Lawsuit Overview
April 7, 2021 - The court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss. The plaintiffs were given leave to amend the complaint.
November 2, 2020 - A motion to dismiss the amended complaint was filed.
September 18, 2020 - An amended complaint was filed.
April 21, 2020 - An investor in shares of Baidu, Inc. (NASDAQ: BIDU) filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California over alleged violations of Federal Securities Laws by Baidu, Inc. in connection with certain allegedly false and misleading statements made between March 16, 2019, and April 7, 2020.
China based Baidu, Inc. provides Internet search services in China and internationally.
Baidu, Inc reported that its annual Total Revenue rose from over 102.27 billion CNY in 2018 to 107.41 billion CNY in 2019, and that its Net Income declined from 27.57 billion CNY in 2018 to 1.98 billion CNY in 2019.
On April 7, 2020, China's internet regulator, the Cyberspace Administration of China (“CAC”), stated that search engine Baidu's content review on some of its news feed channels is not “strict,” “exerted bad influence to the society,” and violated relevant Chinese laws and regulations. The CAC ordered Baidu to clean up improper information. Baidu stated it would suspend operations of some mobile app channels.
According to the complaint the plaintiff alleges on behalf of purchasers of Baidu, Inc. (NASDAQ: BIDU) common shares between March 16, 2019, and April 7, 2020, that the defendants violated Federal Securities Laws.
More specifically, the plaintiff claims that between March 16, 2019, and April 7, 2020, the defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that Baidu’s feed services were not in compliance with applicable Chinese regulatory standards, that the foregoing noncompliance subjected the Company to a heightened risk of regulatory enforcement, including the removal or suspension of certain of Baidu’s services and products, that accordingly, the Company’s revenues derived from its online marketing services were unlikely to be sustainable, and that as a result, the Company’s public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.