Lieff Cabraser Announces Class Action Litigation Against Conn’s, Inc. - CONN
The law firm of Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP announces that
action litigation has been brought on behalf of those who purchased the
common stock and/or call options or sold/wrote the put options of
The law firm of Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP announces that class action litigation has been brought on behalf of those who purchased the common stock and/or call options or sold/wrote the put options of Conn’s, Inc. (“Conn’s” or the “Company”) (NasdaqGS: CONN), between April 3, 2013 and February 19, 2014, inclusive (the “Class Period”). If you purchased the common stock and/or call options or sold/wrote the put options of Conn’s during the Class Period, you may move the Court for appointment as lead plaintiff by no later than May 5, 2014. A lead plaintiff is a representative party who acts on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. Your share of any recovery in the action will not be affected by your decision of whether to seek appointment as lead plaintiff. You may retain Lieff Cabraser, or other attorneys, as your counsel in the action. Conn’s investors who wish to learn more about the action and how to seek appointment as lead plaintiff should click here or contact Sharon M. Lee of Lieff Cabraser toll-free at 1-800-541-7358. Background on the Conn’s Securities Class Litigation The actions charge Conn’s and certain of its officers and directors with violations of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934. Conn’s, based in The Woodlands, Texas, is a specialty retailer of home appliances, furniture, mattresses, and consumer electronics, and a provider of consumer credit. The actions allege that during the Class Period, defendants issued false and misleading statements or failed to disclose material adverse facts regarding Conn’s business and prospects. Specifically, defendants allegedly misrepresented and failed to disclose that (1) the Company was increasing its business and financial results by using underwriting and collections practices that weakened Conn’s portfolio quality and left it vulnerable to substantial increases in bad debt; (2) Conn’s was experiencing rising delinquencies at a substantially different rate than it was representing to public; and (3) Conn’s credit segment practices substantially threatened the Company’s financial performance.