View Future GrowthJLM Couture 過去の業績過去 基準チェック /06JLM Coutureの過去数年間の業績に関するデータが不十分です。主要情報n/a収益成長率n/aEPS成長率Luxury 業界の成長12.25%収益成長率n/a株主資本利益率n/aネット・マージンn/a前回の決算情報31 Oct 2021最近の業績更新更新なしすべての更新を表示Recent updatesお知らせ • Apr 19Joinder to Motion for Case Conversion Filed for JLM Couture, Inc.JLJ Bricken LLC joins with Hayley Paige Gutman to file a motion in the US Bankruptcy Court seeking the conversion of JLM Couture, Inc.’s bankruptcy case from Chapter 11 reorganization to Chapter 7 liquidation on April 17, 2024. The reason being the decline of relationships with important retailers and the debtor’s inability to stabilize its cash flows and provide some recovery to creditors making it difficult to consummate a plan of reorganization.お知らせ • Jul 28Court Finds in Favor of JLM Couture - Instagram and Pinterest Accounts Are Business Accounts - Denies Hayley Gutman's Motion in its EntiretyA Manhattan Federal Court held that New York bridal house, JLM Couture, Inc., has established a clear likelihood of success in their lawsuit against former designer, Hayley Gutman, including that the @misshayleypaige Instagram and Pinterest accounts are business accounts for the Hayley Paige brand and thus owned by JLM. The Court held that these accounts, which were created using the Hayley Paige brand name, are the product of JLM's marketing efforts and investments which built the popularity and success of the Hayley Paige brand. Judge Laura Taylor Swain, in 67 pages of decisive rulings found that Ms. Gutman, used JLM's money, resources, and strategies to help the company build the Accounts' image around and for the JLM-owned Hayley Paige brand, and thus, cannot now claim company property as Hayley own. Even more compelling, Judge Swain ruled that the Preliminary Injunction should be modified and bar Ms. Gutman from being identified as a designer of competitive products or using or authorizing others to use Ms. Gutman's role as a designer to promote the sale of any competitive goods, no matter what title she may claim in connection with a new venture or new employment, until August 1, 2027. The ruling does not prevent Ms. Gutman from designing wedding dresses. While Ms. Gutman can work for other brands, neither she nor those brands nor other third parties may identify her as the designer of those wedding dresses, and her role as a designer cannot be used to promote the sales of competitive goods. Separately, and most telling, the Court denied Ms. Gutman's motion, in its entirety, to dissolve the Preliminary Injunction.お知らせ • Mar 06JLM Couture, Inc. Announces Second Circuit Court of Appeals Denies Hayley Paige Gutman's PetitionThe Second Circuit Court of Appeals, in JLM Couture Inc. vs. Hayley Paige Gutman, denied appellant Ms. Gutman's petition to rehear her argument and her petition for a hearing en banc. The Appeals Court Order supports its earlier decision, as well as multiple federal District Court findings, that Ms. Gutman is not entitled to use the Designer Name in trade or commerce and that she breached her clear and unambiguous employment contract and is not entitled to any additional compensation.お知らせ • Jan 26JLM Couture, Inc. Announces Appeals Court Upholds JLM Couture in Contract Dispute with Hayley Paige GutmanJLM Couture, Inc. announced the Second Circuit Court of Appeals strongly affirmed that Hayley Paige Gutman breached her clear and unambiguous employment contract and is not entitled to any additional compensation. The court stated that JLM had no duty to pay Gutman if she did not work. It was Ms. Gutman who resigned and who breached her employment contract, not JLM, the Appeals Court ruled. The Appeals Court also affirmed that JLM was completely within its rights to enforce a noncompete clause in the employment contract. The Court stated that, Gutman provides no reason to question the district court's determination that this Noncompete Agreement was reasonable and fully enforceable in light of her unique role at JLM. They also stated that the District Court was correct in upholding JLM's rights to the brand name and marks in trade and commerce, and decline(d) Gutman's invitation to depart from the plain language of the Contract. In addition, the Court in no way ordered the Instagram account to change hands nor did they determine ownership of the account. They expressly declined to do so. They remanded this issue back down to the District Court as that is the proper procedure.収支内訳JLM Couture の稼ぎ方とお金の使い方。LTMベースの直近の報告された収益に基づく。収益と収入の歴史OTCPK:JLMC 収益、費用、利益 ( )USD Millions日付収益収益G+A経費研究開発費31 Oct 2113-110031 Oct 2018-18031 Oct 1925-111031 Jan 1929012031 Oct 1830112031 Jul 1830212030 Apr 1831112031 Jan 1832113031 Oct 1732112031 Jul 1733012030 Apr 1732012031 Jan 1730-112031 Oct 1629-112031 Jul 1626012030 Apr 1627011031 Jan 1628012031 Oct 1529112031 Jul 15310120質の高い収益: JLMC 非現金収入 のレベルが高いです。利益率の向上: JLMCの 利益率 が過去 1 年間で改善したかどうかを判断するにはデータが不十分です。フリー・キャッシュフローと収益の比較過去の収益成長分析収益動向: JLMCの過去 5 年間の前年比収益成長率がプラスであったかどうかを判断するにはデータが不十分です。成長の加速: JLMCの過去 1 年間の収益成長を 5 年間の平均と比較するにはデータが不十分です。収益対業界: JLMCの過去 1 年間の収益成長がLuxury業界平均を上回ったかどうかを判断するにはデータが不十分です。株主資本利益率高いROE: JLMCは現在利益が出ていないため、自己資本利益率 ( 0% ) はマイナスです。総資産利益率使用総資本利益率過去の好業績企業の発掘7D1Y7D1Y7D1YConsumer-durables 、過去の業績が好調な企業。