|Expense Ratio (net)||N/A|
|Last Cap Gain||N/A|
|Morningstar Risk Rating||N/A|
|Beta (5Y Monthly)||N/A|
|5y Average Return||N/A|
|Average for Category||N/A|
NEW YORK, NY / ACCESSWIRE / June 15, 2020 / Labaton Sucharow LLP ("Labaton Sucharow") announced that on April 9, 2020, it filed a securities class action lawsuit against E-House (China) and certain other parties and encourages investors to contact the Firm. The lawsuit, captioned Maso Capital Investments Limited v. E-House (China) Holdings Limited, No. 1:20-cv-02943 (S.D.N.Y.) (the "Action"), on behalf of its clients Maso Capital Investments Limited, Blackwell Partners LLC - Series A, and Crown Managed Accounts SPC for and on behalf of Crown/Maso Segregated Portfolio (together, the "Maso Entities") against E-House (China) Holdings Limited ("E-House"), and certain directors, officers, and affiliates (collectively, "Defendants").
NEW YORK, June 09, 2020 -- Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, reminds purchasers of the securities of E-House (China) Holdings Limited (NYSE: EJ): (i) during.
NEW YORK, NY / ACCESSWIRE / June 5, 2020 / Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC reminds investors that a class action lawsuit has been filed against E-House (China) Holdings Limited ("E-House" or "the Company") (EJ) and certain of its officers, on behalf of shareholders who purchased or otherwise acquired E-House securities (1) during the period from April 15, 2016, until August 31, 2016, inclusive (the "Class Period"); or (2) by way of, or as a result, of tendering their American Depository Receipts ("ADRs") as part of the merger, regardless of when that tender occurred. This class action seeks to recover damages against Defendants for alleged violations of the federal securities laws under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) the merger was not fair or in the best interest of those investors not affiliated with the buyer group; (2) there were plans for post-merger transactions; (3) the projections in the proxies were not based on the best available information; and (4) as a result of the foregoing, defendants' positive statements about the Company's business, operations, prospects, and the merger, were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.