Processing your request


please wait...

Case Page

 

Case Status:    ONGOING    
On or around 12/09/2020 (Date of last review)

Filing Date: December 05, 2020

According to the Complaint, Uber purports to be a technology company that primarily facilitates access to rides and meals on demand.

On May 13, 2019, Uber conducted a U.S. initial public offering. The Complaint alleges that the IPO Registration Statement and Prospectus (collectively, the “Offering Documents”) that Uber and the other Defendants used to conduct the IPO were materially false, misleading, and incomplete and omitted to disclose material adverse facts about the Company and its business, including that: (a) The Company was plagued by serious safety problems, which were compounded by patently defective investigative and safety enforcement policies and practices that were shamefully insufficient to adequately prevent, punish, and deter acts of sexual assault and other tortious conduct against Uber customers; (b) The Company was experiencing accelerating losses; and (c) The Company was in violation of and indifferent to existing and pending laws, rules, and regulations in multiple key markets, including in this state (California, where two of its five biggest markets –San Francisco and Los Angeles – are located), thereby exposing Uber to serious regulatory risks and costly liabilities that were either misleadingly understated or completely omitted from the Offering Documents.

COMPANY INFORMATION:

Sector: Technology
Industry: Software & Programming
Headquarters: United States

SECURITIES INFORMATION:

Ticker Symbol: UBER
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. California
DOCKET #: 20-CV-08610
JUDGE: Hon. William Alsup
DATE FILED: 12/05/2020
CLASS PERIOD START: 05/13/2019
CLASS PERIOD END: 12/05/2020
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Bottini & Bottini, Inc.
  2. Bragar Eagel & Squire PC (SF)
  3. Cotchett Pitre & McCarthy (Burlingame)
  4. Hedin Hall LLP (SF)
  5. Law Offices of Curtis V. Trinko
  6. Pomerantz LLP (New York)
  7. Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP (San Diego)
  8. Robbins LLP
  9. Scott & Scott LLP (San Diego)
  10. The Schall Law Firm
No Document Title Filing Date
—Reference Complaint Complaint Related Data is not available
—Related District Court Filings Data is not available