Case Page

 

Case Status:    ONGOING    
On or around 10/02/2017 (Ongoing date of last review)

Filing Date: February 10, 2017

According to the law firm press release, the lawsuit alleges that, during the Class Period, Under Armour and certain of its officers made false and misleading statements and failed to disclose that Under Armour's revenue and profit margins would not be able to withstand the heavy promotions, high inventory levels and ripple effects of numerous department store closures and the bankruptcy of one of its large retailers. Instead, Under Armour promoted itself as a growth company that would continue to develop and market game-changing products. Defendants' false statements and/or omissions caused Under Armour common stock to trade at artificially inflated prices during the Class Period.

The fraud was revealed on January 31, 2017 when Under Armour released weaker-than-expected earnings for the fourth quarter of 2016, and the poor results were in fact tied to market factors, such as department store closings.

On April 26, 2017, the Court appointed Lead Plaintiff and Counsel. Lead Plaintiff filed an amended complaint on August 9.

COMPANY INFORMATION:

Sector: Consumer Cyclical
Industry: Apparel/Accessories
Headquarters: United States

SECURITIES INFORMATION:

Ticker Symbol: UA
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: D. Maryland
DOCKET #: 17-CV-00388
JUDGE: Hon. Richard D. Bennett
DATE FILED: 02/10/2017
CLASS PERIOD START: 04/21/2016
CLASS PERIOD END: 01/30/2017
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Brower Piven (Stevenson)
    1925 Old Valley Road, Brower Piven (Stevenson), MD 21153
    (410) 332-0030 (410) 685-1300 · piven@abrowerpiven.com
  2. Gardy & Notis, LLP
    501 Fifth Avenue, Suite 1408, Gardy & Notis, LLP, NY 10017
    212-905-0509 212-905-0508 ·
No Document Title Filing Date
COURT: D. Maryland
DOCKET #: 17-CV-00388
JUDGE: Hon. Richard D. Bennett
DATE FILED: 08/09/2017
CLASS PERIOD START: 09/16/2015
CLASS PERIOD END: 01/30/2017
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP (Boca Raton)
    120 East Palmetto Park Road, Suite 500, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP (Boca Raton), FL 33432
    561.750.3000 561.750.3364 ·
  2. Silverman Thompson Slutkin and White LLC
    201 N Charles St , Silverman Thompson Slutkin and White LLC , MD 21201
    14439097502 14105472432 ·
No Document Title Filing Date