14. Based in Fort Worth, Texas, Pier 1 is a retailer of decorative home furnishings and gifts imported from countries around the world. Pier 1 maintains over 1,000 stores in the United States and Canada and operates as one segment consisting of the retail sales of decorative home furnishing, furniture, gifts, and related items. Although Pier 1 has traditionally been a “brick and mortar” retailer, during fiscal year 2013, the Company began to aggressively grow and develop online sales of its products. Specifically, on August 23, 2012, the Company announced the official launch of its new e-commerce website, Pier1.com. The Company launched Pier1.com as part of its “1 Pier 1” omni-channel initiative that sought to turn Pier 1 from an in-store retailer to a combined in-store and online retailer.  15. Through its new e-commerce website, the Company would allow customers to purchase products online and have them shipped directly to the Pier 1 store of their choice without incurring shipping charges. The new e-commerce website would also allow for easier navigation to locate the Company’s products while maintaining Pier 1’s renowned “treasure hunt” feel. With regards to the new e-commerce website, Chief Executive Officer Alex Smith expressed “extreme[] delight[] with the successful launch of our new e-Commerce enabled website, Pier1.com, which allows customers to shop our unique array of merchandise while selecting the shipping destination of their choice.”  59. Plaintiff brings this action as a class action pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure on behalf of all persons who purchased the common stock of Pier 1 during the Class Period. Excluded from the Class are Defendants and their families, directors, and officers of Pier 1 and their families and affiliates.  60. The members of the Class are so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable. The disposition of their claims in a class action will provide substantial benefits to the parties and the Court. Pier 1 has over 86 million shares of common stock outstanding, owned by hundreds or thousands of investors.  62. Plaintiff’s claims are typical of those of the Class because Plaintiff and the Class sustained damages from Defendants’ wrongful conduct.  63. Plaintiff will adequately protect the interests of the Class and has retained counsel experienced in class action securities litigation. Plaintiff has no interests which conflict with those of the Class.  64. A class action is superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of this controversy. 70. Plaintiff repeats and realleges each and every allegation contained above as if fully set forth herein.  71. During the Class Period, Defendants carried out a plan, scheme, and course of conduct which was intended to and, throughout the Class Period, did: (i) deceive the investing public, including Plaintiff and other Class members, as alleged herein; and (ii) cause Plaintiff and other members of the Class to purchase Pier 1 common stock at artificially inflated prices.  72. Defendants: (i) employed devices, schemes, and artifices to defraud; (ii) made untrue statements of material fact and/or omitted to state material facts necessary to make the statements not misleading; and (iii) engaged in acts, practices, and a course of business which operated as a fraud and deceit upon the purchasers of the Company’s common stock in an effort to maintain artificially high market prices for Pier 1 common stock in violation of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.  73. Defendants, individually and in concert, directly and indirectly, by the use, means or instrumentalities of interstate commerce and/or of the mails, engaged and participated in a continuous course of conduct to conceal adverse material information about the Company’s financial well-being, operations, and prospects.  75. Defendants had actual knowledge of the misrepresentations and omissions of material fact set forth herein, or recklessly disregarded the true facts that were available to them. Defendants engaged in this misconduct to conceal Pier 1’s true condition from the investing public and to support the artificially inflated prices of the Company’s common stock.  76. Plaintiff and the Class have suffered damages in that, in reliance on the integrity of the market, they paid artificially inflated prices for Pier 1 common stock. Plaintiff and the Class would not have purchased the Company’s common stock at the prices they paid, or at all, had they been aware that the market prices for Pier 1 common stock had been artificially inflated by Defendants’ fraudulent course of conduct.  77. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ wrongful conduct, Plaintiff and the other members of the Class suffered damages in connection with their respective purchases of the Company’s common stock during the Class Period.  78. By virtue of the foregoing, Defendants violated Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. 79. Plaintiff repeats, incorporates, and realleges each and every allegation set forth above as if fully set forth herein.  BACKGROUND  For Violation of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 Against All Defendants  For Violation of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act Against the Individual Defendants 