Bragar Eagel & Squire, PC reminds investors that class action lawsuits have been filed… | New

NEW YORK, Sept. 11, 2022 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — Bragar Eagel & Squire, PC, a nationally recognized shareholder rights law firm, reminds investors that class action lawsuits have been filed on behalf of shareholders of Kiromic BioPharma, Inc. (NASDAQ: KRBP), Tuya, Inc. (NYSE: TUYA), LifeStance Health Group, Inc. (NASDAQ: LFST) and MINISO Group Holding Limited (NYSE: MNSO). Shareholders have until the deadlines below to ask the court to serve as lead plaintiff. Additional information on each case can be found at the link provided.

Kiromic BioPharma, Inc. (NASDAQ: KRBP)

Class Period: June 25, 2021 through August 13, 2021 or pursuant to the Company’s IPO on July 2, 2021

Lead Applicant Deadline: October 4, 2022

The complaint alleges that the offering documents did not disclose that the FDA had, prior to the filing of the registration statement and prospectus, imposed a clinical hold and, in fact, contained statements indicating that it would not l had not done. As the Offering closed on July 2, 2021, more than thirty (30) days after the Company submitted IND applications for its two immunotherapy product candidates, investors have been assured that no suspension clinical trial had been issued and clinical trials would begin. The Company had, however, received communications from the FDA on June 16 and 17, 2021, informing it that the FDA was placing the IND applications for its two product candidates on clinical hold. The offering documents did not disclose this information, instead stating that clinical trials were scheduled to take place in the third quarter of 2021. The clinical trials did not take place in the third quarter of 2021, and it likely did not. been given the imposition of a clinical hold by the FDA.

For more information on the Kiromic class action, please visit:

Tuya, Inc. (NYSE: TUYA)

Class Period: In accordance with the Company’s IPO on March 18, 2021

Lead Applicant Deadline: October 11, 2022

According to the complaint, the company made false and misleading statements to the market. Tuya’s China-based customers engaged in a scheme to manipulate reviews and product listings on Amazon, in violation of the commerce platform’s terms of service. A consumer survey that took place before the IPO revealed fake scams organized by the company’s customers, which included 200,000 fake Amazon accounts that posted 13 million fake reviews. The company faced significant business difficulties if its customer base was banned from selling on the Amazon platform. Based on these facts, the Company’s public statements were false and materially misleading throughout the IPO period. When the market learned the truth about Tuya, investors suffered damage.

For more information on the Tuya class action, please visit:

LifeStance Health Group, Inc. (NASDAQ: LFST)

Recourse period: in accordance with the company’s initial public offering on June 11, 2021

Lead Applicant Deadline: October 11, 2022

On or about June 11, 2021, LifeStance completed its IPO, issuing 46 million shares at $18 per share.

On August 11, 2021, LifeStance announced its financial results for the second quarter of 2021, which ended just days after the IPO. The company reported a net loss of $70 million and also disclosed that its operating expenses more than tripled in the second quarter. LifeStance said it experienced a “recent and significant shift in clinician retention levels.”

On this news, the Company’s share price fell $10.16, or 46%, to close at $11.71 per share on August 12, 2021, hurting investors.

Then, on November 8, 2021, LifeStance released its third quarter 2021 financial results, revealing that “[c]retention of linicians [had] stabilized at around 80% annualized in the third quarter” and that the company needed to increase spending on “improving clinician engagement and continued support for workplace and work life flexibility “.

As a result of this news, the company’s stock price fell $3.10, or 24%, to close at $9.73 per share on November 9, 2021, further hurting investors.

Then, on March 10, 2022, LifeStance released its fiscal year 2021 results, indicating that a recent study had shown that three-quarters of mental health patients preferred in-person services and that through 2021, telehealth tended to decline. Additionally, the Company said it will reduce the number of brick-and-mortar facilities it builds in the immediate future in order to increase its profitability.

At the time the lawsuit was filed, LifeStance common stock was trading up to 73% below the IPO price.

The complaint filed in this class action alleges that the defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, and failed to disclose material adverse facts regarding the company’s business, operations and prospects. Specifically, the defendants failed to disclose to investors: (1) that the number of virtual visits clients undertook using LifeStance declined as COVID-19 related lockdowns were lifted, capping outpatient revenue growth /virtuals of the company; (2) that the percentage of in-person visits customers were undertaking using LifeStance increased as COVID-19 lockdowns were lifted, resulting in a substantial increase in the Company’s operating expenses; (3) that LifeStance had lost a large number of physicians to burnout and as a result its physician retention rate had fallen significantly below the 87% stated in the registration statement and the company had engaged additional costs to integrate new physicians who were less productive than the outgoing physicians they replaced; and (4) as a result, defendants’ positive statements about the company’s business, operations and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked reasonable basis at all relevant times.

For more information on the LifeStance class action, go to:

MINISO Group Holding Limited (NYSE: MNSO)

Recourse period: in accordance with the company’s initial public offering on October 15, 2020

Lead Applicant Deadline: October 17, 2022

MINISO claims to be a fast-growing global value retailer serving consumers primarily through its extensive network of MINISO stores. On October 15, 2020, the defendants completed 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 released a report on MINISO which alleged several issues with MINISO, including that “unlike [MINISO]many MINISO stores are secretly owned by [MINISO] officers or insiders closely related to the President” and “[u]Ultimately, we believe there is overwhelming evidence that MINISO is misleading the market about its core business. As Blue Orca explained, “[o]Our 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 believe that [MINISO] just lied about these stores. Blue Orca added that “Documents filed by the Chinese companies also indicate, in our view, that the President diverted hundreds of millions from the public company through secrecy jurisdictions in the Caribbean as an intermediary in a crooked headquarters agreement. “. Blue Orca further concluded that “[i]Independent evidence, including archived disclosures on MINISO’s Chinese website, reports in Chinese media and interviews with former employees, indicates that MINISO is a brand in grave peril,” noting that “MINISO has reduced its franchise fees by 63% over the past two years in a desperate effort to attract franchisees. At this news, the price of MINISO’s ADS fell by nearly 15%.

As of July 27, 2022, MINISO ADSs closed at $5.66 per ADS, representing a decline of more than 70% from the IPO price of $20.00.

The MINISO the class action alleges that the IPO’s registration statement was false and/or misleading and/or failed to disclose that: (i) the undisclosed defendants and other related parties owned and controlled a significantly greater number of MINISO stores as previously indicated; (ii) as a result, MINISO concealed its true costs; (iii) MINISO did not represent its true business model; (iv) the defendants, including MINISO and its president, engaged in unusual and unclear planned transactions; (v) as a result of at least one of these transactions, MINISO risks breaking contracts with the authorities of the PRC; and (vi) MINISO would imminently and drastically reduce its franchise fees.

For more information on the MINISO class action, go to:

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 before state and federal courts across the country. For more company information, please visit Lawyer advertisement. Prior results do not guarantee similar results.

Contact information:

Bragar Eagel & Squire, CP

Brandon Walker, Esq.

Melissa Fortunato, Esq.

(212) 355-4648

Comments are closed.