Did Uber Technologies, Inc. (UBER) mislead investors about its controls and procedure and previous misconduct? Was Uber transparent with its shareholders about its lobbying activities with government officials and politicians to bypass legal and regulatory requirements?
This post is open for investors to gather facts, and findings and track their exposure to related lawsuits. We invite investors and shareholders to contribute to this investigation for their own benefit, add events to the factual timeline below and vote on events’ pertinence.
A lawsuit was subsequently filed. We update this post regularly.
07/11/2022
The International Consortium of Investigative Journalists (“ICIJ”) release the “Uber Files” or “The secret story of how the tech giant won access to world leaders, cozied up to oligarchs and dodged taxes amid chaotic global expansion.”
The investigation is based on a leak of sensitive texts, emails, invoices, briefing notes, presentations and other documents exchanged by top Uber executives, government bureaucrats and world leaders in nearly 30 countries.
“Our investigation found that the onetime Silicon Valley startup held undisclosed meetings with politicians to ask for favors, including dropping probes and changing policies on workers’ rights; that the company used Russian oligarchs as conduits to the Kremlin; and that it discussed the public relations benefits of violence against its drivers as it engaged in international power struggles with taxi drivers and legislators opposed to its expansion. . .”
Stock Impact
Close | Previous close | Price variation | Percentage variation |
---|---|---|---|
$21.19 | $22.34 | $-1.15 | -5.15% |
An Uber Technologies, Inc. shareholder filed a federal securities class action lawsuit on behalf of a class consisting of all persons and entities other than defendants that purchased or otherwise acquired Uber common stock between May 31, 2019, and July 8, 2022, both dates inclusive.
According to the complaint, defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the company’s business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, defendants allegedly failed to disclose to investors that:
(i) Uber had defective disclosure controls and procedures;
(ii) Uber concealed and/or downplayed the full scope and severity of its prior misconduct, including, inter alia, the extent to which it secretly lobbied government officials and politicians to bypass legal and regulatory requirements, as well as knowingly risked the safety of Uber drivers, to fuel the company’s global growth;
(iii) as a result, Uber’s present global footprint and market share is in significant part the byproduct of previously undisclosed, unsustainable, and illegal business practices;
(iv) all the foregoing, once revealed, was likely to negatively impact Uber’s reputation, as well as subject the company to a heightened risk of governmental and regulatory scrutiny and enforcement action; and
(v) as a result, the company’s public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.
The lead plaintiff deadline has passed, we will update this page as the lawsuit progresses
We use cookies on our website to give you the most relevant experience.By clicking “Accept”, you consent to the use of all the cookies.
Cookie | Duration | Description |
---|---|---|
_GRECAPTCHA | This cookie is set by Google reCAPTCHA, which protects our site against spam enquiries on forms. | |
cookielawinfo-checkbox-analytics | 11 months | This cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookie is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Analytics". |
cookielawinfo-checkbox-functional | 11 months | The cookie is set by GDPR cookie consent to record the user consent for the cookies in the category "Functional". |
cookielawinfo-checkbox-necessary | 11 months | This cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookies is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Necessary". |
cookielawinfo-checkbox-others | 11 months | This cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookie is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Other. |
cookielawinfo-checkbox-performance | 11 months | This cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookie is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Performance". |
PHPSESSID | Session | This cookie is required for our website functionality and security. It is a session cookie, it will disappear when your session ends. |
viewed_cookie_policy | 11 months | The cookie is set by the GDPR Cookie Consent plugin and is used to store whether or not user has consented to the use of cookies. It does not store any personal data. |
wfwaf-authcookie | This cookie is necessary to keep our website secure. | |
wordpress_logged_in | This Cookie indicates when you’re logged in, and who you are, for most interface use. It is required for the website to work properly. | |
wordpress_sec_ | This cookie is useful for logged-in users. |
Cookie | Duration | Description |
---|---|---|
_ga | 2 years | This cookie is installed by Google Analytics. The cookie is used to calculate visitor, session, campaign data and keep track of site usage for the site's analytics report. The cookies store information anonymously and assign a randomly generated number to identify unique visitors. |
_ga_CK1P5E8CVW | 2 years | This cookie is installed by Google Analytics. The cookie is used to persist session state. |
_gid | 24 hours | This cookie is installed by Google Analytics. The cookie is used to store information of how visitors use a website and helps in creating an analytics report of how the website is doing. The data collected including the number visitors, the source where they have come from, and the pages visted in an anonymous form. |
Cookie |
---|
Google AdSense |
A securities class action lawsuit is a lawsuit on behalf of investors considered in a similar position, who purchased or sold securities of a company during a certain period and suffered losses because of an alleged wrongdoing. Security is often broadly defined to include bonds, stocks, options, derivatives, and other instruments.
