Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP (“Robbins Geller”) ( http://www.rgrdlaw.com/cases/urbanoutfitters/) today announced that a class action has been commenced in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf of purchasers of Urban Outfitters, Inc. (“Urban Outfitters”) (NASDAQ:URBN) common stock during the period between March 12, 2013 and September 9, 2013 (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/urbanoutfitters/. 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 Urban Outfitters and certain of its officers and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Urban Outfitters engages in the retail and wholesale of general consumer products in the United States, targeting the younger millennial age demographic. The complaint alleges that, during the Class Period, defendants issued materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company’s financial performance and future prospects and/or failed to disclose the following adverse facts: (a) Urban Outfitters’ comparable sales growth had significantly declined, particularly in its all-important Urban Outfitters group; (b) as a results of declining sales, Urban Outfitters was forced to offer an additional 30% off all clearance items during Labor Day weekend 2013, something it had not been forced to do during the prior year Labor Day weekend; and (c) as a result of the foregoing, the Company was not on track to achieve the financial results defendants had led the market to expect during the Class Period.