Rigrodsky & Long, P.A. announces that a complaint has been filed in the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut on behalf of all persons or entities that purchased the securities of Blyth, Inc. (“Blyth” or the “Company”) (NYSE: BTH) between March 14, 2012 and November 6, 2012, inclusive, (the “Class Period”), alleging violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against the Company, certain of its officers and directors (the “Complaint”).
If you purchased shares of Blyth during the Class Period 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 firstname.lastname@example.org, or at: http://www.rigrodskylong.com/investigations/blyth-inc-bth.
Blyth, a Delaware corporation headquartered in Greenwich, Connecticut, is a direct to consumer business focused on direct selling and direct marketing channels. The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company’s business operations, financial condition and prospects. Specifically, the Complaint alleges that the defendants failed to disclose that the Company would not be able to complete the announced initial public offering (“IPO”) for ViSalus, Inc. (“ViSalus”), a wholly-owned subsidiary of Blyth. As a result of defendants’ false and misleading statements, the Company’s stock traded at artificially inflated prices during the Class Period.
According to the Complaint, the Company acquired a 57.5% equity interest ViSalus in a two phase takeover that was completed in April 2011. On March 14, 2012, the Company announced that Blyth’s FY 2012 earnings would increase 39% over FY 2011 earnings, citing a purported strong “growth in ViSalus.” Again, in May and August of 2012, Defendants increased Blyth’s FY 2012 earnings guidance by approximately 10% each time, again citing purported strong performance in its ViSalus unit.
On August 16, 2012, Blyth announced that the Company planned to spinoff ViSalus by selling $175 million of its ViSalus stock through an IPO. Certain other shareholders of ViSalus, including defendant Robert B. Goergen, planned to sell in the IPO as well. Blyth would continue to own more than 50% of ViSalus post-IPO, but conducting the IPO would relieve the Company from the obligation to purchase the remaining shares of ViSalus it did not already own.
The Company cancelled the ViSalus IPO on September 26, 2012. In a press release issued that same day, the Company stated that “ViSalus has achieved Net Sales growth in excess of 450% in the first half of 2012; however, management believes that current market conditions are not conducive to recognizing this level of achievement.” Though shares in Blyth were negatively affected by this news, the stock price remained artificially inflated due to the misleading information regarding ViSalus’ strong operating and business metrics previously released by the Company.
The market would finally learn on November 2, 2012, that ViSalus’ sales had indeed significantly declined and would further learn on November 6, 2012, after the close of trading, that cancelling the IPO had also a dramatic negative impact on investors, costing them $0.12 per share. Finally, the Company issued a press release on November 6, 2012 updating its 2012 earnings guidance. Reported earnings per share was now expected to be $2.28 - $2.43 compared to prior guidance of reported earnings per share of $2.47 - $2.62. On this news, shares in Blyth declined almost 8%, closing at $17.54 per share on November 7, 2012, on high trading volume.
If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than January 14, 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.