Dingdong (Cayman) LTD

Investors that purchased the Company’s securities and have suffered a loss, please fill in transaction information below, or email to info@portnoylaw.com.

Are you a current or former employee of the company?*YesNo

Purchases

+Additional Purchases

Sales

+Additional Sales

If you prefer, you may submit your transaction information or comments/questions in the box below:




There is no cost or obligation associated with submitting your information. If you are a shareholder who suffered a loss, please submit your contact information and purchase information to participate in the putative class action.

We also encourage you to contact Lesley F. Portnoy of The Portnoy Law Firm, at 310.692.8883, to discuss your rights free of charge. You can also reach us through the firm’s website at www.portnoylaw.com, or by email at info@portnoylaw.com.

If you choose to take no action, you can remain an absent class member.

Joining the case through the Portnoy Law website enables investors to learn about their legal claims and take an active role in recovering their losses.

The Portnoy Law Firm represents investors around the world and specializes in securities class action lawsuits and shareholder rights litigation.

CONTACT:
Portnoy Law Firm
Lesley F. Portnoy, Esq.,
www.portnoylaw.com
Office: 310.692.8883
1800 Century Park East, Suite 600
Los Angeles, CA 90067
info@portnoylaw.com

According to the complaint filed in the Southern District of New York, 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.