A group of Farfetch investors is still trying to hold the company’s former leadership accountable for its dramatic 2023 collapse, including by attempting to piggyback on document discovery unfolding in the company’s liquidation proceedings. But a federal judge in New York has made clear that they will not be getting early access to documents held by Coupang’s acquisition vehicle to help build their securities fraud case against Farfetch founder and former CEO José Neves, former CFO Elliot Jordan, and former Group President Stephanie Phair.
In an opinion and order issued on February 26, Judge Edgardo Ramos of the Southern District of New York denied the plaintiffs’ attempt to lift the automatic discovery stay in the securities class action arising from the downfall of Farfetch Limited. The plaintiffs – who seek to represent purchasers of Farfetch securities from December 2022 through December 2023 – allege that former Farfetch executives misled the market about the company’s financial health in the months leading up to its collapse.
The PSLRA Wall Holds
The dispute centers on documents held by Surpique L.P., the Coupang-affiliated entity that acquired Farfetch’s operating business in early 2024. According to the plaintiffs, Surpique may have “more than 100,000 documents” that detail Farfetch’s operations, finances, and the pre-insolvency asset sale. Because Surpique has produced – or is expected to produce – “limited non-privileged documents” to liquidators in a separate Farfetch Holding liquidation proceeding under a sweeping Bankruptcy Rule 2004 subpoena, the plaintiffs argue that they should be permitted to access the same materials now in their securities action.
The problem, according to the court, is that federal securities class actions operate under a different procedural regime than ordinary civil litigation. Under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act (“PSLRA”), “all discovery and other proceedings shall be stayed” while a motion to dismiss is pending, unless plaintiffs show that particularized discovery is necessary to preserve evidence or prevent undue prejudice.
Here, the court has already dismissed the operative complaint for failure to meet the statute’s heightened pleading standards, and a motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint remains pending. In other words, the case is still at the pleading stage.
Against that backdrop, Judge Ramos declined to lift the stay. The plaintiffs’ discovery request was “overbroad” and “insufficiently particularized,” the court held, rejecting plaintiffs’ assertion that they were seeking a “clearly defined universe of documents.” Since neither Surpique nor the Joint Official Liquidators had finalized the scope of production, the court held that the plaintiffs were effectively seeking “an unknown and as-yet to be determined universe of documents.”
That alone was fatal. Courts in this District, Judge Ramos stated, “have consistently denied lifting the PSLRA stay with regard to documents which have not yet been produced in other related actions.” And even if the request had been particularized – “which [it was] not” – plaintiffs still failed to show that the discovery was “necessary to preserve evidence or to prevent undue prejudice.”
In short, this was expansive discovery in a case still at the threshold stage – and the PSLRA’s strict standards for lifting the stay were not met.
For Coupang, the ruling is significant. Surpique is not a defendant in the securities case; it is a non-party acquirer. Yet it sits on Farfetch-related documents. The court’s decision confirms that those materials remain off-limits while the PSLRA stay remains in effect, absent a showing that satisfies the statute’s narrow exceptions.
A Turnaround Takes Shape
All of this is unfolding as Farfetch’s operating business attempts to reset under Coupang’s ownership. Farfetch Limited remains in official liquidation in the Cayman Islands, with parallel recognition proceedings in the U.K. and U.S., and court-appointed liquidators continuing to investigate the company’s rapid deterioration in late 2023 and the structure of the pre-insolvency asset sale.
At the same time, the Farfetch business acquired by Coupang – in a roughly $500 million rescue transaction – is charting a different course. Speaking to analysts on February 26, Coupang founder and CEO Bom Kim said that the fourth quarter “marks the first quarter since our acquisition [of Farfetch], where we generated positive year-over-year revenue growth with positive overall economics.” He added that Coupang sees “a real opportunity to create value for luxury customers around the world by combining Farfetch’s vast assortment with a white glove shipping and returns experience.”
Under Coupang, Farfetch reported $1.7 billion in revenue in 2024 and narrowed losses to $34 million, turning its first-ever profit in the fourth quarter of 2024. The company has shifted away from discount-driven growth and back toward its original marketplace model, emphasizing cost discipline, personalization, and higher-margin customer segments.
THE BOTTOM LINE: The Farfetch saga is now running on two distinct tracks. In court, liquidators and securities plaintiffs continue to probe Farfetch Limited’s collapse. In commerce, Coupang is betting it can turn the operating arm of the platform into a leaner, more disciplined luxury marketplace. For now, those tracks remain separate. Until the securities complaint survives dismissal, the PSLRA’s discovery wall stands – and Surpique’s files stay closed.
The case is In Re Farfetch Limited Securities Litigation, 1:23-cv-10982 (SDNY).
Share
