This account is pending registration confirmation. Please click on the link within the confirmation email previously sent you to complete registration. Need a new registration confirmation email? Click here
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP (“Robbins Geller”) (
http://www.rgrdlaw.com/cases/westernunion/) today announced that a class action has been commenced on behalf of an institutional investor in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado on behalf of purchasers of The Western Union Company (“Western Union” or the “Company”) (NYSE:WU) common stock during the period between February 7, 2012 and October 30, 2012, inclusive (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
email@example.com. 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/westernunion/. 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 Western Union and certain of its officers and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Western Union, headquartered in Englewood, Colorado, is a provider of money movement and payment services worldwide.
The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants issued materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company’s financial performance and future prospects, including failing to disclose that Western Union: (a) was experiencing difficulties complying with its increased compliance duties required by its Southwest Border Agreement with the state of Arizona, which was to crack down on illegal money laundering practices between the states along the U.S. and Mexican border; (b) was spending significantly more than forecast on its efforts to satisfy the Southwest Border Agreement compliance and monitoring program; (c) had downplayed the impact that changes in its compliance and regulatory environment were having on the Company’s operations during the Class Period, including its operations in Mexico and Latin America; and (d) was under competitive pricing pressure to charge a premium for its core money transfer product.