NEW YORK, Sept. 21, 2022 (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 Enochian Biosciences, Inc. ENOB, Weber, Inc. WEBR, Coinbase Global, Inc. COIN, and Fulgent Genetics, Inc. FLGT. 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.
Enochian Biosciences, Inc. ENOB
Class Period: January 17, 2018 – June 27, 2022
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: September 26, 2022
Enochian is a pre-clinical stage biotechnology company that purportedly researches and develops pharmaceutical and biological products for the human treatment of human immunodeficiency virus, hepatitis B virus, influenza and coronavirus infections, and cancer.
Enochian and its top management have credited Serhat Gumrukcu (“Gumrukcu”), Enochian’s co-founder and largest shareholder, as a “genius” and the “inventor” of the technology and science behind the Company’s product pipeline.
Enochian has multiple consulting and licensing agreements with G-Tech Bio, LLC, a California limited liability company (“G-Tech”), and G Health Research Foundation, a not-for-profit entity organized under the laws of California doing business as Seraph Research Institute (“SRI”), both of which are controlled by Gumrukcu.
On May 25, 2022, the U.S. Department of Justice announced that Gumrukcu had been arrested and charged in a murder-for-hire conspiracy.
On this news, Enochian’s stock price fell $2.17 per share, or 36.97%, to close at $3.70 per share on May 25, 2022.
Then, on June 1, 2022, Hindenburg Research (“Hindenburg”) published a report on Enochian entitled “Miracle Cures and Murder For Hire: How A Spoon-Bending Turkish Magician Built A $600 Million Nasdaq-Listed Scam Based On A Lifetime Of Lies” (the “Hindenburg Report”). The Hindenburg Report noted that the individual in whose murder Gumrukcu was implicated, Gregory Davis, “was murdered . . . just 19 days before Gumrukcu was scheduled to appear in court to defend himself against felony fraud allegations related to a 2016 deal with Davis” and that “[f]ederal prosecutors argued that the prospective merger deal that eventually resulted in Enochian going public served as a key motive for the murder.” The Hindenburg Report also stated that “[u]nbeknownst to investors (but known to Enochian’s senior leadership) Gumrukcu’s latest arrest for a murder conspiracy is simply the most recent in a string of alleged crimes by Gumrukcu,” who “was arrested based on accusations of falsely posing as a doctor” in his native Turkey in 2012 and “[i]n February 2017, Gumrukcu was arrested by authorities after the State of California accused him of a slew of white-collar crimes, including fraud, identity theft, and check kiting – a total of 14 felonies.” The Hindenburg Report further stated that “[w]e have been unable to find any jurisdiction in which Gumrukcu is licensed as a medical doctor” and that “Gumrukcu looks to have purchased a fake Russian medical degree on the black market[.]”
On this news, Enochian’s stock price fell $1.495 per share, or 28.42%, to close at $3.765 per share on June 1, 2022.
The complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company’s business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Gumrukcu was not a licensed doctor and had no verifiable degrees beyond high school; (ii) accordingly, the scientific and technological underpinnings of Enochian’s product pipeline, purportedly invented by Gumrukcu, were dubious at best; (iii) accordingly, the Defendants had significantly overstated the commercial prospects for the Company’s product pipeline; (iv) Enochian’s senior leadership knew Gumrukcu had a criminal history that included fraud; (v) accordingly, Enochian’s reliance on Gumrukcu, and its consulting and licensing agreements with G-Tech and SRI, subjected the Company to a heightened risk of reputational and financial harm, as well as threatened the integrity of the Company’s scientific findings; and (vi) as a result, the Company’s public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.
For more information on the Enochian class action go to: https://bespc.com/cases/ENOB
Weber, Inc. WEBR
Class Period: Pursuant to the Company’s August 6, 2021 IPO
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: September 27, 2022
On or about August 6, 2021, Weber completed its IPO, selling approximately 17,857,143 shares of Class A common stock at a price of $14.00 per share.
On July 25, 2022, before the market opened, Weber announced its preliminary third quarter 2022 financial results, including net sales between $525 million and $530 million. The Company expected to report a net loss, noting that “[p]rofitability was negatively impacted by” several factors, including “promotional activity to enhance retail sell through.” Additionally, Weber announced that Chris Scherzinger “is departing” from his roles as Chief Executive Officer and director of the Company.
On this news, the Company’s stock price fell $1.21 per share, or 16%, to close at $6.30 per share on July 25, 2022, on unusually heavy trading volume.
By the commencement of this action, the Company’s stock was trading as low as $6.25 per share, a nearly 55% decline from the $14 per share IPO price.
The complaint filed in this class action alleges that the Registration Statement 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 failed to disclose to investors: (1) that Weber was reasonably likely to implement price increases; (2) that, as a result, consumer demand for Weber’s products was reasonably likely to decrease; (3) that, due to the resulting inventory buildup, Weber was reasonably likely to run promotions to “enhance retail sell through”; (4) that the foregoing would adversely impact Weber’s financial results; and (5) that, 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.
