NEW YORK, Oct. 12, 2009 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- The Brualdi Law Firm, P.C. announces that a lawsuit has been commenced in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas on behalf of purchasers of Men's Wearhouse Inc. ("Men's Wearhouse" or the "Company") (NYSE:MW) stock during the period between March 7, 2007, through January 9, 2008 (the "Class Period") for violations of the federal securities laws.
No class has yet been certified in the above action. Until a class is certified, you are not represented by counsel unless you retain one. If you purchased Men's Wearhouse common stock during the Class Period, and wish to move the court for appointment of lead plaintiff, you must do so by December 7, 2009. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. The lead plaintiff will be selected from among applicants claiming the largest loss from investment in the Company during the Class Period. You do not need to seek appointment as a lead plaintiff in order to share in any recovery.
To be a member of the class you need not take any action at this time, and you may retain counsel of your choice. If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions concerning this Notice or your rights or interests with respect to these matters, please contact Sue Lee at The Brualdi Law Firm, P.C. 29 Broadway, Suite 2400, New York, New York 10006, by telephone toll free at (877) 495-1187 or (212) 952-0602, by email to slee@brualdilawfirm.com or visit our website at http://www.brualdilawfirm.com.
The Complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, defendants made numerous positive statements regarding the Company's financial condition, business and prospects. The complaint further alleges that these statements were materially false and misleading because defendants failed to disclose the following adverse facts, among others: (a) that the K&G division was performing poorly and not meeting internal expectations; (b) that the Company was experiencing significant difficulties integrating the After Hours acquisition which was causing a severe disruption in that division's business and reducing sales volumes below budgeted levels; (c) that, given the deteriorating demand for the Company's products, the Company was forced to significantly discount products beyond customary discounts which would further erode earnings; and (d) that as a result of the foregoing, defendants' positive statements concerning the Company's guidance and prospects were lacking in a reasonable basis at all relevant times.