Processing your request


please wait...

Case Page

 

Case Status:    ONGOING    
On or around 09/10/2020 (Date of last review)

Filing Date: September 09, 2020

According to the Complaint, Lexinfintech Holdings, LTD, through its subsidiaries, purports to operate as an online consumer finance platform for young professionals in the People's Republic of China.

The Complaint alleges that Defendants throughout the Class Period made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) LexinFintech reported artificially low delinquency rates by giving borrowers in default new funds to make payments; (2) the Company’s business model exposes shareholders to enormous losses by prioritizing Chinese lenders for off-balance sheet loans; (3) the Company exaggerated its user base; (4) the Company was facilitating direct peer to peer lending contrary to Chinese law; (5) the Company engaged in undisclosed related party transactions; (6) the Company lacked adequate internal controls; and (7) as a result, Defendants’ public statements were materially false and/or misleading at all relevant times.

On September 18, 2020, Plaintiff filed an amended Complaint.

COMPANY INFORMATION:

Sector: Financial
Industry: Consumer Financial Services
Headquarters: China

SECURITIES INFORMATION:

Ticker Symbol: LX
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: D. Oregon
DOCKET #: 20-CV-01562
JUDGE: Hon. Michael H. Simon
DATE FILED: 09/09/2020
CLASS PERIOD START: 04/30/2019
CLASS PERIOD END: 08/24/2020
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Ransom, Gilbertson, Martin & Ratliff, LLP
  2. The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. (NY)
  3. The Schall Law Firm
No Document Title Filing Date
COURT: D. Oregon
DOCKET #: 20-CV-01562
JUDGE: Hon. Michael H. Simon
DATE FILED: 09/18/2020
CLASS PERIOD START: 12/21/2017
CLASS PERIOD END: 08/24/2020
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Ransom, Gilbertson, Martin & Ratliff, LLP
  2. The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. (NY)
  3. The Schall Law Firm
No Document Title Filing Date
—Related District Court Filings Data is not available