Rigrodsky & Long, P.A.:

  • Do you, or did you, own shares of Ruby Tuesday, Inc. (NYSE: RT)?
  • Did you purchase your shares before April 11, 2013, or between April 11, 2013 and October 9, 2013, inclusive?
  • Did you lose money in your investment in Ruby Tuesday, Inc.?
  • Do you want to discuss your rights?

Rigrodsky & Long, P.A., including former Special Assistant United States Attorney, Timothy J. MacFall, announces that a complaint has been filed in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee on behalf of all persons or entities that purchased the common stock of Ruby Tuesday, Inc. (“Ruby Tuesday” or the “Company”) (NYSE: RT) between April 11, 2013 and October 9, 2013, inclusive (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 Ruby Tuesday during the Class Period, or purchased shares prior to the Class Period and still hold Ruby Tuesday, 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., 2 Righter Parkway, Suite 120, Wilmington, DE 19803 at (888) 969-4242; by e-mail to info@rl-legal.com; or at: http://www.rigrodskylong.com/investigations/ruby-tuesday-inc-rt.

Ruby Tuesday, together with its subsidiaries, owns, develops, operates, and franchises a chain of casual dining restaurants in the United States, Guam, and internationally, under the Ruby Tuesday and Lime Fresh brands. 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 the defendants concealed from the investing public: (1) that changes made to the menu at the Company’s flagship Ruby Tuesday chain to increase the range of offerings and price points were negatively impacting sales as the average sales check price was declining without contemporaneous increases in traffic; (2) that contrary to the reported progress being made in the turnaround effort, same-store sales were continuing to decline exponentially at the Company’s flagship Ruby Tuesday chain; (3) that the Company had experienced a dramatic decline in sales at its Lime Fresh concepts restaurants and as a result, the carrying value of the Lime Fresh goodwill, trademark and properties and equipment being carried on Ruby Tuesday’s books were materially impaired and should have been written down; (4) that as a result of not making timely impairments on its Lime Fresh assets, the Company’s expenses and losses were being materially understated; (5) that the value of the Company’s deferred tax assets were over-stated by $20.1 million; and (6) based on the foregoing, Defendants lacked a reasonable basis for their positive statements about the Company’s business during the Class Period. As a result of defendants’ alleged false and misleading statements, the Company’s stock traded at artificially inflated prices during the Class Period.

According to the Complaint, on October 9, 2013, the Company reported a net loss of $22.2 million on $289.7 million in revenues during the first quarter 2014, an increase of 7.7% on losses and a decrease of 11.7% on revenues, driven by same-store sales declines of 11.4% at Company-owned restaurants and an 8.4% decline at domestic franchised restaurants, and predicted same-store sales declines in the high-single digits in the second quarter 2014.

On this news, shares in Ruby Tuesday plummeted more than 17%, closing at $6.26 per share on October 10, 2013, on unusually heavy trading volume.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than July 7, 2014. 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.