NEW YORK, June 9, 2008 (LAWFUEL) — The Brualdi Law Firm P.C.
announces that a lawsuit has commenced on behalf of an institutional
investor in the United States District Court for the Southern District
of New York on behalf of purchasers of Gildan Activewear Inc. (“Gildan”
or the “Company”) (NYSE:GIL) common stock during the period between
August 2, 2007 and April 29, 2008 (the “Class Period”).
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 Gildan Activewear Inc. common stock during the period
described above, you have certain rights, and have until no later than
60 days from August 2, 2008 in which to move for Lead Plaintiff status.
Any member of the purported 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.
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 Tali Leger,
Director of Shareholder Relations, at The Brualdi Law Firm, 29
Broadway, Suite 2400, New York, New York 10006, by telephone toll free
at (877) 495-1877 or (212) 952-0602, by email to
[email protected] or visit our website at
The complaint alleges that, during the Class Period, defendants issued
a series of materially false and misleading statements concerning the
Company’s financial performance and prospects. Specifically, the
complaint alleges that these statements were materially false and
misleading because defendants failed to disclose and/or misrepresented:
(i) that sales of Gildan’s activewear were performing below internal
expectations as a result of a shortfall in production from its
Dominican Republic textile facility; (ii) that Gildan was failing to
timely write down an impairment in the value of its inventories,
thereby materially overstating its financial results; and (iii) as a
result of the foregoing, defendants had no reasonable basis for their
earnings guidance for fiscal 2008 and other positive statements about
the Company and its business.