LendingClub Corporation

Shareholder Securities Fraud Litigation

Rigrodsky & Long, P.A. Announces A Securities Fraud Class Action Lawsuit Has Been Filed Against LendingClub Corporation (NYSE: LC)

Rigrodsky & Long, P.A. announces that a complaint has been filed in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Mateo, on behalf of all persons or entities that purchased the common stock of LendingClub Corporation (“LendingClub” or the “Company”) (NYSE: LC) pursuant or traceable to its initial public offering (“IPO”) commenced on or about December 11, 2014, alleging violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1933 against the Company, the sponsors of the IPO, and certain of the Company’s officers (the “Complaint”).

If you purchased shares of LendingClub in connection with its IPO, 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.

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.  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, the documents filed in connection with the IPO contained materially false and misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) LendingClub had an unsustainable business model dependent on its ability to issue loans with usurious rates; (2) LendingClub’s loan investors would not be able to enforce the high rates because they were illegal; (3) without the usurious rates, the loans generated through LendingClub’s marketplace would not be attractive to investors because they had a high credit risk; and (4) a substantial portion of LendingClub’s loans were issued with rates in excess of those allowed by applicable state usury laws.

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