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 MultiPlan Corporation (NYSE: MPLN), Intrusion, Inc. (NASDAQ: INTZ), Romeo Power, Inc. (NYSE: RMO), and Acadia Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (NASDAQ: ACAD). 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.
MultiPlan Corporation (NYSE: MPLN)
Class Period: Securities purchased between July 12, 2020 and November 10, 2020, inclusive (the “Class Period”) and all holders of Churchill III Class A common stock entitled to vote on Churchill III’s merger with and acquisition of Polaris Parent Corp. and its consolidated subsidiaries (collectively, “MultiPlan”), which was consummated in October 2020 (the “Merger”).
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: June 7, 2021
Churchill III is a blank check company that merged with MultiPlan, a healthcare cost specialist.
In July 2020, Churchill III announced that it had entered into a preliminary agreement, subject to shareholder approval, to merge with MultiPlan. MultiPlan is a New York-based data analytics end-to-end cost management solutions provider to the U.S. healthcare industry.
The MultiPlan class action lawsuit alleges that defendants made materially false and misleading statements in connection with the Merger and during the Class Period regarding the business, operation, and prospects of MultiPlan.
On November 11, 2020 – only one month after the close of the Merger – Muddy Waters published a report on Churchill III titled “MultiPlan: Private Equity Necrophilia Meets The Great 2020 Money Grab” (the “Muddy Waters Report”). Among other revelations, the Muddy Waters Report revealed that MultiPlan was in the process of losing its largest client, UnitedHealthcare, which was estimated to cost the Company up to 35% of its revenues and 80% of its levered free cash flow within two years.
As a result of this news, the price of Churchill III securities plummeted. By November 12, 2020, the price of Churchill III Class A common stock fell to a low of just $6.12 per share, nearly 40% below the price at which shareholders could have redeemed their shares at the time of the shareholder vote on the Merger.
For more information on the MultiPlan class action go to: https://bespc.com/cases/MPLN
Intrusion, Inc. (NASDAQ: INTZ)
Class Period: January 13, 2021 to April 13, 2021
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: June 15, 2021
On April 14, 2021, White Diamond Research published a report alleging, among other things, that Intrusion’s product, Shield, “has no patents, certifications, or insurance, which are all essential for selling cybersecurity products” and that “Shield is based on open-source data already available to the public.” Thus, the report stated that “Shield is a repackaging of pre-existing technology rather than an innovative offering.” Moreover, the report alleged that the claims that Shield “stopp[ed] a total of 77,539,801 cyberthreats from 805,110 uniquely malicious entities . . . in the 90-day beta program” were “outlandish,” leading White Diamond to question “[h]ow have these companies been able to function so far, as they’ve been attacked many times per minute by ransomware, malware, data theft, phishing and DDoS attacks?”
On this news, the Company’s share price fell $4.50, or over 16%, to close at $23.75 per share on April 14, 2021. The share price continued to decline by $3.22, or 14%, over the next trading session to close at $20.53 per share on April 15, 2021.
The complaint, filed on April 16, 2021, 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 Intrusion’s Shield product was merely a repackaging of existing technology in the Company’s portfolio; (2) that Shield lacked the patents, certifications, and insurance critical to the sale of cybersecurity products; (3) that the Company had overstated the efficacy of Shield’s purported ability to protect against cyberattacks; (4) that, as a result of the foregoing, Intrusion’s Shield was reasonably unlikely to generate significant revenue; and (5) 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 Intrusion class action go to: https://bespc.com/cases/INTZ
Romeo Power, Inc. (NYSE: RMO)
Class Period: October 5, 2020 to March 30, 2021
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: June 15, 2021
On February 12, 2019, RMG Acquisition Corp. (“RMG”), a New York City based special purpose acquisition company, or SPAC, announced that it closed its initial public offering of 20 million units at $10 per share, resulting in gross proceeds of $200 million.
