Processing your request


please wait...

Case Page

 

Case Status:    ONGOING    
On or around 04/02/2019 (Ongoing date of last review)

Filing Date: August 21, 2018

According to the Complaint, Pinduoduo Inc. ("Pinduoduo" or the "Company") is an e-commerce platform allowing users to participate in group buying deals. The Company was founded in 2015 and is based in Shanghai, China. On or around July 26, 2018, Pinduoduo completed its IPO, offering 85.6 million ADSs priced at $19.00 per share and raising $1.63 billion.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company’s business, operations, and prospects. In the Registration Statement and Prospectus issued in connection with Pinduoduo’s IPO, Defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company’s business, operational and compliance policies. Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Pinduoduo’s controls were ineffective to prevent third-party vendors from selling counterfeit goods on the Company’s online platform; (ii) consequently, Pinduoduo’s revenues and the number of active merchants using its platform were traceable in part to unlawful conduct and thus unsustainable; and (iii) as a result, Pinduoduo’s public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

On December 4, 2018, the Court issued an Order appointing Co-Lead Plaintiffs and Counsel. On January 11, 2019, the Court issued an Order consolidating cases. Lead Plaintiffs filed an amended Complaint on February 20, 2019. On February 22, Lead Plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended Complaint.

COMPANY INFORMATION:

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

SECURITIES INFORMATION:

Ticker Symbol: PDD
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 #: 18-CV-07625
JUDGE: Hon. P. Kevin Castel
DATE FILED: 08/21/2018
CLASS PERIOD START: 07/26/2018
CLASS PERIOD END: 08/21/2018
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Pomerantz LLP (New York)
No Document Title Filing Date
COURT: S.D. New York
DOCKET #: 18-CV-07625
JUDGE: Hon. P. Kevin Castel
DATE FILED: 02/22/2019
CLASS PERIOD START: 07/26/2018
CLASS PERIOD END: 08/01/2018
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP (New York)
    122 East 42nd Street, Suite 2920 , Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP (New York), NY 10168
    (212) 682-5340 (212) 884-0988 ·
  2. Robbins Arroyo LLP
    600 B Street, Suite 1900, Robbins Arroyo LLP, CA 92101
    619.525.3990 619.525.3991 ·
  3. 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