NEW YORK, July 20, 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 Solana (“SOL Tokens”), Missfresh Limited (NASDAQ: MF), and Molecular Partners AG (NASDAQ: MOLN). 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.
Solana (“SOL Tokens”)
Class Period: March 24, 2020 – Present
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: September 6, 2022
According to the lawsuit, Solana issues securities that are required to be, but are not, registered with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. Throughout the Class Period, Defendants promoted SOL securities (SOL tokens) and sold them to investors, who has suffered losses from purchasing SOL securities.
For more information on the Solana class action go to: https://bespc.com/cases/SOL
Missfresh Limited (NASDAQ: MF)
Class Period: Pursuant to the Company’s June 25, 2021 IPO
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: September 12, 2021
Missfresh purports to be an innovator and leader in China’s neighborhood retail industry which invented the Distributed Mini Warehouse (DMW) model to operate an integrated online-and-offline on-demand retail business focusing on offering fresh produce and fast-moving consumer goods (FMCGs).
On or about June 8, 2021, Missfresh filed with the SEC a Registration Statement on Form F-1, which in combination with a subsequent amendment on Form F-1/A and filed pursuant to Rule 424(b)(4), would be used for the IPO.
On June 23, 2021, Missfresh filed with the SEC its final prospectus for the IPO on Form 424B4 (the “Prospectus”), which forms part of the Registration Statement. In the IPO, Missfresh sold approximately 21 million American Depositary Shares (“ADSs”) at $13.00 per ADS.
On April 29, 2022, after trading hours, Missfresh filed with the SEC a Notification of Late Filing on Form 12b-25 which announced, among other things, that the independent Audit Committee of the Company’s board of directors, with the assistance of professional advisors, “[wa]s in the process of conducting an internal review of certain matters, including those relating to transactions between the Company and certain third-party enterprises.” On this news, Missfresh ADSs fell 13% to close at $0.448 per ADS on May 2, 2021.
Then, on May 24, 2022, Missfresh disclosed that the Company was unable to file its 2021 Annual Report by the extended deadline, "primarily because the Company is unable to complete the audit of the financial statements of the Company for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2021". On this news, Missfresh's ADSs fell $0.018 per share, or 9.7%, over the following two trading days, to close at $0.167 per ADS on May 26, 2022.
Finally, on July 1, 2022, Missfresh issued a press release entitled "Missfresh Announces the Substantial Completion of the Audit Committee-Led Independent Internal Review" which disclosed, among other things, that the Company's review "identified certain transactions . . . that exhibit characteristics of questionable transactions, such as undisclosed relationships between suppliers and customers, different customers or suppliers sharing the same contact information, and/or lack of supporting logistics information" and that consequently, "certain revenue associated with those reporting periods in 2021 may have been inaccurately recorded in the Company's financial statements."
Since the IPO, the price of Missfresh's ADSs has fallen over 97%, closing at $0.3075 per ADS on July 6, 2022.
The class action alleges that Defendants’ statements in the Registration Statement were materially false and misleading when made because: (1) Missfresh provided false financial figures in its Registration Statement; (2) Missfresh would need to amend its financial figures; (3) Missfresh, among other things, had lesser net revenues for the quarter ended March 31, 2021; and (4) as a result, Defendants’ public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times and negligently prepared.
For more information on the Missfresh class action go to: https://bespc.com/cases/MF
Molecular Partners AG (NASDAQ: MOLN)
Class Period: June 16, 2021 – April 26, 2022 or pursuant to the Company’s June 16, 2021 IPO
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: September 12, 2022
Molecular Partners operates as a clinical-stage biopharmaceutical company that focuses on the discovery, development, and commercialization of therapeutic proteins. Leading up to and following the IPO, the Company repeatedly touted the clinical and commercial prospects of certain of its product candidates under development in collaboration with other companies.
