On or around 10/14/2020 (Date of last review)
Filing Date: May 17, 2019
According to the Complaint, Lyft is a ridesharing company.
The Complaint alleges that Defendants made false and misleading statements in Lyft’s registration statement and prospectus issued in connection with the company’s March 29, 2019 initial public offering. The alleged misstatements involve Lyft’s claims about its domestic market share, failure to disclose issues surrounding the safety of the company’s bike sharing program, and labor issues.
On July 25, 2019, the Court issued an Order consolidating cases. On March 4, 2020, the Court issued an Order appointing Lead Plaintiff and Counsel. Lead Plaintiff filed a consolidated amended Complaint on April 16. Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss the consolidated amended Complaint on May 14. Lead Plaintiff voluntarily dismissed the Underwriter Defendants from the case on June 11. On September 8, the Court issued an Order granting in part and denying in part Defendants' Motion to Dismiss.
Company & Securities Information
Defendant: Lyft, Inc.
Industry: Business Services
Headquarters: United States
Ticker Symbol: LYFT
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.
First Identified Complaint
Matias Malig, as Trustee for the Malig Family Trust, et al. v. Lyft, Inc. et al.