 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”).
“Revenue [was] expected to range between $170 million and $190 million”
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 energy 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 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 shares.
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.
While Rigrodsky & 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 States.
Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.