The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company’s business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, the Complaint alleges Defendants failed to disclose to investors:(a) that Dollar General stores were chronically understaffed and suffering from logistical and inventory management problems which left stores with tens of millions of dollars’ worth of outdated and unwanted inventory, mispriced goods, and lost and damaged items; (b) that large backlogs of unsellable merchandise had built up at Dollar General’s stores, which inventory had not been timely written down due to understaffing and the Company’s failure to manage its inventory; (c) that the allotment of employee hours per store per week imposed by Dollar General management placed employees in virtually impossible situations where assigned tasks, including those necessary to effective store operations, could not be completed within the allotted time; (d) that Dollar General was systematically overcharging customers for items upon checkout above the listed price in violation of state laws, including state law violations identified by state regulators in Arizona, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, North Carolina, and Ohio; (e) that Dollar General’s reported revenue and earnings during the Class Period were artificially inflated by defendants’ over-pricing scheme; (f) that Dollar General’s failure to manage store inventories and accurately price items upon checkout risked the loss of customers, lower sales, adverse regulatory actions, and reputational fallout; (g) that Dollar General was not on track to achieve the 4Q22 guidance provided to investors of 6% to 7% same-store sales growth or quarterly diluted EPS of $3.15 to $3.30, and was running more than one hundred million dollars behind the Company’s annual net sales guidance of 11% growth; and (h) that as a result (a)-(g) above, defendants’ statements about Dollar General’s business metrics, operations, and financial prospects were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable factual basis when made.