NEW YORK, July 21, 2021 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., a nationally recognized shareholder rights law firm, reminds investors that class actions have been commenced on behalf of stockholders of Frequency Therapeutics, Inc. (NASDAQ:FREQ), DiDi Global, Inc. (NYSE:DIDI), and CarLotz, Inc. (NASDAQ:LOTZ). Stockholders have until the deadlines below to petition the court to serve as lead plaintiff. Additional information about each case can be found at the link provided.
Frequency Therapeutics, Inc. (NASDAQ:FREQ)
Class Period: November 16, 2020 and March 22, 2021
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: August 2, 2021
Frequency Therapeutics has conducted several clinical studies evaluating the safety and effectiveness of FX-322, the most significant which was a Phase 2a study that began in October 2019.
In April 2020, Frequency’s Chief Executive Officer (“CEO”), David L. Lucchino, began selling his shares of Frequency, totaling over 350,000 shares sold and earning over $10.5 million.
On March 23, 2021, before the market opened, Frequency disclosed in a press release disappointing interim results of the Phase 2a study, revealing that subjects with mild to moderate SNHL did not demonstrate improvements in hearing measures versus placebo.
On this news, Frequency’s shares fell $28.30, or 78%, to close at $7.99, thereby damaging investors.
The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Frequency’s development and commercialization of a hearing loss treatment titled “FX-322” was not producing the results desired by Frequency; (2) FX-322’s ongoing clinical study was not as positive as Frequency portrayed it; and (3) as a result of the foregoing, defendants’ positive statements about the Company’s business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages.
For more information on the Frequency class action go to: https://bespc.com/cases/FREQ
DiDi Global, Inc. (NYSE:DIDI)
Class Period: June 30, 2021 IPO
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: September 7, 2021
On or about June 30, 2021, DiDi Global completed its IPO, issuing 316.8 million American Depositary Shares at $14.
Within days, on July 2, 2021, the company disclosed China’s Cyberspace Administration Office is conducting a cybersecurity review of the company and required it to suspend new user registration in China.
On July 4, 2021, the Company issued a press release entitled “DiDi Announces App Takedown in China” which announced that: “the CAC [Cyberspace Administration of China] stated that it was reported and confirmed that the ‘DiDi Chuxing’ app had the problem of collecting personal information in violation of relevant PRC laws and regulations.” The press release further stated that “[p]ursuant to the PRC’s Cybersecurity Law, the CAC notified app stores to take down the ‘DiDi Chuxing’ app in China[.]”
On July 5, 2021, the Wall Street Journal published an article entitled “Chinese Regulators Suggested Didi Delay Its U.S. IPO: Ride-hailing giant, under pressure to reward shareholders, pushed ahead with NYSE listing despite concerns of China’s cybersecurity watchdog” which reported, among other things, that “[w]eeks before Didi Global Inc.  went public in the U.S., China’s cybersecurity watchdog suggested the Chinese ride-hailing giant delay its initial public offering and urged it to conduct a thorough self-examination of its network security[.]”
On this news, the Company’s American Depositary Shares (“ADS”) price fell $3.04 per ADS, or nearly 20%, to close at $12.49 per ADS on July 6, 2021, the next trading day.
For more information on the DiDi class action go to: https://bespc.com/cases/DIDI
CarLotz, Inc. (NASDAQ:LOTZ)
Class Period: December 30, 2020 and May 25, 2021
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: September 7, 2021
On March 15, 2021, CarLotz announced its fourth quarter and full year 2020 financial results. During a related conference call, the Company stated that gross profit and gross profit per unit (“GPU”) “were softer than . . . expected” due to “the surge in inventory during the quarter and the resulting lower retail unit profitability.” CarLotz also reported that the additional inventory “created a logjam that resulted in slower processing and higher days to sell.”
On this news, the Company’s stock price fell $0.79, or 8.5%, to close at $8.45 per share on March 16, 2021, on unusually heavy trading volume. The stock price continued to decline over the next two consecutive trading sessions by $0.62, or 7.3%, to close at $7.83 per share on March 18, 2021, on unusually heavy trading volume.
Then, on May 10, 2021, after the market closed, CarLotz announced its first quarter 2021 financial results revealing that gross profit per unit fell below expectations. In particular, the Company had expected retail GPU between $1,300 and $1,500 but reported $1,182.
On this news, the Company’s stock price fell $0.94, or 14%, to close at $5.57 per share on May 11, 2021, on unusually heavy trading volume. The stock price continued to decline $0.45, or 8%, to close at $4.12 per share on May 12, 2021, on unusually heavy trading volume.
Then, on May 26, 2021, before the market opened, CarLotz announced an update to its profit-sharing sourcing partner arrangement. Specifically, CarLotz stated that its “profit-sharing corporate vehicle sourcing partner informed the Company that, in light of current wholesale market conditions, it has paused consignments to the Company.” Moreover, this partner “accounted for more than 60% of the cars sold and sourced” during first quarter 2021 and “less than 50% of the cars sold and approximately 25% of cars sourced” during second quarter 2021 to date.
On this news, the Company’s stock price fell $0.70, or 13.4%, to close at $4.51 per share on May 26, 2021, on unusually heavy trading volume.
The complaint filed in this class action alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company’s business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants made material misrepresentations concerning the following: (1) that, due to a surge in inventory during the second half of fiscal 2020, CarLotz was experiencing a “logjam” resulting in slower processing and higher days to sell; (2) that, as a result, the Company’s gross profit per unit would be negatively impacted; (3) that, to minimize returns to the corporate vehicle sourcing partner responsible for more than 60% of CarLotz’s inventory, the Company was offering aggressive pricing; (4) that, as a result, CarLotz’s gross profit per unit forecast was likely inflated; (5) that this Company’s corporate vehicle sourcing partner would likely pause consignments to the Company due to market conditions, including increasing wholesale prices; and (6) as a result, Defendants’ statements about its business, operations, and prospects were materially false and misleading and/or lacked reasonable basis at all relevant times.
For more information on the CarLotz class action go to: https://bespc.com/cases/LOTZ
About Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C.:
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. is a nationally recognized law firm with offices in New York, California, and South Carolina. The firm represents individual and institutional investors in commercial, securities, derivative, and other complex litigation in state and federal courts across the country. For more information about the firm, please visit www.bespc.com. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes.