Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP: Important Deadline Reminder for DiDi Global Inc. Investors in Securities Fraud Class Action Lawsuit

RADNOR, Pa., Aug. 12, 2021

Deadline Reminder: Investors who purchased or acquired DiDi ADSs pursuant and/or traceable to the Registration Statement issued in connection with the IPO and/or DiDi securities during the Class Period may, no later than September 7, 2021, seek to be appointed as a lead plaintiff representative of the class. For additional information or to learn how to participate in this litigation please contact Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP: James Maro, Esq. (484) 270-1453; toll free at (844) 887-9500; via e-mail at info@ktmc.com; or click https://www.ktmc.com/didi-global-class-action-lawsuit?utm_source=PR&utm_medium=link&utm_campaign=didi 

DiDi is a mobility technology platform, providing ride hailing and other services in the People's Republic of China ("PRC"), Brazil, Mexico, and internationally. DiDi is often called "the Uber of China."

On July 2, 2021, 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 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.