Rigrodsky & Long, P.A. Announces A Securities Fraud Class Action Lawsuit Has Been Filed Against Cirrus Logic, Inc.

  Rigrodsky & Long, P.A. Announces A Securities Fraud Class Action Lawsuit Has
  Been Filed Against Cirrus Logic, Inc.

Business Wire

WILMINGTON, Del. -- February 6, 2013

Rigrodsky & Long, P.A. announces that a complaint has been filed in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of all
persons or entities that purchased the common stock of Cirrus Logic, Inc.
(“Cirrus” or the “Company”) (NASDAQ GS: CRUS) between July 31, 2012 and
October 31, 2012 (the “Class Period”), alleging violations of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 against the Company and certain of its officers (the
“Complaint”).

If you purchased shares of Cirrus during the Class Period, or purchased shares
prior to the Class Period and still hold Cirrus, and wish to discuss this
action or have any questions concerning this notice or your rights or
interests, please contact Timothy J. MacFall, Esquire or Peter Allocco of
Rigrodsky & Long, P.A., 825 East Gate Boulevard, Suite 300, Garden City, NY at
(888) 969-4242, by e-mail to info@rigrodskylong.com, or at:
http://www.rigrodskylong.com/investigations/cirrus-logic-inc-crus.

Cirrus develops high-precision, analog and missed-signal integrated circuits
(“ICs”) for a broad range of audio and energy markets. The Complaint alleges
that throughout the Class Period, defendants made materially false and
misleading statements, and omitted materially adverse facts, about the
Company’s business, operations and prospects. Specifically, the Complaint
alleges that: (a) Cirrus’ dependence on Apple for revenues was increasing not
diminishing; (b) Cirrus’ sales growth was falling rather than increasing; (c)
Difficulties in Cirrus’ supply chain and at its vendors were increasing costs
and diminishing the Company’s profit margins going forward; (d) The launch of
several models of Cirrus’ new LED lighting had been delayed; and (e) as a
result, Defendants knew Cirrus’ increased FY13 guidance was not attainable. As
a result of defendants’ false and misleading statements, the Company’s stock
traded at artificially inflated prices during the Class Period. Several Cirrus
senior executives capitalized on these inflated prices, selling more than $11
million of the Company’s shares during the Class Period.

According to the Complaint, after the close of trading on July 30, 2012,
Cirrus issued a press release which stated, in pertinent part, that Defendants
then “expect[ed] FY13 to be an outstanding year for Cirrus Logic and our long
term shareholders.” As to the 2Q13 “Business Outlook,” the press release
stated that “Revenue [was] expected to range between $170 million and $190
million,” up seventy percent sequentially and handsomely beating current
analyst consensus estimates of $129.65 million. The Company also announced in
the press release that gross margin, which Cirrus emphasized had come in at
54% in the 1Q13, was then expected to come in “between 52 percent and 54
percent” in the 2Q13.

However, on October 31, 2012, Cirrus shocked the market by issuing
significantly lower guidance for FY13 than the market had been led to expect.
In its letter to shareholders issued that evening, Cirrus noted that it was
modeling revenue for the 4Q13 to be down 15% sequentially, citing the
“cyclical nature of [its] business.” The Company also noted that it then
expected gross margins in the 3Q13 to come in “between 50 percent and 52
percent” and to remain in the low 50% range for the foreseeable future, “due
primarily to a combination of product mix and increased pricing pressure.” On
this news, shares in Cirrus fell over 11%, closing at $36.14 per share on
November 1, 2012, from a close of $40.78 per share on October 31, 2012, on
volume of over 17 million shares.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than
April 5, 2013. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of
other class members in directing the litigation. In order to be appointed lead
plaintiff, the Court must determine that the class member’s claim is typical
of the claims of other class members, and that the class member will
adequately represent the class. Your ability to share in any recovery is not,
however, affected by the decision whether or not to serve as a lead plaintiff.
Any member of the proposed 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.

While Rigrodsky & Long, P.A. did not file the Complaint in this matter, the
firm, with offices in Wilmington, Delaware and Garden City, New York,
regularly litigates securities class, derivative and direct actions,
shareholder rights litigation and corporate governance litigation, including
claims for breach of fiduciary duty and proxy violations in the Delaware Court
of Chancery and in state and federal courts throughout the United States.

Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.

Contact:

Rigrodsky & Long, P.A.
Timothy J. MacFall, Esquire
Peter Allocco
888-969-4242
516-683-3516
Fax: 302-654-7530
info@rigrodskylong.com
http://www.rigrodskylong.com
 
Press spacebar to pause and continue. Press esc to stop.