LMP Automotive, Inc. Class Action Lawsuit - LMPX
- Company Name
- LMP Automotive, Inc.
- Stock Symbol
- Class Period
- June 29, 2021 to May 19, 2022
- Motion Deadline
- July 26, 2022
- Southern District of Florida
The LMP Automotive class action lawsuit seeks to represent purchasers or acquirers of LMP Automotive Holdings, Inc. (NASDAQ: LMPX) securities between June 29, 2021 and May 19, 2022, inclusive (the “Class Period”). The LMP Automotive class action lawsuit – captioned Nguyen v. LMP Automotive Holdings, Inc., No. 22-cv-61019 (S.D. Fla.) – charges LMP Automotive and certain of its top executive officers with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
If you suffered substantial losses and wish to serve as lead plaintiff of the LMP 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 LMP Automotive class action lawsuit must be filed with the court no later than July 26, 2022.
CASE ALLEGATIONS: LMP Automotive offers customers the ability to buy, sell, rent and subscribe for, and obtain financing for automobiles online and in person.
But as the LMP Automotive class action lawsuit alleges, throughout the Class Period, defendants made false and misleading statements and failed to disclose that: (i) LMP Automotive engaged in the improper identification and elimination of intercompany transactions; (ii) LMP Automotive used incorrect estimates for chargeback reserves for finance and insurance products; (iii) LMP Automotive had misclassified certain items in its financial statements which impacted balance sheet and income statement financial statement captions; (iv) there were material weaknesses in LMP Automotive’s internal control over financial reporting; (v) as a result, LMP Automotive overstated its revenue; (vi) thus, LMP Automotive would restate certain of its previously issued financial statements and results; and (vii) consequently, defendants’ positive statements about LMP Automotive’s business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.
On November 16, 2021, LMP Automotive filed a notification of inability to timely file its quarterly report for the third quarter of 2021. LMP Automotive also identified several material weaknesses in its internal control over financial reporting. On this news, LMP Automotive’s stock price fell by more than 5%.
Then, on March 31, 2022, LMP Automotive revealed that it could not timely file its fiscal 2021 annual report “primarily [as] a result of its ongoing evaluation of (i) the proper identification and elimination of intercompany transactions, (ii) estimates of chargeback reserves for finance and insurance products and (iii) various financial presentation matters related to [LMP Automotive’s] business, including as it relates to the presentation, characterization and amounts of such items in prior fiscal quarters.” On this news, LMP Automotive’s stock price fell by nearly 4%.
Thereafter, on May 17, 2022, LMP Automotive disclosed that it could not timely file its first quarter of 2021 quarterly report due to the previously announced ongoing evaluation. LMP Automotive further disclosed that due to errors in its quarterly reports during fiscal year 2021, such reports “will likely need to be restated.” LMP Automotive also disclosed that these errors may impact “certain previously disclosed material weaknesses in [LMP Automotive’s] controls over financial reporting.” On this news, LMP Automotive’s stock price fell again.
Finally, on May 19, 2022, LMP Automotive revealed that it would restate the financial statements for quarterly periods in fiscal 2021 “primarily due to the following errors: (i) the improper identification and elimination of intercompany transactions, (ii) incorrect estimates of chargeback reserves for finance and insurance products, and (iii) certain financial statement misclassifications impacting various balance sheet and income statement financial statement captions in the Relevant Periods.” These results caused a decrease in total revenues up to $15 million for the third quarter of 2021, up to $8 million for the second quarter of 2021, and up to $1 million for the first quarter of 2021. As a result, LMP Automotive stated that “material weaknesses exist in [LMP Automotive’s] internal control over financial reporting and that [LMP Automotive’s] disclosure controls and procedures were not effective.” On this news, LMP Automotive’s stock price fell by more than 4%, further damaging investors.
THE LEAD PLAINTIFF PROCESS: The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 permits any investor who purchased LMP Automotive securities during the Class Period to seek appointment as lead plaintiff. 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 class action lawsuit. The lead plaintiff can select a law firm of its choice to litigate the class action lawsuit. An investor’s ability to share in any potential future recovery 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 is one of the largest plaintiffs’ firms in the world and the Firm’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.