A group of Skechers investors is accusing the company’s leadership and private equity owner 3G Capital of pushing through a $9.4-billion buyout that, they say, severely undervalued the popular sneaker brand and unfairly squeezed minority shareholders.
The Manhattan Beach-based footwear giant was taken private in September at $63 per share, but large shareholders now argue that price was the product of a flawed, insider-driven process rather than a fair reflection of Skechers’ true worth.
Investors Say They Were Forced Into a “Bad Deal”
In a new class-action lawsuit filed in Delaware Chancery Court, hedge funds and other big investors claim the transaction was not negotiated at arm’s length. Instead, they allege that company insiders worked closely with 3G Capital to structure a deal that worked well for controlling shareholders while leaving everyone else with a bargain-basement payout.
According to the complaint, the agreed $63 share price came at a time when Skechers’ stock had been temporarily depressed by volatile federal tariff policy, particularly import taxes targeting countries such as China and Vietnam, where much of Skechers’ production occurs.
Plaintiffs argue that management and insiders knew the market was reacting to short-term political turbulence, not long-term business fundamentals – and used that turbulence to push through a take-private deal on the cheap.
From $73 Offer to $63 Sale: What Changed?
Court filings say 3G Capital initially floated an offer around $73 per share in March. But after an abrupt shift in federal tariff policy in early April, the offer was cut back to $63 per share.
The suit claims that this revised price failed to capture the company’s underlying strength, especially as Skechers’ revenues, brand recognition and global footprint continued to expand. When the acquisition was later announced, Skechers pointed out that the deal represented roughly a 30% premium to the stock’s 15-day volume-weighted average price.
Investors counter that this “premium” was calculated off a temporarily battered share price driven by tariff headlines, not genuine deterioration in Skechers’ business. They say relying on that short window allowed insiders to frame the deal as generous while locking in what they describe as a discounted valuation.
Tariffs, Stock Swings and a Strategic Exit
Skechers, like many footwear and apparel companies, had publicly warned that steep U.S. import taxes on key manufacturing hubs would pressure costs and create uncertainty.
After the tariff announcement, Skechers’ stock dropped sharply, losing nearly a quarter of its value in early April. When the 3G Capital buyout was later revealed, shares surged more than 30%, underscoring how much the market believed the company was worth under new ownership.
For plaintiffs, that rebound is evidence that the $9.4-billion buyout came at a moment when fear and volatility created an opening for a buyer-friendly price – and when insiders, including longtime leader Robert Greenberg and President Michael Greenberg, allegedly saw a chance to cash out substantial holdings on favorable terms.
Allegations Against Skechers Leadership
The lawsuit claims that Chief Executive Robert Greenberg and his son Michael Greenberg “carefully structured” the merger so that their family could monetize a significant portion of their stake while maintaining influence as the company shifted into private hands.
Roughly 60 investment pools, representing about $1.3 billion worth of shares, have now joined the challenge, underscoring the scale of discontent among institutional holders.
An early attempt at settlement reportedly stalled when Skechers floated a modest price increase that still fell short of what major investors considered fair. As a result, the case is now moving forward in court.
Skechers and 3G Capital Stay Silent
Skechers, whose global brand and retail footprint are highlighted on its official Skechers corporate site, has declined to comment on the pending litigation. 3G Capital has also not publicly addressed the claims in detail.
Both are expected to argue that the take-private transaction delivered a strong premium to shareholders, provided stability amid tariff turbulence and positioned the company for long-term growth outside the pressures of public markets.
What’s at Stake in the Lawsuit?
The investors are not seeking to unwind the completed acquisition. Instead, they want the court to determine that the deal price was unfair and to award additional compensation to former shareholders whose stock was cashed out at $63 per share.
Beyond Skechers, the case taps into a broader concern in corporate America:
whether controlling shareholders and private equity buyers are using short-term market shocks to justify going-private transactions at prices that undervalue public investors’ stakes.
If the plaintiffs succeed, the decision could ripple across future buyout negotiations, prompting boards and majority owners to more thoroughly document how they arrive at deal prices and how they protect the interests of minority shareholders.
For now, former investors in Skechers say they were forced to accept a bad deal – and are turning to the courts in hopes of getting what they view as their fair share of the company’s long-term value.
