LK INVESTORS ALERT

April 13, 2020 Filing Deadline in Class Action – Contact Lieff Cabraser

The law firm of Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP reminds investors of the upcoming deadline to move for appointment as lead plaintiff in the class action litigation on behalf of investors who purchased or otherwise acquired the publicly traded securities of Luckin Coffee Inc. (“Luckin” or the “Company”) (Nasdaq: LK) between May 17, 2019 and April 6, 2020, inclusive (the “Class Period”), and/or in or traceable to the Company’s public offerings of American Depositary Shares (“ADSs”) conducted on or around May 17, 2019 (the “IPO”) and January 10, 2020 (the “2020 Offering,” collectively, with the IPO, the “Offerings”).

If you purchased or otherwise acquired the securities of Luckin during the Class Period and/or in any of the Offerings, you may move the Court for appointment as lead plaintiff by no later than April 13, 2020. A lead plaintiff is a representative party who acts on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. Your share of any recovery in the actions will not be affected by your decision of whether to seek appointment as lead plaintiff. You may retain Lieff Cabraser, or other attorneys, as your counsel in the action.

Luckin investors who wish to learn more about the litigation and how to seek appointment as lead plaintiff should click here or contact Sharon M. Lee of Lieff Cabraser toll-free at 1-800-541-7358.

Luckin, incorporated in the Cayman Islands and headquartered in Xiamen, China, engages in the retail sale of freshly brewed drinks, and premade food and beverage items.

The action alleges that, throughout the Class Period, defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) certain of the financial performance metrics reported by Luckin, including per-store per-day sales, net selling price per item, advertising expenses, and revenue contribution from “other products” had been inflated; (2) Luckin’s financial reports had overstated the financial health of the Company and accordingly were unreliable and would likely require restatement; and (3) consequently, defendants’ public statements concerning Luckin’s business, operations, and prospects were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.