HD Supply Holdings, Inc.

Case Details

Class Period:
November 9, 2016 – June 5, 2017
Date Filed:
July 11, 2017
Case Number:
1:17-cv-2587
Jurisdiction:
Northern District of Georgia

Case Summary

The Complaint brings forth claims for violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  The Complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and prospects.

Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) HD Supply’s full year 2017 growth and operational leverage targets were unattainable; (2) the operational recovery of its Facilities Maintenance supply chain was not going according to plan; (3) the Company was exploring the sale of its Waterworks segment; (4) Defendant Joseph DeAngelo, with full knowledge of the undisclosed materially adverse facts alleged herein, embarked on a selling spree of personal holdings of HD Supply stock that netted him over $54 million in proceeds; and (5) as a result of the foregoing, Defendants’ statements about HD Supply’s business, operations, and prospects were false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

On September 11, 2017, the City Pension Fund for Firefighters & Police Officers in the City of Miami Beach, Pembroke Pines Pension Fund for Firefighters and Police Officers and Hollywood Police Officers' Retirement System moved for appointment as Co-Lead Plaintiffs. On October 19, 2017, the Court consolidated the action and appointed the Funds' as Lead Plaintiffs and approved the selection of Saxena White as Lead Counsel.

Lead Plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint on November 16, 2017. On December 21, 2017, Defendants moved to dismiss the Amended Complaint. Lead Plaintiffs filed their opposition to the motion on February 1, 2018 and, later that month, Defendants filed their reply brief. The Court has not scheduled oral arguments on the pending motion. As a result, the motion to dismiss is now fully briefed and is awaiting a decision from the Court.

On September 19, 2018, the Court denied in large part Defendants' Motion to Dismiss. The Court rejected the company's arguments that investor claims were generalized allegations and instead, found that Plaintiffs provided specific examples of misleading statements.

Now that the Court has denied Defendants' Motion to Dismiss, the case will be entering the discovery phase. 

Action Details

View Press Release

View Complaint (pdf)

Send Information

If you have information regarding this case that you would like to make available, please click here to contact us.