SAN DIEGO–(BUSINESS WIRE)–Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP announces that purchasers of DiDi Global Inc. (NYSE: DIDI) American Depositary Shares (“ADSs”) pursuant and/or traceable to the registration statement and prospectus (collectively, the “Registration Statement”) issued in connection with DiDi’s June 2021 initial public offering (“IPO”) and/or DiDi securities between June 30, 2021 and July 2, 2021, inclusive (the “Class Period”) have until September 7, 2021 to seek appointment as lead plaintiff in the DiDi class action lawsuit. The DiDi class action lawsuit charges DiDi, certain of its executives and directors, as well as the underwriters of DiDi’s IPO with violations of the Securities Act of 1933 and/or Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The DiDi class action lawsuit was commenced on July 6, 2021 in the Southern District of New York and is captioned Espinal v. DiDi Global Inc. f/k/a Xiaoju Kuaizhi Inc., No. 21-cv-05807. A similar lawsuit, captioned Chopra v. DiDi Global Inc., No. 21-cv-05973, is also pending in the Southern District of New York while an additional similar lawsuit, captioned Franklin v. DiDi Global Inc., No. 21-cv-05486, is pending in the Central District of California.
If you suffered substantial losses and wish to serve as lead plaintiff of the DiDi class action lawsuit, please provide your information by clicking here. You can also contact attorney J.C. Sanchez of Robbins Geller by calling 800/449-4900 or via e-mail at email@example.com. Lead plaintiff motions for the DiDi class action lawsuit must be filed with the court no later than September 7, 2021.
CASE ALLEGATIONS: DiDi claims to be the “go-to brand in China for shared mobility,” offering a range of services including ride hailing, taxi hailing, chauffeur, and hitch. Through its IPO, DiDi sold approximately 316 million shares at a price of $14.00 per share, with four ADSs representing one Class A ordinary DiDi share.
The DiDi class action lawsuit alleges that, throughout the Class Period, defendants made false and misleading statements and failed to disclose that: (i) DiDi’s apps did not comply with applicable laws and regulations governing privacy protection and the collection of personal information; (ii) as a result, DiDi was reasonably likely to incur scrutiny from the Cyberspace Administration of China; (iii) the Cyberspace Administration of China had already warned DiDi to delay its IPO to conduct a self-examination of its network security; (iv) as a result of the foregoing, DiDi’s apps were reasonably likely to be taken down from app stores in China, which would have an adverse effect on its financial results and operations; and (v) as a result, defendants’ positive statements about DiDi’s business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.
On July 2, 2021, the Cyberspace Administration of China revealed that it had launched an investigation into DiDi to protect national security and the public interest. The Cyberspace Administration of China also reported that it had asked DiDi to stop new user registrations during the course of the investigation. On this news, DiDi’s share price fell more than 5%.
Then, on Sunday, July 4, 2021, DiDi reported that the Cyberspace Administration of China ordered smartphone app stores to stop offering the “DiDi Chuxing” app because it “collect[ed] personal information in violation of relevant [People’s Republic of China] laws and regulations.” Though users who previously downloaded the app could continue to use it, DiDi stated that “the app takedown may have an adverse impact on its revenue in China.” Finally, on July 5, 2021, The Wall Street Journal reported that the Cyberspace Administration of China had asked DiDi as early as three months prior to the IPO to postpone the offering because of national security concerns and to “conduct a thorough self-examination of its network security.” On this news, DiDi’s stock price fell almost 20%, further damaging investors.
UPDATE: On July 9, 2021, The Wall Street Journal further reported that Chinese authorities “ordered mobile app stores to remove 25 more apps operated by DiDi Global Inc.’s China arm, saying the apps illegally collect personal data, escalating its regulatory actions against the ride-hailing company.”
THE LEAD PLAINTIFF PROCESS: The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 permits any investor who purchased DiDi ADSs pursuant and/or traceable to the Registration Statement issued in connection with DiDi’s IPO and/or DiDi securities during the Class Period to seek appointment as lead plaintiff in the DiDi class action lawsuit. A lead plaintiff is generally the movant with the greatest financial interest in the relief sought by the putative class who is also typical and adequate of the putative class. A lead plaintiff acts on behalf of all other class members in directing the DiDi class action lawsuit. The lead plaintiff can select a law firm of its choice to litigate the DiDi class action lawsuit. An investor’s ability to share in any potential future recovery of the DiDi class action lawsuit is not dependent upon serving as lead plaintiff.
ABOUT ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP: With 200 lawyers in 9 offices nationwide, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP is the largest U.S. law firm representing investors in securities class actions. Robbins Geller attorneys have obtained many of the largest shareholder recoveries in history, including the largest securities class action recovery ever – $7.2 billion – in In re Enron Corp. Sec. Litig. The 2020 ISS Securities Class Action Services Top 50 Report ranked Robbins Geller first for recovering $1.6 billion for investors last year, more than double the amount recovered by any other securities plaintiffs’ firm. Please visit https://www.rgrdlaw.com/firm.html for more information.
Past results do not guarantee future outcomes.
Services may be performed by attorneys in any of our offices.
The content is by Business Wire. Headlines of Today Media is not responsible for the content provided or any links related to this content. Headlines of Today Media is not responsible for the correctness, topicality or the quality of the content.