Pandemic Darlings The pandemic economy, in original documents
Home Court filings In re DraftKings Inc. Securities Litigation

Case docket

In re DraftKings Inc. Securities Litigation — U.S. District Court, S.D.N.Y.

In re DraftKings Inc. Securities Litigation — U.S. District Court, S.D.N.Y. — 12 documents in the archive, dated July 2, 2021 to January 10, 2023.

Case facts

CourtU.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
Docket numberNo. 1:21-cv-05739 — main docket · CourtListener docket 562830
Filings12 public filings
Filed2021-07-02 – 2023-01-10
Document typescomplaints (3), opinions (2), declaration (1), memorandum or brief (1), exhibit (1), judgment (1)
Original PDFs12 of 12

Case summary

In re DraftKings Inc. Securities Litigation, No. 1:21-cv-05739 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, is a putative securities class action on behalf of purchasers of DraftKings, Inc. securities between December 23, 2019 and June 15, 2021. The second amended complaint alleges that SBTech (Global) Limited, a company DraftKings acquired in going public, had secretly operated in jurisdictions where gambling was illegal, and that DraftKings made materially false and misleading statements about and failed to disclose that conduct, so that its shares traded at inflated prices until a Hindenburg Research report published June 15, 2021. On January 10, 2023 the court granted the motion to dismiss in full and dismissed the complaint with prejudice; judgment was entered the same day.

Case at a glance

PartiesLead plaintiff and the putative class of purchasers of DraftKings securities; defendants DraftKings, Inc., formerly known as Diamond Eagle Acquisition Corp., and affiliated individual defendants
Court and docketU.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, No. 1:21-cv-05739-PAE, before Judge Paul A. Engelmayer
ProgramNot named in the filings on this page. The claims concern disclosures about an acquired gambling technology business, not a pandemic relief program
ClaimsSection 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. § 78j(b), and Rule 10b-5, as to all defendants; Section 20(a), 15 U.S.C. § 78t(a), as to the individual defendants
Disposition or statusDismissed with prejudice. The judgment of January 10, 2023 records that the motion to dismiss was granted under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 9(b) and 12(b)(6) and the PSLRA, and that the case is closed
Status checked2026-09-23 · against DOJ press releases through 2026-09-22; court docket not yet read

What does the complaint allege?

That SBTech had secretly operated in "black-market" jurisdictions, exposing DraftKings to regulatory and criminal risks and making some revenue the fruit of illegal conduct, and that DraftKings made materially false and misleading statements about and failed to disclose those violations of foreign law and their potential consequences. These are the complaint's allegations.

What did the court decide?

It granted the motion to dismiss in full and dismissed the second amended complaint with prejudice, on a motion brought for failure to state a claim under Rules 12(b)(6) and 9(b) and the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act, 15 U.S.C. § 78u-4(b).

What else is on the page?

The original class action complaint of July 2, 2021, a lead plaintiff motion and the November 12, 2021 opinion and order appointing lead plaintiff, the amended complaint of January 11, 2022 with the Hindenburg Research report as Exhibit A, the defendants' motion to dismiss brief, the second amended complaint of April 5, 2022, and the opinion and judgment of January 10, 2023.

Docket

12 documents in docket-entry order; attachments follow their entry. Gaps name the entries we do not have.

No. 1:21-cv-05739

  1. Class Action Complaint — In re DraftKings Inc. Securities Litigation (S.D.N.Y.)Entry 1
  2. —Entries 2–20 are not in the archive
  3. Doc /: 2021 08 31 Declaration Dkt 21Entry 21
  4. —Entry 22 is not in the archive
  5. Memorandum of Law — Motion for Lead Plaintiff (Kaintz) — In re DraftKings Inc. Securities Litigation (S.D.N.Y.)Entry 23
  6. —Entries 24–44 are not in the archive
  7. Opinion & Order — Lead Plaintiff and Consolidation — In re DraftKings Inc. Securities Litigation (S.D.N.Y.)Entry 45
  8. —Entries 46–51 are not in the archive
  9. Amended Class Action Complaint — In re DraftKings Inc. Securities Litigation (S.D.N.Y.)Entry 52
  10. Exhibit A — Hindenburg Research Report on DraftKings — In re DraftKings Inc. Securities Litigation (S.D.N.Y.)Entry 52, attachment 1
  11. —Entries 53–58 are not in the archive
  12. Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint — In re DraftKings Securities LitigationEntry 59
  13. Defendants' Memorandum of Law — Motion to Dismiss Amended ComplaintEntry 60
  14. —Entry 61 is not in the archive
  15. Second Amended Class Action Complaint — In re DraftKings Inc. Securities Litigation (S.D.N.Y.)Entry 62
  16. —Entry 63 is not in the archive
  17. Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Second Amended Complaint — In re DraftKings Securities LitigationEntry 64
  18. —Entries 65–70 are not in the archive
  19. Opinion & Order — Motion to Dismiss — In re DraftKings Inc. Securities Litigation (S.D.N.Y.)Entry 71
  20. Judgment — In re DraftKings Inc. Securities Litigation (S.D.N.Y.)Entry 72

Other cases in the archive from U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.

Court, dates and docket numbers are as recorded on the filings.

Back to top