After Farfetch was acquired by Coupang in a rescue transaction and its holding company later entered liquidation proceedings, a wave of litigation followed. More than two years later, Farfetch’s former executives are still defending themselves against a case accusing them of securities fraud tied to statements about Farfetch’s financial position. In their latest filing, as first reported by TFL, founder and former CEO José Neves, former CFO Elliot Jordan, and former Group President Stephanie Phair urge the court to dismiss the case with prejudice, arguing that the shareholder plaintiffs have failed to plead an actionable misstatement or a strong inference of fraud.
The Background in Brief: The securities litigation dates back to October 2023, when shareholders of the formerly-NYSE-traded Farfetch filed suit amid mounting concerns about the company’s financial health. Related actions followed and were consolidated before a New York federal court. The plaintiffs have already amended their complaint, and the court dismissed earlier versions, citing deficiencies in the pleading of actionable misstatements and scienter.
At the Center of the Dispute
At its core, the plaintiffs advance a sweeping narrative, alleging that Farfetch misled investors about the company’s liquidity and need for external capital while quietly exploring strategic alternatives, including capital raises or a sale. According to the plaintiffs, the company and its leadership projected stability while internally scrambling to stay afloat.
Neves, Jordan, and Phair (the “defendants”) reject that premise outright, arguing in a February 23 memo in support of their latest motion to dismiss that the plaintiffs’ case relies on assurances the company never actually gave. Farfetch, they argue, did not promise financial self-sufficiency. Instead, it disclosed operating losses, debt reliance, and the potential need for additional capital, warning in SEC filings that it might not “generate sufficient cash flow from operations” and was evaluating financing options.
The defendants argue that plaintiffs are transforming forward-looking statements about liquidity and cash flow into guarantees – and using Farfetch’s decline as retroactive proof of fraud. But those statements, they assert, fall squarely within the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act’s (“PSLRA”) safe harbor for forward-looking statements.
Farfetch’s statements that it believed it had sufficient liquidity for the year ahead were expressly forward-looking and accompanied by detailed risk disclosures addressing operating losses, debt exposure, and the potential need for additional capital, according to the reply. And under the PSLRA, the defendants argue, it is not enough that such statements later proved incorrect; plaintiffs must plead facts showing the executives had “actual knowledge” they were false when made.
The complaint falls short here, the defendants maintain, as it identifies no contemporaneous internal reports, conflicting financial data, or particularized witness allegations indicating that a liquidity crisis was already underway. Instead, plaintiffs rely on “Project Athena,” an internal initiative that began as a potential take-private exploration in late 2022 and later evolved into broader capital-raising discussions. But that timeline undermines the fraud theory, the defendants maintain. Materials cited in the plaintiffs’ briefing indicate that Farfetch’s financial deterioration did not materially accelerate until the second half of 2023.
Proving Fraudulent Intent
Even if plaintiffs could establish a materially misleading statement, they must still plead a “strong inference” of scienter. Aiming to counter any inference of fraudulent intent, the defendants point out that they increased their net Farfetch holdings during the proposed class period, conduct courts routinely view as inconsistent with a scheme to inflate a company’s stock price for personal gain.
While the plaintiffs highlight limited stock sales by Jordan and Phair, the defendants maintain those transactions were tax-related sales tied to vesting equity awards – circumstances courts regularly find insufficient to support scienter.
The defendants also reject the plaintiffs’ alternative motive theory, that the executives sought to stave off insolvency or preserve access to credit long enough to complete a strategic transaction. A generalized desire to avoid bankruptcy or maintain financing, they argue, is common to virtually every struggling company and, standing alone, does not amount to securities fraud.
Plaintiffs also assert a “scheme liability” claim, arguing that Farfetch’s pursuit of capital raises or a sale was deceptive, as it contradicted public assurances about liquidity. Neves, Jordan and Phair characterize that claim as little more than a repackaging of the plaintiffs’ misstatement theory, noting that courts require distinct deceptive conduct to sustain a standalone scheme theory.
Against that background, the defendants are asking the court to dismiss the case with prejudice. After two rounds of amendments and the court previously identifying shortcomings in the complaint, they claim that the plaintiffs still have not identified a specific, actionable misstatement or alleged facts sufficient to support a strong inference of fraudulent intent.
THE BOTTOM LINE: The dispute turns on a familiar fault line in securities litigation: when does executive optimism cross the line into fraud? Farfetch’s trajectory – from multi-billion-dollar fashion-tech darling to a rescue deal and now a rebounding retailer under the umbrella of Coupang – has been dramatic.
But its former executives maintain that securities law does not punish failed forecasts, deteriorating market conditions, or strategic missteps. It targets knowingly false statements. And critically, U.S. securities law does not require companies to disclose every internal discussion of strategic alternatives. Absent a concrete misstatement or a duty to speak, exploratory financing conversations – even consequential ones – do not automatically amount to securities fraud.
How the court resolves that distinction may determine not only the fate of this case, but also how far plaintiffs can stretch the boundary between aggressive corporate messaging and actionable deception in the volatile world of fashion-tech finance.
The case is In Re Farfetch Limited Securities Litigation, 1:23-cv-10982 (SDNY).
Share
