Enrique Africa, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Jianpu Technology Inc.

CourtDistrict Court, S.D. New York
DecidedFebruary 22, 2021
Docket1:21-cv-01419
StatusUnknown

This text of Enrique Africa, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Jianpu Technology Inc. (Enrique Africa, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Jianpu Technology Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Enrique Africa, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Jianpu Technology Inc., (S.D.N.Y. 2021).

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ---------------------------------------------------------------------- X : MICHAEL GUTTENTAG, individually and on behalf of : all others similarly situated, : : 21-CV-1419 (JMF) Plaintiff, : : ORDER -v- : : JIANPU TECHNOLOGY, INC., et al., : : Defendants. : : ---------------------------------------------------------------------- X

JESSE M. FURMAN, United States District Judge:

On February 17, 2021, Plaintiff filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of all persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired Jianpu Technology, Inc. (“Jianpu”) shares between May 29, 2018 and February 16, 2021, inclusive, and who were damaged thereby, except for Defendants, the officers and directors of Jianpu, at all relevant times, members of their immediate families and their legal representatives, heirs, successors, or assigns, and any entity in which Defendants have or had a controlling interest. The complaint alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“1934 Act”) and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. As explained in the Court’s February 18, 2021 Order, ECF No. 5, Section 78u-4(a)(3)(A) of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act (“PSLRA”), 15 U.S.C. § 78u-4(a)(3)(A), requires that within twenty days of the filing of the complaint, Plaintiff shall “cause to be published, in a widely circulated national business-oriented publication or wire service, a notice advising members of the purported plaintiff class . . . of the pendency of the action, the claims asserted therein, and the purported class period.” 15 U.S.C. § 78u-4(a)(3)(A)(i). The PSLRA also provides that “not later than 60 days after the date on which the notice is published, any member of the purported class may move the court to serve as lead plaintiff of the purported class.” Id. In addition, the Act requires that not later than 90 days after the date on which notice is published, the Court shall consider any motion made by a purported class member in response to

the notice, and shall appoint as lead plaintiff the member or members of the purported plaintiff class that the Court determines to be most capable of adequately representing the interests of class members. See id. § 78u-4(a)(3)(B)(i). In the event that more than one action on behalf of a class asserting substantially the same claim or claims has been filed, and any party has sought to consolidate those actions for pretrial purposes or for trial, the Court shall not appoint a lead plaintiff until after a decision on the motion to consolidate is rendered. See id. § 78u- 4(a)(3)(B)(ii). Plaintiff’s counsel notified the Court that the required notice was published on February 17, 2021. ECF No. 6. Members of the purported class therefore have until April 19, 2021 to

move the Court to serve as lead plaintiffs. It is further ORDERED that opposition to any motion for appointment of lead plaintiff shall be served and filed by May 3, 2021. Finally, it is hereby ORDERED that a conference shall be held on May 13, 2021, at 4:00 p.m. in Courtroom 1105 of the Thurgood Marshall Courthouse, 40 Centre Street, New York, New York to consider any motions for appointment of lead plaintiff and lead counsel and for consolidation. If an amended complaint or a related case is filed prior to appointment of a lead plaintiff, Plaintiff’s counsel shall, within one week, submit a letter to the Court identifying any differences between the allegations in the new complaint(s) and the allegations in the original complaint (including but not limited to any differences in the claims asserted and the relevant class periods) and showing cause why the Court should not order republication of notice under the PSLRA and set a new deadline for the filing of motions for appointment. See, e.g., Hachem v. Gen. Elec. Inc., No. 17-CV-8457 (JMF), 2018 WL 1779345 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 11, 2018). It is further ORDERED that the named plaintiffs shall promptly serve a copy of this Order on each of the defendants. SO ORDERED. Dated: February 22, 2021 Che ho — New York, New York JESSE M. FURMAN United States District Judge

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

§ 78u-4
15 U.S.C. § 78u-4(a)(3)(A)
§ 78u
15 U.S.C. § 78u

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Enrique Africa, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Jianpu Technology Inc., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/enrique-africa-individually-and-on-behalf-of-all-others-similarly-situated-nysd-2021.