NEW YORK, Feb. 02, 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 Cloopen Group Holding Limited (NYSE: RAAS), Reata Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (NASDAQ: RETA), Exicure, Inc. (NASDAQ: XCUR), and Desktop Metal, Inc. (NYSE: DM). 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.
Cloopen Group Holding Limited (NYSE: RAAS)
Class Period: February 9, 2021 IPO; February 9, 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: https://bespc.com/cases/RAAS
Reata Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (NASDAQ: RETA)
Class Period: November 9, 2020 – December 8, 2021
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: February 18, 2022
The complaint filed in this class action alleges that throughout the Class Period, 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 FDA had raised concerns regarding the validity of the clinical study designed to measure the efficacy and safety of bardoxolone for the treatment of chronic kidney disease caused by Alport syndrome; (2) that, as a result, there was a material risk that Reata’s NDA would not be approved; and (3) that, as a result of the foregoing, Defendants’ positive statements about the Company’s business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.
For more information on the Reata class action go to: https://bespc.com/cases/RETA
Exicure, Inc. (NASDAQ: XCUR)
Class Period: March 11, 2021 – November 15, 2021
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: February 11, 2022
On November 15, 2021, after the market closed, Exicure filed a Form 12b-25 with the SEC stating that it could not timely file its quarterly report for the period ended September 30, 2021. It explained that the Company was investigating “a claim made by a former Company senior researcher regarding alleged improprieties that researcher claims to have committed with respect to the Company’s XCUR-FXN preclinical program for the treatment of Friedreich’s ataxia.”
On this news, the Company’s stock price fell $0.30, or 28%, to close at $1.07 per share on November 16, 2021, on unusually heavy trading volume.
The complaint filed in this class action alleges that throughout the Class Period, 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 there had been certain improprieties in Exicure’s preclinical program for the treatment of Friedreich’s ataxia; (2) that, as a result, there was a material risk that data from the preclinical program would not support continued clinical development; and (3) that, as a result of the foregoing, Defendants’ positive statements about the Company’s business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.
For more information on the Exicure class action go to: https://bespc.com/cases/XCUR
Desktop Metal, Inc. (NYSE: DM)
Class Period: February 17, 2021 – November 15, 2021
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: February 21, 2022
On February 16, 2021, the Company acquired EnvisionTEC, Inc. and certain of its affiliates (collectively, “EnvisionTEC”), a provider of volume production photopolymer 3D printing solutions for end use parts.
On November 8, 2021, after the market closed, Desktop Metal disclosed that it was conducting an internal investigation into certain matters, including “manufacturing and product compliance practices and procedures with respect to a subset of its photopolymer equipment and materials at its EnvisionTec US LLC facility.” The Company also stated that the Chief Executive Officer of EnvisionTec US LLC had resigned.
On this news, the Company’s stock fell $0.39, or 4%, to close at $8.81 per share on November 9, 2021.
Then, on November 15, 2021, after the market closed, the Company stated that it would notify the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”) of “compliance issues with certain shipments of EnvisionTEC’s Flexcera dental resins and its PCA4000 curing box.”
On this news, the Company’s stock fell $1.19, or 15%, to close at $6.83 per share on November 16, 2021, on unusually heavy trading volume.
Throughout the Class Period, 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 there were deficiencies in EnvisionTEC’s manufacturing and product compliance practices and procedures; (2) that the foregoing deficiencies presented a material risk to the commercialization of EnvisionTEC’s products; and (3) that, as a result of the foregoing, Defendants’ positive statements about the Company’s business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.
For more information on the Desktop Metal class action go to: https://bespc.com/cases/DM
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.
Alexandra B. Raymond, Esq.
(212) 355-4648
investigations@bespc.com
www.bespc.com
