Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. Reminds Investors That Class Action Lawsuits Have Been Filed Against Rocket, 360 DigiTech, Piedmont Lithium, and Iterum and Encourages Investors to Contact the Firm
NEW YORK, Aug. 25, 2021 (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 Rocket Companies, Inc. (NYSE: RKT), 360 DigiTech, Inc. (NASDAQ: QFIN), Piedmont Lithium Inc. (NASDAQ: PLL), and Iterum Therapeutics plc (NASDAQ: ITRM). 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.
Rocket Companies, Inc. (NYSE: RKT)
Class Period: February 25, 2021 to May 5, 2021
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: August 30, 2021
On May 5, 2021, Rocket Companies reported that it was on track to achieve closed loan volume within a range of only $82.5 billion and $87.5 billion and gain on sale margins within a range of only 2.65% to 2.95% for the second quarter of 2021. At the mid-point, this gain on sale margin estimate equated to a 239 basis point decline year-over-year and a 94 basis point decline sequentially, which represented Rocket Companies’ lowest quarterly gain on sale margin in two years. The stunning collapse in Rocket Companies’ gain on sale margin reflected the fact that the favorable market conditions purportedly being experienced by Rocket Companies during the Class Period had in fact reversed. During a conference call to explain the results, Rocket Companies’ Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer, defendant Julie R. Booth, revealed that the sharp decline in quarterly gain on sale margin was being caused by three factors: (i) pressure on loan pricing; (ii) a product mix shift to Rocket Companies’ lower margin Partner Network segment; and (iii) a compression in price spreads between the primary and secondary mortgage markets. Defendant Booth also admitted that certain of these trends began “at the end of Q1.”
On this news, the price of Rocket Companies Class A common stock fell by nearly 17% to close at $19.01 per share.
As the market continued to digest the news in the days that followed, the price of Rocket Companies Class A common stock continued to decline, falling to a low of just $16.48 per share by May 11, 2021.
The Rocket Companies class action lawsuit alleges that, throughout the Class Period, defendants made false and misleading statements and failed to disclose that: (i) Rocket Companies’ gain on sale margins were contracting at the highest rate in two years as a result of increased competition among mortgage lenders, an unfavorable shift toward the lower margin Partner Network operating segment and compression in the price spread between the primary and secondary mortgage markets; (ii) Rocket Companies was engaged in a price war and battle for market share with its primary competitors in the wholesale market, which was further compressing margins in Rocket Companies’ Partner Network operating segment; (iii) the adverse trends identified above were accelerating and, as a result, Rocket Companies’ gain on sale margins were on track to plummet at least 140 basis points in the first six months of 2021; (iv) as a result, the favorable market conditions that had preceded the Class Period and allowed Rocket Companies to achieve historically high gain on sale margins had vanished as Rocket Companies’ gain on sale margins had returned to levels not seen since the first quarter of 2019; (v) rather than remaining elevated due to surging demand, Rocket Companies’ company-wide gain-on-sale margins had fallen materially below pre-pandemic averages; and (vi) consequently, defendants’ positive statements about Rocket Companies’ business operations and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.
On July 8, 2021, reports circulated on social media to the effect that the Company's core product, the 360 IOU app, had been removed from major app stores. The reports came on the heels of the removal of other companies' apps as Chinese regulators investigated their customer data protection practices.
On this news, 360 DigiTech’s stock 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 confirmed the removal of its 360 IOU app from the Android app store and quoted a Company spokesperson, who disclosed that the Company had “submitted a new rectification plan and stepped up the whole process.”
The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company’s business, operations, and compliance policies. Specifically, defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) the Company had been collecting personal information in violation of relevant People’s Republic of China laws and regulations; (ii) accordingly, 360 DigiTech was exposed to an increased risk of regulatory scrutiny and/or enforcement action; and (iii) as a result, the Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.
On July 20, 2021, before market hours, Reuters published an article entitled “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 a necessary zoning variance in Gaston County, just west of Charlotte, despite telling investors since 2018 that it was on the verge of doing so.” The article went on to report that “[f]ive of the seven members of the county’s board of commissioners, who control zoning changes, say they may block or delay the project[.]”
On this news, Piedmont shares fell $12.56 per share over the trading day, or nearly 20%, to close at $50.52 per share on July 20, 2021.
The complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Piedmont has not, and would not, follow its stated steps or timeline to secure all proper and necessary permits; (ii) Piedmont failed to inform relevant people and governmental authorities of its actual plans; (iii) Piedmont failed to file proper applications with relevant governmental authorities (including state and local authorities); (iv) Piedmont and its lithium business does not have “strong governmental support”; and (v) as a result, defendants' public statements were materially false and/or misleading at all relevant times.
On July 1, 2021, Iterum issued a press release “announc[ing] that the Company received a letter from the [U.S. Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”)] stating that, as part of their ongoing review of the [sulopenem New Drug Application “NDA”], the agency has identified deficiencies that preclude the continuation of the discussion of labeling and post marketing requirements/commitments at this time.”
On this news, Iterum’s ordinary 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 Complete Response Letter from the FDA for the 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 present form.”
On this news, Iterum’s ordinary 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 Class Period, defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) the sulopenem (“NDA”) lacked sufficient data to support approval for the treatment of adult women with uncomplicated urinary tract infections (“uUTIs”) caused by designated susceptible microorganisms proven or strongly suspected to be non-susceptible to a quinolone; (ii) accordingly, it was unlikely that the FDA would approve the sulopenem NDA in its current form; (iii) defendants downplayed the severity of issued and deficiencies associated with the sulopenem NDA; and (iv) as a result, the Company’s public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.
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.
