Boulder Brands, Inc.

Shareholder Securities Fraud Litigation

Rigrodsky & Long, P.A. Announces A Securities Fraud Class Action Lawsuit Has Been Filed Against Boulder Brands, Inc. (NASDAQ GS: BDBD)

Rigrodsky & Long, P.A., including former Special Assistant United States Attorney, Timothy J. MacFall, announces that a complaint has been filed in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado on behalf of all persons or entities that purchased the common stock of Boulder Brands, Inc. (“Boulder Brands” or the “Company”) (NASDAQ GS: BDBD) between December 23, 2013 and October 22, 2014 (the “Class Period”), alleging violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against the Company and certain of its officers (the “Complaint”).

If you purchased shares of Boulder Brands during the Class Period, or purchased shares prior to the Class Period and still hold Boulder Brands,  and wish to discuss this action or have any questions concerning this notice or your rights or interests, please contact Timothy J. MacFall, Esquire or Peter Allocco of Rigrodsky & Long, P.A., 2 Righter Parkway, Suite 120, Wilmington, DE 19803 at (888) 969-4242; by e-mail to

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, defendants made materially false and misleading statements, and omitted materially adverse facts, about the Company’s business, operations and prospects.  Specifically, the Complaint alleges that the defendants concealed from the investing public that: (1) the Company was experiencing significant acquisition integration issues with its EVOL and Udi’s brands; (2) increased execution complexity cause by the expansion of brands and product portfolio, as well as ownership of additional physical manufacturing assets, created significant inventory and supply chain problems within the Company; (3) the market for the Company’s Smart Balance products in its Balance segment was decelerating significantly, creating margin pressures; (4) the Company was experiencing service issues and inventory control problems with its largest customer and other customers; and (5) as a result of the foregoing, defendants’ statements regarding the Company’s financial performance, margins and margin improvement projects, and expected earnings were false and misleading and lacked a reasonable basis when made.  As a result of defendants’ alleged false and misleading statements, the Company’s stock traded at artificially inflated prices during the Class Period.

According to the Complaint, on October 22, 2014, the Company issued a press release providing an update on its anticipated third quarter 2014 financial results and its outlook for the fourth quarter 2014.  Boulder Brands disclosed that during “the third quarter, we faced a number of headwinds that impacted our financial results.  Smart Balance continued to face challenges in the spreads category, resulting in a larger than expected decline.”  The Company further disclosed that “the mix of shift of our fast-growing, lower margin Natural segment is significantly outpacing our higher margin Balance segment and is therefore putting increased pressure on our gross margins.”  In addition, the Company revealed it was “expecting lower shipments due to a normalizing of certain inventories at our largest customer.”

On this news, shares in Boulder Brands dropped over 24%, closing at $9.62 per share on October 22, 2014, on heavy trading volume.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than June 1, 2015.  A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation.  In order to be appointed lead plaintiff, the Court must determine that the class member’s claim is typical of the claims of other class members, and that the class member will adequately represent the class.  Your ability to share in any recovery is not, however, affected by the decision whether or not to serve as a lead plaintiff.  Any member of the proposed 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.

While Rigrodsky & Long, P.A. did not file the Complaint in this matter, the firm, with offices in Wilmington, Delaware and Garden City, New York, regularly litigates securities class, derivative and direct actions, shareholder rights litigation and corporate governance litigation, including claims for breach of fiduciary duty and proxy violations in the Delaware Court of Chancery and in state and federal courts throughout the United States.

Attorney advertising.  Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.