Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. Reminds Investors That Class Action Lawsuits Have Been Filed Against Aurinia, Stronghold, Lilium, and Li-Cycle and Encourages Investors to Contact the Firm
News provided byBragar Eagel & Squire
May 13, 2022, 9:00 PM ET
NEW YORK, May 13, 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 Aurinia Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (NASDAQ: AUPH), Stronghold Digital Mining, Inc. (NASDAQ: SDIG), Lilium N.V. (NASDAQ: LILM), and Li-Cycle Holdings Corp. (NYSE: LICY). 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.
Aurinia Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (NASDAQ: AUPH)
Class Period: May 7, 2021 – February 25, 2022
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: June 14, 2022
Aurinia is a biopharmaceutical company that develops and commercializes therapies to treat various diseases with unmet medical need in Japan and the People’s Republic of China (“China”). The Company’s only product is LUPKYNIS, which it offers for the treatment of adult patients with active lupus nephritis.
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) Aurinia was experiencing declining revenues; (ii) Aurinia’s 2022 sales outlook for LUPKYNIS would fall well short of expectations; (iii) accordingly, the Company had significantly overstated LUPKYNIS’s commercial prospects; (iv) as a result, the Company had overstated its financial position and/or prospects for 2022; and (v) as a result, the Company’s public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.
On February 28, 2022, Aurinia issued a press release announcing its financial results for the quarter and full year ended December 31, 2021. Among other items, Aurinia reported a year-over-year revenue decline and announced a lower-than-expected sales outlook for 2022.
On this news, Aurinia’s common share price fell $3.94 per share, or 24.26%, to close at $12.30 per share on February 28, 2022.
As a result of Defendants’ wrongful acts and omissions, and the precipitous decline in the market value of the Company’s securities, Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered significant losses and damages.
For more information on the Aurinia class action go to: https://bespc.com/cases/AUPH
Stronghold Digital Mining, Inc. (NASDAQ: SDIG)
Class Period: October 22, 2021 IPO
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: June 13, 2022
In October 2021, the Company completed its IPO, selling 7,690,400 shares of Class A common stock at $19.00 per share.
On March 29, 2022, after the market closed, Stronghold announced its fourth quarter and full year 2021 financial results. The Company reported a net loss of $0.52 for the quarter, below analyst estimates of $0.04 earnings per share, and Stronghold’s Chief Executive Officer cited “significant headwinds in our operations which have materially impacted recent financial performance.”
On this news, the Company’s stock price fell as much as $3.28, or 32%, to close at $6.97 per share on March 30, 2022. As of April 14, 2022, Stronghold stock has traded as low as $4.78 per share, a more than 75% decline from the $19 per share IPO price.
The complaint filed in this class action alleges that the Registration Statement was materially false and misleading and omitted to state: (1) that contracted suppliers, including MinerVa, were reasonably likely to miss anticipated delivery quantities and deadlines; (2) that, due to strong demand and pre-sold supply of mining equipment in the industry, Stronghold would experience difficulties obtaining miners outside of confirmed purchase orders; (3) that, as a result of the foregoing, there was a significant risk that Stronghold could not expand its mining capacity as expected; (4) that, as a result, Stronghold would likely experience significant losses; and (5) 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 Stronghold class action go to: https://bespc.com/cases/SDIG
Lilium N.V. (NASDAQ: LILM)
Class Period: March 30, 2021 – March 14, 2022
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: June 17, 2022
On March 14, 2022, Iceberg Research published a short report entitled “Lilium NV - The Losing Horse in the eVTOL [electric vertical take-off and landing aircraft] Race” (the “Iceberg Report”). The Iceberg Report asserted, among other issues, that “[m]any experts have raised serious doubts about” the viability of the Company's Lilium Jet reaching its objective of “fly[ing] up to 155 miles[,]” citing “its configuration of 36 ducted fans (recently reduced to 30) that devour power during takeoff and landing (hovering), and leaves little power for actual flight.” The Iceberg Report also noted that while “Lilium promises its Jet has ready access to battery cells with energy density of 320-330 Wh/kg[,]” “[o]ne of the sources it relies on to show these batteries are within reach is . . . a 34.8% Lilium-owned associated company whose CEO Sujeet Kumar was accused by General Motors of misrepresenting battery performance, while at his previous company Envia Systems.” The Iceberg Report further noted that Lilium’s Chief Executive Officer “had no meaningful professional aerospace experience before starting Lilium in 2015" and "estimate[d] that Lilium has about 18 months before its cash runs dry.”
On this news, Lilium’s stock price fell $1.25 per share, or 33.88%, to close at $2.44 per share on March 14, 2022.
According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose: (1) Lilium materially overstates the Lilium Jet's design and capabilities; (2) Lilium materially overstates the likelihood for the Lilium Jet's timely certification; (3) Lilium misrepresents its ability to obtain or create the necessary batteries for the Lilium Jet; (4) the SPAC-merger would not and did not generate enough cash to commercially launch the Lilium Jet; (5) Qell Acquisition Corp. did not engage in proper due diligence regarding the Merger; and (6) as a result, defendants' public statements were materially false and/or misleading at all relevant times. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims hat investors suffered damages.
For more information on the Lilium class action go to: https://bespc.com/cases/LILM
Li-Cycle Holdings Corp. (NYSE: LICY)
Class Period: February 16, 2021 – March 23, 2022
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: June 20, 2022
On March 24, 2022, Blue Orca Capital published a report (the "Report") characterizing the Company as "a near fatal combination of stock promotion, laughable governance, a broken business hemorrhaging cash, and highly questionable Enron-like accounting." According to the Report, “Li-Cycle recognizes revenues using an Enron-like mark-to-model accounting gimmick Li-Cycle recognizes revenues months prior to the actual sales of its recycled black mass, based on its own provisional estimate of the future value of the product. This accounting treatment is plainly vulnerable to abuse, giving Li-Cycle discretion over its reported revenues. We suspect that under this framework, Li-Cycle marks up the value of its receivables on unsold products and runs the gains through its revenue line.”
According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose: (1) Li-Cycle’s largest customer, Traxys North America LLC, is not actually a customer, but merely a broker providing working capital financial to the Company while Traxys tries to sell Li-Cycle’s product to end customers; (2) the Company engaged in highly questionable related party transactions; (3) the Company’s mark-to-model accounting is vulnerable to abuse and gave a false impression of growth; (4) a significant portion of the Company’s reported revenues were derived from simply marking up receivables on products that had not been sold; (5) the Company’s gross margins have likely been negative since inception; (6) the Company will require an additional $1 billion of funding to support its planned growth (which is a figure greater than the Company raised via the merger); and (7) as a result, defendants’ public statements were materially false and/or misleading at all relevant times. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages.
On this news, Li-Cycle’s stock price fell $0.47 cents per share, or 5.60% to close at $7.93 per share on March 24, 2022.
For more information on the Li-Cycle class action go to: https://bespc.com/cases/LICY
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.