DEADLINE FOR INVESTORS: Dingdong (Cayman) Ltd. Investors with Substantial Losses Have Opportunity to File Class Action Against Dingdong

0

SAN DIEGO, August 27, 2022 /PRNewswire/ — The law firm of Robbins Geller Rudmann & Dowd LLP announces that the Ding Dong The class action seeks to represent purchasers or acquirers of Dingdong (Cayman) Ltd. (NYSE: DDL) American Depository Shares (“ADS”) pursuant to the F-1 registration statements (including any amendments thereto) and related prospectus on Form 424B4 (collectively, the “Registration Statement”) issued in relationship with Dingdong’s June 29, 2021 initial public offering (the “IPO”). Subtitle McCormack v. Dingdong (Cayman) Ltd.no. 22-cv-07273 (SDNY), the Ding Dong The class action charges Dingdong, some of its senior officers and directors, IPO underwriters and others with violations of the Securities Act of 1933.

If you have suffered substantial losses and wish to act as the lead plaintiff of the Ding Dong class action, please provide your information here:

https://www.rgrdlaw.com/cases-dingdong-cayman-ltd-class-action-lawsuit-ddl.html

You can also contact the lawyer JC Sanchez of Robbins Geller by calling 800/449-4900 or emailing [email protected]. Principal Applicant’s Requests for Ding Dong class action must be filed with the court no later than October 24, 2022.

CASE ALLEGATIONS: Dingdong claims to be a leading and fastest growing on-demand e-commerce company in China. In connection with Dingdong’s IPO, Defendants issued approximately 4.07 million ADSs to the investing public at $23.50 by ADS, all in accordance with the registration statement. And as the registration statement states, Dingdong “has adopted a user-centric philosophy” that is committed to “directly providing users and households… with fresh produce, meat and fruits from sea ​​and other daily necessities through a convenient and excellent shopping experience supported by an extensive self-contained front-line fulfillment grid.”

However, the Ding Dong The class action lawsuit alleges that the registration statement misrepresented Dingdong’s commitment to ensuring the safety and quality of the food it distributes in the market. Specifically, Dingdong was actively flouting its food safety responsibilities, for example selling dead fish to its customers while marketing it as live fish and recycling vegetables that had expired. In other words, Dingdong was no better at providing or guaranteeing access to “fresh” groceries than the supermarkets, traditional Chinese wet markets, or traditional e-commerce platforms it claimed to be. repeatedly replace. This, in turn, subjected Dingdong to increased risk of regulatory and/or governmental scrutiny and enforcement, which, when disclosed, could (and did) adversely impact business, Dingdong’s operations and reputation.

On March 17, 2022a Beijing News A report has emerged stating that Chinese regulators have launched an investigation into Dingdong for food safety violations uncovered by local news. According to the report, Dingdong replaced the labels on expired vegetables and sold frozen fish products as fresh. At this news, the price of Dingdong ADS fell nearly 11%.

From the start of the Ding Dong class action lawsuit, Dingdong shares traded as low as $2.51 per ADS, a decrease of more than 89% compared to the $23.50 IPO bid price.

THE PRINCIPAL APPLICANT PROCESS: The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 permits any purchaser or acquirer of ADSs of Dingdong pursuant to the registration statement issued in connection with Dingdong’s IPO to seek appointment as lead plaintiff in the Ding Dong class action. A principal plaintiff is generally the plaintiff with the greatest financial interest in the relief sought by the putative class that is also typical and adequate of the putative class. A lead plaintiff acts on behalf of all other class members by directing the Ding Dong class action. The main plaintiff can select a law firm of his choice to plead Ding Dong class action. An investor’s ability to participate in any potential future upturn in the Ding Dong the class action does not depend on the status of principal plaintiff.

ABOUT ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP: Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP is one of the world’s leading complex class action firms representing plaintiffs in securities fraud cases. The firm is ranked #1 in the 2021 ISS Securities Class Action Services Top 50 report for recovering nearly $2 billion for investors last year alone – more than triple the amount recovered by any other claimant company. With 200 attorneys in 9 offices, Robbins Geller is one of the largest plaintiffs firms in the world and the firm’s attorneys have secured many of the largest securities class action recoveries in history, including the largest securities class action collection never realized – $7.2 billion – in In re Enron Corp. Dry. Litigation Please visit the following page for more information:

https://www.rgrdlaw.com/services-litige-securities-fraud.html

Lawyer advertisement.
Past results do not guarantee future results.
Services can be performed by attorneys in any of our offices.

Contact:



Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP


655 W. Broadway, Suite 1900, San Diego, CA 92101


JC Sanchez, 800-449-4900


[email protected]

SOURCE Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP

Share.

About Author

Comments are closed.