September 18, 2020 - A second amended complaint was filed.

May 18, 2020 - An amended complaint was filed.

March 12, 2019 - An investor in shares of NIO Inc. (NYSE: NIO) filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York over alleged violations of Federal Securities Laws by NIO Inc. in connection with certain allegedly false and misleading statements made between September 12, 2018 and March 5, 2019.

China based NIO Inc. designs, manufactures, and sells electric vehicles in the People's Republic of China, the United States, Germany, and the United Kingdom.

On March 6, 2019, NIO Inc. (NYSE: NIO) filed a Form with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission announcing its fourth quarter and full year 2018 financial results. The Form revealed that: (1) NIO agreed in principle to terminate its plan for a manufacturing plant; and (2) deliveries of its flagship electric SUV slowed more than expected due to “accelerated deliveries made at the end of last year in anticipation of EV subsidy reductions in China in 2019, as well as the seasonal slowdowns surrounding the January 1st and Chinese New Year holidays.” NIO continued, “We also expect deliveries in the second quarter 2019 to reflect continued weakness as we await the results of the 2019 EV subsidy policy in China and improvement in the macro-economic conditions.” Shares of NIO Inc. (NYSE: NIO) declined from $10.63 per share on March 5, 2019 to as low as $5.44 per share on March 18, 2019.

According to the complaint the plaintiff alleges on behalf of purchasers of NIO Inc. (NYSE: NIO) common shares between September 12, 2018 and March 5, 2019, that the defendants violated Federal Securities Laws.

More specifically, the plaintiff claims that between September 12, 2018 and March 5, 2019, the defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that NIO would not be building its own manufacturing plant and would instead continue to rely on a little-known Chinese state-owned auto manufacturer, JAC Auto, to manufacture its electric vehicles, that reductions in government subsidies for electric cars would materially impact NIO’s sales, and that as a result, defendants’ statements about NIO’s business, operations, and prospects were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages.