Case Page

 

Case Status:    SETTLED
On or around 09/26/2017 (Date of order of distribution of settlement)

Filing Date: March 13, 2015

According to the law firm press release, the lawsuit alleges Lentuo issued materially false and misleading statements to investors and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Beijing Lentuo Electromechanical Group Co., Ltd. (“Lentuo Electromechanical”)—a related party of Lentuo—anticipated and issued RMB 250 million of debt in 2013 to finance the construction of 4S dealerships; (2) the consolidation of Lentuo Electromechanical into Lentuo’s financial statement is required; (3) Lentuo did not have sufficient working capital for 2015; and (4) as a result of the foregoing, the Company’s financial statements and results were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. When the truth was revealed to investors, the price of Lentuo ADS fell, damaging investors.

On June 9, 2015, the Court issued an Order appointing Lead Plaintiff and Lead Counsel. Lead Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on August 6.

On January 7, 2016, the Court issued an Order granting with leave to amend Defendant's Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiffs filed their amended complaint on the 25th.

On September 2, 2016, the parties entered into a Stipulation of Settlement. The Settlement was preliminarily approved on October 25. Final approval was granted on March 6, 2017.

COMPANY INFORMATION:

Sector: Services
Industry: Retail & Repair (Automotive)
Headquarters: China

SECURITIES INFORMATION:

Ticker Symbol: LAS
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: C.D. California
DOCKET #: 15-CV-01862
JUDGE: Hon. Michael W. Fitzgerald
DATE FILED: 03/13/2015
CLASS PERIOD START: 06/14/2013
CLASS PERIOD END: 03/09/2015
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. (New Los Angeles)
    355 South Grand Ave, Suite 2450, The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. (New Los Angeles), CA 90071
    (213) 785-2610 (213) 226-4684 ·
No Document Title Filing Date
COURT: C.D. California
DOCKET #: 15-CV-01862
JUDGE: Hon. Michael W. Fitzgerald
DATE FILED: 01/25/2016
CLASS PERIOD START: 05/15/2014
CLASS PERIOD END: 03/09/2015
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. (New Los Angeles)
    355 South Grand Ave, Suite 2450, The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. (New Los Angeles), CA 90071
    (213) 785-2610 (213) 226-4684 ·
No Document Title Filing Date