Mullen Automotive, Inc. f/k/a Net Element, Inc. Class Action Lawsuit - MULN
- Company Name
- Mullen Automotive, Inc. f/k/a Net Element, Inc.
- Stock Symbol
- Class Period
- June 15, 2020 to April 6, 2022
- Motion Deadline
- July 5, 2022
- Central District of California
The Mullen Automotive class action lawsuit seeks to represent purchasers of Mullen Automotive, Inc. f/k/a Net Element, Inc. (NASDAQ: MULN) securities between June 15, 2020 and April 6, 2022, inclusive (the “Class Period”) and charges Mullen Automotive and certain of its top executive officers with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The Mullen Automotive class action lawsuit was commenced on May 5, 2022 in the Central District of California and is captioned Schaub v. Mullen Automotive, Inc. f/k/a Net Element, Inc., No. 22-cv-03026.
If you suffered significant losses and wish to serve as lead plaintiff of the Mullen Automotive class action lawsuit, please provide your information by clicking here. You can also contact attorney J.C. Sanchez of Robbins Geller by calling 800/449-4900 or via e-mail at email@example.com. Lead plaintiff motions for the Mullen Automotive class action lawsuit must be filed with the court no later than July 5, 2022.
CASE ALLEGATIONS: Mullen Automotive purports to be an electronic vehicle (“EV”) manufacturer. On November 5, 2021, Mullen Technologies, Inc. underwent a merger with and into Net Element, Inc. and changed its name to Mullen Automotive, Inc. In announcing its merger, Mullen Automotive represented that it “expect[ed] to launch the Dragonfly K50, a luxury sports car, in the first half of 2021 through ICI (Independent Commercial Importers).” Prior to the merger, Mullen Automotive’s shares traded under the ticker symbol NETE.
The Mullen Automotive class action lawsuit alleges that defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Mullen Automotive overstated its ability and timeline regarding production; (ii) Mullen Automotive overstated its deals with business partners, including Qiantu Motor; (iii) Mullen Automotive overstated its battery technology and capabilities; (iv) Mullen Automotive overstated its ability to sell its branded products; (v) Net Element did not conduct proper due diligence into Mullen Technologies; (vi) the Dragonfly K50 was not (solely) delayed due to the COVID-19 pandemic; and (vii) as a result, defendants’ public statements were materially false and/or misleading at all relevant times.
On April 6, 2022, market analyst Hindenburg Research released a report entitled “Mullen Automotive: Yet Another Fast Talking EV Hustle.” The Hindenburg Research report stated, among other things, that: (i) “Mullen [Automotive] claims its former pizza car manufacturing facility in Mississippi is stocked with state-of-the-art equipment and machinery, but photos and video of the facility show it has limited equipment” and that although Mullen Automotive’s “website features one photo of advanced manufacturing equipment,” an online search shows that “it was a stock photo which 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 meant to be rebranded and sold by Mullen [Automotive] starting in 2020,” but “[f]ollowing the reveal, Mullen [Automotive] immediately defaulted on its payment obligations to Qiantu, leading to termination of the agreement in October 2019” and yet Mullen Automotive “continued to market the vehicle as its own”; (iii) “[d]espite only spending ~$3 million in R&D in 2021, Mullen [Automotive] claims its solid-state battery technology is on track for commercialization in 18 to 24 months, putting it [a]head of every major technology and automaker in the industry who have collectively invested billions on solving the problem,” leading Hindenburg Research to conclude that “[w]e think Mullen [Automotive] has severely and repeatedly misled investors on its claimed battery technology”; and (iv) “[g]iven that Mullen [Automotive] has no apparent [U.S. Environmental Protection Agency] certificates, no apparent [Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards] testing and no apparent adequately staffed factory, we estimate that [Mullen Automotive] is years away from ever delivering a vehicle should it actually take genuine steps to do so.” On this news, Mullen Automotive’s stock price fell by approximately 10%, damaging investors.
THE LEAD PLAINTIFF PROCESS: The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 permits any investor who purchased Mullen Automotive securities during the Class Period to seek appointment as lead plaintiff in the Mullen Automotive class action lawsuit. A lead plaintiff is generally the movant with the greatest financial interest in the relief sought by the putative class who is also typical and adequate of the putative class. A lead plaintiff acts on behalf of all other class members in directing the Mullen Automotive class action lawsuit. The lead plaintiff can select a law firm of its choice to litigate the Mullen Automotive class action lawsuit. An investor’s ability to share in any potential future recovery of the Mullen Automotive class action lawsuit is not dependent upon serving as lead 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 #1 on 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 plaintiffs’ firm. With 200 lawyers in 9 offices, Robbins Geller’s attorneys have obtained many of the largest securities class action recoveries in history, including the largest securities class action recovery ever – $7.2 billion – in In re Enron Corp. Sec. Litig.