Lawsuit Overview
Settlement Overview
You must register to view and download the Settlement Notice and Settlement Proof.
November 30, 2020 - The court was notified that a settlement in principle in this case was reached.
July 2, 2020 - An amended complaint was filed. November 15, 2019 - An investor in shares of Armstrong Flooring, Inc. (NYSE: AFI) filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California over alleged violations of Federal Securities Laws by Armstrong Flooring, Inc. in connection with certain allegedly false and misleading statements made between March 6, 2018 and November 4, 2019.
Lancaster, PA based Armstrong Flooring, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, designs, manufactures, sources, and sells resilient flooring products for use primarily in the construction and renovation of commercial, residential, and institutional buildings in North America and the Pacific Rim. Armstrong Flooring, Inc. reported that its annual Total Revenue declined from over $1.13 billion in 2017 to $782.2 million in 2018 and that its Net Loss increased from $41.8 million in 2017 to $163.00 million in 2018.
On November 5, 2019, Armstrong Flooring, Inc reported $165.6 million net sales for third quarter 2019, a nearly 21% decline year-over-year, and a net loss of $31.4 million. Armstrong Flooring, Inc also cut its full year 2019 guidance for adjusted EBITDA to a range of $20 million to $25 million, from prior guidance range of $46 million to $54 million. Shares of Armstrong Flooring, Inc. (NYSE: AFI) declined from $20.46 per share in September 2018 to as low as $3.58 per share on November 5, 2019.
According to the complaint the plaintiff alleges on behalf of purchasers of Armstrong Flooring, Inc. (NYSE: AFI) common shares between March 6, 2018 and November 4, 2019, that the defendants violated Federal Securities Laws.
More specifically, the plaintiff claims that between March 6, 2018 and November 4, 2019, the Defendants failed to disclose to investors that the Company had engaged in channel stuffing to artificially boost sales, that the Company’s internal control over inventory levels was not effective, and that, as a result of the foregoing, Defendants’ positive statements about the Company’s business, operations, and prospects, were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.