NEW YORK, Oct. 21, 2022 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — Bragar Eagel & Squire, PC, a nationally recognized shareholder rights law firm, reminds investors that class actions have been initiated 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 ask the court to act as lead plaintiff. More information on each case can be found at the link provided.
NIO, Inc. (NYSE: NIO)
Class period: 20 August 2020 – 11 July 2022
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: October 24, 2022
On June 28, 2022, Grizzly Research published a report claiming, among other things, that NIO inflated its net income by about 95% through a sale to a related party, Wuhan Weineng Battery Asset Co. (“Weineng”).
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, due to unusually heavy trading volume.
Then, on July 11, 2022, NIO announced that it had formed a special committee to oversee an 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, due to unusually heavy trading volume.
The complaint filed in this class action alleges that during the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, and also failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company’s business, operations and prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to investors: (1) that NIO advanced revenue by selling batteries to a related party that owned the batteries and managed user subscriptions; (2) that, through the related party, NIO also recognized enormous depreciation savings; (3) that, as a result of the foregoing, the Company’s income and net loss have been exaggerated; and (4) 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 about the NIO class action go to: https://bespc.com/cases/NIO
Dingdong (Cayman) Ltd. (NYSE: DDL)
Class Period: Pursuant to the Company’s IPO on June 29, 2021
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: October 24, 2022
Dingdong claims to be a leading and the fastest growing on-demand e-commerce company in China. Dingdong conducted its IPO in New York, and its ADSs are listed on the New York Stock Exchange (“NYSE”) under the ticker symbol “DDL”.
In June 2021, as part of Dingdong’s IPO, Defendants issued approximately 4.07 million ADSs to the investing public at $23.50 per ADS, all pursuant to the Registration Statement.
According to the Registry Statement, Dingdong’s mission is “to make fresh groceries as available as running water to any household.” To achieve this goal, Dingdong is said to have “embraced a user-centric philosophy” that is committed to “directly providing users and homeowners … fresh produce, mean and seafood and other daily necessities by convenient and great shopping experience supported by an extensive self-service frontline executive grid [emphasis added].” Critically, Dingdong differentiates itself from its competitors by claiming to “acquire… products mainly form direct downstream sources such as farms and cooperatives,” “apply strict quality control trans [its] entire supply chain to ensure product quality to [its] users,” and relies on its “first-line enforcement network and robust, digitized enforcement capabilities… [to] deliver… orders within 30 minutes [emphasis added].”
Unknown to prospective 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 failed its food safety responsibilities by, for example, selling dead fish to customers while marketing it as live fish and recycling vegetables that were past their expiration date. In other words, Dingdong was no better at providing or ensuring access to “fresh” food products than the supermarkets, traditional Chinese wet markets or traditional e-commerce platforms that it repeatedly claimed to displace. The foregoing conduct subjected Dingdong to an increased risk of regulatory and/or governmental scrutiny and enforcement, all of which, once disclosed, would likely (and did) adversely affect Dingdong’s business, operations, and reputation. Ignoring these facts, ADS purchasers were unable to adequately assess the value of the shares offered in connection with the IPO, and thus purchased their ADSs without material information and to their detriment.
According to the Complaint, the Company’s public statements during the IPO period were false and materially misleading. When the market found out the truth about Dingdong, investors suffered damages.
For more information about the Dingdong class action go to: https://bespc.com/cases/DDL
Stitch Fix, Inc. (NASDAQ: SFIX)
Class period: December 8, 2020 – 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,” through which the customer would receive a monthly box of items selected by a personal stylist. The customer would not know specifically which items they received but would have the option to return any items they did not want. The customer paid a $20 “styling fee” through Fix, and that fee would be applied to any of the items the customer chose to purchase.
Before the Class Period, in 2019, Stitch Fix announced a new direct-purchase retail component, later called “Freestyle”. The Freestyle program allowed customers to shop the site for specific products, giving the customer more control over which items they received, but also removing the curation element that differentiated Stitch Fix from other e-retailers. The Freestyle program was first made available to a subset of existing Stitch Fix customers in 2020, and incrementally rolled out to all existing customers in early 2021. In September 2021, the Freestyle program was formally launched to new customers.
On December 7, 2021, Stitch Fix announced a loss for its first quarter of 2022, cut its full-year revenue projections, and admitted, for the first time, that, as a result of the “expansion into Freestyle,” the Company “may experience short-term effects of cannibalization.” As a result of these disclosures, Stitch Fix’s stock price decreased by $5.97 per share, or 24%, from a closing price of $24.97 per share on December 7, 2021, to a closing price of $19.00 per stock on December 8, 2021. However, Stitch Fix continued to assure investors that this was a short-term problem.
Then, on March 8, 2022, when Stitch Fix reported earnings for its second quarter of 2022, the Company offered a weak outlook for its third quarter of 2022 and cut its guidance for the full year. Stitch Fix attributed the guidance cut to “friction” between the Freestyle and Fix businesses.
As a result of this disclosure, the price of Stitch Fix stock decreased by $0.67 per share, or 6%, from $11.01 per share to $10.34 per share.
The complaint alleges that, during the Class Period, Stitch Fix made numerous false and misleading statements to investors regarding the synergy between the company’s Fix and Freestyle programs, and repeatedly denied claims that the Freestyle program could cannibalize the legacy Fix business of the Company. Specifically, Stitch Fix repeatedly assured investors that the Company’s Freestyle business was an “additive experience” and “complimentary” to the Fix business, that “the combination of those two things will allow us to address many more types of customers,” and that “we see solid growth on both sides of the business.” In truth, during the Class Period, Stitch Fix concealed the fact that these programs were not complementary or additive. Stitch Fix knew that the Freestyle program would be greatly preferred to the Company’s original Fix model, and that the Freestyle program would inevitably cannibalize the Company’s legacy 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: https://bespc.com/cases/SFIX
Coupang, Inc. (NWSE: 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 made its initial public offering (“IPO”), and the company sold 130 million shares for $35.00.
Coupang reported that its annual Total Revenue rose from $11.96 billion in 2020 to more than $18.4 billion in 2021, and that its Net Loss increased from $474.89 million in 2020 to more than $1.54 billion. in 2021.
Since the IPO, Coupang’s stock has declined to $10.51 per share on June 13, 2022.
The lawsuit focuses on 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 in violation of applicable regulations, including (a) pressure suppliers to raise prices of products on competing e-commerce platforms to ensure that Coupang’s prices would be more competitive; (b) compel suppliers to purchase advertisements that would benefit Coupang financially; (c) requiring suppliers to shoulder all expenses of sales promotions; and (d) requesting wholesale discounts from suppliers without specifying any terms relating to discount 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 branded products over those of 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 workforce to extreme, unsafe and unhealthy working conditions; (5) all of the above illegal practices exposed Coupang to an increased, but undisclosed, risk of reputational and regulatory scrutiny that would harm Coupang’s critical relationships with consumers, merchants, suppliers, and the workforce; and (6) Coupang’s lower prices, historical earnings, competitive advantages, and growing market share were the result of pervasive, improper, unethical, and/or illegal practices, and, thus, unsustainable.
For more information on the Coupang class action go to: https://bespc.com/cases/CPNG
About Bragar Eagel & Squire, PC:
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 commercial, securities, derivatives and other complex litigation in state and federal courts across the country. For more information about the company, please visit www.bespc.com. Lawyer advertising. Previous results do not guarantee similar results.
Bragar Eagel & Squire, PC
Brandon Walker, Esq.
Melissa Fortunato, Esq.