NASDAQ GS
ICON

Iconix Brand Group, Inc.

Shareholder Securities Fraud Litigation

Rigrodsky & Long, P.A. Announces A Securities Fraud Class Action Lawsuit Has Been Filed Against Iconix Brand Group, Inc. (NASDAQ GS: ICON)

Rigrodsky & Long, P.A., including former Special Assistant United States Attorney, Timothy J. MacFall, announces that a complaint has been filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of all persons or entities that purchased the common stock of Iconix Brand Group, Inc. (“Iconix” or the “Company”) (NASDAQ GS: ICON) between February 20, 2013 and April 17, 2015, inclusive (the “Class Period”), alleging violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against the Company and certain of its officers (the “Complaint”).

If you purchased shares of Iconix during the Class Period, or purchased shares prior to the Class Period and still hold Iconix, and wish to discuss this action or have any questions concerning this notice or your rights or interests, please contact Timothy J. MacFall, Esquire or Peter Allocco of Rigrodsky & Long, P.A., 2 Righter Parkway, Suite 120, Wilmington, DE 19803 at (888) 969-4242; by e-mail to info@rl-legal.com.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, defendants made materially false and misleading statements, and omitted materially adverse facts, about the Company’s business, operations and prospects.  Specifically, the Complaint alleges that the defendants concealed from the investing public that: (1) the Company had underreported the cost basis of its brands; (2) the Company engaged in irregular accounting practices related to the booking of its joint venture revenues and profits, free-cash flow, and organic growth; (3) as a result, the Company’s earnings and revenues were overstated; and (4) as a result of the foregoing, Defendants’ statements about Iconix’s business, operations, and prospects, were false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.  As a result of defendants’ alleged false and misleading statements, the Company’s stock traded at artificially inflated prices during the Class Period.

According to the Complaint, on April 17, 2015, after the market closed, Iconix announced that the Company’s Chief Operating Officer (“COO”) Seth Horowitz had resigned after serving for approximately one year.  The Company stated that it did not intend to name a new COO.  Then, on April 20, 2015, Roth Capital Partners published an Equity Research Note revealing the accounting irregularities with free-cash flow accounting, organic growth, and gains on Licensing Fees, stating in relevant part, “[n]ews of the COO’s resignation is likely to weigh on shares near-term, particularly following the CFO’s recent departure as well as uncertainties surrounding the company’s prior reporting of free cash flow and practice of booking joint venture gains as revenue.”  The Note further stated that, “This announcement [of the COO departure] follows the March 30 resignation of chief financial officer, Jeff Lupinacci, who will pursue another business opportunity.  While not necessarily connected, Lupinacci’s departure came after uncertainties surrounding the company’s reporting of free cash flow.”

On this news, shares in Iconix plummeted over 20%, closing at $25.41 per share on April 20, 2015, on heavy trading volume.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than August 24, 2015.  A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting 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.  Any member of the proposed class may move the court to serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member.

While Rigrodsky & Long, P.A. did not file the Complaint in this matter, the firm, with offices in Wilmington, Delaware and Garden City, New York, regularly litigates securities class, derivative and direct actions, shareholder rights litigation and corporate governance litigation, including claims for breach of fiduciary duty and proxy violations in the Delaware Court of Chancery and in state and federal courts throughout the United States.

Attorney advertising.  Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.