According to the lawsuit, the registration statement and prospectus used to effectuate the Company’s IPO misstated and/or omitted facts concerning Dingdong’s so-called commitment to ensuring the safety and quality of the food it distributes to the market. For example, despite claiming that it applies “stringent quality control across [its] entire supply chain to ensure product quality to [its] users,” Dingdong sold food past its sell-by date. Consequently, Dingdong was, in fact, 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. Moreover, the foregoing conduct 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. In fact, as the truth about Dingdong’s business and its failure to meet its self-imposed food safety responsibilities reached the market, the value of the Company’s shares declined dramatically. By the commencement of the action, Dingdong’s shares traded as low as $2.51 per ADS, representing a decline of over 89% from the $23.50 IPO offering price.

No Class Has Been Certified. Until a class is certified, you are not represented by counsel unless you retain one. You may select counsel of your choice. You may also remain an absent class member and do nothing at this point. An investor’s ability to share in any potential future recovery is not dependent upon serving as lead plaintiff.

Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.