Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. Reminds Investors That Class Action Lawsuits Have Been Filed Against Rivian, Akebia, Grab, and Celsius and Encourages Investors to Contact the Firm
News provided byBragar Eagel & Squire
Apr 22, 2022, 9:00 PM ET
NEW YORK, April 22, 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 Rivian Automotive, Inc. (NASDAQ: RIVN), Akebia Therapeutics, Inc. (NASDAQ: AKBA), Grab Holdings, Inc. (NASDAQ: GRAB), and Celsius Holdings, Inc. (NASDAQ: CELH). 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.
Rivian Automotive, Inc. (NASDAQ: RIVN)
Class Period: November 10, 2021 IPO
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: May 6, 2022
Rivian is an electric vehicle company that in 2018 unveiled its first consumer EV’s, the R1T electric pickup truck, and the R1S electric SUV.
On November 10, 2021, Rivian offered 153 million shares to the public through an IPO at a price of $78.00 per share for total proceeds of $11.93 billion.
According to the Registration Statement, the “R1T and R1S introduce our brand to the world and will serve as our flagship vehicles as we continue to expand our offerings.”
Rivian’s focus on its reputation for transparency and devotion to its customers, along with Rivian’s R1T and R1S, including the large number of preorders and potential for increased demand were key selling points to IPO investors.
Unbeknownst to investors, however, the Registration Statement’s representations were materially inaccurate, misleading, and/or incomplete because they failed to disclose, among other things, that the R1T and R1S were underpriced to such a degree that Rivian would have to raise prices shortly after the IPO and that these price increases would tarnish Rivian’s reputation as a trustworthy and transparent company and would put a significant number of the existing backlog of 55,400 preorders along with future preorders in jeopardy of cancellation.
As a result, the price of the Company’s shares was artificially and materially inflated at the time of the Offering.
For more information on the Rivian class action go to: https://bespc.com/cases/RIVN
Akebia Therapeutics, Inc. (NASDAQ: AKBA)
Class Period: June 28, 2018 – September 2, 2020
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: May 13, 2022
Akebia is a biopharmaceutical company that focuses on the development and commercialization of renal therapeutics for patients with kidney diseases. The Company’s lead investigational product candidate is vadadustat, an oral therapy, which is in Phase 3 development for the treatment of anemia due to chronic kidney disease (“CKD”) in dialysis-dependent and non-dialysis dependent (“NDD”) adult patients.
Akebia’s Phase 3 clinical programs for vadadustat include, among others, the PRO2TECT program in NDD-CKD patients with anemia (the “PRO2TECT Program”). The PRO2TECT Program’s primary safety endpoint was defined as non-inferiority of vadadustat versus darbepoetin alfa in time to first occurrence of major adverse cardiovascular events (“MACE”).
The complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company’s business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) vadadustat was not as safe in treating NDD-CKD patients with anemia as Defendants had represented; (ii) as a result, Defendants overstated the PRO2TECT Program’s clinical prospects; (iii) accordingly, Defendants also overstated vadadustat’s overall commercial and regulatory prospects; and (iv) as a result, the Company’s public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.
On September 3, 2020, Akebia issued a press release announcing “top-line results” from the PRO2TECT Program, disclosing that “[v]adadustat did not meet the primary safety endpoint of the PRO2TECT program, defined as non-inferiority of vadadustat versus darbepoetin alfa in time to first occurrence of [MACE.]”
On this news, Akebia’s common stock price fell $7.35 per share, or 73.5%, to close at $2.65 per share on September 3, 2020.
For more information on the Akebia class action go to: https://bespc.com/cases/AKBA
Grab Holdings, Inc. (NASDAQ: GRAB)
Class Period: November 12, 2021 – March 3, 2022
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: May 15, 2022
On March 3, 2022, at 7:01 a.m. Eastern, Grab disclosed that its fourth quarter revenues had declined 44% from the previous quarter and reported a $1.1 billion loss for the quarter. Grab's Chief Financial Officer attributed the poor financial results to "invest[ing] heavily" in driver incentives and stated that it would take one or two quarters "to get that equilibrium between drivers and riders, between supply and demand."
On this news, the Company's stock price fell $2.04, or 37.3%, to close at $3.28 per share on March 3, 2022, 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 Grab's driver supply declined during the third quarter; (2) that, as a result, Grab continued to invest heavily in driver and consumer incentives to "preemptively recalibrate driver supply"; (3) that, as a result, the Company's financial results would be adversely impacted, including, among other things, a significant decline in revenue; and (4) 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 Grab class action go to: https://bespc.com/cases/GRAB
Celsius Holdings, Inc. (NASDAQ: CELH)
Class Period: August 12, 2021 – March 1, 2022
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: May 15, 2022
On March 1, 2022, after the market closed, Celsius disclosed that it could not timely file its 2021 annual report due to “staffing limitations, unanticipated delays and identified material errors in previous filings.” Specifically, Celsius “determined that the calculation and expense of non-cash share-based compensation, related to grants of stock options and restricted stock units awarded to certain former employees and retired directors were materially understated for the three and six month periods ended June 30, 2021 and three and nine month periods ended September 30, 2021.” As a result, management concluded that there was a material weakness in the Company's internal controls over financial reporting.
On this news, the Company’s stock price fell to an intra-day low of $56.21 per share on unusually heavy trading volume on March 2, 2022. Over the course of the March 2, 2022 and March 3, 2022 trading sessions, the Company’s stock price fell a total of $5.20, or 8.3% on unusually heavy trading volume to close at $57.60 per share on March 3, 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 Company had improperly recorded expenses for non-cash share-based compensation for second and third quarters of 2021; (2) that, as a result, the Company's financial statements for those periods would be restated, including to report a net loss for the third quarter of 2021; (3) that there was a material weakness in Celsius’s internal controls over financial reporting; and (4) 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 Celsius class action go to: https://bespc.com/cases/CELH
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.