Case Page

 

Case Status:    DISMISSED    
On or around 04/26/2005 (Court's order of dismissal)

Filing Date: March 25, 2003

The original complaint charges that beginning in 2002, Skechers began assuming the role of distributor of its products in several international markets such as Spain, Italy, Portugal, the Benelux region, and Austria. Once unencumbered by a third party distributor, Skechers was able to increase their profit margin on sales without moving any additional inventory. Yet, this benefit was short-lived. While temporarily enjoying increased profits by reaping greater margins on sales, Skechers' overall merchandise sales ultimately began to slow and Skechers was forced to significantly reduce earnings accordingly. The market, unprepared for the temporary effect this role of distributor would have on earnings, was stunned once the Company, having recorded record revenue in the
first and second quarter of 2002, began revising earnings and ultimately
recorded a loss. Even more alarming, while Skechers stock was soaring as a result of the market's favorable reaction to its increased profits, the Individual Defendants, knowing the truth about the Company's long-term outlook, sold off considerable personal holdings in the Company and reaped more than $42 million profit from stock sales during the Class Period.

According to the Company’s Form 10-Q or the quarterly period ended September 30, 2005, in July 2003, the court in the federal securities class actions, all pending in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, ordered the cases consolidated and a consolidated complaint to be filed and served. On September 25, 2003, the plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint entitled In re SKECHERS USA, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. CV-03-2094-PA in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, consolidating all of the federal securities actions above. The complaint names as defendants Skechers and certain officers and directors and alleges violations of the federal securities laws and breach of fiduciary duty on behalf of persons who purchased publicly traded securities of Skechers between April 3, 2002 and December 9, 2002. The complaint seeks compensatory damages, interest, attorneys’ fees and injunctive and equitable relief. Skechers moved to dismiss the consolidated complaint in its entirety. On May 10, 2004, the court granted Skechers’ motion to dismiss with leave for plaintiffs to amend the complaint. On August 9, 2004, plaintiffs filed a first amended consolidated complaint for violations of the federal securities laws. The allegations and relief sought were virtually identical to the original consolidated complaint. Skechers has moved to dismiss the first amended consolidated complaint and the motion was set for hearing on December 6, 2004. On March 21, 2005, the court granted the motion to dismiss the first amended consolidated complaint with leave for plaintiffs to amend one final time. On April 7, 2005, plaintiffs elected to stand on the first amended consolidated complaint and requested entry of judgment so that an appeal from the court’s ruling could be taken. On April 26, 2005, the court entered judgment in favor of Skechers and the individual defendants, and on May 3, 2005, plaintiffs filed an appeal with the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

On May 2, 2008, the Court entered the Mandate from the U.S. Court of Appeals affirming the Judgment of the District Court.

COMPANY INFORMATION:

Sector: Consumer Cyclical
Industry: Footwear
Headquarters: United States

SECURITIES INFORMATION:

Ticker Symbol: SKX
Company Market: New York SE
Market Status: Public (Listed)

About the Company & Securities Data


"Company" information provides the industry and sector classification and headquarters state for the primary company-defendant in the litigation. In general, "Securities" information provides the ticker symbol, market, and market status for the underlying securities at issue in the litigation.

In most cases, the primary company-defendant actually issued the securities that are the subject of the litigation, and the securities information and company information relate to the same entity. In a small subset of cases, however, the primary company-defendant is not the issuer (for example, cases against third party brokers/dealers), and the securities information and company information do not relate to the same entity.
COURT: C.D. California
DOCKET #: 03-CV-2094
JUDGE: Hon. Dean D. Pregerson
DATE FILED: 03/25/2003
CLASS PERIOD START: 04/03/2002
CLASS PERIOD END: 12/09/2002
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Cauley Geller Bowman Coates & Rudman, LLP (New York)
    200 Broadhollow, Suite 406, Cauley Geller Bowman Coates & Rudman, LLP (New York), NY 11747
    631.367.7100 631.367.1173 ·
  2. Cauley Geller, Bowman Coates & Rudman, LLP (Boca Raton, FL)
    One Boca Place. 2255 Glades Road, Suite 421A, Cauley Geller, Bowman Coates & Rudman, LLP (Boca Raton, FL), FL 33431
    561.750.3000 561.750.3364 ·
  3. Glancy Binkow & GoldBerg LLP
    1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100, Glancy Binkow & GoldBerg LLP, CA 90067
    310-201-9150 · info@glancylaw.com
  4. Schiffrin & Barroway LLP
    3 Bala Plaza E, Schiffrin & Barroway LLP, PA 19004
    610.667.7706 610.667.7056 · info@sbclasslaw.com
No Document Title Filing Date
COURT: C.D. California
DOCKET #: 03-CV-2094
JUDGE: Hon. Dean D. Pregerson
DATE FILED: 08/09/2004
CLASS PERIOD START: 04/03/2002
CLASS PERIOD END: 12/09/2002
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP (San Diego)
    401 B Street, Suite 1700, Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP (San Diego), CA 92101
    206.749.5544 206.749.9978 · info@lerachlaw.com
  2. Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP (Los Angeles, CA)
    355 S Grand Ave - Ste 4170, Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP (Los Angeles, CA), CA 90071-3172
    213.617.9007 ·
No Document Title Filing Date
No Document Title Filing Date