Rigrodsky & long, p.a. announces a securities fraud class action
lawsuit has been filed against assisted living concepts, inc.
Wilmington, del.--(business wire)--rigrodsky & long, p.a. announces that a complaint has been filed in the united states district court for the eastern district of wisconsin on behalf of all persons or entities that purchased the securities of assisted living concepts, inc. (“alc” or the “company”) (nyse: alc) between march 12, 2011 and august 6, 2012, inclusive (the “class period”), alleging violations of the securities exchange act of 1934 against the company and certain of its officers and directors (the “complaint”). if you purchased shares of alc 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 info@rigrodskylong.com, or at: http://www.rigrodskylong.com/investigations/assisted-living-concepts-inc-alc. alc, a nevada corporation headquartered in menomonee, wisconsin, and its subsidiaries operate 211 senior living residences in 20 states in the united states. 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 company was in breach of the terms of its lease with ventas realty, limited partnership (“ventas”). 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, in january 2008, alc acquired eight facilities leased from ventas. under the terms of the lease with ventas (the “ventas lease”), alc was obligated to maintain an overall occupancy rate of at least 82%. in addition, the ventas lease required alc to maintain all regulatory licenses required to operate the leased facilities for their intended use. in its quarterly and annual filing with the u.s. securities and exchange commission (“sec”), the company stated that it was in compliance with all occupancy and operating covenants under the ventas lease, and it acknowledged that any default under the “operating and occupancy covenants” in such lease “could have a material adverse impact on our operations.” however, according to the complaint, there was substantial evidence that during the class period, ventas withheld information from its investors about the company being in breach of the ventas lease’s minimum occupancy covenants, which it concealed by treating units leased to employees as bona fide rentals by third parties. additionally, the company failed to disclose that state regulators in georgia and alabama served notices in february and march 2012 of their intent to revoke licenses for three of the facilities leased from ventas. finally, on august 7, 2012, the company announced that it was the subject of an investigation by the sec concerning a number of topics, including “compliance with occupancy covenants” under the ventas lease and the “leasing of units for employee use.” on this news, shares of the company declined almost 27% from a close of $12.86 per share on august 6, 2012 to $7.89 per share on august 7, 2012, on unusually high trading volume of over 2.3 million shares. if you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the court no later than october 29, 2012. 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.
