Bragar Eagel & Squire, PC reminds investors of that class | Job Binary

NEW YORK, Oct. 21, 2022 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — Bragar Eagel & Squire, PC, a nationally recognized shareholder rights law firm, reminds investors that a class action has commenced on behalf of shareholders of NIO, Inc. (NYSE: NIO ). ), Dingdong (Cayman) Ltd. (NYSE: DDL ), Stitch Fix, Inc . (NASDAQ: SFIX) and Coupang, Inc. (NYSE: CPNG). Shareholders have until the deadlines below to petition the court to act as lead plaintiff. Additional information about each case can be found at the link provided.


Class period: August 20, 2020 to July 11, 2022

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: October 24, 2022

On June 28, 2022, Grizzly Research published a report that, among other things, NIO inflated its net income by about 95%, Wuhan Weineng Battery Asset Co. (“Weineng”) through sales to a related party.

On this news, the Company’s American Depositary Shares (“ADS” or “shares”) fell $0.59, or 2.5%, to close at $22.36 per share on June 28, 2022, on unusually heavy trading volume.

Then, on July 11, 2022, the NIO announced that it had formed a special committee to oversee the investigation into the allegations in the Grizzly Research report.

On this news, the Company’s stock fell $2.03, or 8.9%, to close at $20.57 per share on July 11, 2022, on unusually high trading volume.

The complaint filed in this class action alleges that during the entire Class Period, the defendants made false and/or misleading statements and failed to disclose material facts concerning the Company’s business, operations and prospects. Specifically, defendants failed to disclose to investors that: (1) NIO derived revenue by selling the batteries to a related party that owned the batteries and managed user subscriptions; (2) through the related party, NIO also recognized enormous depreciation savings; (3) As a result of the foregoing, the Company’s net income and losses were overstated; and (4) as a result of the foregoing, the Defendants’ positive statements about the Company’s business, operations and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

For more information on the NIO lawsuit, go to:

Dingdong (Cayman) Ltd. (NYSE: DDL)

Class Period: As of the Company’s IPO on June 29, 2021

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: October 24, 2022

Dingdong is the leading and fastest growing on-demand e-commerce company in China. Dingdong held its IPO in New York, and its ADS is listed on the New York Stock Exchange (“NYSE”) under the symbol “DDL”.

In June 2021, as part of Dingdong’s IPO, the Defendants issued approximately 4.07 million ADSs to public investors at $23.50 per ADS, all pursuant to the Registration Statement.

According to the registration statement, Dingdong’s mission is to “make fresh food as accessible as running water in the home.” To achieve this goal, Dingdong is said to have “adopted a user-centric philosophy” to “provide directly to users and households… fresh produce, average and seafood and other daily needs through a comfortable and excellent supported by a shopping experience wide self-operated first line compliance network [emphasis added]”. Critically, Dingdong differentiates itself from its competitors by “sourcing… products mainly form direct sources, such as farms and cooperatives,” “.applying strict quality control [its] the entire supply chain to ensure product quality [its] users,” and is based on its “world-class fulfillment network and robust, digitized fulfillment capabilities… [to] deliver… orders within 30 minutes [emphasis added]”.

Unbeknownst to potential investors, however, the Registration Statement misrepresented Dingdong’s commitment to ensuring the safety and quality of the food it distributes to the market. In fact, Dingdong actively fulfilled its food safety responsibilities, for example, marketing dead fish as live fish while selling them to customers and recycling vegetables that were past their sell-by date. In other words, Dingdong no more provided or ensured access to “fresh” food than supermarkets, traditional Chinese wet markets, or the traditional e-commerce platforms it repeatedly claimed to displace. The foregoing conduct increased Dingdong’s risk of regulatory and/or governmental scrutiny and enforcement, all of which, once disclosed, would (and did) adversely affect Dingdong’s business, operations and reputation. Regardless of these facts, purchasers of ADSs were unable to properly assess the value of the shares offered in connection with the IPO, and therefore purchased their ADSs without material information and to their detriment.

According to the complaint, the Company’s public statements throughout the IPO period were false and misleading. When the market learned the truth about Dingdong, investors suffered.

For more information on Dingdong’s action, please go to:

Stitch Fix, Inc. (NASDAQ: SFIX)

Class period: from December 8, 2020 to March 8, 2022

Lead plaintiff deadline: October 25, 2022

Stitch Fix sells a range of clothing, shoes and accessories through its website and mobile app. Traditionally, Stitch Fix sold products as a “Fix,” whereby the customer would receive a monthly box of items selected by a personal stylist. The customer would not know exactly which item he was receiving, but he would be able to return items he did not want. The customer paid a $20 “styling fee” per Fix, which fee was applied to any item the customer chose to purchase.

