Processing your request


please wait...

Case Page

 

Case Status:    ONGOING    
On or around 07/24/2020 (Date of last review)

Filing Date: November 20, 2019

According to the Complaint, Grubhub provides online and mobile delivery options for restaurant pick-up and delivery orders. The Company pioneered online delivery services and, for several years after its 2004 founding, enjoyed a dominant market position.

The Complaint alleges that during the Class Period, Defendants made false and misleading statements and/or failed to disclose adverse information regarding Grubhub’s business and prospects. Specifically, the Complaint alleges Defendants failed to disclose, among other things, that: (i) customer orders were actually declining, despite the massive investments the Company had made to spur demand for and use of its platform; (ii) Grubhub’s new customer additions were generating significantly lower revenues as compared to historic cohorts because these customers were more prone to using competitor platforms; (iii) Grubhub’s vaunted business model under which it secured exclusive restaurant partnerships had failed, and Grubhub needed to engage in the same aggressive non-partnered sales tactics embraced by its competitors to generate significant revenue growth; (iv) Grubhub was required to spend substantial additional capital in order to grow revenues and retain market share in the face of heightened competitive dynamics and market saturation, eviscerating the Company’s profitability; and (v) Grubhub was tracking tens of millions of dollars below its revenue and earnings guidance and such guidance lacked any reasonable basis.

On January 30, 2020, the Court issued an Order appointing Lead Plaintiff and Counsel. Lead Plaintiff filed a Complaint on July 24.

COMPANY INFORMATION:

Sector: Services
Industry: Personal Services
Headquarters: United States

SECURITIES INFORMATION:

Ticker Symbol: GRUB
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: N.D. Illinois
DOCKET #: 19-CV-07665
JUDGE: Hon. Charles R. Norgle, Sr.
DATE FILED: 11/20/2019
CLASS PERIOD START: 07/30/2019
CLASS PERIOD END: 10/28/2019
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Ademi & O'Reilly, LLP
  2. Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP
No Document Title Filing Date
COURT: N.D. Illinois
DOCKET #: 19-CV-07665
JUDGE: Hon. Charles R. Norgle, Sr.
DATE FILED: 07/24/2020
CLASS PERIOD START: 04/25/2019
CLASS PERIOD END: 10/28/2019
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. AsherKelly
  2. Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP
No Document Title Filing Date
—Related District Court Filings Data is not available