Estée Lauder $210 Million Securities Fraud Settlement Wins Final Approval, Who Qualified, Claim Deadline, Attorney Fees and What Happens Next

On October 14, 2026, U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian of the Southern District of New York entered final judgment approving a $210,000,000 class action settlement in In re The Estée Lauder Companies, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 1:23-cv-10669-AS. The case alleged that Estée Lauder and two former top executives misled investors about the company’s reliance on gray-market (“daigou”) sales in its travel retail business.

Investors who purchased or otherwise acquired Estée Lauder common stock (NYSE: EL) between February 3, 2022 and February 3, 2025, inclusive, were part of the settlement class. The deadline to file a claim was August 5, 2026, and it has passed. No reopened claim period is listed on the official settlement website.

The settlement resolves allegations. It is not a court finding that Estée Lauder or its executives committed fraud.

Estée Lauder Securities Settlement: Quick Facts

Detail	Information
Official settlement website	www.EsteeLauderSecuritiesSettlement.com
Claim form (Proof of Claim and Release)	Posted in the Documents section of the official settlement website
Total settlement	$210,000,000
Case name	In re The Estée Lauder Companies, Inc. Securities Litigation
Case number	1:23-cv-10669-AS
Court and judge	U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York; Judge Arun Subramanian
Type of case	Securities fraud class action (Sections 10(b) and 20(a), Securities Exchange Act of 1934)
Settlement class period	February 3, 2022 – February 3, 2025 (inclusive)
Eligible security	Estée Lauder common stock (NYSE: EL)
Individual defendants	Fabrizio Freda (former CEO) and Tracey T. Travis (CFO)
Lead counsel	Labaton Keller Sucharow LLP
Claims administrator	Epiq
Administrator phone	1-877-357-1477
Administrator email	[email protected]
Opt-out and objection deadline	July 30, 2026 (passed)
Claim deadline	August 5, 2026 (passed)
Settlement hearing	August 20, 2026
Final approval	October 14, 2026
Attorneys’ fees awarded	$63,000,000 (30% of the fund), plus interest
Litigation expenses awarded	$759,672.80, plus interest
New claims accepted?	No open claim period is listed

What Was the Estée Lauder Investor Lawsuit About?

The lead plaintiffs alleged that Estée Lauder and its executives made materially false and misleading statements and omissions about the source and sustainability of its success in travel retail, including its alleged undisclosed reliance on daigou sales to generate high volume.

What is daigou? Daigou is an informal resale channel in which shoppers buy genuine goods (often duty-free) in places such as Hainan, China, or travel retail locations and resell them to buyers in mainland China. Gray-market goods are usually authentic products sold outside a brand’s authorized distribution. They are different from counterfeits.

Plaintiffs alleged that when Chinese authorities cracked down on these resellers, demand fell, inventories built up, discounting followed, and the company’s results suffered. Estée Lauder lowered its outlook on November 1, 2023, and plaintiffs alleged its stock price declined as the truth emerged. The defendants denied wrongdoing.

Estée Lauder’s own SEC filings describe the complaint as alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 based on alleged false and misleading statements between February 3, 2022 and October 31, 2023. The settlement class period (through February 3, 2025) is defined separately in the settlement documents, and an investor’s recognized loss depends on the court-approved Plan of Allocation, not on the class period alone.

Related article: City of Raleigh $26.2 Million Capital Facilities Fees Settlement, Who Qualifies, How Much You Could Receive and Key Deadlines

Who Was Named in the Lawsuit?

