COMPANY |
Capri Holdings Limited |
COURT |
United States District Court for the District of Delaware |
CASE NUMBER |
24-cv-01410 |
JUDGE |
The Hon. Maryellen Noreika |
CLASS PERIOD |
August 10, 2023, through October 24, 2024 |
SECURITY TYPE |
Stock and/or sold Puts |
LEAD PLAINTIFF DEADLINE IS FEBRUARY 21, 2025.
If you have suffered losses and would like to discuss your rights, please fill out this form or you may contact Jonathan Naji, Esq. at (484) 270-1453 or via e-mail at info@ktmc.com.
Case Background:
Capri, a British Virgin Islands corporation with headquarters in London, United Kingdom, is a luxury fashion company that owns brands such as Michael Kors, which sells, among other things, handbags. Tapestry, Inc. is a fashion firm that owns brands including Coach and Kate Spade, which also sell, among other things, handbags. As is relevant here, the litigation concerns the attempted merger in 2023 between Capri and Tapestry (the “Capri Acquisition”), which was later blocked by the U.S. Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”). The FTC secured an injunction blocking the merger on antitrust grounds in October 2024.
The complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the company’s business, operations, market dynamics, and the prospects for approval of the Capri Acquisition. Specifically, Defendants misrepresented and/or failed to disclose that: (1) the accessible luxury handbag market is a distinct and well-defined market within the overall handbag market and understood as such by the Defendants, as well as by other Capri and Tapestry executives; (2) Capri and Tapestry maintained analogous production facilities and supply chains for their accessible luxury handbags that were distinct from the production facilities and supply chains used to manufacture luxury or mass market handbags, confirming that the accessible luxury handbag market is distinct from the mass market and luxury handbag markets; (3) Capri and Tapestry internally considered Coach and Michael Kors to be each other’s closest and most direct competitors; (4) conversely, Capri and Tapestry did not internally consider their handbag brands to be in direct competition with luxury handbags or mass market handbags; (5) a primary internal rationale for the Capri Acquisition was to consolidate prevalent brands within the accessible luxury handbag market so as to reduce competition, increase prices, improve profit margins, and reduce consumer choice within that market; (6) as a result of the foregoing, the risk of adverse regulatory actions and/or the Capri Acquisition being blocked was materially higher than represented by Defendants; and (7) as a result, Defendants’ statements about the company’s business, operations, and prospects were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times.
What is a Lead Plaintiff?
A lead plaintiff is a representative party that acts on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. In order to be appointed lead plaintiff, the Court must determine that the class member’s claim is typical of the claims of other class members, and that the class member will adequately represent the class. Your ability to share in any recovery is not, however, affected by the decision whether or not to serve as a lead plaintiff. Filling out the online form above or communicating with any counsel is not necessary to participate or share in any recovery achieved in this case. Any member of the purported class may move the court to serve as a lead plaintiff through counsel of his/her choice, or may choose to do nothing and remain an inactive class member.