NEW YORK, Sept. 16, 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 MINISO Group Holding Limited (NYSE: MNSO), Co-Diagnostics, Inc. (NYSE: MNSO), Ampio Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (NYSEAmerican: AMPE), and Sinovac Biotech Ltd. 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.
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
Co-Diagnostics, Inc. (NASDAQ: CODX)
Class Period: May 12, 2022 – August 11, 2022
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: October 17, 2022
On August 11, 2022, Co-Dx shocked investors when the Company issued a press release and filed a report with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that disclosed its financial results for the quarter ended June 30, 2022. The Company disclosed revenue of $5.0 million for the quarter ended June 30, 2022, down from $27.4 million during the prior year period, a decline of almost 82%. The Company primarily attributed the decrease to lower demand of the Logix Smart™ COVID-19 Test.
On this news, Co-Dx’s common stock price fell $1.98 per share, or 30.65%, to close at $4.48 per share on August 12, 2022.
The Complaint alleges that Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Co-Diagnostics was experiencing a significant falloff in demand for its Logix SmartTM COVID-19 Test and demand for its Logix SmartTM COVID-19 Test had plummeted throughout the quarter ended June 30, 2022; and (2) as a result, Defendants’ positive statements about the demand for its Logix SmartTM COVID-19 Test lacked a reasonable basis. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages.
For more information on the Co-Dx class action go to: https://bespc.com/cases/CODX
Ampio Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (NYSEAmerican: AMPE)
Class Period: December 29, 2020 – August 3, 2022
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: October 17, 2022
The action arises out of the Company’s misstatements regarding the ability of Ampion, its lead product, to treat individuals with inflammatory conditions including, but not limited to, severe osteoarthritis of the knee (“OAK”).
Beginning in 2010 until approximately March 2022, Ampio conducted numerous clinical trials and analyses to determine Ampion’s efficacy. Despite confidentially advertising on numerous occasions that Ampion demonstrated statistically significant decrease in pain associated in symptomatic moderate-severe OAK, the Company failed to bring Ampion to market.
On April 20, 2022, Ampio announced that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”) responded negatively to its Type C meeting request for the Company’s AP-013 clinical trial and that the FDA found the company should have sought the FDA’s agreement on changes to the data analysis prior to analyzing and unblinding the data.
On this news, the Company’s share price fell $0.09, or 26%, to close at $0.25 per share on April 21, 2022.
Then, on May 16, 2022, Ampio announced that it had formed a special committee to conduct an internal investigation focusing on Ampio’s AP-013 clinical trial and unauthorized provision of its anti-inflammatory drug Ampion for use by individuals not participating in clinical trials.
On this news, the Company’s share price fell $0.04, or 10%, to close at $0.18 per share on May 18, 2022.
Then, on August 3, 2022, Ampio disclosed that, as far back as March 2020, “senior staff were aware… that the AP-013 trial did not demonstrate efficacy for Ampion on its co-primary endpoints of pain and function; and that these persons did not fully report the results of the AP-013 trial and the timing of unblinding of data from the AP-013 trial.” The Company also revealed “that certain Ampio personnel, including a former officer and certain former directors, facilitated the provision of Ampion for use.”
On this news, Ampio’s stock fell $0.06, or 37.5%, to close at $0.10 per share on August 3, 2022, thereby injuring investors.
For more information on the Ampio class action go to: https://bespc.com/cases/AMPE
Sinovac Biotech Ltd. (NASDAQ: SVA)
Class Period: April 11, 2016 – February 22, 2019
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: October 17, 2022
Since January 2016, competing sets of shareholders have been vying for control of Sinovac. Defendants are individuals and entities associated with 1Globe, a family investment office that is owned and controlled by Defendant Jiaqiang Li (“Li”). Li was Sinovac’s largest shareholder when 1Globe’s Chief Executive Officer made an offer in January 2016 to buy Sinovac for approximately $350 million. Li supported a competing group that sought to buy Sinovac for a higher price. Rather than provide this support in an open and transparent manner, Li and 1Globe used deceptive practices to advance their position. After Sinovac adopted the Rights Agreement on March 28, 2016, which contained a “poison pill” that limited the amount of Sinovac stock that a shareholder could acquire, Defendants made many intentionally false and misleading statements and violated their statutory disclosure obligations under Section 13(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Section 13(d)”), in order to conceal the extent and purpose of Li’s and 1Globe’s ownership of Sinovac stock.
In addition to misrepresenting the amount of Sinovac stock that Li and 1Globe owned, Defendants misrepresented their secret plan to act in concert with other shareholders to try to take control of the Company. While Sinovac knew that Li and 1Globe were acting in concert based on the Company’s private communications with them during the battle for control of the Company, this information was not known to public shareholders.
Plaintiff and the Class are Sinovac shareholders that have been caught in the middle of this battle between Sinovac’s management and 1globe for control of the Company. While Plaintiff and the Class also seek to receive fair value if Sinovac is taken private, Defendants’ behind-the-scenes scheming impeded this effort. Instead, Defendants have caused Plaintiff and the Class substantial harm by making them lose their ability to collect at least millions of shares they would have otherwise been entitled to under the Rights Agreement.
Even the purchase of a single share of Sinovac stock above the rights Agreement’s 15% thresholder constitutes a trigger event under the Rights Agreement. All of Li’s and 1Globe’s purchases of Sinovac stock that they made – or directed to be made on their behalf – after March 28, 2016, therefore triggered Sinovac’s poison pill.
Defendant’s intentionally false statements and omissions concerning the true nature of Li’s and 1Globe’s ownership of Sinovac stock caused the exchange (“Exchange”) under the Rights Agreement to be delayed by several years. If Li had fully disclosed his ownership of Sinovac stock, as he was required to do under Section 13(d), it would have been clear as day that the Rights Agreement was triggered by May 2016, at the latest. While Sinovac knew enough information starting in 2016, largely based on private correspondence, to determine that 1Globe and Li triggered the rights Agreement, Defendants hid the full extent of their ownership of Sinovac stock and their agreements in connection with the battle for control of the Company. Defendants therefore also tortiously interfered with Sinovac’s contractual obligations to its shareholders under the Rights Agreement.
If 1Globe and Li’s actions were disclosed publicly, as they were required to be under Section 13(d), Plaintiff’s rights would have been exercisable based on that disclosure, and an Exchange would have occurred based on that date. By misrepresenting the true nature of their ownership of Sinovac stock, Defendants caused that date to be delayed almost three years, until February 22, 2019, resulting in Plaintiff and the Class losing their rights to acquire additional shares of Sinovac stock for all of their shares that they sold in the interim. While Sinovac should have implemented the Rights Agreement in 2016 based on the information available to it at the time, 1Globe and Li exacerbated the problem by violating their disclosure obligations under Section 13(d). Moreover, Defendants caused the value of Sinovac stock to be artificially depressed by preventing the public from accounting for the value of Defendants’ stake in Sinovac and their efforts to take control of the Company.
For more information on the Sinovac class action go to: https://bespc.com/cases/SVA
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
