DiDi investors may receive additional information about the case by clicking the link "Submit Your Information" above. If you are a member of the class described above, you may no later than September 7, 2021 move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff of the class, if you so choose.
DiDi is a mobility technology platform, providing ride hailing and other services in the People’s Republic of China (“PRC”), Brazil, Mexico, and internationally. It offers ride hailing, taxi hailing, chauffeur, hitch, and other forms of shared mobility services, as well as enterprise business ride solutions; auto solutions comprising leasing, refueling, and maintenance and repair services; electric vehicle leasing services; bike and e-bike sharing, intra-city freight, food delivery, and financial services. DiDi was formerly known as Xiaoju Kuaizhi Inc. and changed its name to DiDi Global Inc. in June 2021. DiDi is often called “the Uber of China.”
On June 30, 2021, DiDi filed its prospectus on a Form 424B4, which forms part of the Registration Statement. In the IPO, DiDi sold approximately 316,800,000 shares at a price of $14.00 per share. Four ADSs represent one Class A ordinary share.
The Registration Statement emphasized that DiDi purportedly “follow[ed] strict procedures in collecting, transmitting, storing and using user data pursuant to [its] data security and privacy policies.” In fact, the Registration Statement claimed that DiDi “collect[s] personal information and other data from [its] users and use such data in the course of [its] operations only with their prior consent.”
The truth began to emerge on July 2, 2021 when the Cyberspace Administration of China (“CAC”) stated that it had launched an investigation into DiDi to protect national security and the public interest. Following this news, DiDi’s share price fell $0.87, or approximately 5.3%, to close at $15.53 per share on July 2, 2021.
Then on Sunday, July 4, 2021, DiDi reported that the CAC ordered smartphone app stores to stop offering the “DiDi Chuxing” app because it “collect[ed] personal information in violation of relevant PRC laws and regulations.” DiDi was ordered to make changes to comply with Chinese data protection rules to “ensure the safety of the personal information of users.” On July 5, 2021, The Wall Street Journal reported that the CAC had asked DiDi as early as three months prior to the IPO to postpone the offering because of national security concerns and to “conduct a thorough self-examination of its network security.” Following this news, DiDi’s share price fell $3.04 per share, or 19.6%, to close at $12.49 per share on July 6, 2021.
Finally, on July 22, 2021, before market hours, Bloomberg published an article entitled “China Weighs Unprecedented Penalty for Didi After U.S. IPO” which reported, in part, that “Chinese regulators are considering serious, perhaps unprecedented, penalties for Didi Global Inc. after its controversial initial public offering last month.” Following this news, DiDi’s share price fell $3.44 per share, nearly 30%, over the next two trading days to close at $8.06 per share on July 23, 2021.
The complaint alleges that the Registration Statement was materially false and misleading and omitted to state that: (1) DiDi’s apps did not comply with applicable laws and regulations governing privacy protection and the collection of personal information; (2) as a result, DiDi was reasonably likely to incur scrutiny from the CAC; (3) the CAC had warned DiDi to delay its IPO to conduct a self-examination of its network security; (4) as a result of the foregoing, DiDi would face “serious, perhaps unprecedented, penalties” from relevant authorities; (5) as a result of the foregoing, DiDi’s apps were reasonably likely to be taken down from app stores in the PRC, which would have an adverse effect on its financial results and operations; and (6) as a result of the foregoing, the defendants’ positive statements about DiDi’s business, operations, and prospects, were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.
A lead plaintiff is a representative party that acts on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. In order to be appointed lead plaintiff, the Court must determine that the class member’s claim is typical of the claims of other class members, and that the class member will adequately represent the class. Your ability to share in any recovery is not, however, affected by the decision whether or not to serve as a lead plaintiff. Filling out the online form above or communicating with any counsel is not necessary to participate or share in any recovery achieved in this case. Any member of the purported class may move the court to serve as a lead plaintiff through counsel of his/her choice, or may choose to do nothing and remain an inactive class member.
If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions concerning this notice or your rights or interests with respect to these matters, please contact Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP: James Maro, Esq. (484) 270-1453; or toll-free at (844) 887-9500; or via e-mail at info@ktmc.com. If you would like additional information about the suit, please click on the link "Submit Your Information" above and fill out the form as promptly as possible.