Bragar Eagel & Squire, PC Reminds Investors Of This Category

NEW YORK, July 21, 2021 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) – Bragar Eagel & Squire, PC, a nationally recognized shareholder rights law firm, reminds investors that class actions have been filed on behalf of shareholders of Frequency Therapeutics, Inc. (NASDAQ: FREQ), DiDi Global, Inc. (NYSE: DIDI) and CarLotz, Inc. (NASDAQ: LOTZ). 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.

Frequency Therapeutics, Inc. (NASDAQ: FREQ)

Class period: November 16, 2020 and March 22, 2021

Principal applicant deadline: August 2, 2021

Frequency Therapeutics has conducted several clinical studies evaluating the safety and efficacy of FX-322, the most significant of which is a Phase 2a study that began in October 2019.

In April 2020, Frequency CEO (“CEO”) David L. Lucchino began selling his Frequency shares, totaling over 350,000 shares sold and earning over $ 10.5 million.

On March 23, 2021, ahead of the market opening, Frequency disclosed in a press release disappointing interim results from the Phase 2a study, revealing that subjects with mild to moderate SNHL did not show improvement. hearing measurements compared to placebo.

On this news, Frequency shares fell $ 28.30, or 78%, to close at $ 7.99, hurting investors.

The complaint alleges that throughout the period of the action, the defendants made false and misleading statements and / or failed to disclose that: (1) the development and marketing by Frequency of a hearing loss treatment entitled “FX-322” did not produce the results that Frequency wanted; (2) The ongoing clinical study of FX-322 was not as positive as Frequency had described; and (3) as a result of the foregoing, the defendants’ positive statements about the Company’s business, operations and prospects were misleading and / or lacking reasonable basis. When the real details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors have suffered damage.

For more information on the Frequency class action lawsuit, visit:

DiDi Global, Inc. (NYSE: DIDI)

Appeal period: June 30, 2021 IPO

Principal applicant deadline: September 7, 2021

On or around June 30, 2021, DiDi Global completed its IPO by issuing 316.8 million U.S. depository shares at $ 14.

Within days, on July 2, 2021, the company revealed that the Chinese Cyberspace Administration Office was conducting a cybersecurity review of the company and asked it to suspend registration of new users in China.

On July 4, 2021, the Company issued a press release titled “DiDi Announces App Takedown in China” which announced that: “the CAC [Cyberspace Administration of China] stated that it had been reported and confirmed that the ‘DiDi Chuxing’ app had the problem of collecting personal information in violation of relevant PRC laws and regulations. The press release further states that “[p]In accordance with the PRC cybersecurity law, CAC notified app stores to withdraw the “DiDi Chuxing” app in China[.]”

On July 5, 2021, the the Wall Street newspaper published an article titled “Chinese regulators suggested that Didi delay its IPO in the United States: The transit giant, under pressure to reward shareholders, continued its listing on the NYSE despite the dog’s concerns. China’s cybersecurity guard ”who reported, among other things, that“[w]weeks before Didi Global Inc. [] went public in the United States, the Chinese cybersecurity watchdog suggested the Chinese transit giant delay its initial public offering and urged it to conduct a thorough self-review of its safety. network.[.]”

Following this news, the price of the Company’s US Depository Shares (“ADS”) fell $ 3.04 per ADS, or nearly 20%, to close at $ 12.49 per ADS on July 6, 2021. the next trading day.

For more information on the DiDi class action lawsuit, visit:

CarLotz, Inc. (NASDAQ: LOTZ)

Class period: December 30, 2020 and May 25, 2021

Principal applicant deadline: September 7, 2021

On March 15, 2021, CarLotz announced its fourth quarter and full year 2020 financial results. During a related conference call, the company stated that the gross margin and gross margin per unit (“GPU”) “ were less than. . . expected “due to” the increase in inventory during the quarter and the resulting drop in profitability of retail units. “CarLotz also reported that the additional inventory” created a bottleneck which resulted in slower processing and longer selling days ”.

Following this news, the company’s stock price fell $ 0.79, or 8.5%, to close at $ 8.45 per share on March 16, 2021, on unusually high trading volume. The stock price continued to decline over the next two consecutive trading days by $ 0.62, or 7.3%, to close at $ 7.83 per share on March 18, 2021, on trading volume unusually high.

Then, on May 10, 2021, after the market closed, CarLotz announced its financial results for the first quarter of 2021 revealing that the gross margin per unit was below expectations. In particular, the company expected the retail GPU to be between $ 1,300 and $ 1,500, but said $ 1,182.

Following this news, the company’s stock price fell $ 0.94, or 14%, to close at $ 5.57 per share on May 11, 2021, on unusually high trading volume. The stock price continued to decline $ 0.45, or 8%, to close at $ 4.12 per share on May 12, 2021, on unusually high trading volume.

Then, on May 26, 2021, ahead of the market opening, CarLotz announced an update to its profit-sharing sourcing partnership agreement. Specifically, CarLotz stated that its “Profit Sharing Company Vehicle Supply Partner has advised the Company that in light of the current wholesale market conditions, it has suspended shipments to the Company”. In addition, this partner “accounted for over 60% of cars sold and sourced” during the first quarter of 2021 and “less than 50% of cars sold and around 25% of cars sourced” during the second quarter of 2021 to date.

Following this news, the company’s stock price fell $ 0.70, or 13.4%, to close at $ 4.51 per share on May 26, 2021, on unusually high trading volume.

The lawsuit filed in this class action alleges that throughout the class period, the defendants made materially false and / or misleading statements, and failed to disclose material adverse facts regarding the business, operations and prospects of the society. Specifically, the Defendants made false statements regarding the following: (1) that due to an increase in inventory in the second half of fiscal 2020, CarLotz was experiencing a “traffic jam” resulting in slower processing and longer selling days; (2) that as a consequence, the gross profit per unit of the Company would be adversely affected; (3) that in order to minimize returns to the corporate vehicle supply partner responsible for more than 60% of CarLotz’s inventory, the Company was offering aggressive pricing; (4) that, as a result, CarLotz’s expected gross profit per unit was likely inflated; (5) that this company’s corporate vehicle supply partner would likely suspend shipments to the company due to market conditions, including increased wholesale prices; and (6) as a result, the Defendants’ statements regarding its business, operations and prospects were materially false and misleading and / or lacked reasonable basis at all relevant times.

For more information on the CarLotz class action lawsuit, visit:

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 Lawyer advertising. Past results do not guarantee similar results.

Contact information:
Bragar Eagel & Squire, PC
Brandon Walker, Esq.
Melissa Fortunato, Esq.
Marion Passmore, Esq.
(212) 355-4648
[email protected]

Comments are closed.