Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. Reminds Investors That Class Action Lawsuits Have Been Filed Against Paysafe, Revance Therapeutics, and Cloopen Group and Encourages Investors to Contact the Firm

January 17, 2022 9:00 PM EST
Get Alerts PSFE Hot Sheet
Price: $2.67 +5.12%

Overall Analyst Rating:
    BUY (= Flat)

Trade Now! 
Join SI Premium – FREE

Get inside Wall Street with StreetInsider Premium. Claim your 1-week free trial here.

NEW YORK, Jan. 17, 2022 (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 Paysafe Limited (NYSE: PSFE), Revance Therapeutics, Inc. (NASDAQ: RVNC), and Cloopen Group Holding Limited (NYSE: RAAS). 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.

Paysafe Limited (NYSE: PSFE)

Class Period: December 7, 2020 – November 10, 2021

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: February 8, 2022

On March 30, 2021, Paysafe became a public entity via business combination with FTAC.

Then, on November 11, 2021, before the market opened, Paysafe announced that it was revising its revenue guidance for the full year 2021 downward from a range of $1,530 – $1,550 million to a range of $1,470 – $1,480 million. Paysafe attributed the revision to "[g]ambling regulations and softness in key European markets and performance challenges impacting the Digital Wallet segment" and "[t]he modified scope and timing of new eCommerce customer agreements relative to the Company’s original expectations for these agreements."

On this news, the Company’s share price fell $3.03 per share, or more than 40%, to close at $4.24 per share on November 11, 2021, on unusually heavy trading volume.

The complaint filed in this class action 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 that: (1) that Paysafe was being negatively impacted by gambling regulations in key European markets; (2) that Paysafe was encountering performance challenges in its Digital Wallet segment; (3) that new eCommerce customer agreements were being pushed back; and (4) 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 Paysafe class action go to: https://bespc.com/cases/PSFE

Revance Therapeutics, Inc. (NASDAQ: RVNC)

Class Period: November 25, 2019 – October 11, 2021

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: February 8, 2022

Revance, a biotechnology company, engages in the development, manufacture, and commercialization of neuromodulators for various aesthetic and therapeutic indications in the United States and internationally. The Company’s lead drug candidate is DaxibotulinumtoxinA for injection (“DAXI”), which has completed phase III clinical trials for the treatment of glabellar (frown) lines and cervical dystonia; is in phase II clinical trials to treat upper facial lines, moderate or severe dynamic forehead lines, and moderate or severe lateral canthal lines; and has completed Phase II clinical trials for the treatment of adult upper limb spasticity and plantar fasciitis.

On October 12, 2021, Revance disclosed that on July 2, 2021, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”) had issued a Form 483 notifying Revance of serious issues that the FDA had observed during its inspection of the Company’s Northern California DAXI manufacturing facility. Among other deficiencies, the FDA observed that “[t]he current manufacturing process is not the process proposed for licensure” and Revance’s “Quality Unit lacks the responsibility and authority for the control, review, and approval of outsourced activities[.]” Significantly, the Form 483 only came to light as a result of a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request directed to the FDA. On this news, the price of the Company’s shares declined by $6.85 per share, or approximately 25%, from $27.30 per share to close at $20.45 per share on October 12, 2021.

On October 15, 2021, Revance issued a press release announcing that it had received a Complete Response Letter (“CRL”) from the FDA, indicating that the FDA has determined “it is unable to approve the BLA in its present form and indicated that there are deficiencies related to the FDA’s onsite inspection at [Revance’s] manufacturing facility.” On this news, the price of the Company’s shares declined by $8.90 per share, or approximately 39.19%, from $22.71 per share to close at $13.81 per share on October 18, 2021.

The lawsuit alleges 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) quality control deficiencies existed at the Company’s manufacturing facility for DAXI; (ii) the foregoing deficiencies decreased the likelihood that the FDA would approve the DAXI BLA in its current form; (iii) accordingly, it was unlikely that the DAXI BLA would obtain FDA approval within the timeframe the Company had represented to investors; and (iv) as a result, the Company’s public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

For more information on the Revance Therapeutics class action go to: https://bespc.com/cases/RVNC

Cloopen Group Holding Limited (NYSE: RAAS)

Class Period: February 6, 2021 – May 10, 2021

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: February 8, 2022

Cloopen claims to be the largest multi-capability cloud-based communications solution provider in China. In its February 2021 United States IPO, Cloopen sold 23 million ADSs (including the full exercise of the underwriter defendants’ over-allotment option) at $16 per ADS, netting approximately $342 million in proceeds from the offering.

The Cloopen class action lawsuit alleges that the Registration Statement led Cloopen ADS purchasers to believe that Cloopen’s much-touted growth strategy, which relied upon cross-selling, up-selling, optimizing existing solutions, and developing new features, was effective. Indeed, as portrayed in the Registration Statement, Cloopen appeared to be retaining and even expanding its customer base, as well as maintaining its key sales metrics such as dollar-based net retention rate, which reflected its ability to increase existing customer revenue. Yet, Cloopen’s representations concerning its successful growth strategy were materially false and misleading. In fact, as the Cloopen class action lawsuit alleges, Cloopen’s growth strategy was not working and its existing customers were abandoning the company. The Cloopen class action lawsuit further alleges that Cloopen’s Registration Statement failed to disclose that an increasing number of its customers were refusing to pay, forcing Cloopen to record massive increases in its accounts receivables and allowance for doubtful accounts. The Registration Statement also allegedly failed to disclose that Cloopen was weighted down by massive liabilities related to the fair value of certain recently-granted warrants.

On March 26, 2021, just over six weeks after its IPO, Cloopen reported fourth quarter of 2020 revenues of just $39.6 million – $2 million shy of analysts’ consensus – net losses of $46.8 million, representing a 466.9% increase year-over-year, and operating expenses of $27.6 million, representing a 30% increase over fourth quarter of 2019. Cloopen blamed a "change in fair value of warrant liabilities of . . . $34.4 million" for Cloopen’s remarkable net loss and "an increase in the provision for doubtful accounts resulting from increased in accounts receivables" for the 59.2% increase in general and administrative expenses. On this news, the price of Cloopen’s ADSs fell by more than 18%.

Weeks later, as Cloopen belatedly revealed additional facts about its failed growth strategy and withering customer base, including that its dollar-based net retention rate by year end 2020 fell far below historical periods, Cloopen’s share price fell again.

At the time the Cloopen class action lawsuit was commenced, Cloopen’s share price has dropped as low as $2.70 per ADS, a decline of more than 80% from the $16 IPO price.

For more information on the Cloopen Group class action go to: https://bespc.com/cases/RAAS

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.
Alexandra B. Raymond, Esq.
(212) 355-4648
[email protected]
www.bespc.com




Serious News for Serious Traders! Try StreetInsider.com Premium Free!

You May Also Be Interested In





Related Categories

Globe Newswire, Press Releases

Related Entities

IPO, FDA