Alibaba Group Holding Limited

Shareholder Securities Fraud Litigation

Rigrodsky & Long, P.A. Announces A Securities Fraud Class Action Lawsuit Has Been Filed Against Alibaba Group Holding Limited (NYSE: BABA)

Rigrodsky & Long, P.A., including former Special Assistant United States Attorney, Timothy J. MacFall, announces that a complaint has been filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of all persons or entities that purchased American Depositary Shares (“ADSs”) of Alibaba Group Holding Limited (“Alibaba”) (NYSE: BABA) between October 21, 2014 and January 28, 2015, inclusive (the “Class Period”), alleging violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against the Company and certain of its officers (the “Complaint”).

If you purchased shares of Alibaba during the Class Period, and wish to discuss this action or have any questions concerning this notice or your rights or interests, please contact Timothy J. MacFall, Esquire or Peter Allocco of Rigrodsky & Long, P.A., 2 Righter Parkway, Suite 120, Wilmington, DE 19803 at (888) 969-4242; by e-mail to info@rl-legal.com.

Alibaba is a China-based online and mobile commerce company in retail and wholesale trade, as well as cloud computing and other services.  The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, defendants made materially false and misleading statements, and omitted materially adverse facts, about the Company’s business, operations and prospects.  Specifically, the Complaint alleges that the defendants concealed from the investing public that: (1) the Company was engaged in a proliferation of unscrupulous – if not illegal – business practices; (2) Chinese regulators had brought the Company’s unscrupulous business practices to its attention in July 2014 as part of their efforts to increase enforcement of consumer protection laws in China, exposing the Company fines, penalties and damage to reputation; and (3) Alibaba’s 4Q 2014 sales growth was declining as a result of its unscrupulous business practices.  As a result of defendants’ alleged false and misleading statements, the Company’s stock traded at artificially inflated prices during the Class Period.

According to the Complaint, on January 28, 2015, before the opening of trading, various members of the financial media reported that SAIC, China’s main corporate regulator, had released a white paper accusing Alibaba of engaging in the illegal conduct disclosed to Alibaba executives in July 2014.  Specifically, it was disclosed that in July 2014, two months prior to the Company’s IPO, regulators had brought to Alibaba’s attention a variety of highly dubious – even illegal – business practices that the SAIC advised Alibaba it was then actively clamping down on and which threatened the core of Alibaba’s business.  On this news, the closing price of Alibaba’s ADSs dropped 4%, closing at $102.94 on January 28th, on unusually high trading volume.

Then, on January 29, 2015, before the market opened, Alibaba issued a press release announcing its financial results for the fourth quarter 2014 ended December 31, 2014.  Among other things, the Company reported revenues of just $4.22 billion for the 4Q 2014, significantly under-achieving the $4.45 billion target defendants had led the investment community to expect on Alibaba’s bullish statements throughout the Class Period concerning its ongoing strong growth revenue.  On this news, the closing price of Alibaba’s ADSs dropped again, declining almost 9%, closing at $89.81 per ADS on extremely heavy trading volume of over 76 million shares.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than March 31, 2015.  A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation.  In order to be appointed lead plaintiff, the Court must determine that the class member’s claim is typical of the claims of other class members, and that the class member will adequately represent the class.  Your ability to share in any recovery is not, however, affected by the decision whether or not to serve as a lead plaintiff.  Any member of the proposed class may move the court to serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member.

While Rigrodsky & Long, P.A. did not file the Complaint in this matter, the firm, with offices in Wilmington, Delaware and Garden City, New York, regularly litigates securities class, derivative and direct actions, shareholder rights litigation and corporate governance litigation, including claims for breach of fiduciary duty and proxy violations in the Delaware Court of Chancery and in state and federal courts throughout the United States.

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