Processing your request


please wait...

Case Page

 

Case Status:    ONGOING    
On or around 07/26/2019 (Ongoing date of last review)

Filing Date: February 14, 2019

According to the Complaint, Avon is a global manufacturer and marketer of beauty and related products. Avon’s reportable segments are based on geographic operations in four regions: Europe, Middle East & Africa; South Latin America; North Latin America; and Asia Pacific. During 2016, Avon had sales operations in 57 countries and territories. Brazil is Avon’s largest market, measured by revenue and number of sales representatives. In 2016, Brazil revenue was $1.2 billion, approximately 21% of Avon’s total revenues. No other country accounts for more than 10% of Avon’s total revenues.

The Complaint alleges that in order to inflate its reported revenue and representative growth metric during the Class Period, Avon engaged in an undisclosed scheme whereby it significantly loosened its credit terms in order to recruit new representatives in Brazil, its largest market. Avon did not disclose the changes to its credit terms in Brazil. Avon also failed to increase its allowance for doubtful accounts to account for the changes to its credit terms in Brazil.

On June 3, 2019, the Court issued an Order appointing Lead Plaintiff and Counsel. Lead Plaintiff filed an amended consolidated Complaint on July 8. On July 24, Lead Plaintiff corrected the amended consolidated Complaint.

COMPANY INFORMATION:

Sector: Consumer Non-Cyclical
Industry: Personal & Household Products
Headquarters: United States

SECURITIES INFORMATION:

Ticker Symbol: AVP
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: S.D. New York
DOCKET #: 19-CV-01420
JUDGE: Hon. Colleen McMahon
DATE FILED: 02/14/2019
CLASS PERIOD START: 08/02/2016
CLASS PERIOD END: 08/02/2017
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Johnson Fistel, LLP
  2. Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP (Melville)
No Document Title Filing Date
COURT: S.D. New York
DOCKET #: 19-CV-01420
JUDGE: Hon. Colleen McMahon
DATE FILED: 07/24/2019
CLASS PERIOD START: 01/21/2016
CLASS PERIOD END: 11/01/2017
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Labaton Sucharow LLP
    140 Broadway, Labaton Sucharow LLP, NY 10005
    212.907.0700 212.818.0477 · info@labaton.com
  2. Levi & Korsinsky, LLP
    30 Broad Street, 15 1h Floor, Levi & Korsinsky, LLP, NY 10004
    212.363.7500 212.363-7171 ·
No Document Title Filing Date
—Related District Court Filings Data is not available