• The Estée Lauder Companies Inc., the publicly traded company
• Fabrizio Freda, then chief executive officer
• Tracey T. Travis, then chief financial officer

The lead plaintiffs, appointed under the federal securities laws, were the Macomb County Employees’ Retirement System, the Macomb County Retiree Health Care Fund and the Wayne County Employees’ Retirement System.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
December 7, 2023	First securities class action complaint filed
January 22, 2024	Additional complaint filed
February 20, 2024	Actions consolidated
March 22, 2024	Consolidated amended complaint filed
March 31, 2025	Court denied defendants’ motion to dismiss
February 2026	Motion for class certification filed
April 2, 2026	Agreement in principle to settle
May 6, 2026	Settlement agreement (Stipulation of Settlement) dated
May 13, 2026	Preliminary approval granted
May 28, 2026	Notice period began
June 30, 2026	Estée Lauder reported the settlement amount fully funded, including insurer payments
July 30, 2026	Deadline to opt out or object
August 5, 2026	Deadline to submit a claim
August 20, 2026	Settlement (fairness) hearing
October 14, 2026	Final judgment entered; fee and expense order issued

Who Was Eligible for the Settlement?

The settlement class covered persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired Estée Lauder publicly traded common stock between February 3, 2022 and February 3, 2025, inclusive, and were allegedly damaged, subject to the full definition in the settlement documents.

To receive a payment, a class member needed to:

1. Fall within the class definition and not be excluded.
2. Have a recognized loss under the Plan of Allocation.
3. Submit a valid Proof of Claim with supporting transaction records (such as broker confirmations or account statements) by August 5, 2026.

Who Was Excluded?

The class excluded categories including the defendants, immediate family members of the individual defendants, certain officers and directors of Estée Lauder during the class period and their immediate families, entities in which a defendant held a controlling interest, Estée Lauder employee benefit plans (to the extent of purchases through those plans), and certain legal representatives, affiliates, heirs, successors and assigns of excluded persons. The full definition in the official notice controls.

Buying Estée Lauder makeup or skincare does not qualify anyone. This is a stock-purchaser case.

Can You Still File a Claim?

No new claim period is open. The claim deadline was August 5, 2026. The official notice states that a class member who does not timely submit a valid claim will not share in the Net Settlement Fund, except as otherwise ordered by the Court or allowed by Lead Counsel in its discretion. Such a late claim is never guaranteed, and this article cannot confirm that any exception is available.

You are nevertheless bound by the judgment if you were a class member and did not validly opt out.

What to Do Now

• If you filed on time: keep your confirmation, claim number and trade records, and watch the official website for distribution updates.
• If you missed the deadline: contact Epiq at 1-877-357-1477 or by email to ask whether any procedure remains available. Do not assume a late claim will be accepted.
• If you opted out: you kept the right to pursue your own claim, subject to time limits (see the statute of limitations section below). Consult a securities attorney promptly.

How Settlement Payments Are Calculated

The $210 million is the gross fund, not what investors receive. The Net Settlement Fund is what remains after court-approved attorneys’ fees, litigation expenses, notice and administration costs, any taxes on the fund, and approved awards to the lead plaintiffs.

Each approved claimant’s share is generally calculated on a pro rata basis:

1. The administrator verifies each claim’s purchases, sales and holdings against the records submitted.
2. Each claim receives a recognized loss under the Plan of Allocation, which accounts for purchase and sale dates, prices and the disclosures at issue.
3. Each claimant receives a share of the Net Settlement Fund equal to their recognized loss divided by the total recognized losses of all valid claims.

Because the formula is transaction-based, two investors with similar paper losses can receive very different amounts. Recognized loss is not the same as your out-of-pocket loss, and settlement payouts in securities cases are commonly only a fraction of total losses. No per-share or per-investor amount has been officially announced, and no payment date can be confirmed from the final judgment alone.

Attorney Fees, Expenses and Lead Plaintiff Awards

Per the court’s order awarding fees and expenses:

Item	Amount
Attorneys’ fees	$63,000,000 (30% of the $210 million fund), plus interest
Litigation expenses	$759,672.80, plus interest
Award to Macomb County Employees’ Retirement System and Macomb County Retiree Health Care Fund	$4,657.02
Award to Wayne County Employees’ Retirement System	$17,338.19

These categories are paid out of the settlement fund. Notice and administration costs are also deducted. Together, these deductions reduce the amount available to class members, and the exact net fund will be determined by the administrator.

