Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc.
Case Overview
21 Days Left to Seek Lead Plaintiff
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: | Lead Plaintiff Deadline: 01/10/2025 |
Status: | Status: Investigating |
Company Name: | Company Name: Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc. |
Court: | Court: Central District of California |
Case Number: | Case Number: 8:24cv02459 |
Class Period: | Class Period: 02/08/2024 - 10/29/2024 |
Ticker: | Ticker: CMG |
Related Attorneys: | Lead Attorneys: Thomas W. Elrod |
Related Practices: | Related Practices: Securities |
The law firm of Kirby McInerney LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on behalf of those who acquired Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc (“Chipotle” or the “Company”) (NYSE:CMG) securities during the period of February 8, 2024 to October 29, 2024, inclusive (“the Class Period”). Investors have until January 10, 2025, to apply to the Court to be appointed as lead plaintiff in the lawsuit.
On July 24, 2024, Chipotle conducted its Q2 2024 earnings call, where then-CEO, Brian Niccol, acknowledged that portion inconsistency was an issue at Chipotle, and it had caused customers to feel justifiably unhappy with the Company. Niccol further revealed that the Company would have higher costs of sales in the third quarter of 2024, partially because of giving customers more generous portions. On this news, the price of Chipotle fell by $0.96 per share from $51.78 per share on July 24, 2024, to close at $50.82 on July 25, 2024.
Then, on October 30, 2024, Business Insider published an article titled “Chipotle says ensuring ‘consistent and generous portions’ has taken a toll on its profitability”, which stated that while ensuring the right portion might be “good news for Chipotle diners, the chain said it was partly the reason for a hit to profitability in the last fiscal quarter.” On this news, the price of Chipotle fell by $4.76 per share, or approximately 7.86%, from $60.49 on October 29, 2024, to close at $55.73 on October 30, 2024.
The complaint alleges that defendants, throughout the Class Period, made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Chipotle's portion sizes were inconsistent and left many customers dissatisfied with the Company's offerings; (2) in order to address the issue and retain customer loyalty, Chipotle would have to ensure more generous portion sizes, which would increase cost of sales; and (3) as a result, defendants' statements about its business, operations, and prospects were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times.
On July 24, 2024, Chipotle conducted its Q2 2024 earnings call, where then-CEO, Brian Niccol, acknowledged that portion inconsistency was an issue at Chipotle, and it had caused customers to feel justifiably unhappy with the Company. Niccol further revealed that the Company would have higher costs of sales in the third quarter of 2024, partially because of giving customers more generous portions. On this news, the price of Chipotle fell by $0.96 per share from $51.78 per share on July 24, 2024, to close at $50.82 on July 25, 2024.
Then, on October 30, 2024, Business Insider published an article titled “Chipotle says ensuring ‘consistent and generous portions’ has taken a toll on its profitability”, which stated that while ensuring the right portion might be “good news for Chipotle diners, the chain said it was partly the reason for a hit to profitability in the last fiscal quarter.” On this news, the price of Chipotle fell by $4.76 per share, or approximately 7.86%, from $60.49 on October 29, 2024, to close at $55.73 on October 30, 2024.
The complaint alleges that defendants, throughout the Class Period, made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Chipotle's portion sizes were inconsistent and left many customers dissatisfied with the Company's offerings; (2) in order to address the issue and retain customer loyalty, Chipotle would have to ensure more generous portion sizes, which would increase cost of sales; and (3) as a result, defendants' statements about its business, operations, and prospects were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times.