Processing your request

please wait...

Case Page


Case Status:    DISMISSED    
On or around 11/11/2020 (Notice of voluntarily dismissal)

Filing Date: December 10, 2019

According to the Complaint, Baozun characterizes itself as “the leading brand E-commerce service partner in China.” The Company says that it helps brands execute their ecommerce strategies in China by selling their goods directly to consumers online or by providing services to assist with their ecommerce operations. The Company provides IT solutions, store operations, digital marketing, customer services, warehousing and fulfillment.

The Complaint alleges that during the Class Period, Defendants made false and misleading statements and/or failed to disclose adverse information regarding Baozun’s business and financial results. Specifically, the Complaint alleges that Defendants failed to disclose that Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd., a Chinese-based multi-national technology company, was one of the Company’s largest brand partners, on a historical basis, and paid more add-on fees for the work Baozun did for it, increasing the revenues Baozun received for Huawei work compared to the Company’s other brand partners. This caused Baozun to report outsized revenue growth during the first half of 2019, which would be abruptly cut off during the second half 2019, after Baozun restructured its relationship with Huawei, as Huawei took much of its online merchandizing in-house. As a result of this information being withheld from the market, the Complaint alleges that the price of Baozun ADRs was artificially inflated throughout the Class Period.

On September 8, 2020, the Court issued an Order consolidating cases and appointing Lead Plaintiff and Counsel. This case was voluntarily dismissed on November 11.


Sector: Services
Industry: Retail (Catalog & Mail Order)
Headquarters: China


Ticker Symbol: BZUN
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-11290
JUDGE: Hon. Andrew L. Carter, Jr.
DATE FILED: 12/10/2019
CLASS PERIOD END: 11/20/2019
  1. Johnson Fistel, LLP (NY)
  2. Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP (Melville)
No Document Title Filing Date
—Reference Complaint Complaint Related Data is not available
—Related District Court Filings Data is not available