Processing your request

please wait...

Case Page


Case Status:    SETTLED
On or around 10/16/2019 (Date of order of final judgment)

Filing Date: January 30, 2015

According to the law firm press release, Alibaba is a China-based online and mobile commerce company in retail and wholesale trade, as well as cloud computing and other services.

The complaint alleges that during the class period, Defendants issued materially false and misleading statements regarding the soundness of Company’s business operations, the strength of its financial prospects and concealing substantial ongoing regulatory scrutiny. Specifically, the complaint alleges that Alibaba failed to disclose that Company executives had met with China’s State Administration of Industry and Commerce (“SAIC”) in July 2014, just two months before Alibaba’s $25+ billion initial public offering in the United States (the “IPO”), and that regulators had then brought to Alibaba’s attention a variety of highly dubious – even illegal – business practices. In the IPO, Alibaba and certain “selling shareholders” sold more than 368 million ADSs at $68 each. The complaint alleges that selling shareholders included two of Alibaba’s co-founders, each of whom sold millions of shares. The complaint also alleges that throughout the Class Period, Alibaba’s ADSs continued trading at ever-increasing, artificially inflated prices reaching a Class Period high of $120 each in intraday trading on November 13, 2014 and that in November 2014, the Company raised another $8 billion in a debt offering.

The complaint further alleges that on January 28, 2015, before the opening of trading, various members of the financial media reported that SAIC had released a white paper accusing Alibaba of engaging in the very illegal conduct disclosed to Alibaba executives in July 2014. On this news, the complaint alleges that the price of Alibaba ADSs declined unusually high trading volume. Then, the complaint alleges, on January 29, 2015, before the market opened, Alibaba issued a press release announcing its financial results for the quarter ended December 31, 2014. The complaint alleges that revenue growth missed the target defendants had led the investment community to expect and that profits declined 28% from Alibaba’s fourth quarter 2013 results. According to the complaint, the Company blamed an inability to monetize growing transactions on its mobile platforms, where advertising is less profitable than on personal computers. As a result of these disclosures, the complaint alleges that the price of Alibaba ADSs plummeted further and collectively the two drops erased more than $11 billion in market capitalization from the ADSs Class Period high.

A consolidated complaint was filed on July 1, 2015.

On June 21, 2016, the Court issued an Order granting Defendants' Motion to Dismiss. Lead Plaintiffs filed a Notice appealing the Court's decision on July 20. On December 5, 2017, the Court of Appeals vacated the judgment of the District Court and remanded the case to the District Court.

The parties entered into a Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement on April 26, 2019. On May 1, the Court issued an Order preliminarily approving the Settlement. On October 16, the Court granted final approval of the Settlement and entered Final Judgment.


Sector: Services
Industry: Retail (Specialty)
Headquarters: China


Ticker Symbol: BABA
Company Market: New York SE
Market Status: Public (Listed)

About the Company & Securities Data

"Company" information provides the industry and sector classification and headquarters state for the primary company-defendant in the litigation. In general, "Securities" information provides the ticker symbol, market, and market status for the underlying securities at issue in the litigation.

In most cases, the primary company-defendant actually issued the securities that are the subject of the litigation, and the securities information and company information relate to the same entity. In a small subset of cases, however, the primary company-defendant is not the issuer (for example, cases against third party brokers/dealers), and the securities information and company information do not relate to the same entity.
COURT: S.D. New York
DOCKET #: 15-CV-00759
JUDGE: Hon. Buchwald
DATE FILED: 01/30/2015
CLASS PERIOD END: 01/28/2015
  1. Holzer & Holzer, LLC
  2. Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP (Melville)
No Document Title Filing Date
COURT: S.D. New York
DOCKET #: 15-MD-02631
JUDGE: Hon. Buchwald
DATE FILED: 07/01/2015
CLASS PERIOD END: 01/29/2015
  1. The Rosen Law Firm P.A. (New York)
    275 Madison Avenue, 34th Floor, The Rosen Law Firm P.A. (New York), NY 10016
    (212) 686-1060 (212) 202-3827 ·
No Document Title Filing Date
—Related District Court Filings Data is not available