For more information on the Weber class action go to: https://bespc.com/cases/WEBR
Coinbase Global, Inc. COIN
Class Period: April 14, 2021 – July 26, 2022
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: October 3, 2022
Coinbase provides financial infrastructure and technology products and services for the cryptocurrency economy (or “cryptoeconomy”) in the U.S. and internationally. The Company purportedly offers the primary financial account in the cryptoeconomy for retailers, a marketplace with a pool of liquidity for transacting in crypto assets for institutions, and technology and services that enable ecosystem partners to build crypto-based applications and securely accept crypto assets as payment.
On May 10, 2022, in its quarterly report for the first quarter of 2022, released after the markets closed, Coinbase disclosed that: “[B]ecause custodially held crypto assets may be considered to be the property of a bankruptcy estate, in the event of a bankruptcy, the crypto assets we hold in custody on behalf of our customers could be subject to bankruptcy proceedings and such customers could be treated as our general unsecured creditors.”
Following this disclosure, the price of Coinbase’s Class A common stock fell $19.27 per share, or 26.4%, to close at $53.72 per share on May 11, 2022.
In a subsequent tweet commenting on the disclosure, Coinbase’s Chief Executive Officer, Defendant Brian Armstrong, stated: “We should have updated our retail terms sooner, and we didn’t communicate proactively when this risk disclosure was added. My deepest apologies, and a good learning moment for us as we make future changes.”
On May 12, 2022, Professor Adam J. Levitin, a professor of law, at Georgetown University Law Center, published a draft of an article entitled “Not Your Keys, Not Your Coins: Unpriced Credit Risk in Cryptocurrency,” set to appear in the Texas Law Review, which argues that in the event a cryptocurrency exchange files for bankruptcy, bankruptcy courts are likely to deem custodial holdings of cryptocurrencies to be property of the bankrupt exchange, rather than the property of its customers.
Then, on July 25, 2022, after the markets closed, Bloomberg reported that Coinbase is facing an SEC probe into whether it improperly let Americans trade digital assets that should have been registered as securities.
On this news, the price of Coinbase’s Class A common stock fell $14.14 per share, or 21.08%, to close at $52.93 per share on July 26, 2022.
The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company’s business, operations, and compliance policies. Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Coinbase custodially held crypto assets on behalf of its customers, which assets Coinbase knew or recklessly disregarded could qualify as the property of a bankruptcy estate, making those assets potentially subject to bankruptcy proceedings in which Coinbase’s customers would be treated as the Company’s general unsecured creditors; (ii) Coinbase allowed Americans to trade digital assets that Coinbase knew or recklessly disregarded should have been registered as securities with the SEC; (iii) the foregoing conduct subjected the Company to a heightened risk of regulatory and governmental scrutiny and enforcement action; and (iv) as a result, the Company’s public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.
For more information on the Coinbase class action go to: https://bespc.com/cases/COIN
Fulgent Genetics, Inc. FLGT
Class Period: March 22, 2019 – August 4, 2022
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: November 21, 2022
Fulgent, together with its subsidiaries, provides COVID-19, molecular diagnostic, and genetic testing services to physicians and patients in the United States and internationally. As a result, Fulgent must comply with the federal Anti-Kickback Statute, which prohibits the knowing and willful payment of “remuneration” to induce or reward patient referrals or the generation of business involving any item or service payable by the Federal health care programs, as well as the federal Stark Law, which prohibits a physician from making referrals for certain designated health services, including laboratory services, that are covered by the Medicare program, to an entity with which the physician or an immediate family member has a direct or indirect financial relationship.
On August 4, 2022, Fulgent released its second quarter 2022 financial results, disclosing, among other items, that the US Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) was conducting an investigation into certain of the Company’s reports filed with the SEC from 2018 through the first quarter of 2020. The disclosure followed the Company’s receipt of a civil investigative demand issued by the U.S. Department of Justice “related to its investigation of allegations of medically unnecessary laboratory testing, improper billing for laboratory testing, and remuneration received or provided in violation of the Anti-Kickback Statute and the Stark Law.
On this news, Fulgent’s stock price fell $11.02 per share, or 17.29%, over the following two trading sessions, to close at $52.72 per share on August 8, 2022.
The Complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company’s business, operations, and compliance policies. Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Fulgent had been conducting medically unnecessary laboratory testing, engaging in improper billing practices in relation to laboratory testing, and providing or receiving remuneration in violation of the Anti-Kickback Statute and Stark Law; (ii) accordingly, Fulgent was likely to become subject to enhanced legal and regulatory scrutiny; (iii) Fulgent’s revenues, to the extent they were derived from the foregoing unlawful conduct, were unsustainable; (iv) the foregoing, once revealed, was likely to subject the Company to significant financial and/or reputational harm; and (v) as a result, the Company’s public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.
For more information on the Fulgent class action go to: https://bespc.com/cases/FLGT
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.