EQS-News: ROSEN, A LEADING LAW FIRM, Encourages The Lovesac Company Investors with Losses to Secure Counsel Before Important Deadline in Securities Class Action - LOVE

WHY ROSEN LAW: We encourage investors to select qualified counsel with a track record of success in leadership roles. Often, firms issuing notices do not have comparable experience, resources or any meaningful peer recognition. Many of these firms do not actually litigate securities class actions, but are merely middlemen that refer clients or partner with law firms that actually litigate the cases. Be wise in selecting counsel. The Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm has achieved the largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese Company. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 4 each year since 2013 and has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. In 2019 alone the firm secured over $438 million for investors. In 2020, founding partner Laurence Rosen was named by law360 as a Titan of Plaintiffs’ Bar. Many of the firm’s attorneys have been recognized by Lawdragon and Super Lawyers.

DETAILS OF THE CASE: According to the lawsuit, defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding Lovesac's business, operations, and compliance policies. Specifically, defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Lovesac did not properly account for last mile shipping and freight expenses; (2) accordingly, Lovesac’s disclosure controls and procedures and internal control over financial reporting were ineffective and deficient; (3) as a result of all the foregoing, Lovesac overstated its gross profit and operating and net income, as well as understated its shipping and handling costs and accrued freight and shipping expenses, in its previously issued financial statements; (4) accordingly, Lovesac was likely to restate one or more of its previously issued financial statements; and (5) as a result, Lovesac’s public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages.