NEW YORK, September 08, 2021 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) – Bragar Eagel & Squire, PC, a nationally recognized law firm, reminds investors that class actions have been filed on behalf of shareholders of 360 DigiTech , Inc. (NASDAQ: QFIN), Piedmont Lithium Inc. (NASDAQ: PLL), Iterum Therapeutics plc (NASDAQ: ITRM) and HyreCar Inc. (NASDAQ: HYRE). Shareholders have until the deadlines below to request the court to act as principal plaintiff. Additional information on each case can be found at the link provided.
360 DigiTech, Inc. (NASDAQ: QFIN)
Class period: April 30, 2020 to July 7, 2021
Principal applicant deadline: September 13, 2021
On July 8, 2021, reports circulated on social media that the company’s main product, the 360 IOU app, had been pulled from major app stores. The reports followed the removal of other companies’ apps as Chinese regulators investigated their customer data protection practices.
On this news, the DigiTech 360 share price fell $ 7.12 per share, or 21.48%, to close at $ 26.02 per share on July 8, 2021.
On July 9, 2021, Seeking Alpha reported that 360 DigiTech had confirmed the removal of its 360 IOU app from the Android app store and cited a company spokesperson, who revealed that the company had “submitted a new rectification plan and accelerated the whole process. “
The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, the Defendants made materially false and misleading representations regarding the affairs, operations and compliance policies of the Company. Specifically, the defendants made false and / or misleading statements and / or failed to disclose that: (i) the Company collected personal information in violation of relevant laws and regulations of the People’s Republic of China; (ii) as a result, 360 DigiTech has been exposed to increased risk of regulatory oversight and / or enforcement actions; and (iii) accordingly, the Company’s public statements were materially false and misleading at all material times.
For more information on the 360 DigiTech class action lawsuit, please visit: https://bespc.com/cases/QFIN
Piedmont Lithium Inc. (NASDAQ: PLL)
Class period: March 16, 2018 and July 19, 2021
Principal applicant deadline: September 21, 2021
On July 20, 2021, before market hours, Reuters published an article titled “In push to supply Tesla, Piedmont Lithium irks North Carolina neighbors”. Among other things, the article reported that “[t]he company […] has not applied for a state mining permit or necessary zoning waiver in Gaston County, just west of Charlotte, although he has told investors since 2018 that he is on the verge of doing so. to do. The article went on to say that “[f]five of seven members of the county commissioners’ council, who oversee zoning changes, say they could block or delay the project[.]”
At this news, Piedmont shares fell $ 12.56 per share during the trading day, or nearly 20%, to close at $ 50.52 per share on July 20, 2021.
The complaint alleges that, throughout the period of the action, the defendants made false and / or misleading statements and / or failed to disclose that: (i) Piedmont did not and would not follow the steps or the timeframe indicated for obtaining all appropriate and necessary permits; (ii) Piedmont has not informed the persons concerned and the government authorities of its actual plans; (iii) Piedmont has not filed appropriate requests with the relevant government authorities (including state and local authorities); (iv) Piedmont and its lithium activity do not benefit from “strong government support”; and (v) accordingly, the defendants’ public statements were materially false and / or misleading at all relevant times.
For more information on the Piedmont Lithium class action lawsuit, visit: https://bespc.com/cases/PLL
Iterum Therapeutics plc (NASDAQ: ITRM)
Class period: November 30, 2020 to July 23, 2021
Principal applicant deadline: October 4, 2021
On July 1, 2021, Iterum published a press release “announced[ing] that the Company has received a letter from [U.S. Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”)] stating that, as part of their ongoing review of the [sulopenem New Drug Application “NDA”], the agency identified gaps that prevent further discussion of labeling and post-market requirements / commitments at this time. “
Following this news, Iterum’s common share price fell $ 0.87 per share, or 37.99%, to close at $ 1.42 per share on July 2, 2021.
Then, on July 26, 2021, Iterum issued a press release announcing that it had received a full response letter from the FDA for sulopenem NDA, “provid[ing] that the FDA has completed its review of the NDA and has determined that it cannot approve the NDA in its current form.
Following this news, Iterum’s common share price fell $ 0.499 per share, or 44.16%, to close at $ 0.631 per share on July 26, 2021.
The complaint alleges that, throughout the period of the action, the defendants made false and / or misleading statements and / or failed to disclose that: (i) the sulopenem (“NDA”) lacked sufficient data to justify approving the treatment of adult women with urinary tract infections (“UTI”) caused by susceptible microorganisms designated, proven or strongly suspected to be non-sensitive to a quinolone; (ii) therefore, it was unlikely that the FDA would approve sulopenem NDA in its current form; (iii) the defendants downplayed the seriousness of the issues raised and the deficiencies associated with the NDA of sulopenem; and (iv) accordingly, the Company’s public statements were materially false and misleading at all material times.
For more information on the Iterum class action lawsuit, visit: https://bespc.com/cases/ITRM
HyreCar Inc. (NASDAQ: HYRE)
Class period: May 14, 2020 to August 10, 2021
Principal applicant deadline: October 26, 2021
On August 10, 2021, HyreCar reported very disappointing results for the quarter ended June 30, 2021 (“Q2 2021”), including net losses of $ 9.3 million compared to losses of $ 3.8 million. dollars in the same period the previous year. In addition, HyreCar’s adjusted EBITDA loss for the second quarter of 2021 was $ 7.1 million (four times higher than the adjusted EBITDA loss of $ 1.7 million recorded in the second quarter of 2020) and its gross margin for the second quarter of 2021 was only $ 0.8 million (less than a third of HyreCar’s gross margin in the second quarter of 2020), with a gross profit margin of just 24%. Along with the post, HyreCar revealed that HyreCar incurred skyrocketing top-line costs in the quarter, primarily due to a significantly higher incidence of insurance claims, including claims before 31 December. March 2021 “beyond the reserves”. During the HyreCar earnings call, executives revealed that HyreCar was forced to revamp its claims processes and procedures and improve its risk price adjustments for policies issued by HyreCar. And when asked if HyreCar was really on track to achieve 45-50% gross margins in the short term, as previously depicted, HyreCar’s CFO essentially removed that target, calling it a “pull target.” towards the sky ”and stating that“ shooting for the margin over 40% ”was more realistic. On this news, HyreCar’s share price fell $ 9.27 per share, nearly 50%, closing at $ 9.85 per share on August 11, 2021.
The complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, the Defendants made false and misleading representations and failed to disclose that: (i) HyreCar had substantially underestimated its insurance reservations; (ii) HyreCar consistently failed to pay valid insurance claims incurred prior to the Class Period; (iii) HyreCar had incurred significant expenses in transitioning to its new Third Party Insurance Claims Administrator and handling claims incurred in previous periods; (iv) HyreCar had not correctly priced the risk in its insurance products and suffered a high incidence of claims as a result; (v) HyreCar had been forced to radically reform its underwriting, policies and complaints procedures in response to unacceptable severity of claims and customer complaints; and (vi) as a result, HyreCar’s operations and prospects have been distorted because HyreCar was not on track to meet the financial estimates provided to investors during the Class Period, and those estimates were not reasonable basis in fact, including HyreCar’s purported gross margin, earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization (“EBITDA”), and trajectories of net losses.
For more information on the HyreCar class action lawsuit, visit: https://bespc.com/cases/HYRE
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 across the country. For more information about the company, please visit www.bespc.com. Lawyer advertising. Past results do not guarantee similar results.
Contact details: Bragar Eagel & Squire, PC Brandon Walker, Esq. Melissa Fortunato, Esq. Marion Passmore, Esq. (212) 355-4648 [email protected]