close
close

Bragar Igel and Squire, PC Re

NEW YORK, June 19, 2022 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — Bragar Eagel & Squire, PC, a nationally recognized shareholder rights law firm, reminds investors that on behalf of Netflix, Inc. shareholders. (NFLX), Mullen had class action lawsuits. Automotive Inc. (MULN), Arqit Quantum, Inc. (ARQQ) and Amazon.com, Inc. (AMZN). Shareholders must, by the deadlines below, file a motion with the court to act as lead plaintiff. More information about each case can be found at the link provided.

Netflix, Inc. (NFLX)

Class period: October 19, 2021 – April 19, 2022

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: July 5, 2022

On January 20, 2022, after the market closed, Netflix reported that it had “slightly overestimated its fourth-quarter paid net subscription forecast”, adding 8.3 million subscribers, up from a forecast of 8.5 million. The company also said that despite “healthy” retention and engagement, it expected to add only 2.5 million net subscribers in the first quarter of 2022, down from 4.0 million net subscribers in the prior year period.

Following the news, the Company’s share price fell $110.75, or 21.7%, to close at $397.50 per share on January 21, 2022 due to unusually high trading volume.

Then on April 19, 2022, after the market closed, Netflix reported that it had lost 200,000 subscribers during the first quarter of 2022, compared to a previous forecast that had expected the company to add 2.5 million net subscribers. The company attributed the slowdown in revenue growth to four factors, including account sharing with approximately 100 million additional households and competition from other streaming services.

Following the news, the Company’s share price fell $122.42, or more than 35%, to close at $226.19 per share on April 20, 2022 due to unusually high trading volume.

The complaint filed under this class action alleges that during the Claims Period, Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements and failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company’s business, operations and prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to tell investors: (1) that Netflix was experiencing slower acquisition growth due to, among other things, customer account sharing and increased competition from other streaming services; (2) that the Company was having difficulty retaining customers; (3) that as a result of the foregoing, the Company was losing subscribers on a net basis; (4) that, as a result, the financial results of the Company have been adversely affected; and (5) that, as a result of the foregoing, Defendants’ positive statements about the Company’s business, operations and prospects were materially false and/or misleading and/or without reasonable basis.

For more information on the Netflix class action lawsuit, please visit: https://bespc.com/cases/NFLX

Mullen Automotive, Inc. (MULN)

Class period: June 15, 2020 – April 6, 2022

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: July 5, 2022

On April 6, 2022, Hindenburg Research (“Hindenburg”) published a report dedicated to Mullen titled “Mullen Automotive: Another Fast Talking Electric Vehicle Fuss”, calling the company one of the worst electric vehicle (“EV”) collisions Hindenburg has seen. in a crowded field of contenders such as the Nikola Corporation and Lordstown Motors Corp. Among other things, Hindenburg remarked that “[d]despite only spending about $3 million on research and development in 2021, Mullen claims its solid-state battery technology is on track to be commercialized in 18 to 24 months, putting it [a]head of every major tech and automotive manufacturer in the industry, who have collectively invested billions to solve the problem.” The Hindenburg report also claims that the CEO of EV Grid, Inc. systems for vehicles, refuted a press release issued by Mullen regarding the test results of its battery, stating:[w]e would never say “and”[w]He never said that and certainly wouldn’t say that based on the test results for this battery.” The solid state battery was denied by NextMetals’ top management, who said it “didn’t launch” and “didn’t exist”.

Following the news, Mullen’s share price fell $0.07 per share, or 2.57%, to $2.65 per share on April 6, 2022.

According to the lawsuit, defendants during the class period made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose: (1) Mullen exaggerates its ability and timing of proceedings; (2) Mullen exaggerates its dealings with business partners, including Qiantu Motors; (3) Mullen exaggerates its battery technology and capabilities; (4) Mullen exaggerates its ability to sell its branded products; (5) Net Element has not properly vetted Mullen Technologies; (6) Dragonfly K50 has not been (solely) delayed due to the COVID-19 pandemic; and (7) as a result, Defendants’ public statements were materially false and/or misleading at all relevant points in time. When the true details hit the market, the lawsuit alleges that investors suffered losses.

For more information on the Mullen class action, please visit: https://bespc.com/cases/MULN

Arqit Quantum Inc. (ARQQ, ARQQW)

Class period: September 7, 2021 – April 18, 2022

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: July 5, 2022

Arqit is a cybersecurity company that develops quantum encryption technology to protect against cyberattacks.