Section 10b of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 makes it unlawful to “use or employ, in connection with the purchase or sale of any security” a “manipulative or deceptive device or contrivance in contravention of such rules and regulations as the [SEC] may prescribe.” 15 U.S.C. § 78j(b). It is therefore forbidden to: employ any device, scheme, or artifice to defraud; make any untrue statement of a material fact or to omit to state a material fact necessary in order to make the statements made not misleading; or engage in any act, practice, or course of business which operates or would operate as a fraud or deceit upon any person.
Generally, to be successful, the plaintiff must plead the following:
We invite you to read this article from the American Bar Association which, although from 2014, provide ample information to explore the world of class actions brought under section 10b of Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933 provides “an express right of action for damages . . . when a registration statement contains untrue statements of material fact or omissions of material fact.” (Thomas Lee Hazen, Treatise on the Law of Securities Regulation, §7.3 at 581 (4th ed. 2002)). Practically, buyers in an initial public offering (IPO), relying on the registration statement and prospectus, are given the right to file a complaint against the company and other signatories for losses sustained as a result of the deficient registration statement and prospectus.
Generally, at least four elements must be plead for the claim to survive:
A shareholder derivative lawsuit is a lawsuit brought by a shareholder of a company, on behalf of the company, against an insider (director, board of directors, executives) or a third-party to redress wrongs and harms to the company. Simply speaking, this mechanism exists because one cannot expect directors and insiders to sue themselves for harms they have done to the company.
The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act (PSLRA) of 1995 was enacted to tighten requirements for securities class actions to be brought in the United States. One of the mechanism put in place was a 60-day period, following the filing of the initial securities class action, for any shareholder considered in similar position to the one filing the initial class action complaint, to ask to be named lead plaintiff. Practically, any time a securities class action falling under the PSLRA is filed with a court, law firms advertise their willingness to pursue the case and invite other investors similarly situated to contact them.
The lead plaintiff in a securities class action is a shareholder who suffered losses related to the purchase or sale of a company’s security during a certain period of time, that is appointed with its choice of counsel to represent the rest of the similarly situated shareholders. To be appointed lead plaintiff, you need to contact a law firm, have them examine your losses and agree to be represented by them and ask to make a motion with the court to be appointed lead. The court will then look at all the motions from the different shareholders and make its decision based on a certain set of criteria. Your inability to be lead plaintiff shall not prevent you from any potential recovery in the event of a settlement.
A class period is a set period of time during which the purchasers or sellers of a company’s security claim in a class action lawsuit to have suffered losses. Class periods are based on the merits of the case and may evolve with the litigation.
A class action complaint will define the initial class of investors: the class period and the persons included in the class. You should look at the definition of the class to determine whether you are included or not. However, the class definition will evolve with the litigation. Its definition is very likely to change between the initial complaint filed and the possible settlement. Generally speaking, you should rely on the definitions of the class stated in a stipulation of settlement to determine whether or not you will be entitled to any recovery (see below about the opting-out mechanism).
You may. The mechanism is called opting-out of class. A lead plaintiff will agree on the potential recovery ratio in a settlement. You may have an interest in opting-out of a class if you have sustained large losses and believe bringing a separate lawsuit would entitle you to a larger ratio of recovery.
You may be able to bring a claim to arbitration in certain scenarios. We encourage you to contact a law firm of your choice to inquire about such alternative dispute resolution mechanism.
Largest class period is from:
05/31/2019
to
07/08/2022
We have temporarily disabled auto-updates, the information on this page may not be up to date.