View Financial Health企業分析と財務データの現状データ最終更新日（UTC時間）企業分析2026/06/08 20:09終値2026/03/26 00:00収益2021/10/31年間収益2021/10/31データソース企業分析に使用したデータはS&P Global Market Intelligence LLC のものです。本レポートを作成するための分析モデルでは、以下のデータを使用しています。データは正規化されているため、ソースが利用可能になるまでに時間がかかる場合があります。パッケージデータタイムフレーム米国ソース例会社財務10年損益計算書キャッシュ・フロー計算書貸借対照表SECフォーム10-KSECフォーム10-Qアナリストのコンセンサス予想+プラス3年予想財務アナリストの目標株価アナリストリサーチレポートBlue Matrix市場価格30年株価配当、分割、措置ICEマーケットデータSECフォームS-1所有権10年トップ株主インサイダー取引SECフォーム4SECフォーム13Dマネジメント10年リーダーシップ・チーム取締役会SECフォーム10-KSECフォームDEF 14A主な進展10年会社からのお知らせSECフォーム8-K* 米国証券を対象とした例であり、非米国証券については、同等の規制書式および情報源を使用。特に断りのない限り、すべての財務データは1年ごとの期間に基づいていますが、四半期ごとに更新されます。これは、TTM（Trailing Twelve Month）またはLTM（Last Twelve Month）データとして知られています。詳細はこちら。分析モデルとスノーフレーク本レポートを生成するために使用した分析モデルの詳細は当社のGithubページでご覧いただけます。また、レポートの使用方法に関するガイドやYoutubeのチュートリアルも掲載しています。シンプリー・ウォールストリート分析モデルを設計・構築した世界トップクラスのチームについてご紹介します。業界およびセクターの指標私たちの業界とセクションの指標は、Simply Wall Stによって6時間ごとに計算されます。アナリスト筋JLM Couture, Inc. 0 これらのアナリストのうち、弊社レポートのインプットとして使用した売上高または利益の予想を提出したのは、 。アナリストの投稿は一日中更新されます。0
お知らせ • Apr 19Joinder to Motion for Case Conversion Filed for JLM Couture, Inc.JLJ Bricken LLC joins with Hayley Paige Gutman to file a motion in the US Bankruptcy Court seeking the conversion of JLM Couture, Inc.’s bankruptcy case from Chapter 11 reorganization to Chapter 7 liquidation on April 17, 2024. The reason being the decline of relationships with important retailers and the debtor’s inability to stabilize its cash flows and provide some recovery to creditors making it difficult to consummate a plan of reorganization.
お知らせ • Jul 28Court Finds in Favor of JLM Couture - Instagram and Pinterest Accounts Are Business Accounts - Denies Hayley Gutman's Motion in its EntiretyA Manhattan Federal Court held that New York bridal house, JLM Couture, Inc., has established a clear likelihood of success in their lawsuit against former designer, Hayley Gutman, including that the @misshayleypaige Instagram and Pinterest accounts are business accounts for the Hayley Paige brand and thus owned by JLM. The Court held that these accounts, which were created using the Hayley Paige brand name, are the product of JLM's marketing efforts and investments which built the popularity and success of the Hayley Paige brand. Judge Laura Taylor Swain, in 67 pages of decisive rulings found that Ms. Gutman, used JLM's money, resources, and strategies to help the company build the Accounts' image around and for the JLM-owned Hayley Paige brand, and thus, cannot now claim company property as Hayley own. Even more compelling, Judge Swain ruled that the Preliminary Injunction should be modified and bar Ms. Gutman from being identified as a designer of competitive products or using or authorizing others to use Ms. Gutman's role as a designer to promote the sale of any competitive goods, no matter what title she may claim in connection with a new venture or new employment, until August 1, 2027. The ruling does not prevent Ms. Gutman from designing wedding dresses. While Ms. Gutman can work for other brands, neither she nor those brands nor other third parties may identify her as the designer of those wedding dresses, and her role as a designer cannot be used to promote the sales of competitive goods. Separately, and most telling, the Court denied Ms. Gutman's motion, in its entirety, to dissolve the Preliminary Injunction.
お知らせ • Mar 06JLM Couture, Inc. Announces Second Circuit Court of Appeals Denies Hayley Paige Gutman's PetitionThe Second Circuit Court of Appeals, in JLM Couture Inc. vs. Hayley Paige Gutman, denied appellant Ms. Gutman's petition to rehear her argument and her petition for a hearing en banc. The Appeals Court Order supports its earlier decision, as well as multiple federal District Court findings, that Ms. Gutman is not entitled to use the Designer Name in trade or commerce and that she breached her clear and unambiguous employment contract and is not entitled to any additional compensation.
お知らせ • Jan 26JLM Couture, Inc. Announces Appeals Court Upholds JLM Couture in Contract Dispute with Hayley Paige GutmanJLM Couture, Inc. announced the Second Circuit Court of Appeals strongly affirmed that Hayley Paige Gutman breached her clear and unambiguous employment contract and is not entitled to any additional compensation. The court stated that JLM had no duty to pay Gutman if she did not work. It was Ms. Gutman who resigned and who breached her employment contract, not JLM, the Appeals Court ruled. The Appeals Court also affirmed that JLM was completely within its rights to enforce a noncompete clause in the employment contract. The Court stated that, Gutman provides no reason to question the district court's determination that this Noncompete Agreement was reasonable and fully enforceable in light of her unique role at JLM. They also stated that the District Court was correct in upholding JLM's rights to the brand name and marks in trade and commerce, and decline(d) Gutman's invitation to depart from the plain language of the Contract. In addition, the Court in no way ordered the Instagram account to change hands nor did they determine ownership of the account. They expressly declined to do so. They remanded this issue back down to the District Court as that is the proper procedure.