Processing your request


please wait...

Case Page

 

Case Status:    SETTLED
On or around 04/03/2019 (Ongoing date of last review)

Filing Date: April 04, 2017

According to the law firm press release, the complaint alleges that throughout the class period Wins made materially false and/or misleading statements regarding its projected earnings, valuation, and future business operations in order to artificially inflate the price of Wins securities. Among other allegations, it is alleged that Wins falsely stated it maintained a U.S. headquarters in order to gain inclusion on the Russell indices when, in fact, its headquarters are located in China, and that Wins management overstated its value and engaged in other market manipulations during the class period.

The first filed case was voluntarily dismissed on June 16, 2017. A related action continues in the Central District of California under 17-CV-02983.

On June 26, 2017, the Court issued an Order appointing Lead Plaintiffs and Counsel. Lead Plaintiffs filed an amended Complaint on August 25. Defendant filed a Motion to Dismiss the amended Complaint on October 24. On February 28, 2018, the Court issued an Order denying Defendant's Motion to Dismiss.

On November 26, the parties filed a Notice to inform the Court that Plaintiffs and Defendants had reached a Settlement in principle. On January 28, 2019, the parties entered into a Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement. On February 26, the Court issued an Order preliminarily approving the Settlement.

COMPANY INFORMATION:

Sector: Financial
Industry: Misc. Financial Services
Headquarters: China

SECURITIES INFORMATION:

Ticker Symbol: WINS
Company Market: NASDAQ
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 #: 17-CV-02434
JUDGE: Hon. George B. Daniels
DATE FILED: 04/04/2017
CLASS PERIOD START: 10/29/2015
CLASS PERIOD END: 03/29/2017
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Levi & Korsinsky (Stamford)
No Document Title Filing Date
COURT: C.D. California
DOCKET #: 17-CV-02983
JUDGE: Hon. George B. Daniels
DATE FILED: 08/25/2017
CLASS PERIOD START: 02/23/2016
CLASS PERIOD END: 06/07/2017
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
—Related District Court Filings Data is not available