The Farfetch class action lawsuit is a securities fraud case pending in federal court in Manhattan that accuses the luxury marketplace and three of its top executives of hiding a serious slowdown in the business during 2023, the year Farfetch collapsed and sold its operations to Coupang. A federal judge threw out the first version of the complaint in September 2025 but let investors try again, and a Second Amended Class Action Complaint filed on November 3, 2025 keeps the case alive.
What Investors Say Farfetch Hid
The consolidated case, In re Farfetch Limited Securities Litigation, covers statements made between December 1, 2022 and December 17, 2023. According to the complaint, Farfetch told the market it was on plan while several problems were quietly getting worse.
Four categories of alleged concealment run through the pleading. Growth in the United States and China, two markets executives publicly said were recovering, was actually stalling. The Reebok partnership through Authentic Brands Group was described to investors as “on budget and on schedule” despite onboarding and transitional difficulties. Supply chain and inventory problems were downplayed while the company overstated its ability to manage them. And because of those undisclosed headwinds, Farfetch was unlikely to hit either its second-quarter 2023 numbers or its full-year 2023 revenue guidance.
The claims are brought under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act and SEC Rule 10b-5, with an additional Section 20(a) claim that seeks to hold the individual executives liable as controllers of the company.
The Two Stock Drops at the Heart of the Case
Two specific days anchor the damages theory.
On August 17, 2023, Farfetch reported second-quarter revenue of roughly $572 million, about $78 million below the consensus estimate of $651 million. Management cut full-year 2023 revenue guidance from $2.9 billion to about $2.5 billion, a $400 million reduction. The reasons offered in that release, weak U.S. and China recoveries, a slower Reebok ramp, and inventory and shipping trouble, mirror the very issues plaintiffs say should have been disclosed earlier. Shares fell about 45% the next day, erasing more than $700 million in market value.
On November 28, 2023, Farfetch said it would not release third-quarter results as scheduled and pulled all forward guidance, telling investors that “any prior forecasts or guidance should no longer be relied upon.” The stock dropped another 44.8% the following morning. By then Farfetch had lost more than 70% of its value over the prior year and traded more than 86% below its 52-week high. Fitch Ratings downgraded the company to “CC,” citing imminent default risk.
Who Is Being Sued
Along with Farfetch Limited itself, three executives are named as defendants:
- José Neves, founder, chief executive officer, and chairman of the board
- Elliot Jordan, chief financial officer
- Stephanie Phair, group president
The complaint alleges each had authority over Farfetch’s SEC filings, press releases, and public statements, and that they either approved misleading disclosures or failed to correct them. Neves and Jordan also signed Sarbanes-Oxley certifications stating that the company’s annual filing fairly presented its financial condition.
The Class Period and Who Is Covered
The proposed class covers investors who bought Farfetch securities between December 1, 2022 and December 17, 2023. Fernando Sulichin and Yuanzhe Fu serve as co-lead plaintiffs, with Levi & Korsinsky LLP and Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP as co-lead counsel. No class has been certified yet, and the case has not reached the stage where individual investors submit claims.
Why the First Complaint Was Dismissed
On September 30, 2025, Judge Edgardo Ramos of the Southern District of New York granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint, but gave plaintiffs leave to amend.
The 186-page complaint, the court found, did not meet the specificity that the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act requires. Judge Ramos described the pleading as “puzzle pleading,” offering “lengthy block quotations” followed by “conclusory assertions” rather than identifying which statements were false and explaining why.
Many of the statements plaintiffs challenged were, in the court’s view, non-actionable. Assurances such as being “on track to deliver on our plan for 2023” read as corporate optimism, and statements framed with “we expect” or “we believe” were treated as opinions rather than factual claims.
The scienter allegations also fell short. The court held that motives such as raising capital or earning executive compensation are ordinary motives shared by any corporate insider, not enough to show fraudulent intent. Plaintiffs also failed to allege with sufficient specificity that the defendants had access to internal information contradicting what they told the market. With the underlying fraud claims dismissed, the Section 20(a) control-person claims fell with them.
Where the Case Stands Now
Plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Class Action Complaint on November 3, 2025 aimed at fixing the problems Judge Ramos identified. Reporting on the amended pleading indicates plaintiffs are also arguing that Farfetch’s post-restructuring entity should be treated as a successor for liability purposes, and are sharpening the allegations that the company misrepresented its financial health as liquidity pressure mounted. As of the last known docket activity in February 2026, no new motion to dismiss had been filed, and the case was still active.
How the Coupang Sale Affects Shareholders
The collapse that preceded the sale is the reason this case matters to former shareholders, and also the reason recovery is complicated. Farfetch’s market capitalization peaked near $23 billion in 2021 and had fallen below $500 million by late 2023. The company carried roughly $2.8 billion in financial obligations.
In December 2023, Farfetch agreed to sell its business and assets to Coupang through a UK pre-pack administration asset sale. Coupang provided about $500 million in bridge financing, and the transaction closed on January 31, 2024. Because it was an asset purchase rather than a corporate merger, no shareholder vote was required. The operating business moved to Coupang; the equity stayed behind in a holding entity that entered liquidation. Farfetch was delisted from the New York Stock Exchange and shares were suspended from trading. Joint official liquidators appointed by the Grand Court of the Cayman Islands in February 2024 have preliminarily determined the company to be insolvent, rendering existing shares “effectively worthless.” That is why plaintiffs’ successor-liability theory matters: the company that made the alleged misstatements no longer has a going business to pay a judgment.
Other Farfetch Investor Lawsuits
The current case is not the only investor litigation Farfetch has faced, but the others are separate matters. A consolidated case challenging Farfetch’s September 2018 IPO under Sections 11 and 12(a)(2) of the Securities Act was dismissed by the Southern District of New York in September 2021, with the court finding that “no reasonable investor could possibly have been misled.” The Second Circuit unanimously affirmed the dismissal in April 2023.
Farfetch also settled an unrelated consumer class action, Walter, et al. v. Farfetch.com U.S. LLC, in California Superior Court for Orange County, agreeing to a $4 million fund over allegations that it recorded customer phone calls without consent, with class members eligible for an estimated $125 per qualifying call. That settlement closed in 2023 and has nothing to do with the securities claims.