Lawsuit Overview
May 12, 2021 - The case was voluntarily dismissed.
October 7, 2019 - An investor in shares of Ruhnn Holding Limited (NASDAQ: RUHN) filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York over alleged violations of Federal Securities Laws by Ruhnn Holding Limited in connection with certain allegedly false and misleading statements made in connection with Ruhnn’s April 3, 2019 initial public stock offering (the “IPO”).
On or about April 3, 2019, Ruhnn sold 10 million shares of stock in its initial public stock offering (the IPO ), at $12.50 a share raising $125,000,000 in new capital. However, since the IPO, Ruhnn stock has plummeted, on August 22, 2019, the stock closed at $4.50.
On June 13, 2019, Ruhnn Holding Limited announced its fourth quarter and fiscal year 2019 financial results. Ruhnn Holding Limited reported that its annual Total Revenue rose from 947.58 million RMB for the 12 months period that ended on March 31, 2018 to over 1.09 RMB billion for the 12 months period that ended on March 31, 2019 and that its Net Loss declined from 104 million to 73.24 million over those respective time periods. Shares of Ruhnn Holding Limited (NASDAQ: RUHN) declined to as low as $3.06 per share on June 3, 2019.
According to the complaint the plaintiff alleges on behalf of purchasers of Ruhnn Holding Limited (NASDAQ: RUHN) common shares, that the defendants violated Federal Securities Laws.
More specifically, the plaintiff claims that the Registration Statement that was filed with the SEC in connection with the IPO contained false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that at the time of the IPO, the number of Ruhnn’s online stores had declined by nearly 40%, that at the time of the IPO, the number of Ruhnn’s full-service Key Opinion Leaders had declined by nearly 44%, that as a result, the Company’s net revenues derived from its full-service segment had declined by 46% on a sequential basis, and that as a result, defendants’ statements about Ruhnn’s business, operations, and prospects were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times.