Headquartered in London, England, the company went public in September 2021 when it merged with Centricus Acquisition Corp. (CENH, CENHW, CENHU), Special Purpose Acquisition Company or SPAC.

April 18, 2022 article in Wall Street Magazine titled “British encryption startup Arqit exaggerates its prospects, say former employees and others” raised serious questions about the company and its prospects. The article notes that when the company went public last fall, founder and chief executive David Williams told investors that Arqit was “impressively behind” in earnings and poised for “hyperscale growth.” However, the article also states that “Arqit has given investors an overly optimistic view of its future earnings and the readiness and performance of its signature encryption system, according to former employees and others familiar with the company and documents viewed by The Wall Street.” Magazine”.

After today’s news, Arqit’s share price fell $2.57 per share, more than 17%, to $12.49 per share.

According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Proceeding Period and in the Statement of Proxy issued in connection with the Merger made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose: (1) Arqit’s proposed encryption technology would require widespread adoption of new protocols and standards for telecommunications; (2) UK cybersecurity officials questioned the viability of Arqit’s proposed encryption technology at a meeting in 2020; (3) the British government was not a client of Arqit, but rather provided grants to Arqit; (4) At the time of the Confluence, Arqit had nothing more than an early prototype of its encryption system; and (5) as a result, Defendants’ statements about its business, operations and prospects were materially false and misleading and/or without reasonable basis at all relevant points in time. When the true details hit the market, the lawsuit alleges that investors suffered losses.

For more information on the Arqit class action, please visit: https://bespc.com/cases/ARQQ

Amazon.com Inc. (AMZN)

Class period: February 1, 2019 – April 5, 2022

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: July 5, 2022

Amazon is a multinational technology company primarily focused on e-commerce, cloud computing, digital streaming, and artificial intelligence.

On the Amazon.com e-commerce platform, Amazon sells both third-party products and Amazon’s own brand products. As the owner and operator of the Amazon.com e-commerce platform, Amazon has access to certain non-public data from third-party sellers using the Amazon.com platform.

Around June 3, 2019, the U.S. House Committee on the Judiciary launched a bipartisan investigation into the state of online competition. The investigation by the Subcommittee on Antitrust, Commercial and Administrative Law (“Subcommittee”) examined the business practices and market dominance of Facebook, Google, Apple and, most importantly, Amazon (“Subcommittee of Investigation”).

During the course of the investigation, the Subcommittee held several oversight hearings in which various officials of the aforementioned companies, including their respective CEOs, testified on topics such as the impact of market power on the press, innovation and privacy, and firm market dominance. under investigation. After each of the hearings, members of the subcommittee asked the witnesses questions for the record.

The Complaint alleges that during the Litigation 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) Amazon engaged in anti-competitive behavior in its private label business practices, including favoring Amazon products over Amazon products. competitors and used third-party sellers. ‘ non-public data to compete with them; (ii) the foregoing has exposed Amazon to an increased risk of regulatory scrutiny and/or enforcement action; (iii) Amazon’s private label revenues were in part the result of unacceptable behavior and therefore unsustainable; and (iv) as a result, Defendants’ public statements during the Class Period were materially false and/or misleading.

On March 9, 2022, media outlets reported that the House Judiciary Committee had requested the U.S. Department of Justice to open a criminal investigation against Amazon and some of its executives for allegedly lying to Congress about their business practices during the Subcommittee’s investigation.

In response, Amazon said the House Judiciary Committee’s accusations “have no basis in fact.”

Then, on April 6, 2022, The Wall Street Journal published an article titled “SEC Investigates How Amazon Reveals Business Practices.” The article, in particular, reports that the SEC investigation has been ongoing for more than a year and is focused on the disclosure of information by Amazon about its use of data from third-party sellers for its own private label business.

Following the news, Amazon’s share price fell $105.98 per share, or 3.2%, to $3175.12 per share on April 6, 2022.

For more information on Amazon’s class action lawsuit, please visit: https://bespc.com/cases/AMZN

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 nationwide. For more information about the firm, please visit www.bespc.com. Lawyer advertisement. Previous results do not guarantee similar results.

Contacts:

Bragar Igel and Squire, PC
Brandon Walker Esq.
Melissa Fortunato, Esq.
(212) 355-4648
[email protected]
www.bespc.com

ti?nf=ODU3NDU1OCM0OTg4MDMxIzIxMDAzOTg=
Bragar-Eagel-Squire.png

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

Previous post Megan Rapinoe shows first career red card for OL Reign: USWNT star removed for the first time
Next post Smith, Holmgren and Bunchero are the best forwards in the NBA draft