CBL & Associates Properties, Inc (NYSE: CBL) Investor Securities Class Action Lawsuit 05/17/2019

If you purchased a significant amount of shares of CBL & Associates Properties, Inc (NYSE: CBL) between November 8, 2017 and March 26, 2019, and / or if you purchased any NYSE: CBL shares prior to November 2017 and continue to hold any of those shares, you have certain options and for certain investors are short and strict deadlines running. Deadline: July 16, 2019. NYSE: CBL investors should contact the Shareholders Foundation, Inc.

To have your information reviewed for options and to recieve notifications about this case, please use this form. You may also send an email to mail@shareholdersfoundation.com, or call us at (858) 779-1554.
Company Name(s): 
CBL & Associates Properties
Case Name: 
CBL & Associates Properties Shareholder Class Action Lawsuit 05/17/2019
Case Status: 
Lawsuit Filed
Affected Securities
Lawsuit Overview
Type of Lawsuit: 
Shareholder Class Action
Date Filed: 
Class Period Begin: 
Class Period End: 
Court of Filing: 
U. S.District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee
Deadline To File for Lead: 

An investor in shares of CBL & Associates Properties, Inc (NYSE: CBL) filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee over alleged violations of Federal Securities Laws by CBL & Associates Properties, Inc in connection with certain allegedly false and misleading statements made between November 8, 2017 and March 26, 2019.

Headquartered in Chattanooga, TN, CBL & Associates Properties, Inc owns and manages a national portfolio of market-dominant properties located in dynamic and growing communities. On March 26, 2019, CBL Properties (NYSE: CBL) announced that it has approved the structure of a settlement of a class action lawsuit. On March 16, 2016, Wave Lengths Hair Salons of Florida, Inc. d/b/a Salon Adrian filed a putative class action in the United States Court for the Middle District of Florida seeking unspecified monetary damages, as well as costs and attorneys’ fees, based on allegations that CBL & Associates Properties, Inc and certain affiliated entities overcharged tenants at bulk metered malls for electricity.
In recent months, the pace of the case accelerated to a considerable degree. On January 7, 2019, the Court partially granted the plaintiff’s motion for class certification of a nationwide RICO class and a Florida RICO and FDUTPA class. On January 22, 2019, CBL & Associates Properties, Inc filed a petition with the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit seeking permission to appeal the Court’s class certification order, and on March 4, 2019, that petition was denied. On March 11, 2019, the Court set the trial date for April 2, 2019. On March 15, 2019, following mediation proceedings, a proposed structure of a settlement was approved by representatives of the parties.
CBL & Associates Properties, Inc said it denies all allegations of wrongdoing and asserts that its actions have at all times been lawful and proper. However, given the class certification, the accelerated trial schedule, the inherent risk of any trial, and the potential cost of an adverse resolution of the litigation, the Company believes that mediation was the prudent path. Furthermore, it maintains that the proposed settlement is in CBL’s best interest and in the best interests of its shareholders.

Shares of CBL & Associates Properties, Inc (NYSE: CBL) declined to as low as $1.07 per share on May 20, 2019.

According to the complaint the plaintiff alleges on behalf of purchasers of CBL & Associates Properties, Inc (NYSE: CBL) common shares between November 8, 2017 and March 26, 2019, that the defendants violated Federal Securities Laws. More specifically, the plaintiff claims that between November 8, 2017 and March 26, 2019, the defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose in its SEC filings that the Company was the target of a class action suit that could result in tens of millions or even hundreds of millions of dollars in liability and the Defendants completely ignored their disclosure obligation, motivated by a desire to avoid bad publicity surrounding their dishonest nature and their dishonest conduct.