STANLEY ALERT

Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. is Investigating Stanley Black & Decker, Inc. on Behalf of Long-Term Stockholders and Encourages Investors to Contact the Firm

Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., a nationally recognized shareholder rights law firm, is investigating potential claims against Stanley Black & Decker, Inc. (NYSE: SWK) on behalf of long-term stockholders following a class action complaint that was filed against Stanley on March 24, 2023 with a Class Period from October 28, 2021 to July 28, 2022. Our investigation concerns whether the board of directors of Stanley have breached their fiduciary duties to the company.

At the outset of the Class Period, Stanley was undergoing a multi-year simplification of its business units through acquisitions and divestitures to return to the Company’s roots of primarily defining itself as a tool manufacturer. Throughout this transformation, Stanley enjoyed what it described as the strongest consumer demand environment in the Company’s history to finance the Company’s activities.

Specifically, Stanley repeatedly informed investors throughout 2021 and into 2022 that the COVID-19 pandemic environment of stay-at-home orders and remote work had led many consumers to spend more time at home, thus spurring increased home remodeling and do-it-yourself (“DIY”) projects, consequently creating high consumer demand for Stanley’s tools and outdoor products.

Throughout the Class Period, Defendants misrepresented to investors and the public that despite rising inflation and interest rates, and Stanley’s multiple rounds of product price increases, that pandemic-fueled, heightened consumer demand for tools and outdoor products would be sustainable through 2022 due to continuing construction and DIY projects.

Additionally, while Defendants admitted at all relevant times that supply chain management and component sourcing was integral for Stanley to keep production in pace with demand in its core Tools and Outdoor business, Defendants misrepresented to investors throughout the Class Period that they were closely monitoring the effects of inflation and price increases on consumer demand, and that Defendants would react accordingly if the demand environment changed.

Contrary to Defendants’ statements touting the heightened consumer demand and their ability to react accordingly to any effects of inflation or price increases on said demand, Stanley was incapable of nimbly responding to serious headwinds that indicated the pandemic demand bubble was soon to pop. Furthermore, Defendants knew that their statements were false and misleading as they admittedly tracked Stanley’s point-of-sale results to monitor demand.