공시 • Feb 25
Pomerantz Law Firm Announces the Filing of a Class Action Against Lakeland Industries, Inc. and Certain Officers
Pomerantz LLP announced that a class action lawsuit has been filed against Lakeland Industries, Inc. and certain officers. The class action, filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, and docketed under 26-cv-01501, is on behalf of a class consisting of all persons and entities other than Defendants that purchased or otherwise acquired Lakeland securities between December 1, 2023 and December 9, 2025, both dates inclusive (the Class Period), seeking to recover damages caused by Defendants’ violations of the federal securities laws and to pursue remedies under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, against the Company and certain of its top officials. Lakeland, together with its subsidiaries, manufactures and sells industrial protective clothing and accessories for the industrial and public protective clothing market worldwide. The Company employs a so-called small, strategic, and quick (SSQ) mergers and acquisitions (M&A) strategy to purportedly drive its growth in revenue and profitability. At the end of November 2023, Lakeland announced its acquisition of New Zealand-based Pacific Helmets NZ Limited (Pacific Helmets), a purported leading designer and manufacturer of helmets for the firefighting, wildland firefighting, and rescue markets. Defendants touted Pacific Helmets’ purported premium solutions and said that the Company’s acquisition of it enhanced Lakeland’s product portfolio. In February 2024, Lakeland announced its acquisition of the related companies Jolly Scarpe S.p.A. (based in Italy) and Jolly Scarpe Romania S.R.L. (collectively, Jolly), a purported leading designer and manufacturer of professional footwear for the firefighting, military, police, and rescue markets. Defendants touted this acquisition as another significant milestone in Lakeland’s expansion efforts, as well as Jolly’s purported strong brand with a well-established reputation for quality and innovative design and manufacturing. At all relevant times, Defendants represented that Lakeland would realize significant benefits from the foregoing acquisitions in both the near and long term, while touting the Company’s overall SSQ M&A strategy. Moreover, following the onset of tariff-related market uncertainties in 2025, Defendants consistently represented that the Company was well positioned to weather tariff-related headwinds while continuing to pursue its SSQ M&A strategy. Indeed, throughout the Class Period, notwithstanding tariff-related headwinds, Defendants made repeated assurances regarding their visibility into Lakeland’s future performance in upcoming quarters, consistently expressing confidence in their financial guidance issued to investors. For example, in July 2024, Defendants represented that, for Lakeland’s fiscal year (FY) 2025, they expected, inter alia, adjusted EBITDA,[2] excluding any material negative impact from foreign exchange (FX), to be in the range of $18 million to $21.5 million, and repeatedly reaffirmed that they expected the Company to achieve adjusted EBITDA of at least $18 million in Fiscal Year 2025 thereafter. Similarly, in April 2025, Defendants represented that, for Lakeland’s Fiscal Year 2026, they expected revenue of $210 to $220 million and adjusted EBITDA, excluding any material negative impact from FX, of $24 to $29 million. Defendants indicated that, notwithstanding tariff-related uncertainties, they had visibility into Lakeland’s future performance by virtue of various purported positive market signals they observed and their widely touted tariff mitigation measures. The Complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding Lakeland’s business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Lakeland was experiencing significant, sustained issues with its Pacific Helmets and Jolly businesses, including, inter alia, shipping-related delays, production issues, and slower than expected rollout of new products; (ii) accordingly, Defendants overstated the anticipated and actual positive impact of these businesses on Lakeland’s financial results, as well as the overall strength and quality of Pacific Helmets’ and Jolly’s respective operations; (iii) Lakeland’s business and financial results were significantly deteriorating because of, inter alia, tariff-related headwinds and timing, certification delays, and material flow issues in its acquired businesses; (iv) accordingly, Defendants overstated the strength of their tariff mitigation measures and SSQ M&A strategy; (v) as a result of all the foregoing issues, Defendants’ financial guidance was unreliable; and (vi) as a result, Defendants’ public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.