According to the Complaint, Wirecard AG, a technology company, purports to provide outsourcing and white label solutions for electronic payment transactions worldwide.

The Complaint alleges that Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) for the period spanning from 2015 to 2018, a senior Wirecard executive in Singapore had been accused of forging and backdating contracts, including falsifying accounts and money laundering; (2) an external law firm commissioned to investigate Wirecard’s Singapore office had reportedly found evidence of “serious offences of forgery and/or of falsification of accounts”; (3) Wirecard had downplayed weaknesses in its internal controls over financial reporting and failed to disclose the true extent of those weaknesses; and (4) as a result, Defendants’ statements about Wirecard’s business, operations and prospects were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times.

On May 6, 2019, the Court issued an Order appointing Lead Plaintiff and Lead Counsel. Lead Plaintiff filed an amended Complaint on February 14, 2020. Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss the amended Complaint on March 13. On April 15, the Court issued an Order denying Defendants' Motion to Dismiss.

Lead Plaintiff filed a second amended Complaint on August 14, 2020. On October 8, the Court issued an Order granting Lead Plaintiff's Motion to transfer the case to the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. On October 13, the Court issued an Order consolidating cases. All future docketing was ordered to be done in the lead case 20-CV-03326.

Lead Plaintiff filed a consolidated Complaint on December 22, 2020. The Company Issuer filed a Suggestion of Bankruptcy on May 10, 2021.

An entry of Default was entered against one of the individual Defendants on September 6, 2022, for failure to appear, plead, or otherwise defend. This entry was made in the Docket without a separate Order. On September 8, the Court dismissed the five remaining individual Defendants for lack of service. On December 8, the Court issued an Order granting the Auditor Defendant's Motion to Dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction.