NEW YORK, Aug. 22, 2013 /PRNewswire/ -- Pomerantz Grossman Hufford Dahlstrom & Gross LLP announces the filing of a class action lawsuit against Furniture Brands International, Inc. ("FBN" or the "Company") (NYSE: FBN) and certain of its officers. The class action, filed in United States District Court, Eastern District of Missouri, on behalf of a class consisting of all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired securities of FBN between February 13, 2013 and August 5, 2013 both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"). This class action seeks to recover damages against the Company and certain of its officers and directors as a result of alleged violations of the federal securities laws pursuant to Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.
If you are a shareholder who purchased FBN securities during the Class Period, you have until October 15, 2013 to ask the Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class. A copy of the Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com. To discuss this action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at firstname.lastname@example.org or 888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll free, x237. Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their mailing address, telephone number, and number of shares purchased.
FBN manufactures and distributes residential furniture. The Company's products include stationary upholstery products, occasional furniture, recliners and sleep sofas. The Company's trade names include, among others, Thomasville, Broyhill, Lane, and Drexel Heritage.
The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, throughout the Class Period, Defendants made false and misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (a) the Company was experiencing weaknesses in its wholesale business; (b) the Company's trade names were being carried at inflated values that would require material impairments; (c) the Company was experiencing severe liquidity issues; (d) and based upon the above, the Defendants lacked a reasonable basis for their positive statements about the Company during the Class Period.