Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP (“Robbins Geller”) ( http://www.rgrdlaw.com/cases/cninsure/) today announced that a class action has been commenced in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of purchasers of CNinsure Inc. (“CNinsure”) (NasdaqGS: CISG) American Depositary Shares (“ADSs”) during the period between March 2, 2010 and September 14, 2011 (the “Class Period”). If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than 60 days from today. If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions concerning this notice or your rights or interests, please contact plaintiff’s counsel, Samuel H. Rudman or David A. Rosenfeld of Robbins Geller at 800/449-4900 or 619/231-1058, or via e-mail at firstname.lastname@example.org. If you are a member of this class, you can view a copy of the complaint as filed or join this class action online at http://www.rgrdlaw.com/cases/cninsure/. Any member of the putative class may move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member. The complaint charges CNinsure and certain of its officers and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. CNinsure, together with its subsidiaries, provides insurance brokerage and agency services, and insurance claims adjusting services in the People’s Republic of China. The complaint alleges that, during the Class Period, defendants issued materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company’s business and prospects. Specifically, defendants misrepresented and/or failed to disclose the following adverse facts: (a) that the Company was materially overstating its net income by understating the costs associated with the Company’s scorecard system; (b) that the Company failed to account for incentives provided to the Company’s agents as costs since those incentives were reasonably likely to be tendered at a future date; and (c) that, as a result of the foregoing, defendants lacked a reasonable basis for their positive statements about the Company and its prospects.