Among other product candidates, Molecular Partners is developing ensovibep as a treatment for COVID-19 in collaboration with Novartis AG (“Novartis”). One of the Company’s most important development strategies for ensovibep includes securing Emergency Use Authorization (“EUA”) for ensovibep from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”).
In addition, Molecular Partners is developing MP0310 (AMG 506) for the treatment of certain types of cancer in collaboration with Amgen Inc. (“Amgen”). The Company granted Amgen, among other licenses, the right to progress MP0310’s development program into later stage development, including into combination trials, following Phase 1 data.
On April 22, 2021, Molecular Partners filed a registration statement on Form F-1 with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) in connection with the IPO, which, after several amendments, was declared effective by the SEC on June 15, 2021 (the “Registration Statement”).
On June 16, 2021, Molecular Partners filed a prospectus on Form 424B4 with the SEC in connection with the IPO, which incorporated and formed part of the Registration Statement (collectively, the “Offering Documents”).
Pursuant to the Offering Documents, Molecular Partners conducted the IPO, issuing 3 million of its ADSs to the public at the IPO price $21.25 per ADS, for proceeds to the Company of over $59 million, after underwriting discounts and commissions, and before expenses.
On November 16, 2021, Molecular Partners disclosed that “a planned futility analysis of ensovibep in [an] ongoing [Phase 3] clinical study . . . has not met the thresholds required to continue enrollment of adults with COVID-19 in the hospitalized setting.”
On this news, Molecular Partners’ ADS price fell $4.64 per ADS, or 31.37%, to close at $10.15 per ADS on November 16, 2021.
On April 26, 2022, months after applying for EUA from the FDA for ensovibep, Novartis’ Chief Executive Officer, Vas Narasimhan, disclosed that “given the latest feedback . . . in our discussions with the [FDA], we would expect the agency to require a Phase 3 study before granting an EUA approval or a general approval” for ensovibep, and that “we need to make a kind of sober evaluation as to is it a doable study in light of the waning rates of COVID around the world[.]”
On this news, Molecular Partners’ ADS price fell $2.68 per ADS, or 16.17%, to close at $13.89 per ADS on April 26, 2022.
Then, also on April 26, 2022, during after-market hours, Molecular Partners “announced that Amgen . . . has informed the Company of their decision to return global rights of MP0310 to Molecular Partners following a strategic pipeline review.”
On this news, Molecular Partners’ ADS price fell $5.19 per ADS, or 37.37%, to close at $8.70 per ADS on April 27, 2022—a total decline of $7.87 per ADS, or 47.5%, over two consecutive trading days, and 59.06% below the $21.25 per ADS IPO price.
As of the time the complaint was filed, the price of Molecular Partners’ ADSs continued to trade below the $21.25 per ADS IPO price, damaging investors.
The complaint alleges that the Offering Documents were negligently prepared and, as a result, contained untrue statements of material fact or omitted to state other facts necessary to make the statements made not misleading and were not prepared in accordance with the rules and regulations governing their preparation. Additionally, the complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company’s business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, the Offering Documents and Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) ensovibep was less effective at treating COVID-19 than Defendants had led investors to believe; (ii) accordingly, the FDA was reasonably likely to require an additional Phase 3 study of ensovibep before granting the drug EUA; (iii) waning global rates of COVID-19 significantly reduced the Company’s chances of securing EUA for ensovibep; (iv) as a product candidate, MP0310 was less attractive to Amgen than Defendants had led investors to believe; (v) accordingly, there was a significant likelihood that Amgen would return global rights of MP0310 to Molecular Partners; (vi) as a result of all the foregoing, the clinical and commercial prospects of ensovibep and MP0310 were overstated; and (vii) as a result, the Offering Documents and Defendants’ public statements throughout the Class Period were materially false and/or misleading and failed to state information required to be stated therein.
For more information on the Molecular Partners class action go to: https://bespc.com/cases/MOLN
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
investigations@bespc.com
www.bespc.com
