SAN DIEGO–(BUSINESS WIRE)–The law firm Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP announces that purchasers of Mullen Automotive, Inc. f/k/a Net Element, Inc. (NASDAQ: MULN) securities between June 15, 2020 and April 6, 2022, both dates inclusive (the “Class Period”) have until July 5, 2022 to seek nomination as lead applicant in Schaub vs. Mullen Automotive, Inc. f/k/a Net Element, Inc., no. 22-cv-03026 (CD Cal.). Started on May 5, 2022, the Mullen Automotive a class action lawsuit accuses Mullen Automotive and some of its top executives of violating the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. A similar lawsuit, Gru v Mullen Automotive, Inc. f/k/a Net Element, Inc.no. 22-cv-00976, is also pending in the Central District of California.
If you have suffered significant losses and wish to act as the lead plaintiff of the Mullen Automotive class action, please provide your information here:
You can also contact attorney JC Sanchez of Robbins Geller by calling 800/449-4900 or emailing email@example.com. Principal Applicant’s Requests for Mullen Automotive the class action must be filed with the court no later than July 5, 2022.
CASE ALLEGATIONS: Mullen Automotive claims to be an electronic vehicle (“EV”) manufacturer. On November 5, 2021, Mullen Technologies, Inc. merged with and into Net Element, Inc. and changed its name to Mullen Automotive, Inc. In announcing its merger, Mullen Automotive said it “expects[ed] to launch the Dragonfly K50, a luxury sports car, in the first half of 2021 via ICI (Independent Commercial Importers). Prior to the merger, shares of Mullen Automotive traded under the symbol NETE.
the Mullen Automotive The class action alleges that the defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Mullen Automotive overstated its production capacity and schedule; (ii) Mullen Automotive overstated its agreements with business partners, including Qiantu Motor; (iii) Mullen Automotive overestimated its battery technology and capabilities; (iv) Mullen Automotive overestimated its ability to sell its branded products; (v) Net Element has failed to perform a proper due diligence of Mullen Technologies; (vi) the Dragonfly K50 has not (solely) been delayed due to the COVID-19 pandemic; and (vii) as a result, the defendants’ public statements were materially false and/or misleading at all relevant times.
On April 6, 2022, market analyst Hindenburg Research released a report titled “Mullen Automotive: Yet Another Fast Talking EV Hustle.” The Hindenburg Research report stated, among other things, that: (i) “Mullen [Automotive] says its former pizza car factory in Mississippi is equipped with state-of-the-art equipment and machinery, but photos and videos of the facility show it has limited equipment” and that although the Mullen Automotive website “features a photo of advanced manufacturing equipment”, an online search shows that “this was a stock photo that appears to have been purchased from Adobe Stock Images”; (ii)”[i]n 2019, the Mullen DragonFly was revealed as a supercar built by Chinese manufacturer Qiantu Motors and was to be rebranded and sold by Mullen [Automotive] from 2020”, but “[f]After the revelation, Mullen [Automotive] immediately defaulted on its payment obligations to Qiantu, resulting in the termination of the agreement in October 2019” and yet Mullen Automotive “continued to market the vehicle as its own”; (iii)”[d]despite only spending ~$3 million on R&D in 2021, Mullen [Automotive] says its solid-state battery technology is on track for commercialization in 18 to 24 months, putting it [a]leader of every major technology and automaker in the industry who have collectively invested billions to solve the problem,” leading Hindenburg Research to conclude that “[w]I think Mullen [Automotive] seriously and repeatedly misled investors about its claimed battery technology”; and (iv)”[g]Even though Mullen [Automotive] nothing apparent [U.S. Environmental Protection Agency] certificates, not apparent [Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards] tests and no apparent factory with sufficient staff, we believe that [Mullen Automotive] is years away from delivering a vehicle if he actually had to take concrete steps to do so. At this news, Mullen Automotive’s stock price fell about 10%, hurting investors.
THE PRINCIPAL APPLICANT PROCESS: The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 permits any investor who purchased securities of Mullen Automotive during the Class Period to seek appointment as lead plaintiff in the Mullen Automotive class action. A principal plaintiff is generally the plaintiff with the greatest financial interest in the relief sought by the putative class that is also typical and adequate of the putative class. A lead plaintiff acts on behalf of all other class members by directing the Mullen Automotive class action. The main plaintiff can select a law firm of his choice to plead Mullen Automotive class action. An investor’s ability to participate in any potential future upturn in the Mullen Automotive classroom legal action does not depend on the status of principal plaintiff.
ABOUT ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP: Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP is one of the world’s leading complex class action firms representing plaintiffs in securities fraud cases. The firm is ranked No. 1 in the 2021 ISS Securities Class Action Services Top 50 report for recovering nearly $2 billion for investors last year alone, more than triple the amount recovered by any other firm from plaintiffs. With 200 attorneys in 9 offices, Robbins Geller attorneys have secured many of the largest securities class action recoveries in history, including the largest securities class action recovery on record – $7.2 billion dollars – in In re Enron Corp. Dry. Litigation Please visit the following page for more information:
Past results do not guarantee future results.
Services can be performed by attorneys in any of our offices.