Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. Reminds Investors That Class Action Lawsuits Have Been Filed Against Kiromic, Tuya, LifeStance, and MINISO and Encourages Investors to Contact the Firm
NEW YORK, Aug. 26, 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 Kiromic BioPharma, Inc. (NASDAQ: KRBP), Tuya, Inc. (NYSE: TUYA), LifeStance Health Group, Inc. (NASDAQ: LFST), and MINISO Group Holding Limited (NYSE: MNSO). 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.
Kiromic BioPharma, Inc. (NASDAQ: KRBP)
Class Period: June 25, 2021 – August 13, 2021 or pursuant to the Company’s July 2, 2021 IPO
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: October 4, 2022
The Complaint alleges that the Offering Documents failed to disclose that the FDA had, prior to the filing of the Registration Statement and Prospectus, imposed a clinical hold, and in fact, contained statements indicating that it had not. Given that the Offering closed on July 2, 2021, more than thirty (30) days after the Company submitted the IND applications for its two immunotherapy product candidates, investors were assured that no clinical hold had been issued and clinical trials would commence. The Company, however, had received communications from the FDA on June 16 and 17, 2021, informing it that the FDA was placing the IND applications for its two candidate products on clinical hold. The Offering Documents failed to disclose this information, instead representing that clinical testing was expected to proceed in the third quarter of 2021. Clinical testing did not proceed in the third quarter of 2021, nor was it likely given the FDA’s imposition of a clinical hold.
For more information on the Kiromic class action go to: https://bespc.com/cases/KRBP
Tuya, Inc. (NYSE: TUYA)
Class Period: Pursuant to the Company’s March 18, 2021 IPO
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: October 11, 2022
According to the Complaint, the Company made false and misleading statements to the market. Tuya’s China-based customers engaged in a scheme to manipulate reviews and product offerings on Amazon, in violation of the -commerce platform’s terms of use. A consumer investigation that occurred prior to the IPO uncovered organized fake review scams perpetrated by the Company’s clients which included 200,000 fake Amazon accounts that posted 13 million fake reviews. The Company was likely to suffer significant business challenges if its base of clients were barred from selling on the Amazon platform. Based on these facts, the Company’s public statements were false and materially misleading throughout the IPO period. When the market learned the truth about Tuya, investors suffered damages.
For more information on the Tuya class action go to: https://bespc.com/cases/TUYA
LifeStance Health Group, Inc. (NASDAQ: LFST)
Class Period: Pursuant to the Company’s June 11, 2021 IPO
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: October 11, 2022
On or about June 11, 2021, LifeStance conducted its IPO, issuing 46 million shares at $18 per share.
On August 11, 2021, LifeStance announced its financial results for second quarter 2021, which ended just days after the IPO. The Company reported a net loss of $70 million and also disclosed that its operating expenses had more than tripled during the second quarter. LifeStance stated that it had experienced a significant, negative “recent change in clinician retention levels.”
On this news, the Company’s stock price fell $10.16, or 46%, to close at $11.71 per share on August 12, 2021, thereby injuring investors.
Then, on November 8, 2021, LifeStance released its third quarter 2021 financial results, disclosing that “[c]linician retention [had] stabilized to approximately 80% annualized in the third quarter,” and that the Company was having to increase spending on “enhanced clinician engagement and continued support for workplace and work-life flexibility.”
On this news, the Company’s stock price fell $3.10, or 24%, to close at $9.73 per share on November 9, 2021, thereby injuring investors further.
Then, on March 10, 2022, LifeStance reported its fiscal 2021 results, stating that a recent study had shown that three quarters of mental health patients prefer in-person services and that through 2021, telehealth services trended downwards. Additionally, the Company stated that it would be reducing the number of brick and mortar facilities that it would be building in the immediate future in order to increase its profitability.
At the time the complaint was filed, LifeStance’s common stock has traded as much as 73% below than the IPO price.
The complaint filed in this class action alleges that 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 failed to disclose to investors: (1) that the number of virtual visits clients were undertaking utilizing LifeStance was decreasing as the COVID-19 lockdowns were being lifted, thereby flatlining the Company’s out-patient/virtual revenue growth; (2) that the percentage of in-person visits clients were undertaking utilizing LifeStance was increasing as the COVID-19 lockdowns were being lifted, thereby causing the Company’s operating expenses to increase substantially; (3) that LifeStance had lost a large number of physicians due to burn-out and, as a result, its physician retention rate had fallen significantly below the 87% highlighted in the Registration Statement and the Company had been expending additional costs to onboard new physicians who were less productive than the outgoing physicians they were replacing; and (4) as a result, Defendants’ positive statements about the Company’s business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times.
For more information on the LifeStance class action go to: https://bespc.com/cases/LFST
MINISO Group Holding Limited (NYSE: MNSO)
Class Period: Pursuant to the Company’s October 15, 2020 IPO
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: October 17, 2022
MINISO purports to be a fast-growing global value retailer which serves consumers primarily through its large network of MINISO stores. On October 15, 2020, defendants held the IPO, issuing approximately 30.4 million American Depositary Shares (“ADSs”) to the investing public at $20.00 per ADS, pursuant to the Registration Statement.
On July 26, 2022, market researcher Blue Orca Capital published a report on MINISO which alleged several issues with MINISO, including that “contrary to [MINISO]’s claims, many MINISO stores are secretly owned by [MINISO] executives or insiders closely connected to the chairman” and “[u]ltimately, we believe that there is overwhelming evidence that MINISO misleads the market about its core business.” As Blue Orca explained, “[o]ur suspicion is that MINISO realized early in the pre-IPO process that a brick-and-mortar retailer would be far less attractive to investors than an asset-light franchise business, so we think that [MINISO] simply lied about these stores.” Blue Orca added that “Chinese corporate filings also indicate, in our view, that the chairman siphoned hundreds of millions from the public company through opaque Caribbean jurisdictions as the middleman in a crooked headquarters deal.” Blue Orca further concluded that “[i]ndependent evidence, including archived disclosures on MINISO’s Chinese website, reports in Chinese media and interviews with former employees, indicate that MINISO is a brand in serious peril,” noting that “MINISO lowered its franchising fee by 63% over the past two years in a desperate effort to attract franchisees.” On this news, MINISO’s ADS price fell nearly 15%.
As of July 27, 2022, MINISO ADSs closed at $5.66 per ADS, representing more than a 70% decline from the $20.00 IPO price.
The MINISO class action lawsuit alleges that the IPO’s Registration Statement was false and/or misleading and/or failed to disclose that: (i) defendants and other undisclosed related parties owned and controlled a much larger amount of MINISO stores than previously stated; (ii) as a result, MINISO concealed its true costs; (iii) MINISO did not represent its true business model; (iv) defendants, including MINISO and its Chairman, engaged in planned unusual and unclear transactions; (v) as a result of at least one of these transactions, MINISO is at risk of breaching contracts with PRC authorities; and (vi) MINISO would imminently and drastically drop its franchise fees.
For more information on the MINISO class action go to: https://bespc.com/cases/MNSO
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.
Contact Information:
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C.
Brandon Walker, Esq.
Melissa Fortunato, Esq.
(212) 355-4648
[email protected]
www.bespc.com
Disclaimer: This content is distributed by The GlobeNewswire
