Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. Reminds Investors That Class Action Lawsuits Have Been Filed Against AcelRx, Rocket, 360 DigiTech, and Piedmont Lithium and Encourages Investors to Contact the Firm

NEW YORK, July 28, 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 AcelRx Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (NASDAQ: ACRX), Rocket Companies, Inc. (NYSE: RKT), 360 DigiTech, Inc. (NASDAQ: QFIN), and Piedmont Lithium Inc. (NASDAQ: PLL). 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.

AcelRx Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (NASDAQ: ACRX)

Class Period: March 17, 2020 to February 12, 2021

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: August 9, 2021

AcelRx is a specialty pharmaceutical company that focuses on the development and commercialization of therapies for the treatment of acute pain. The Company's lead product candidate is DSUVIA, a 30 mcg sufentanil sublingual tablet for the treatment of moderate-to-severe acute pain.

On November 2, 2018, AcelRx announced that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”) had approved DSUVIA for the management of acute pain in adults that is severe enough to require an opioid analgesic in certified medically supervised healthcare settings, such as hospitals, surgical centers, and emergency departments.

On February 16, 2021, AcelRx disclosed that, on February 11, 2021, the Company received a warning letter from the FDA concerning promotional claims for DSUVIA. Specifically, having “reviewed an ‘SDS Banner Ad’ (banner) (PM-US-DSV-0018) and a tabletop display (PM-US-DSV-0049) (display),” the FDA concluded that "[t]he promotional communications, the banner and display, make false or misleading claims and representations about the risks and efficacy of DSUVIA,” and “[t]hus . . . misbrand Dsuvia within the meaning of the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act) and make its distribution violative.” The warning letter “request[ed] that AcelRx cease any violations of the FD&C Act” and "submit a written response to th[e] letter within 15 days from the date of receipt."

On this news, AcelRx’s stock price fell $0.21 per share, or 8.37%, to close at $2.30 per share on February 16, 2021.

The complaint 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) AcelRx had deficient disclosure controls and procedures with respect to its marketing of DSUVIA; (ii) as a result, AcelRx had been making false or misleading claims and representations about the risks and efficacy of DSUVIA in certain advertisements and displays; (iii) the foregoing conduct subjected the Company to increased regulatory scrutiny and enforcement; and (iv) as a result, the Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

For more information on the AcelRx class action go to: https://bespc.com/cases/ACRX

Rocket Companies, Inc. (NYSE: RKT)

Class Period: February 25, 2021 to May 5, 2021

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: August 30, 2021

On May 5, 2021, Rocket Companies reported that it was on track to achieve closed loan volume within a range of only $82.5 billion and $87.5 billion and gain on sale margins within a range of only 2.65% to 2.95% for the second quarter of 2021. At the mid-point, this gain on sale margin estimate equated to a 239 basis point decline year-over-year and a 94 basis point decline sequentially, which represented Rocket Companies’ lowest quarterly gain on sale margin in two years. The stunning collapse in Rocket Companies’ gain on sale margin reflected the fact that the favorable market conditions purportedly being experienced by Rocket Companies during the Class Period had in fact reversed. During a conference call to explain the results, Rocket Companies’ Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer, defendant Julie R. Booth, revealed that the sharp decline in quarterly gain on sale margin was being caused by three factors: (i) pressure on loan pricing; (ii) a product mix shift to Rocket Companies’ lower margin Partner Network segment; and (iii) a compression in price spreads between the primary and secondary mortgage markets. Defendant Booth also admitted that certain of these trends began “at the end of Q1.”

On this news, the price of Rocket Companies Class A common stock fell by nearly 17% to close at $19.01 per share.

As the market continued to digest the news in the days that followed, the price of Rocket Companies Class A common stock continued to decline, falling to a low of just $16.48 per share by May 11, 2021.

The Rocket Companies class action lawsuit alleges that, throughout the Class Period, defendants made false and misleading statements and failed to disclose that: (i) Rocket Companies’ gain on sale margins were contracting at the highest rate in two years as a result of increased competition among mortgage lenders, an unfavorable shift toward the lower margin Partner Network operating segment and compression in the price spread between the primary and secondary mortgage markets; (ii) Rocket Companies was engaged in a price war and battle for market share with its primary competitors in the wholesale market, which was further compressing margins in Rocket Companies’ Partner Network operating segment; (iii) the adverse trends identified above were accelerating and, as a result, Rocket Companies’ gain on sale margins were on track to plummet at least 140 basis points in the first six months of 2021; (iv) as a result, the favorable market conditions that had preceded the Class Period and allowed Rocket Companies to achieve historically high gain on sale margins had vanished as Rocket Companies’ gain on sale margins had returned to levels not seen since the first quarter of 2019; (v) rather than remaining elevated due to surging demand, Rocket Companies’ company-wide gain-on-sale margins had fallen materially below pre-pandemic averages; and (vi) consequently, defendants’ positive statements about Rocket Companies’ business operations and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

For more information on the Rocket class action go to: https://bespc.com/cases/RKT

360 DigiTech, Inc. (NASDAQ: QFIN)

Class Period: April 30, 2020 and July 7, 2021

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: September 13, 2021

On July 8, 2021, reports circulated on social media to the effect that the Company's core product, the 360 IOU app, had been removed from major app stores. The reports came on the heels of the removal of other companies' apps as Chinese regulators investigated their customer data protection practices.

On this news, 360 DigiTech’s stock price fell $7.12 per share, or 21.48%, to close at $26.02 per share on July 8, 2021.

On July 9, 2021, Seeking Alpha reported that 360 DigiTech confirmed the removal of its 360 IOU app from the Android app store and quoted a Company spokesperson, who disclosed that the Company had “submitted a new rectification plan and stepped up the whole process.”

The complaint 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 Company had been collecting personal information in violation of relevant People’s Republic of China laws and regulations; (ii) accordingly, 360 DigiTech was exposed to an increased risk of regulatory scrutiny and/or enforcement action; and (iii) as a result, the Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

For more information on the 360 DigiTech class action go to: https://bespc.com/cases/QFIN

Piedmont Lithium Inc. (NASDAQ: PLL)

Class Period: March 16, 2018 and July 19, 2021

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: September 21, 2021

On July 20, 2021, before market hours, Reuters published an article entitled “In push to supply Tesla, Piedmont Lithium irks North Carolina neighbors.” Among other things, the article reported that “[t]he company […] has not applied for a state mining permit or a necessary zoning variance in Gaston County, just west of Charlotte, despite telling investors since 2018 that it was on the verge of doing so.” The article went on to report that “[f]ive of the seven members of the county’s board of commissioners, who control zoning changes, say they may block or delay the project[.]”

On this news, Piedmont shares fell $12.56 per share over the trading day, or nearly 20%, to close at $50.52 per share on July 20, 2021.

The complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Piedmont has not, and would not, follow its stated steps or timeline to secure all proper and necessary permits; (ii) Piedmont failed to inform relevant people and governmental authorities of its actual plans; (iii) Piedmont failed to file proper applications with relevant governmental authorities (including state and local authorities); (iv) Piedmont and its lithium business does not have “strong governmental support”; and (v) as a result, defendants' public statements were materially false and/or misleading at all relevant times.

For more information on the Piedmont Lithium class action go to: https://bespc.com/cases/PLL

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.

Contact Information:
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C.
Brandon Walker, Esq.
Melissa Fortunato, Esq.
Marion Passmore, Esq.
(212) 355-4648
investigations@bespc.com
www.bespc.com