Parlux Fragrances, Inc. was served with a shareholder’s class action complaint (the “Class Action”) filed in the Circuit Court of the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit in and for Broward County, Florida by Glen Hutton, purporting to act on behalf of himself and other public stockholders of Parlux, and a stockholder derivative action (the “Derivative Action”) filed in the Circuit Court of the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit in and for Broward County, Florida by NECA-IBEW Pension Fund, purporting to act derivatively on behalf of Parlux.

The Class Action names Parlux Fragrances, Inc. as a defendant, along with its directors, Ilia Lekach, Frank A. Buttacavoli, Glenn Gopman, Esther Egozi Choukroun, David Stone, Jaya Kader Zebede and Isaac Lekach. The Class Action relates to the proposal (previously disclosed in Parlux’s June 14, 2006 Form 8-K) from PF Acquisition of Florida LLC, which is presently owned by Ilia Lekach, to acquire all of the outstanding shares of common stock of Parlux for $29.00 ($14.50 after the stock split) per share in cash (the “Proposal”). The Class Action seeks equitable relief for inadequate and unfair consideration, without full disclosure of all material information, to the detriment of the public shareholders, all in breach of defendants’ fiduciary duties. The Class Action alleges that the Proposal is solely designed to ensure that Parlux’s management completes the Proposal despite the fact that the consideration called for in the Proposal is unfair to the public shareholders and Parlux’s public shareholders have not been provided with all material information concerning the Proposal necessary for them to make an informed decision.

The Derivative Action names the identical defendants as the Class Action and relates to the Proposal. The Derivative Action seeks to remedy the alleged breaches of fiduciary duties, waste of corporate assets, and other violations of law and seeks injunctive relief from the Court appointing a receiver or other truly neutral third party to conduct and/or oversee any negotiations regarding the terms of the Proposal, or any alternative transaction, on behalf of Parlux and its public shareholders, and to report to the Court and plaintiff’s counsel regarding the same. The Derivative Action alleges that the unlawful plan to attempt to buy out the public shareholders of Parlux without having proper financing in place, and for inadequate consideration, violates applicable law by directly breaching and/or aiding the other defendants’ breaches of their fiduciary duties of loyalty, candor, due care, independence, good faith and fair dealing, causing the complete waste of corporate assets, and constituting an abuse of control by the defendants.

The Independent Committee of the Board has responded to the Proposal (the details of which were included in Parlux’s June 20, 2006 Form 8-K, filed on June 22, 2006). Parlux and the other named defendants have engaged experienced Florida securities counsel and intend to respond to the Class Action and the Derivative Action in a timely manner, but Parlux says it believes that the Class Action and the Derivative Action are without merit.

More info: www.parlux.com