Case Page

 

Case Status:    ONGOING    
On or around 09/22/2016 (Ongoing date of last review)

Filing Date: June 23, 2015

According to the law firm press release, Iconix is a brand management company and owner of a diversified portfolio of global consumer brands across women’s, men’s, entertainment and home. The Complaint alleges that defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose to investors that: (1) that the Company had underreported the cost basis of its brands; (2) that the Company engaged in irregular accounting practices related to the booking of its joint venture revenues and profits, free-cash flow, and organic growth; (3) that, as a result, the Company’s earnings and revenues were overstated; and (4) that, as a result of the foregoing, Defendants’ statements about Iconix’s business, operations, and prospects, were false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

On March 30, 2015 after the market closed, the Company announced that its Chief Financial Officer had resigned effective March 30, 2015. Following this news, shares of Iconix fell $2.72 per share, or 7%, to close on March 31, 2015, at $33.67 per share on unusually high volume.

On Friday, April 17, 2015, after the market closed, Iconix announced that the Company’s Chief Operating Officer had resigned after serving for approximately one year. The Company stated that it did not intend to name a new COO. Then, on Monday, April 20, 2015, Roth Capital Partners, published an Equity Research Note, criticizing the Company’s alleged accounting irregularities concerning free-cash flow accounting, organic growth, and gains on licensing fees. Following this news, shares of Iconix declined $6.62 per share, over 20%, to close on April 20, 2015, at $25.41 per share, on unusually heavy volume.

Plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint on May 13, 2016.

COMPANY INFORMATION:

Sector: Consumer Cyclical
Industry: Footwear
Headquarters: United States

SECURITIES INFORMATION:

Ticker Symbol: ICON
Company Market: NASDAQ
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: S.D. New York
DOCKET #: 15-CV-04860
JUDGE: Hon. Paul G. Gardephe
DATE FILED: 06/23/2015
CLASS PERIOD START: 02/20/2013
CLASS PERIOD END: 04/17/2015
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP
    1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100 , Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP, CA 90067
    (310) 201-9150 (310) 432-1495 ·
  2. Law Offices of Howard G. Smith
    3070 Bristol Pike, Suite 112, Law Offices of Howard G. Smith, PA 19020
    215.638.4847 215.638.4867 ·
No Document Title Filing Date
COURT: S.D. New York
DOCKET #: 15-CV-04860
JUDGE: Hon. Paul G. Gardephe
DATE FILED: 05/13/2016
CLASS PERIOD START: 02/22/2012
CLASS PERIOD END: 11/05/2015
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP (Melville)
    58 South Service Road, Suite 200, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP (Melville), NY 11747
    631.367.7100 631.367.1173 ·
  2. Saxena White PA (Boca Raton)
    2424 N. Federal Highway, Suite 257, Saxena White PA (Boca Raton), FL 33431
    561.394.3399 561.394.3399 ·
No Document Title Filing Date