Schall regulation agency is submitting class motion lawsuit towards Coty Inc. – Enterprise Wire
LOS ANGELES–(BUSINESS WIRE) – The law firm Schall and Roche Cyrulnik Freedman LLP announced today that they have filed a class action lawsuit against Coty Inc. (“Coty” or “the Company”) (NYSE: COTY) on behalf of plaintiff Crystal Garrett-Evans. and some of his officers. In the class action lawsuit filed in the Southern District of New York, Garrett-Evans was brought against Coty Inc. et al. al. and registered under number 20-cv-07277 is on behalf of a class consisting of investors who purchased or otherwise acquired Coty securities between October 3, 2016 and May 28, 2020 inclusive (including the “Class Period”) to have. & # 39;). Plaintiff is seeking compensation for damages caused by Defendants violating federal securities laws and seeking remedial action under Sections 10 (b) and 20 (a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") and Rule 10b-5 to seize promulgated below.
If you are a shareholder who purchased Coty securities during the class period, you have until November 3, 2020 to petition the court to appoint you as the lead plaintiff for the class. If you are a shareholder who has suffered a loss, click here to participate.
We also encourage you to contact Brian Schall of the Schall Law Firm, 1880 Century Park East, Suite 404, Los Angeles, CA 90067, at 310-301-3335 to discuss your rights at no charge. You can also contact us on the company's website at www.schallfirm.com or by email at firstname.lastname@example.org.
In this case, the class has not yet been certified and you will not be represented by a lawyer until certification. If you don't take action, you can remain an absent class member.
Throughout the teaching period, Defendants made materially false and / or misleading statements and / or did not disclose material adverse facts about Coty's business, business and prospects. In particular, Defendants have misrepresented and / or failed to disclose the following: (1) While Coty was no stranger to beauty brand acquisitions, Coty did not have adequate processes and procedures in place to evaluate the P&G Specialty Beauty Business and Kylie Cosmetics acquisitions and to evaluate appropriately. (2) that Coty overpaid for the P&G Specialty Beauty Business and Kylie Cosmetics as a result; (3) that Coty did not have adequate infrastructure to smoothly integrate and support the beauty brands P&G acquired, including an adequate supply chain; (4) that due to its inadequate infrastructure, Coty has not successfully integrated the beauty brands acquired from P&G and has not achieved synergies from the acquisition; (5) and that as a result of the foregoing, Coty's financial statements and Defendants' statements about Coty's business, business and prospects were materially false and / or misleading at all relevant times.
Join the case to make up for your losses.
Schall law firm represents investors around the world and specializes in class action and shareholder disputes.
This press release may be viewed as a solicitor advertisement in some jurisdictions under applicable laws and ethical rules.