Securities Litigation: Home Depot

Mizzaro v. Home Depot, Inc. et al
USDC ND Georgia
Disclosure

Company background

Litigation background

Lead plaintiffs

SEC disclosure

Form 10-K 4.03.08 At page 12
In the second quarter of fiscal 2006, six purported, but as yet uncertified, class actions were filed against the Company and certain of its current and former officers and directors in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia in Atlanta, alleging certain misrepresentations in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder in connection with the Company's return-to-vendor practices. These actions were filed by certain current and former shareholders of the Company. In the third quarter of fiscal 2006, one of the shareholders dismissed his complaint. The Court preliminarily appointed a lead plaintiff, and the lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint in each of the remaining five actions. Relief sought in the amended complaint includes unspecified damages and costs and attorney's fees. On July 18, 2007, the Court granted the defendants' motions to dismiss without leave to amend and entered a judgment in favor of the defendants. The plaintiffs' appeal from the dismissal is pending in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.

Complaint

Claims

Motion to dismiss

Motion to dismiss

Ruling

Cites Tellabs
"Tellabs sets forth a new, heightened scienter pleading requirement in PSLRA cases"
Plaintiffs appeal 8.20.07
USCA - 11th Circuit: 07-13810

Ruling

To survive a motion to dismiss under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995, the factual allegations contained in a private securities fraud class action complaint must raise a strong inference, one that is cogent and compelling, that the named defendants acted with the requisite scienter. The question presented in this appeal is whether lead plaintiff Bucks County Retirement Boards (Bucks Countys) Amended Class Action Complaint (ACAC or amended complaint) against Home Depot, Inc. and six of its officers and directors has met this demanding standard. The district court said no, dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim, and denied as futile a motion for leave to amend. After thorough review, we affirm.

Lead plaintiff

Company defense

// This display the document title in the html page document.write(document.title);