Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP Files Class Action Suit Against Angie’s List, Inc.

NEW YORK--()--Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP (“Robbins Geller”) (http://www.rgrdlaw.com/cases/angieslist/) today announced that a class action has been commenced in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana on behalf of purchasers of Angie’s List, Inc. (“Angie’s List”) (NASDAQ:ANGI) common stock during the period between February 14, 2013 and October 23, 2013 (the “Class Period”).

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than 60 days from today. If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions concerning this notice or your rights or interests, please contact plaintiff’s counsel, Samuel H. Rudman or David A. Rosenfeld of Robbins Geller at 800/449-4900 or 619/231-1058, or via e-mail at djr@rgrdlaw.com. If you are a member of this class, you can view a copy of the complaint as filed or join this class action online at http://www.rgrdlaw.com/cases/angieslist/. Any member of the putative 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.

The complaint charges Angie’s List and certain of its officers and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Angie’s List operates a website that provides subscription-based reviews of local service providers, purportedly authored by other locals, and referrals to local service providers to consumers across the United States.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, Angie’s List issued materially false and misleading statements regarding the strength of the Company’s business model and its financial performance and future prospects and failed to disclose the following adverse facts: (i) Angie’s List had increased its reliance on providing free memberships in order to artificially boost its subscriber figures; (ii) that contrary to Angie’s List’s repeated Class Period statements that the online reviews were unbiased because Angie’s List did not permit service providers to buy ratings on its website (“You can’t pay to be on Angie’s List”), the Company was consistently deriving more than half of its revenues from the service provider side of its business – where it relied heavily on collecting fees for listing paid service providers more prominently; (iii) that because Angie’s List sometimes charged service providers hundreds of dollars for “hot leads,” those costs were being passed along to Angie’s List subscribers, increasing the prices consumers were paying and decreasing the benefit to them of using the website; (iv) that the legitimacy of the service provider side of Angie’s List’s business model was called into question by Angie’s List’s practice of forcing service providers to pay high fees to be listed as highly rated service providers, knowing that if they did not, they would not get customer referrals from Angie’s List; (v) that because Angie’s List did not vet the service providers listed and recommended on its website, either for qualifications or for safety, many consumers were questioning the value of its recommendations, making them unwilling to continue paying outsized membership fees; and (vi) as a result of the foregoing, defendants lacked a reasonable basis for their positive statements about the strength of Angie’s List’s business model and its business and financial prospects during the Class Period.

The complaint alleges that through a series of disclosures between September 30, 2013 and October 24, 2013, investors learned that: (i) Angie’s List’s Chief Technology Officer had been terminated – without explanation or naming a replacement; (ii) Angie’s List had slashed membership prices by roughly 75% in several key markets, in a bid to attract new members; (iii) the Company’s third quarter 2013 financial results were much weaker than defendants had led the market to expect, and the same declining business metrics had forced Angie’s List to issue weaker fourth quarter 2013 financial guidance; and (iv) certain analysts were questioning the Company’s ability to meet its future financial obligations. On this news, the price of Angie’s List common stock declined precipitously, erasing millions of dollars in market capitalization.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers of Angie’s List common stock during the Class Period (the “Class”). The plaintiff is represented by Robbins Geller, which has expertise in prosecuting investor class actions and extensive experience in actions involving financial fraud.

Robbins Geller represents U.S. and international institutional investors in contingency-based securities and corporate litigation. With nearly 200 lawyers in ten offices, the firm represents hundreds of public and multi-employer pension funds with combined assets under management in excess of $2 trillion. The firm has obtained many of the largest recoveries and has been ranked number one in the number of shareholder class action recoveries in MSCI’s Top SCAS 50 every year since 2003. Please visit http://www.rgrdlaw.com for more information.

Contacts

Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP
Samuel H. Rudman
David A. Rosenfeld
800-449-4900
djr@rgrdlaw.com

Sharing

Contacts

Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP
Samuel H. Rudman
David A. Rosenfeld
800-449-4900
djr@rgrdlaw.com