Ahead of the class deadline in 2019, Stitch Fix announced a new direct-to-purchase retail component, eventually dubbed “Freestyle.” The Freestyle program allowed customers to purchase specific products on the site, giving the customer more control over the items they received, but also removing the care element that set Stitch Fix apart from other e-tailers. The Freestyle program was first made available to a subset of existing Stitch Fix customers in 2020, and was gradually rolled out to all existing customers in early 2021. In September 2021, the Freestyle program was formally launched for new customers.

On December 7, 2021, Stitch Fix announced a loss for the first quarter of 2022, lowered its full-year revenue forecast and admitted, for the first time, that “due to the expansion into Freestyle,” the Company “may experience short-term cannibalization impacts.” As a result of these announcements, Stitch Fix’s stock price decreased by $5.97 per share, or 24%, from the closing price of $24.97 per share on December 7, 2021 to the closing price of $19.00 per share on December 8, 2021. However. , Stitch Fix continued to reassure investors that this was a short-term problem.

Then, on March 8, 2022, when Stitch Fix reported its second quarter 2022 earnings, the Company offered a weak outlook for the third quarter of 2022 and cut its guidance for the full year. Stitch Fix attributed the cut in leadership to “friction” between its Freestyle and Fix businesses.

As a result of this disclosure, Stitch Fix’s stock price fell $0.67 per share, or 6%, from $11.01 to $10.34 per share.

The complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, Stitch Fix made numerous false and misleading statements to investors about the synergy between the Company’s Fix and Freestyle programs, and repeatedly denied that the Freestyle program could cannibalize the Company’s legacy Fix business. Specifically, Stitch Fix repeatedly assured investors that the Company’s Freestyle business was “an additional experience” and “complementary” to the Fix business, that “the combination of these two things will allow us to serve more types of customers” and that “we see strong growth in both areas of the business sides”. In fact, throughout the Class Period, Stitch Fix concealed the fact that these programs were not additional or additional. Stitch Fix knew that the Freestyle program would be much preferred over the Company’s original Fix model, and that the Freestyle program would inevitably Cannibalize the Company’s Core Fix business. As a result of these misrepresentations and omissions, Stitch Fix’s Class A common stock traded at artificially inflated prices during the Class Period.

For more information about the Stitch Fix class action, go to:

Coupang, Inc. (NYSE: CPNG)

Class Period: Pursuant to the Company’s IPO on March 11, 2021

Lead plaintiff deadline: October 25, 2022

On or about March 11, 2021, Coupang conducted an initial public offering (“IPO”) in which the company sold 130 million shares for $35.00.

Coupang reported that its total annual revenue increased from $11.96 billion in 2020 to more than $18.4 billion in 2021, and Net Loss increased from $474.89 billion in 2020 to more than $1.54 billion in 2021.

Since the IPO, Coupang’s stock has fallen to $10.51 per share on June 13, 2022.

The lawsuit alleges whether the Company and its executives violated federal securities laws by making false and/or misleading statements and/or failing to disclose that: (1) Coupang engaged in improper anticompetitive practices with its suppliers and other third parties; Violating applicable regulations, including (a) pressuring suppliers to increase product prices on e-commerce platforms to ensure that Coupang’s prices will be more competitive; (b) compel suppliers to purchase advertisements that would financially benefit Coupang; (c) compel suppliers to bear all costs of sales promotions; and (d) soliciting wholesale rebates from suppliers without specifying terms associated with the rebate programs, all of which served to artificially maintain Coupang’s lower prices and artificially inflate Coupang’s historical revenues and market share; (2) Coupang improperly adjusted search algorithms and manipulated product reviews on its marketplace platform to prioritize its own private label brand products over other sellers and merchants, to the detriment of consumers, merchants, and suppliers; (3) unbeknownst to its Rocket WOW members, Coupang sold products to non-member customers at lower prices than those offered to its Rocket WOW members; (4) Coupang subjected its employees to extreme, dangerous, and unhealthy working conditions; (5) all of the aforementioned illegal practices involved a greater, but undisclosed, reputational and regulatory scrutiny risk that would harm Coupang’s critical relationships with consumers, merchants, suppliers and employees; and (6) Coupang’s lower prices, historical revenues, competitive advantages, and growing market share were the result of systemic, unethical, unethical, and/or illegal practices, and therefore unsustainable.

For more information on Coupang’s action, go to:

Bragar Eagle & Squire, about the computer:

Bragar Eagel & Squire, PC is a nationally recognized law firm with offices in New York, California and South Carolina. The firm represents individual and institutional investors in state and federal courts across the country in complex commercial, securities, derivatives and other litigation. For more information about the company, please visit Advertising of lawyers. Previous results do not guarantee similar results.

Contact information:

Bragar Eagle and Squire, computer
Brandon Walker, Esq.
Melissa Fortunato, Esq.
(212) 355-4648

Source link