Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP Files Class Action Suit Against Cirrus Logic, Inc.

Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP (“Robbins Geller”) ( http://www.rgrdlaw.com/cases/cirrus/) today announced that a class action has been commenced in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of all persons or entities who purchased the common stock of Cirrus Logic, Inc. (“Cirrus” or the “Company”) (Nasdaq:CRUS) between July 31, 2012 and October 31, 2012 (the “Class Period”).

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than 60 days from today. If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions concerning this notice or your rights or interests, please contact plaintiff’s counsel, Samuel H. Rudman or David A. Rosenfeld of Robbins Geller at 800/449-4900 or 619/231-1058, or via e-mail at [e-mail]. If you are a member of this class, you can view a copy of the complaint as filed or join this class action online at http://www.rgrdlaw.com/cases/cirrus/. Any member of the putative 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.

The complaint charges Cirrus and certain of its officers and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Cirrus develops high-precision, analog and mixed-signal integrated circuits (“ICs”) for a broad range of audio and energy markets, including consumer and commercial audio, automotive entertainment, and targeted industrial and energy-related applications.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants issued materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company’s financial performance and future prospects. According to the complaint, the true facts, which were known or recklessly disregarded by each of the defendants but concealed from the investing public during the Class Period, were as follows: (i) Cirrus’s dependence on Apple, Inc. (its biggest customer) for revenues was increasing rather than diminishing; (ii) Cirrus’s sales growth was falling rather than increasing; (iii) difficulties in Cirrus’s supply chain and at its vendors were increasing costs and diminishing the Company’s profit margins going forward; (iv) the launch of several models of Cirrus’s new LED lighting had been delayed; and (v) as a result, defendants knew Cirrus’s increased fiscal 2013 guidance was not attainable.

1 2 Next › Last »