Why do courts award fees from the fund? In class actions, lawyers typically work on contingency and are paid from the common fund created for the class. In the Second Circuit, courts commonly use the percentage-of-the-fund method, cross-checked against the lawyers’ hours (the “lodestar”), and weigh factors laid out in Goldberger v. Integrated Resources, Inc., 209 F.3d 43 (2d Cir. 2000). Fee requests are disclosed to the class in the notice so members can object.

Why the Judge Approved the Settlement

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e), a court may approve a class settlement only after finding it fair, reasonable and adequate. Rule 23(e)(2) directs the court to consider whether:

• the class representatives and class counsel adequately represented the class;
• the proposal was negotiated at arm’s length;
• the relief is adequate, considering the costs, risks and delay of trial and appeal, the effectiveness of the distribution method, the terms of the attorney fee award, and any side agreements; and
• class members are treated equitably relative to each other.

Courts in the Second Circuit also traditionally apply the Grinnell factors from City of Detroit v. Grinnell Corp., 495 F.2d 448 (2d Cir. 1974), including the complexity and expense of continued litigation, the reaction of the class, the stage of proceedings, the risks of establishing liability and damages, and the ability of the defendants to withstand a greater judgment.

Final judgment dismissed the consolidated complaint with prejudice and approved the releases under the settlement agreement.

The Legal Framework Behind the Case

Section 10(b), Rule 10b-5 and Section 20(a)

Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. § 78j(b)) and SEC Rule 10b-5 (17 C.F.R. § 240.10b-5) prohibit fraud in connection with the purchase or sale of securities. Section 20(a) (15 U.S.C. § 78t(a)) imposes “control person” liability on individuals who control a primary violator.

To prevail on a Rule 10b-5 claim, investors must generally prove:

1. a material misrepresentation or omission;
2. scienter (intent or severe recklessness);
3. a connection with the purchase or sale of a security;
4. reliance, which is often presumed through the fraud-on-the-market theory recognized in Basic Inc. v. Levinson, 485 U.S. 224 (1988);
5. economic loss; and
6. loss causation, meaning the misstatement caused the loss and not merely a general market decline (Dura Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Broudo, 544 U.S. 336 (2005)).

A stock drop or a missed forecast does not by itself establish securities fraud. Courts require that each element be adequately alleged and eventually proved.

The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act (PSLRA)

Securities class actions are governed by the PSLRA of 1995, codified in part at 15 U.S.C. § 78u-4. Key features relevant to this case:

• Heightened pleading. Complaints must specify each misleading statement, why it was misleading, and facts giving rise to a “strong inference” of scienter (see also Tellabs, Inc. v. Makor Issues & Rights, Ltd., 551 U.S. 308 (2007)). Estée Lauder’s motion to dismiss was denied on March 31, 2025, meaning the claims survived this stage. That ruling was not a finding that the allegations were true.
• Lead plaintiff process. The court appoints the “most adequate plaintiff,” typically the movant with the largest financial interest, which is why institutional investors such as the Macomb and Wayne County funds served as lead plaintiffs.
• Early notice. Notice of the action must be published so other investors can seek appointment as lead plaintiff within 60 days.
• Discovery stay. Discovery is generally stayed while a motion to dismiss is pending.
• 90-day look-back damages cap. Damages are limited by reference to the mean trading price during the 90 days after the corrective disclosure (15 U.S.C. § 78u-4(e)).
• Settlement disclosures. Notices must state, among other things, the settlement amount, the average per-share recovery, and attorney fee information.

Rule 23 and Due Process

Class actions are governed by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23. For a damages class such as this one, Rule 23(b)(3) requires that common questions predominate and that a class action is the superior method. Members are entitled to the “best notice practicable” under Rule 23(c)(2)(B), a chance to opt out, and a chance to object under Rule 23(e)(5). Fees are awarded under Rule 23(h).

CAFA Notice

The Class Action Fairness Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1715, requires defendants in class settlements to notify appropriate federal and state officials of the proposed settlement, and final approval cannot issue sooner than 90 days after that notice is served.

