Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. Reminds Investors That Class Action Lawsuits Have Been Filed Against Instadose, Alfi, Berkeley Lights, and Cloopen Group and Encourages Investors to Contact the Firm

Samstag, 29. Januar 2022 03:00

NEW YORK, Jan. 28, 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 Instadose Pharma Corp. (OTCMKTS: INSD), Alfi, Inc. (NASDAQ: ALF), Berkeley Lights, Inc. (NASDAQ: BLI), and Cloopen Group Holding Limited (NYSE: RAAS). 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.

Instadose Pharma Corp. (OTCMKTS: INSD)

Class Period: December 8, 2020 – November 24, 2021

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: February 28, 2022

On November 23, 2021, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) announced a temporary suspension in the trading of Instadose securities due to concerns regarding the adequacy and accuracy of information about the Company in the marketplace. The SEC specifically noted stock price and volume increases of Instadose stock unsupported by the Company’s assets and financial information, trading that may be associated with individuals related to a control person at the Company, and operations at the Company’s Canadian affiliate. On this news, the Company’s share price declined by $3.69 per share, or approximately 13%, from $28.30 per share to close at $24.61 per share on November 23, 2021, which was immediately before trading was halted.
On December 9, 2021, when the Company’s securities resumed trading, the stock price opened and closed at $2.00 per share.

For more information on the Instadose class action go to:

Alfi, Inc. (NASDAQ: ALF)

Class Period: May 4, 2021 IPO; May 4, 2021 – November 15, 2021

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: January 31, 2022

On October 28, 2021, Alfi disclosed in a filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that “[o]n October 22, 2021, the Board of Directors (the ‘Board’) of Alfi, Inc. (the ‘Company’) placed each of Paul Pereira, the Company's President and Chief Executive Officer, Dennis McIntosh, the Company’s Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer, and Charles Pereira, the Company’s Chief Technology Officer, on paid administrative leave and authorized an independent internal investigation regarding certain corporate transactions and other matters.” On this news, Alfi’s stock price fell sharply during intraday trading on October 29, 2021.

Finally, on November 16, 2021, Alfi filed a notice of its inability to timely file its quarterly report on Form 10-Q with the SEC for the quarter ended September 30, 2021 (the “3Q21 10-Q”). That filing cited, inter alia, “recent changes in the Company’s [CEO] and [CFO] and in the Chair of the Audit Committee” of the Board, as well as needing “a new independent registered public accounting firm,” as reasons for the Company’s inability to timely file the 3Q21 10-Q.

Following these disclosures, the Company’s stock price fell $0.24 per share, or 5.21%, to close at $4.37 per share on November 16, 2021.

For more information on the Alfi class action go to:

Berkeley Lights, Inc. (NASDAQ: BLI)

Class Period: July 17, 2020 – September 14, 2021

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: February 7, 2022

The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made false and misleading statements and failed to disclose that: (1) Berkeley Lights’ flagship instrument, the Beacon, suffered from numerous design and manufacturing defects including breakdowns, high error rates, data integrity issues and other problems, limiting the ability of biotechnology companies and research institutions to consistently use the machines at scale; (2) Berkeley Lights had received numerous customer complaints regarding the durability and effectiveness of Berkeley Lights’ automation systems, including complaints related to the design and manufacturing; (3) the actual market for Berkeley Lights’ products and services was a fraction of the $23 billion represented to investors because of, among other things, the relatively high cost of Berkeley Lights’ instruments and consumables and inability to provide the sustained performance necessary to justify these high costs; and (4) as a result, defendants' statements to investors during the Class Period regarding Berkeley Lights’ business, operations and financial results were materially false and misleading.

On September 15, 2021, research analyst firm Scorpion Capital issued a scathing investigative report, titled “Fleecing Customers And IPO Bagholders With A $2 Million Black Box That’s A Clunker, While Insiders and Silicon Valley Bigwigs Race To Dump Stock. Just Another VC Pump at 27X Sales. Target Price: $0,” which criticized Berkeley Lights’ technology and questioned the durability of Berkeley Lights’ most important business relationships and its business growth plan. Although Scorpion Capital stated it was short Berkeley Lights, the information contained in the Scorpion Capital report was purportedly based on extensive proprietary research and analysis, including 24 research interviews with former Berkeley Lights employees, industry scientists, and end users across 14 of Berkeley Lights’ largest customers. Among other findings, the report detailed a “trail of customers who allege they were ‘tricked,’ misled, or over-promised into buying a $2 million lemon” and concluded that the "reality is so far from BLI’s grandiose hype that we believe its product claims and practices may constitute outright fraud.”

On this news, the price of Berkeley Lights common stock fell by nearly 30% over two trading days, damaging investors.

For more information on the Berkeley Lights class action go to:

Cloopen Group Holding Limited (NYSE: RAAS)

Class Period: February 6, 2021 – May 10, 2021

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: February 8, 2022

Cloopen claims to be the largest multi-capability cloud-based communications solution provider in China. In its February 2021 United States IPO, Cloopen sold 23 million ADSs (including the full exercise of the underwriter defendants’ over-allotment option) at $16 per ADS, netting approximately $342 million in proceeds from the offering.

The Cloopen class action lawsuit alleges that the Registration Statement led Cloopen ADS purchasers to believe that Cloopen’s much-touted growth strategy, which relied upon cross-selling, up-selling, optimizing existing solutions, and developing new features, was effective. Indeed, as portrayed in the Registration Statement, Cloopen appeared to be retaining and even expanding its customer base, as well as maintaining its key sales metrics such as dollar-based net retention rate, which reflected its ability to increase existing customer revenue. Yet, Cloopen’s representations concerning its successful growth strategy were materially false and misleading. In fact, as the Cloopen class action lawsuit alleges, Cloopen’s growth strategy was not working and its existing customers were abandoning the company. The Cloopen class action lawsuit further alleges that Cloopen’s Registration Statement failed to disclose that an increasing number of its customers were refusing to pay, forcing Cloopen to record massive increases in its accounts receivables and allowance for doubtful accounts. The Registration Statement also allegedly failed to disclose that Cloopen was weighted down by massive liabilities related to the fair value of certain recently-granted warrants.

On March 26, 2021, just over six weeks after its IPO, Cloopen reported fourth quarter of 2020 revenues of just $39.6 million – $2 million shy of analysts’ consensus – net losses of $46.8 million, representing a 466.9% increase year-over-year, and operating expenses of $27.6 million, representing a 30% increase over fourth quarter of 2019. Cloopen blamed a "change in fair value of warrant liabilities of . . . $34.4 million" for Cloopen’s remarkable net loss and "an increase in the provision for doubtful accounts resulting from increased in accounts receivables" for the 59.2% increase in general and administrative expenses. On this news, the price of Cloopen’s ADSs fell by more than 18%.

Weeks later, as Cloopen belatedly revealed additional facts about its failed growth strategy and withering customer base, including that its dollar-based net retention rate by year end 2020 fell far below historical periods, Cloopen’s share price fell again.

At the time the Cloopen class action lawsuit was commenced, Cloopen’s share price has dropped as low as $2.70 per ADS, a decline of more than 80% from the $16 IPO price.

For more information on the Cloopen Group class action go to:

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 Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes.

Contact Information:

Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C.
Brandon Walker, Esq.
Alexandra B. Raymond, Esq.
(212) 355-4648

Primary Logo

Kapcsolódó linkek: 
Copyright GlobeNewswire, Inc. 2016. All rights reserved.
You can register yourself on the website to receive press releases directly via e-mail to your own e-mail account.