Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. Reminds Investors That Class Action Lawsuits Have Been Filed Against Arcimoto, Churchill, Emergent BioSolutions, and Verus International and Encourages Investors to Contact the Firm
NEW YORK, May 26, 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 Arcimoto, Inc. (NASDAQ: FUV), Churchill Capital Corporation IV (NYSE: CCIV), Emergent BioSolutions, Inc. (NYSE: EBS), and Verus International, Inc. (Other OTC: VRUS). 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.
Arcimoto, Inc. (NASDAQ: FUV)
Class Period: February 14, 2018 to March 22, 2021
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: June 18, 2021
On March 23, 2021, Bonitas Research published a report (“Bonitas Report”) revealing that Arcimoto had misled the investing public by fabricating its preorders. The Bonitas Report further revealed that Arcimoto’s largest customer, R-KeyMoto, LLC, was an undisclosed related party. The Bonitas Report additionally revealed issues regarding Arcimoto’s alleged partnership with HULA.
On this news, Arcimoto’s stock price fell $1.10 per share, or approximately 6.56%, to close at $15.67 per share on March 23, 2021.
The complaint, filed on April 19, 2021, alleges that throughout the Class Period defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) the preorders of Arcimoto’s Fun Utility Vehicles (“FUVs”) were fabricated or never completed, with only 19 units delivered out of an alleged preorder of 422; (2) Arcimoto failed to disclose to customers that nearly 100% of its vehicles delivered were under safety recall; (3) Arcimoto’s largest customer, R-Key-Moto, was an undisclosed related party owned by insider FOD Capital, LLC; (4) Arcimoto’s partnership with HULA was an undisclosed related party transaction; and (5) as a result, defendants’ public statements were materially false and/or misleading at all relevant times.
Class Period: January 11, 2021 to February 22, 2021
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: June 18, 2021
On January 11, 2021, Bloomberg News reported that Lucid Motors Inc. ("Lucid"), an American automotive company specializing in electric cars, is in talks to go public via merger with one of Michael Klein’s special purpose acquisition companies, including Churchill.
Over the next several weeks, Lucid’s Chief Executive Officer Peter Rawlinson made media appearances during which he stated that Lucid was aiming for a spring delivery for its first vehicles.
On February 22, 2021, the merger between Churchill and Lucid was announced with transaction equity value estimated at $11.75 billion. Churchill’s share price closed at $57.37.
The same day, after the market closed, Bloomberg News reported that production of Lucid’s debut car would be delayed until at least the second half of 2021 with no definite date for the actual delivery of vehicles. Details of the merger also disclosed that Lucid was projecting the production of only 557 vehicles in 2021, instead of the 6,000 it had been touting in the run-up to the merger announcement.
On February 23, 2021, Churchill’s stock fell $22.16, or 38%, to close at $35.21 per share on February 23, 2021.
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) Lucid was not prepared to deliver vehicles by spring of 2021; (2) Lucid was projecting a production of 557 vehicles in 2021 instead of the 6,000 vehicles touted in the run-up to the merger with Churchill; and (3) 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.
Emergent is a specialty biopharmaceutical company that develops vaccines and antibody therapeutics for infectious diseases. In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, Emergent signed deals with Johnson & Johnson (“J&J”) and AstraZeneca worth a combined $875 million to provide contract development and manufacturing organization (“CDMO”) services to produce he companies’ COVID-19 vaccine candidates, and received another $628 million from the United States government as a part of Operation Warp Speed, for a total of $1.5 billion in COVID-19 deals.
Investors began to learn the truth on March 31, 2021, when media reports revealed that employees at Emergent’s Baltimore manufacturing facility “mixed up” ingredients for the J&J and AstraZeneca vaccines, contaminating up to 15 million doses of the J&J vaccine. It was further revealed that this was not an isolated incident and part of a history of manufacturing issues at the Company’s plant.
Additionally, it was further reported that by December 2020, Emergent was forced to discard the equivalent of millions of AstraZeneca vaccine doses after they were spoiled by bacterial contamination of equipment at the same Baltimore facility. In response to these revelations, the Biden administration took the extraordinary action of placing J&J in charge of Emergent’s Baltimore plant and prohibiting it from producing the AstraZeneca vaccine. To date, not a single dose of any COVID-19 vaccine produced at the site has been released by the FDA for distribution.
In response to this news, shares of Emergent’s stock price fell $14.29 per share, or over 15% over the next two trading days, from a close of $92.91 per share on March 31, 2021, to close at $78.62 on April 5, 2021.
Verus purports to be a multi-line consumer packaged goods company, which develops branded product lines in the U.S. and globally. Verus was purportedly the fourth fastest growing consumer products food company at the end of 2019, which included its acquisitions of the Big League Foods and a controlling interest in NutriBrands.
In order to stem the Company’s reeling stock price, which had dipped below $0.01 per share, defendants represented that Verus seized the opportunity presented by the COVID-19 pandemic. On April 3, 2020, Verus announced the acquisition of a controlling 51% interest in ZC Top Apparel Manufacturing, Inc., (“ZTAM”), a purported Philippines-based manufacturer of reusable N95 fabric masks and biohazard suits. According to the press release, Verus was “providing the funding and other resources” to begin fulfilling pending governmental orders on an expedited basis and that “protective gear could eclipse all of [Verus’s] existing revenue sources.”
On this news, the Company’s stock price rose from $0.014 to a close of $0.018 on April 3, 2020 following the announcement. Over the next few days, the Company’s stock price continued to climb, closing at $0.021 on April 6, 2020.
However, in the weeks and months that followed, the Company’s stock price declined as the truth was slowly revealed. First, Verus revealed that rollout of sample masks and other PPE were encountering “logistical issues.” Second, the Company needed to secure a facility in Vietnam, seemingly unrelated to ZTAM, to produce sample masks months after the announcement. Third, ZTAM Chief Executive Officer (“CEO”) Ronald Ian Bilang (“Bilang”) cryptically tweeted about a potential escalation of regulatory investigations, involvement of the Office of International Affairs (“OIA”) and continued deafening silence from Verus and defendants.
Finally, on October 8, 2020, Verus announced that the Company issued a “Repayment and Notice of Rescission of Transaction” to ZTAM, as a result of “failure of contractual performance and breach of contract.” According to the press release, ZTAM did not register Verus’s “controlling interest of 51%” as required under the term sheet dated April 3, 2020.
At the time of this announcement, the Company’s stock price closed at just $0.002 per share, a total decline 90.5% from when Verus announced its controlling interest in ZTAM.
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.
