`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
`-------------------------------------------------------------- X
`
`:
`
`:
`
`:
`
`:
`
`:
`In re 360 DigiTech, Inc. Securities Litigation
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`-------------------------------------------------------------- X
`
`
`
`
`ALVIN K. HELLERSTEIN, U.S.D.J.:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ORDER
`
`21 Civ. 6013 (AKH)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendant 360 Digitech, Inc. (“Digitech”), the only defendant to appear to date,
`
`moved to dismiss the Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint. On July 25, 2022 I held
`
`oral argument on the motion to dismiss. I also considered Plaintiffs’ motion to strike certain
`
`exhibits submitted in conjunction with the motion to dismiss. For the reasons stated on the
`
`record and set for the below, I granted both the motion to strike and the motion to dismiss.
`
`The motion to strike docket entries 47-5, 47-9 to 47-12, and 47-16 to 47-23 is
`
`granted for the reasons stated on the record at oral argument. In consideration of a motion
`
`pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), consideration of documents extraneous to the pleadings is
`
`impermissible. See ATSI Communc’ns, Inc. v. Shaar Fund, Ltd., 493 F.3d 87, 98 (2d Cir. 2007).
`
`Defendant Digitech, a Chinese company that trades in the U.S. via American
`
`depositary shares, provides financial services to borrowers and lenders, in part through its
`
`downloadable app. Plaintiffs allege, in relevant part, that Defendant made a series of
`
`misrepresentations concerning its compliance with regulations governing collection of user data.
`
`
`
`Case 1:21-cv-06013-AKH Document 70 Filed 07/26/22 Page 2 of 2
`
`After hearing extended argument regarding the bases for Plaintiffs’ claims, I
`
`found that Plaintiffs’ allegations were legally insufficient because the alleged misrepresentations
`
`were either puffery, see Singh v. Cigna Corp., 918 F.3d 57, 62 (2d Cir. 2019), or Plaintiff had
`
`failed to plead the particular nature of any falsity. See Hirsch v. Arthur Andersen & Co., 72 F.3d
`
`1085, 1092 (2d Cir. 1995). Plaintiff failed to allege that Digitech’s practices violated Chinese
`
`law in effect prior to May 1, 2021; what specific laws Digitech before that time; or what specific
`
`acts or practices violated those laws. Additionally, as the Complaint itself reflects, Chinese law
`
`and regulations regarding data collection were continually evolving before and during the class
`
`period, and enforcement became increasingly strict. Digitech adequately disclosed this
`
`regulatory landscape and the attendant risks such that a reasonable investor could not have been
`
`misled. See Singh, 918 F.3d at 64.
`
`Although I did not rule on other issues presented in the briefs, I commented that
`
`additional information is needed in Plaintiffs’ pleading. Alleging scienter with particularity,
`
`especially with respect to the individual defendants, requires additional specificity to be legally
`
`sufficient. Adequately pleading loss causation requires Plaintiffs to differentiate the cause of the
`
`alleged loss from general market fluctuations that may have affected the entire industry or entire
`
`market.
`
`The motion to strike and the motion to dismiss are granted. As I noted at oral
`
`argument, Plaintiffs are granted leave to replead. Any amended complaint is due by September
`
`26, 2022. The Clerk shall terminate ECF Nos. 45 and 50.
`
`
`
`SO ORDERED.
`
`Dated:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`July 26, 2022
`New York, New York
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` /s/ Alvin K. Hellerstein
`ALVIN K. HELLERSTEIN
`United States District Judge
`
`
`
`2
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
