Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Mar. 11, 2020

In re Luckin Coffee Inc. Securities Litigation

Judge
John Cronan
Docket
1:20-cv-01293
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
3
SecuritiesClass ActionCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In re Luckin Coffee Inc. Securities Litigation: Judge Liman set notice, filing deadlines, and a conference for selecting lead plaintiff and counsel.

Who this affects

The proposed class members, Martin Cohen, the defendants, and counsel involved in seeking appointment as lead plaintiff or lead counsel and in any consolidation motion.

What happened

In re Luckin Coffee Inc. Securities Litigation began with Martin Cohen’s proposed class action for people who bought Luckin securities between November 13, 2019, and January 31, 2020. The complaint alleges violations of federal securities laws.

The required notice was published on February 13, 2020. The court set April 13, 2020, as the deadline for class members to seek appointment as lead plaintiff and May 13, 2020, as the deadline for opposing those motions.

Judge Liman ordered a June 2, 2020, conference to consider motions about the lead plaintiff, lead counsel, and combining related cases. The order also required prompt service on the defendants and set procedures if an amended complaint or related case was filed.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
In re Luckin Coffee Inc. Securities Litigation · No. 1:20-cv-01293
Judge
John Cronan
Date
Mar. 11, 2020

Background

Martin Cohen filed a proposed class action on behalf of people who purchased Luckin securities from November 13, 2019, through January 31, 2020. The complaint alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Securities and Exchange Commission Rule 10b-5. The defendants named in the opinion are Luckin Coffee Inc., Jenny Zhiya Qian, and Reinout Hendrik Schakel.

Notice and Lead- Plaintiff Procedure

The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act requires publication of notice to members of the proposed class. The notice must describe the action, the claims, and the proposed class period. The opinion states that plaintiff’s counsel notified the court that the required notice was published on February 13, 2020.

Under the statute, proposed class members had 60 days after publication to move for appointment as lead plaintiff, the person or group the court determines is most capable of adequately representing the class. The court stated that the deadline for those motions was April 13, 2020. Opposition was due May 13, 2020. If substantially similar cases were filed and a party sought to combine them, the court would decide the consolidation request before appointing a lead plaintiff.

Court’s Order

The court ordered a conference on June 2, 2020, at 11:00 a.m. to consider motions for appointment of lead plaintiff and lead counsel and for consolidation of related actions. If an amended complaint or related case was filed before appointment of a lead plaintiff, plaintiff’s counsel had to submit a letter within one week identifying differences from the original complaint and explaining why the court should not require republication of notice and set a new deadline for lead-plaintiff motions. The named plaintiffs were also ordered to promptly serve the order on each defendant. The order did not decide the merits of the securities claims.

The authoritative version

Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.