On October 5, 2020, RMG announced a definitive agreement for a business combination with defendant Romeo that would result in Romeo becoming a publicly listed company. Upon closing of the transaction, the combined entity would be named Romeo Power, Inc. and would remain listed on the NYSE and trade under the new ticker symbol “RMO” and its warrants would trade under the new symbol “RMO.WT”.
On March 30, 2021, Romeo issued a press release and filed a report with the SEC on Form 8-K that disclosed its financial results for the quarter and year ended December 31, 2020, and conducted a conference call with investors and analysts. Defendants shocked investors by disclosing that the Company’s production had been hampered by a shortage in supply of battery cells and that its estimated 2021 revenue would therefore be reduced by approximately 71-87%.
On March 31, 2021, Romeo shares declined from a closing price on March 30, 2021 of $10.37 per share to close at $8.33 per share, a decline of $2.04 per share, or almost 20%.
The complaint, filed on April 16, 2021, alleges that unknown to investors, Romeo was suffering from an acute shortage of high quality battery cells, which are key raw materials for Romeo’s battery packs and modules, due to supply constraints. Contrary to defendants’ representations, (i) Romeo had only two battery cell suppliers, not four, (ii) the future potential risks that defendants warned of concerning supply disruption or shortage had already occurred and were already negatively affecting Romeo’s business, operations and prospects, (iii) Romeo did not have the battery cell inventory to accommodate end-user demand and ramp up production in 2021, (iv) Romeo’s supply constraint was a material hindrance to Romeo’s revenue growth, and (v) Romeo’s supply chain for battery cells was not hedged, but in fact, was totally at risk and beholden to just two battery cell suppliers and the spot market for their 2021 inventory. Given the supply constraint that Romeo was experiencing during the Class Period, defendants had no reasonable basis to represent that the Company had the ability to meet customer demand and that it would support growth in revenue in 2021.
For more information on the Romeo Power class action go to: https://bespc.com/cases/RMO
Acadia Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (NASDAQ: ACAD)
Class Period: June 15, 2020 to April 4, 2021
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: June 18, 2021
Acadia is a biopharmaceutical company that focuses on the development and commercialization of small molecule drugs that address unmet medical needs in central nervous system disorders. The Company is developing pimavanserin as a treatment for dementia-related psychosis and as an adjunctive treatment for schizophrenia, as well as an adjunctive treatment for major depressive disorder.
On March 8, 2021, Acadia issued a press release providing a regulatory update on the pimavanserin sNDA, disclosing “that the Company received a notification from the [FDA] on March 3, 2021, stating that, as part of its ongoing review of the Company’s [sNDA], the FDA has identified deficiencies that preclude discussion of labeling and postmarketing requirements/commitments at this time.” Acadia advised that “[t]he notification does not specify the deficiencies identified by the FDA and there has been no clarification by the FDA at this time.”
On this news, Acadia’s stock price fell $20.76 per share, or 45.35%, to close at $25.02 per share on March 9, 2021.
Then, on April 5, 2021, Acadia issued a press release announcing that the Company had received a Complete Response Letter (“CRL”) from the FDA indicating that the pimavanserin sNDA could not be approved in its current form. Specifically, the press release stated that, “the [FDA Division of Psychiatry], in the CRL, cited a lack of statistical significance in some of the subgroups of dementia, and insufficient numbers of patients with certain less common dementia subtypes as lack of substantial evidence of effectiveness to support approval.”
On this news, Acadia’s stock price fell $4.41 per share, or 17.23%, to close at $21.18 per share on April 5, 2021.
The complaint, filed on April 19, 2021, 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 materials submitted in support of the pimavanserin sNDA contained statistical and design deficiencies; (ii) accordingly, the pimavanserin sNDA lacked the evidentiary support that the Company had led investors to believe it possessed; (iii) the FDA was unlikely to approve the pimavanserin sNDA in its present form; and (iv) as a result, the Company’s public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.
For more information on the Acadia class action go to: https://bespc.com/cases/ACAD
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.