Movado Group, Inc.

Shareholder Securities Fraud Litigation

Rigrodsky & Long, P.A. Announces A Securities Fraud Class Action Lawsuit Has Been Filed Against Movado Group, Inc. (NYSE: MOV)

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 District of New Jersey on behalf of all persons or entities that purchased the common stock of Movado Group, Inc. (“Movado” or the “Company”) (NYSE: MOV) between March 26, 2014 and November 13, 2014, 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 Movado during the Class Period, 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.

Movado designs, sources, markets and distributes fine watches.  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) Defendants’ growth projections for sales and operating income were unrealistic and simply unattainable given declining demand in the watch market, a generally weaker retail economy, and retailers’ broad efforts to trim inventory levels; (2) the Company’s ESQ/Movado repositioning, which only bolstered visibility for the Movado brand by cannibalizing shelf space previously devoted to ESQ, not only brought millions in hard costs during a weakening retail climate but also cost untold millions more in lost sales and returned ESQ inventory; (3) far from over-performing the market generally, the Company’s portfolio of licensed brands were floundering because of fashion and design misses, with the Lacoste and Scuderia Ferrari brands in particular dragging on Movado’s performance because their products were not resonating with consumers; (4) contrary to Defendants’ repeated assurances about the Company’s expected acceleration in sales growth, Movado was no different than its competitors worldwide in reeling from the effects of a contracting international retail market; (5) Defendants’ statements regarding the Company’s sales, financial performance and expected earnings in fiscal 2015 were false misleading and lacked a reasonable basis when made; and (6) Defendants’ Sarbanes-Oxley Act certifications included the misleading representation that the Company’s Forms 10-K and 10-Q did not contain untrue statements or material omissions, when in reality, Defendants knew but failed to disclose, or recklessly disregarded, that Movado’s growth was unsustainable.  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 November 14, 2014, Movado issued a press release announcing disappointing third quarter financial results and suddenly slashing the Company’s financial outlook for its 2015 fiscal year.

On this news, shares in Movado plummeted over 31%, closing at $26.25 per share on November 14, 2014, on extraordinarily high trading volume.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than April 6, 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.