SOS Limited

On February 26, 2021, Hindenburg Research (“Hindenburg”) and Culper Research published reports regarding SOS, alleging that the Company was a "pump and dump" scheme that used fake addresses and doctored photos of crypto miners to create an illusion of success. The reports pointed out that SOS lists a hotel room as the company’s headquarters and questioned whether SOS purchased mining rigs from HY International Group New York Inc. (“HY”), which appeared to be a shell company. They also claimed that FXK Technology Corporation (“FXK”), which SOS announced it would purchase, was actually “an undisclosed related party shell.” Moreover, the reports noted that the photographed SOS "miners" weren't the A10 Pros the company claimed to own but were actually Avalon's A1066 miners. Hindenburg went even further and found the original images from SOS's site belonged to a rival RHY.

On this news, the Company’s share price fell $1.27, or 21%, to close at $4.77 per share on February 26, 2021.

After the end of the Class Period, between February 27 and March 3, 2021, Hindenburg subsequently provided additional information on SOS that further supported its earlier allegations, including pictures, highlighting, inter alia, how SOS had allegedly taken steps to hide the misconduct noted in the February 26, 2021 corrective disclosures.

The complaint filed in this class action alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company’s business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to investors that: (1) SOS had misrepresented the true nature, location, and/or existence of at least one of the principal executive offices listed in its SEC filings; (2) HY and FXK were either undisclosed related parties and/or entities fabricated by the Company; (3) the Company had misrepresented the type and/or existence of the mining rigs that it claimed to have purchased; and (4) as a result, Defendants’ positive statements about the Company’s business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times.