Processing your request


please wait...

Case Page

 

Case Status:    ONGOING    
On or around 10/16/2019 (Ongoing date of last review)

Filing Date: June 12, 2019

According to the Complaint, ChinaCache is an investment holding company that provides content and application delivery services in the PRC.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, 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) ChinaCache and the Company’s Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of the Board of Directors were engaged in enterprise bribery; (ii) the foregoing conduct placed ChinaCache and the Company’s Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of the Board of Directors at a heightened risk of criminal investigation and enforcement action by government authorities, which would foreseeably disrupt the Company’s operations; and (iii) as a result, the Company’s public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

This case was voluntarily dismissed on August 29, 2019. A related case continues under Docket 19-CV-06942 in the Central District of California. On October 2, the Court issued an Order appointing Lead Plaintiff and Counsel.

COMPANY INFORMATION:

Sector: Technology
Industry: Software & Programming
Headquarters: China

SECURITIES INFORMATION:

Ticker Symbol: CCIH
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 #: 19-CV-05485
JUDGE: Hon. Edgardo Ramos
DATE FILED: 06/12/2019
CLASS PERIOD START: 04/10/2015
CLASS PERIOD END: 05/17/2019
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Pomerantz LLP (New York)
No Document Title Filing Date
COURT: C.D. California
DOCKET #: 19-CV-06942
JUDGE: Hon. Edgardo Ramos
DATE FILED: 08/09/2019
CLASS PERIOD START: 04/10/2015
CLASS PERIOD END: 05/17/2019
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