EQS-News: ROSEN, NATIONAL INVESTOR COUNSEL, Encourages VNET Group, Inc. Investors with Losses to Secure Counsel Before Important Deadline in Securities Class Action - VNET

WHY ROSEN LAW: We encourage investors to select qualified counsel with a track record of success in leadership roles. Often, firms issuing notices do not have comparable experience, resources or any meaningful peer recognition. Many of these firms do not actually litigate securities class actions, but are merely middlemen that refer clients or partner with law firms that actually litigate the cases. Be wise in selecting counsel. The Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm has achieved the largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese Company. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 4 each year since 2013 and has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. In 2019 alone the firm secured over $438 million for investors. In 2020, founding partner Laurence Rosen was named by law360 as a Titan of Plaintiffs’ Bar. Many of the firm’s attorneys have been recognized by Lawdragon and Super Lawyers.

DETAILS OF THE CASE: According to the lawsuit, defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about VNET's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, defendants failed to disclose to investors that: (1) GenTao Capital Limited was experiencing financial difficulties and was at risk of defaulting on the facility agreement; (2) as a result, there was a substantial likelihood that Bold Ally (Cayman) Limited would acquire defendant Sheng Chen’s significant ownership stake in VNET; (3) to restore defendant Sheng Chen’s voting interest in VNET, VNET would issue newly created shares to defendant Sheng Chen, diluting investors’ interest; and (4) as a result of the foregoing, defendants’ positive statements about VNET's business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages.