This case was last updated from PACER on 05/29/2021 at 10:16:26 (UTC).


Case Summary


On March 30, 2021, Kimberly Beltran (“Plaintiff”), represented by Gustavo Fabian Bruckner of Pomeraantz LLP individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, filed a securities class action lawsuit against SOS Limited (“SOS” or the “Company”), Yandai Wang and Eric H. Yan (collectively, “Defendants”) seeking certification of class action, damages and prejudgment and post judgment interest for alleged violations of federal securities laws. This case was filed in U.S. District Court in the District of New Jersey with Judge Matthew J. Skahill and Judge Robert B. Kugler presiding. 


Plaintiff brings this action under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, individually and on behalf of all persons and entities other than Defendants that purchased or otherwise acquired SOS American depository shares (“ADSs”) between July 22, 2020 and February 25, 2021, both dates inclusive. 


Plaintiff in its complaint alleged that “ Throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company’s business, operations, and compliance policies. Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) SOS had misrepresented the true nature, location, and/or existence of at least one of the principal executive offices listed in its SEC filings; (ii) HY and FXK were either undisclosed related parties and/or entities fabricated by the Company; (iii) the Company had misrepresented the type and/or existence of the mining rigs that it claimed to have purchased; and (iv) as a result, the Company’s public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.”


Plaintiff further alleged that “On February 26, 2021, Hindenburg Research (“Hindenburg”) and

Culper Research (“Culper”) released commentary on SOS, claiming that the Company was an intricate “pump and dump” scheme that used fake addresses and doctored photos of crypto mining rigs to create an illusion of success. The analysts noted, for example, that SOS’s SEC filings listed a hotel room as the Company’s headquarters. The analysts also questioned whether SOS had actually purchased mining rigs that it claimed to own, as the entity from which SOS purportedly bought the mining rigs appeared to be a fake shell company. The analysts further alleged that the photos SOS had published of their purported “mining rigs” were phony.

Culper noted that photographs of SOS’s “miners” did not depict the A10 Pro machines that the Company claimed to own and instead appeared to show different devices altogether. Hindenburg, for its part, found that the original images from SOS’s website actually belonged to another company.”


The Plaintiff has laid down two causes of actions. The first one is for alleged violations of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 Promulgated Thereunder against all Defendants. The second cause of action is for alleged violations of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act against the Individual  Defendants. 


In its prayer for relief, Plaintiff has requested the court to certify this action as a class action under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, award damages including prejudgment and post-judgment interest along with costs of litigation. 


This case summary may not reflect the current position of the parties to this litigation or the status of this case. Sign up to view the latest case updates and court documents.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets


Case Details

  • Case Number:


  • Filing Date:


  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Finance - Security/Commodity/Exchange

Judge Details

Presiding Judge

Robert B. Kugler

Referral Judge

Matthew J. Skahill


Party Details







Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorney



600 Third Avenue, 20Th Floor

New York, NY 10016


Court Documents


1 #1


1 #2

Schedule A

1 #3

Civil Cover Sheet




Docket Entries

  • 03/31/2021
  • DocketCLERK'S QUALITY CONTROL MESSAGE - The case you electronically filed has been processed, however, the following deficiencies were found: Party Information, . The Clerk's Office has made the appropriate changes. Please refer to the Attorney Case Opening Guide for processing electronically filed cases. (pr, ) (Entered: 03/31/2021)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/31/2021
  • View Court Documents
  • Docket(#3) SUMMONS ISSUED as to SOS LIMITED, YANDAI WANG, ERIC H. YAN. Attached is the official court Summons, please fill out Defendant and Plaintiffs attorney information and serve. (pr, ) (Entered: 03/31/2021)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/30/2021
  • DocketJudge Robert B. Kugler and Magistrate Judge Matthew J. Skahill added. (dd, ) (Entered: 03/31/2021)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/30/2021
  • View Court Documents
  • Docket(#2) Request for Summons to be Issued by KIMBERLY BELTRAN as to SOS LIMITED, YANDAI WANG, ERIC H. YAN. (BRUCKNER, GUSTAVO) (Entered: 03/30/2021)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/30/2021
  • View Court Documents
  • Docket(#1) COMPLAINT against SOS LIMITED, YANDAI WANG, ERIC H. YAN ( Filing and Admin fee $ 402 receipt number ANJDC-12321635) with JURY DEMAND, filed by KIMBERLY BELTRAN. (Attachments: #1 Certification, #2 Schedule A, #3 Civil Cover Sheet)(BRUCKNER, GUSTAVO) (Entered: 03/30/2021)

    Read MoreRead Less

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases

Latest cases represented by Lawyer Gustavo F. Bruckner