Statute of Limitations for Opt-Outs and Others

A securities fraud claim under Section 10(b) must be filed within two years after discovery of the facts constituting the violation and no later than five years after the violation (28 U.S.C. § 1658(b); Merck & Co. v. Reynolds, 559 U.S. 633 (2010)). Class action tolling under American Pipe & Construction Co. v. Utah, 414 U.S. 538 (1974), may pause the clock during the class action for members, but the five-year repose period is generally not tolled (California Public Employees’ Retirement System v. ANZ Securities, Inc., 582 U.S. 497 (2017)). Anyone who opted out should speak with an attorney promptly about timing.

Domestic Transactions

Under Morrison v. National Australia Bank Ltd., 561 U.S. 247 (2010), Section 10(b) applies to purchases and sales of securities listed on U.S. exchanges and to other domestic transactions. Estée Lauder stock trades on the NYSE, which is why the class is defined around that security.

Settlement Is Not an Admission

Settling does not mean the defendants admitted wrongdoing. The $210 million represents a compromise of disputed claims. Estée Lauder has publicly denied the allegations, and the court did not decide that fraud occurred.

Case Insights: Discovery, Class Certification and Objections

• Discovery. After the motion to dismiss was denied, the parties engaged in fact discovery, and lead counsel moved for class certification in February 2026. Defendants took depositions of the plaintiffs’ class certification expert, the lead plaintiffs and a third-party investment manager.
• Mediation. The parties reached an agreement in principle on April 2, 2026, and formalized the agreement in May 2026.
• Objections. The deadline to object was July 30, 2026. Final approval was entered after the August 20, 2026 hearing. Readers should consult the court docket for any objections filed and how the court addressed them.
• Insurance funding. Estée Lauder’s annual report states that the full settlement amount was funded as of June 30, 2026, including amounts paid by insurance carriers. The company also disclosed a related derivative litigation, which is separate from this class settlement.

Tax Considerations for Recipients

Tax treatment depends on the individual. As a general matter, a securities class action recovery is often treated as a reduction of the cost basis in the shares affected (or as a capital gain or loss when the recovery is received or the shares are sold), rather than as ordinary income, but the correct treatment depends on your facts, whether you still hold the shares, and whether you are an individual, retirement account or institution. Because the amounts and character of a recovery can vary, speak with a qualified tax professional. This article is not tax advice.

What Happens Next

1. Claims administration. Epiq processes submitted claims, gives claimants a chance to cure deficiencies, and determines recognized losses.
2. Effective date. Distribution usually begins after the judgment becomes final, meaning any appeal period has run or any appeals have been resolved. An objector’s appeal can delay payment.
3. Distribution. Approved claimants are paid from the Net Settlement Fund by check or electronic payment. Any unclaimed residual is handled under the settlement terms and court orders, which sometimes include a second distribution or a charitable (cy pres) payment.

No distribution date has been announced. Check the official settlement website for updates.

Beware of Settlement Scams

Legitimate settlement administrators do not ask for fees to process claims, and attorneys do not charge claimants fees beyond court-approved amounts. Be cautious of anyone who contacts you demanding a payment, your bank password or full Social Security number to “release” a payout. Use only the official website and contact information listed in this article.

Frequently Asked Questions

Is the Estée Lauder $210 million settlement approved?

Yes. The Southern District of New York entered final judgment on October 14, 2026.

Who qualified for the Estée Lauder investor settlement?

Purchasers or acquirers of Estée Lauder common stock between February 3, 2022 and February 3, 2025, inclusive, who were allegedly damaged and not excluded from the class.

Can I still file a claim in October 2026?

The claim deadline was August 5, 2026. No reopened claim period is listed on the official settlement website. Contact Epiq to ask about your specific situation.

How much will each investor receive?

There is no fixed amount. Payments depend on the Plan of Allocation, your recognized loss, the total valid claims and the Net Settlement Fund.

When will payments be sent?

No date has been announced. Distribution generally follows claims processing and the judgment becoming final.

Did Estée Lauder admit fraud?

No. The settlement resolves disputed allegations without a trial or a finding of liability.

How much did the lawyers receive?

