Rent the Runway, Inc.

In October 2021, RTR conducted its initial public offering (“IPO”), selling 17 million shares of Class A common stock at $21 per share.

On December 8, 2021, RTR announced its third quarter 2021 financial results, disclosing that the Company had suffered a quarterly net loss of $87.8 million while its fulfillment expenses had increased by 75% and its marketing expenses had increased from $1.4 million to $10.8 million. The Company also reported a deceleration in active subscriber growth.

Then, on April 13, 2022, RTR reported that its active subscribers had declined during fourth quarter 2021, while its fulfillment and marketing expenses remained elevated compared to historical trends.

Then, on September 12, 2022, RTR disclosed that it only had 124,131 active subscribers. The Company also announced a “restructuring plan” to reduce costs, which included a 24% workforce reduction.

On this news, RTR’s stock fell $1.91, or 38.7%, to close at $3.02 per share on September 13, 2022, thereby injuring investors.

By October 2022, the price of RTR Class A common stock had fallen below $2 per share, 90% below the IPO price.

The complaint filed in this class action alleges that Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company’s business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to investors: (1) that RTR was continuing to face extraordinary business headwinds, such as transportation headwinds and labor wage rate increases, from the COVID-19 pandemic; (2) that RTR’s active subscriber enrollments had sharply decelerated from the growth trajectory represented in the Registration Statement and, as a result, the Company was several months away from approaching its pre-pandemic levels of active subscriptions; (3) that RTR needed to substantially increase marketing and advertising costs from historical figures in order to attempt to grow its active subscriber network; (4) that RTR was suffering from ballooning fulfillment and transportation costs; and (5) as a result, Defendants’ positive statements about the Company’s business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times.