Processing your request


please wait...

Case Page

 

Case Status:    ONGOING    
On or around 09/17/2019 (Ongoing date of last review)

Filing Date: January 09, 2019

According to the Complaint, as of September 2017, Sogou was China’s fourth largest Internet company based on MAU. By mobile queries, the Company’s Sogou Search engine is the second largest search engine in China.

The Complaint alleges that Defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company’s business, operational and compliance policies. The Complaint alleges that specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Chinese regulators were analyzing Sogou for regulatory action because of an increase Sogou merchants’ sales of counterfeit goods; (ii) Chinese regulators were analyzing Sogou for regulatory action because Sogou’s existing software, advertising procedures, personnel, and audit procedures were insufficient to safeguard against compliance violations with governing Chinese regulations, and would need to be updated, enhanced, and strengthened, thus resulting in increased expenses; (iii) Sogou’s cost of revenues were skyrocketing primarily because of significant increases in Traffic Acquisition Cost, which is a primary driver of Sogou’s cost of revenues, as Sogou was dealing with significant price inflation from increased competition; (iv) Sogou was going to alter its strategy concerning smart hardware and push the Company’s AI capabilities to increase product competitiveness; (v) as a result of altering its smart hardware strategy, Sogou had already decided to phase out non-AI-enabled hardware products, such as legacy models of Teemo Smart Watch, and transition to use products integrating AI technologies, which Sogou hoped would reduce its hardware revenues in the second half of 2018; and (vi) as a result of the foregoing, Sogou’s public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

On April 2, 2019, the Court issued an Order appointing Lead Plaintiff and Co-Lead Counsel. Lead Plaintiff filed an amended Complaint on August 8. On September 12, Lead Plaintiff filed a second amended Complaint.

COMPANY INFORMATION:

Sector: Technology
Industry: Computer Services
Headquarters: China

SECURITIES INFORMATION:

Ticker Symbol: SOGO
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 #: 19-CV-00230
JUDGE: Hon. J. Paul Oetken
DATE FILED: 01/09/2019
CLASS PERIOD START: 11/09/2017
CLASS PERIOD END: 01/09/2019
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Pomerantz LLP (New York)
No Document Title Filing Date
COURT: S.D. New York
DOCKET #: 19-CV-00230
JUDGE: Hon. J. Paul Oetken
DATE FILED: 09/12/2019
CLASS PERIOD START: 11/09/2017
CLASS PERIOD END: 01/09/2019
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Levi & Korsinsky, LLP (Stamford)
    1111 Summer Street, Suite 403, Levi & Korsinsky, LLP (Stamford), CT 06905
    203.992.4523 ·
  2. The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. P.C. (New York, Former Office)
    275 Madison Avenue, 34th Floor, The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. P.C. (New York, Former Office), NY 10016
    212.686.1060 212.202.3827 · info@rosenlegal.com
No Document Title Filing Date
—Related District Court Filings Data is not available