$63 million in attorneys’ fees (30% of the fund) and $759,672.80 in expenses, plus interest.

Can class members sue Estée Lauder again over the same claims?

Class members who did not opt out are bound by the judgment and releases, and the complaint was dismissed with prejudice. The exact reach of the releases is defined in the settlement agreement.

Does buying Estée Lauder cosmetics qualify me?

No. Eligibility is based on qualifying stock transactions.

Who is the claims administrator?

Epiq. Phone: 1-877-357-1477. Email: [email protected].

Was this a government (SEC) enforcement action?

No. This is a private class action brought by investors under federal securities law.

I held shares through a retirement account or fund. Was I covered?

Beneficial owners could be covered, but employee benefit plans of Estée Lauder were carved out of the class to the extent of purchases through those plans. Check the long-form notice for how institutions and nominees were required to file.

Related Settlement Guides on AllAboutLawyer.com

• Arrival SA CIIG Merger $13.3 Million SPAC Securities Settlement Final Approval
• Walgreens $100 Million Class Action Settlement: How to Apply and Claim Your Share
• Clif Bar $12M Class Action Settlement: How to Get Your Share

These are separate cases and should not be confused with the Estée Lauder securities settlement.

Disclaimer: This article is for general informational purposes only and is not legal, tax, financial or investment advice. AllAboutLawyer.com is a legal information website, not a law firm, and reading this article does not create an attorney-client relationship. Settlement eligibility, claim status and payment amounts depend on the official court documents and the administrator’s determinations. Verify all details with the official settlement website and court docket.

About the Author

Israr Ahmad is a legal content researcher who studies court records, settlement notices and official filings to explain legal developments in plain English. His work focuses on helping readers understand what a lawsuit or settlement means, who may be affected and where to find authoritative information.

Sources

1. Final judgment, In re The Estée Lauder Co., Inc. Securities Litigation, No. 1:23-cv-10669-AS (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 14, 2026): law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/new-york/nysdce/1:2023cv10669/611620/140/
2. Order awarding attorneys’ fees and expenses, same case: docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/new-york/nysdce/1:2023cv10669/611620/141
3. Official settlement website and documents (notices, Proof of Claim, Stipulation of Settlement, court orders): www.EsteeLauderSecuritiesSettlement.com and www.EsteeLauderSecuritiesSettlement.com/Home/Documents
4. The Estée Lauder Companies Inc., Form 10-K for fiscal year 2026 (SEC EDGAR): sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1001250/000100125026000041/el-20260630.htm
5. The Estée Lauder Companies Inc., fiscal 2026 Annual Report to Shareholders (Form ARS), SEC EDGAR
6. Labaton Keller Sucharow LLP, case page and settlement announcements for In re The Estée Lauder Companies, Inc. Securities Litigation: labaton.com
7. Summary Notice of Pendency and Proposed Settlement, dated June 8, 2026 (Labaton Keller Sucharow LLP press release)
8. Securities Exchange Act of 1934, §§ 10(b), 20(a), 15 U.S.C. §§ 78j(b), 78t(a); SEC Rule 10b-5, 17 C.F.R. § 240.10b-5
9. Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995, 15 U.S.C. § 78u-4
10. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23; Class Action Fairness Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1715; 28 U.S.C. § 1658(b)
11. Basic Inc. v. Levinson, 485 U.S. 224 (1988); Dura Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Broudo, 544 U.S. 336 (2005); Tellabs, Inc. v. Makor Issues & Rights, Ltd., 551 U.S. 308 (2007); Morrison v. National Australia Bank Ltd., 561 U.S. 247 (2010); Merck & Co. v. Reynolds, 559 U.S. 633 (2010); American Pipe & Construction Co. v. Utah, 414 U.S. 538 (1974); CalPERS v. ANZ Securities, Inc., 582 U.S. 497 (2017)
12. City of Detroit v. Grinnell Corp., 495 F.2d 448 (2d Cir. 1974); Goldberger v. Integrated Resources, Inc., 209 F.3d 43 (2d Cir. 2000)