Coach, Inc. - Securities Class Action

Company and Case Information

IMPORTANT INFORMATION | INDEX OF FILINGS | SEARCH

Home

Index of Filings

News and Press Releases

Filings

Litigation Activity Indices

Annual/Quarterly Updates

Clearinghouse Research

Articles & Papers

Search

Related Sites

About Us

Local Rules

Sponsors

Register

_______________
Copyright (c) 2001
Stanford Law School

Coach, Inc. Summary: According to a press release dated April 14, 2009, the complaint charges Coach and certain of its officers and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Coach engages in the design and marketing of accessories and gifts for men and women in the United States and internationally.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants reported strong growth for the Company and forecast similar growth going forward. However, defendants failed to disclose that the Company’s growth rate was, in fact, unsustainable. Then, on October 23, 2007, before the market opened, Coach announced that although its fiscal first-quarter profit rose 23%, traffic in its U.S. retail stores was weak and the Company expected a slow-down in the coming holiday season. As a result of this announcement, Coach’s stock price dropped $4.87 per share (or 12%) to close at $36.60 per share on October 23, 2007.

On January 22, 2010, the plaintiff’s Motion for Appointment as Lead Plaintiff and Approval of Lead Plaintiff s Selection of Lead Counsel was granted by the Court.

On April 19, 2010, the parties to this action submitted a Joint Stipulation and Order of Voluntary Dismissal pursuant to Rule 41(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The action was subsequently dismissed without prejudice as to Plaintiffs and Plaintiffs agreed not to file a further amended pleading or to seek further review or appeal in connection with the action.

INDUSTRY CLASSIFICATION:
SIC Code: 3100
Sector: Consumer Cyclical
Industry: Apparel/Accessories

COMPANY/ISSUER NAME:	Coach, Inc.
COMPANY/ISSUER TICKER:	COH
COMPANY WEBSITE:	http://www.coach.com

FIRST IDENTIFIED COMPLAINT IN THE DATABASE

Clyde M. Osborn, et al. v. Coach, Inc., et al.

COURT: S.D. New York	DOCKET NUMBER: 09-CV-03789
JUDGE NAME: Hon. Deborah A. Batts
DATE FILED: 04/14/2009	SOURCE:
CLASS PERIOD START: 01/23/2007	CLASS PERIOD END: 10/22/2007
TYPE OF COMPLAINT: Complaint (Unamended and Unconsolidated)
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP (Melville) 58 South Service Road, Suite 200, Melville, NY, 11747 (voice) 631.367.7100, (fax) 631.367.1173, info@csgrr.com/ Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP (San Diego) 655 West Broadway, Suite 1900, San Diego, CA, 92101 (voice) 619.231.1058, (fax) 619.231.7423, info@csgrr.com/ Dyer & Berens LLP (former) 682 Grant Street, Denver, CO, 80203-3507 (voice) 303.861.1764, (fax) 303.861.1764, contact@dyerberens.com Holzer Holzer & Fistel, LLC (Atlanta) 200 Ashford Center North, Suite 300, Atlanta, GA, 30338 (voice) 770.392.0090, (fax) 770.392.0090, _____________________________________________ TOTAL NUMBER OF PLAINTIFF FIRMS: 4

DOCUMENTS FOR THE FIRST IDENTIFIED COMPLAINT
Complaint For Violation Of The Federal Securities Laws
Type: Complaint		Date on the document: 04/14/2009
U.S. District Court Civil Docket
Type: Docket		Date on the document: 06/15/2009
Order Appointing Building Trades United Pension Trust Fund As Lead Plaintiff And Approving Lead Plaintiff's Selection Of Lead Counsel
Type: Order Appointing LP/LC		Date on the document: 01/22/2010
Joint Stipulation And Order Of Voluntary Dismissal
Type: Order		Date on the document: 04/19/2010
U.S. District Court Civil Docket
Type: Docket		Date on the document: 04/19/2010

OTHER DOCUMENTS

Case Name and/or Number:
Type:		Date on the document:

WARNING AND DISCLAIMER OF LIABILITY:
The information included on this Web site, whether provided by personnel employed by Stanford Law School or by third parties, is provided for research and teaching purposes only. Neither Stanford University, Stanford Law School, nor any of their employees, agents, contractors, or affiliates warrant the accuracy or completeness of the information or analyses displayed herein, and we caution all readers that inclusion of any information on this site does not constitute an endorsement of the truthfulness or accuracy of that information. In particular, this Web site contains complaints and other documents filed in federal and state courts, which make allegations that may or may not be accurate. No reader should, on the basis of information contained in or referenced by this Web site, assume that any of these allegations are truthful.

Go to Search page | Go to Case Index page | Back to Top

