INVESTOR DEADLINE: Investors in Dingdong (Cayman) Ltd. with Substantial Losses Have Opportunity to Lead the Dingdong Class Action Lawsuit – DDL

Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP announces that the Dingdong class action lawsuit seeks to represent purchasers or acquirers of Dingdong (Cayman) Ltd. (NYSE: DDL) American Depository Shares (“ADSs”) pursuant or traceable to the F-1 registration statements (including all amendments made) and related prospectus on Form 424B4 (together, the “Registration Statement”) issued in connection with Dingdong’s June 29, 2021 initial public stock offering (the “IPO”). Captioned McCormack v. Dingdong (Cayman) Ltd., No. 22-cv-07273 (S.D.N.Y.), the Dingdong class action lawsuit charges Dingdong, certain of its top executives and directors, the IPO’s underwriters, and others with violations of the Securities Act of 1933.

If you suffered substantial losses and wish to serve as lead plaintiff of the Dingdong class action lawsuit, please provide your information here:

https://www.rgrdlaw.com/cases-dingdong-cayman-ltd-class-action-lawsuit-ddl.html

You can also contact attorney J.C. Sanchez of Robbins Geller by calling 800/449-4900 or via e-mail at jsanchez@rgrdlaw.com. Lead plaintiff motions for the Dingdong class action lawsuit must be filed with the court no later than October 24, 2022.

CASE ALLEGATIONS: Dingdong purports to be a leading and the fastest growing on-demand e-commerce company in China. As part of Dingdong’s IPO, defendants issued approximately 4.07 million ADS to the investing public at $23.50 per ADS, all pursuant to the Registration Statement. And as the Registration Statement stated, Dingdong “embraced a user-centric philosophy” that is committed to “directly providing users and households . . . fresh produce, meat and seafood and other daily necessities through a convenient and excellent shopping experience supported by an extensive self-operated frontline fulfillment grid.”

However, the Dingdong class action lawsuit alleges that the Registration Statement misrepresented Dingdong’s commitment to ensuring the safety and quality of the food it distributes to the market. Specifically, Dingdong was actively flouting its food safety responsibilities, selling, for example, dead fish to customers while marketing it as live fish and recycling vegetables that were past their sell-by date. In other words, Dingdong was no better at providing or assuring access to “fresh” groceries than the supermarkets, traditional Chinese wet markets, or traditional e-commerce platforms it repeatedly claimed to be displacing. This, in turn, subjected Dingdong to an increased risk of regulatory and/or governmental scrutiny and enforcement, all of which, once revealed, were likely to (and did) negatively impact Dingdong’s business, operations, and reputation.

On March 17, 2022, a Beijing News report was published stating that Chinese regulators launched a probe into Dingdong for food safety violations uncovered by the local news. According to the report, Dingdong replaced labels on expired vegetables and sold frozen fish products as fresh. On this news, the price of Dingdong ADS declined by nearly 11%.

By the commencement of the Dingdong class action lawsuit, Dingdong shares traded as low as $2.51 per ADS, representing a decline of over 89% from the $23.50 IPO offering price.

THE LEAD PLAINTIFF PROCESS: The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 permits any purchaser or acquirer of Dingdong ADSs pursuant or traceable to the Registration Statement issued in connection with Dingdong’s IPO to seek appointment as lead plaintiff in the Dingdong class action lawsuit. A lead plaintiff is generally the movant with the greatest financial interest in the relief sought by the putative class who is also typical and adequate of the putative class. A lead plaintiff acts on behalf of all other class members in directing the Dingdong class action lawsuit. The lead plaintiff can select a law firm of its choice to litigate the Dingdong class action lawsuit. An investor’s ability to share in any potential future recovery of the Dingdong class action lawsuit is not dependent upon serving as lead plaintiff.

ABOUT ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP: Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP is one of the world’s leading complex class action firms representing plaintiffs in securities fraud cases. The Firm is ranked #1 on the 2021 ISS Securities Class Action Services Top 50 Report for recovering nearly $2 billion for investors last year alone – more than triple the amount recovered by any other plaintiff’s firm. With 200 lawyers in 9 offices, Robbins Geller is one of the largest plaintiffs’ firms in the world, and the Firm’s attorneys have obtained many of the largest securities class action recoveries in history, including the largest securities class action recovery ever – $7.2 billion – in In re Enron Corp. Sec. Litig. Please visit the following page for more information:

https://www.rgrdlaw.com/services-litigation-securities-fraud.html

Attorney advertising.

Past results do not guarantee future outcomes.

Services may be performed by attorneys in any of our offices.

View source version on businesswire.com: https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20220902005297/en/