Processing your request

please wait...

Case Page


Case Status:    ONGOING    
On or around 08/20/2019 (Ongoing date of last review)

Filing Date: October 11, 2018

Plaintiff's law firm issued a press release on October 11, 2018, announcing the filing of the lawsuit. According to the press release, Stitch Fix is an online retail fashion subscription service. For subscription businesses like Stitch Fix, an important business metric for investors is the number and growth rate of its “active clients.” During 2017 and 2018, Stitch Fix’s active client base had grown dramatically, reaching 2.7 million by the end of the third quarter of 2018. This growth was due, in large part, to the Company’s prolific television advertising campaign, which it had launched in 2017.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and misleading statements and/or failed to disclose adverse information about Stitch Fix’s business and prospects, including that its active client growth had slowed dramatically and that Defendants had shut down Stitch Fix’s television advertising campaign for much of the fourth quarter of 2018. As a result of Defendants’ false statements and/or omissions, the price of Stitch Fix common stock was artificially inflated during the Class Period.

On August 9, 2019, the Court issued an Order consolidating cases and appointing Lead Plaintiff and Counsel.


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


Ticker Symbol: SFIX
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: N.D. California
DOCKET #: 18-CV-06208
JUDGE: Hon. James Donato
DATE FILED: 10/11/2018
CLASS PERIOD END: 10/01/2018
  1. Johnson Fistel, LLP
  2. Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP (New SF Office)
No Document Title Filing Date
—Reference Complaint Complaint Related Data is not available
—Related District Court Filings Data is not available