De-Stabilizing IPOs: Didi and Robinhood
IPOs can be successful (often) or unsuccessful (less common). But rarely can they destabilize an industry or imperil a fast-growing sector of the economy. Yet, that may have just happened, or be about to happen, in two long-anticipated IPOs: Didi Global and Robinhood Financial. In this edition of his Corporate Securities column, John C. Coffee Jr. explores recent developments and writes that both IPOs underline the critical nature of the disclosure decisions made by securities lawyers.
July 14, 2021 at 12:45 PM
10 minute read
Initial public offerings can be successful (often) or unsuccessful (less common). But rarely can they destabilize an industry or imperil a fast-growing sector of the economy. Yet, that may have just happened, or be about to happen, in two long-anticipated IPOs: Didi Global, Inc. (Didi) and Robinhood Financial LLC (Robinhood). The former could bring to a screeching halt all cross-listings by Chinese issuers in the United States, and the latter will likely force the SEC to rethink its long-standing tolerance of payments for order flow. Although these developments could have occurred even without these two IPOs, both appear to have precipitated action by regulators. Both also underline the critical nature of the disclosure decisions made by securities lawyers, often under urgent time pressures.
Didi
The IPO of this firm, which holds a near monopoly in the Chinese ride-hailing business, seemed an apparent success on June 30, 2021 when it raised $4.4 billion and achieved an overall valuation of over $67 billion. Then, the sky fell in. China's Internet regulator (the Cyberspace Administration) instructed Didi to cease signing up new users while it conducted its investigation, and then ordered Didi's mobile app removed from stores in China because of its concerns about data collection and security. Although the offering had gone public at $14.00 per share, its stock price quickly fell, and, as of this Monday, it was hovering around $11.42—a drop of around 20% and sufficient to trigger actions by the ever vigilant plaintiff's bar.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllSEC Official Hints at More Restraint With Industry Bars, Less With Wells Meetings
4 minute readThe CFPB Is Digging In for Last Days of Biden's Term. But What Happens Next?
6 minute readNY AG James Targets Crypto Fraud Which Allegedly Ensnared Victims With Fake Jobs
4 minute readTrending Stories
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250