Rigrodsky & Long, P.A. Announces A Securities Fraud Class Action Lawsuit Has Been Filed Against Big Lots, Inc.

Rigrodsky & Long, P.A. announces that a complaint has been filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio on behalf of all persons or entities that purchased the common stock of Big Lots, Inc. (“Big Lots” or the “Company”) (NYSE: BIG) between February 2, 2012 and April 23, 2012, inclusive (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 Big Lots during the Class Period, or purchased shares prior to the Class Period and still hold Big Lots, 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., 825 East Gate Boulevard, Suite 300, Garden City, NY at (888) 969-4242, by e-mail to info@rigrodskylong.com, or at: http://www.rigrodskylong.com/investigations/big-lots-inc-big.

Big Lots, an Ohio corporation headquartered in Columbus, Ohio, through its wholly owned subsidiaries, is North America’s largest broadline closeout retailer. As of January 28, 2012, the Company operated a total of 1,533 stores in the United States and Canada. 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 the following: (a) that Big Lots’ consumables line (consisting of household, beauty and health items), which represented a third of the Company’s business, was deteriorating; and (b) that the Company’s electronic products business was being adversely affected as shoppers were increasingly looking at online deals for these big ticket products, which adversely affected the Company’s margins and profits. As a result of defendants’ false and misleading statements, the Company’s stock traded at artificially inflated prices during the Class Period. Several of the Company’s executives took advantage of these inflated prices and unloaded hundreds of thousands of shares of Big Lots stock for millions of dollars of personal gain.

According to the Complaint, on March 2, 2012, in issuing its guidance for the year, the Company estimated a comparable store sales increase in the range of 2%-3% for U.S. stores and income from continuing operations projected to be $3.40-$3.50 diluted earnings per share (“EPS”). However, after the market closed on April 23, 2012, the Company issued a press release announcing updates to its first quarter 2012 retail sales guidance. In this release, the Company forecast a decline in first-quarter same-store sales, slightly negative in comparison to its prior guidance. On this news, Big Lots stock collapsed $11 per share to close at $34.71 per share on April 24, 2012, a one-day decline of 24% on volume of 13.2 million shares.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than August 7, 2012. 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.