Tag: class action

  • Call for Class Action Status in Juul Overpayment Lawsuits

    Call for Class Action Status in Juul Overpayment Lawsuits

    Lawyers representing U.S. consumers who say they overpaid for Juul Labs’ e-cigarettes on Dec. 6 urged a federal judge to certify their claims as a class action, reports Reuters. Juul argues that the plaintiffs should proceed individually because they bought Juul products under differing circumstances.

    Credit: Steheap

    More than 2,800 cases have been consolidated in the multidistrict litigation against Juul, its largest shareholder Altria Group and several individual officers and directors. They include both personal injury claims and claims of economic loss by people who say they would have paid less, or not bought the e-cigarettes at all, if Juul had not downplayed their addictiveness and appealed to teenagers through social media campaigns and other means.

    The plaintiffs are seeking partial refunds for adult purchasers and full refunds for underage purchasers.

    Gregory Stone of Munger, Tolles & Olson, representing Juul, said the plaintiffs’ case rested on whether Juul’s marketing was misleading, whether it targeted teenagers, whether buyers were actually misled and whether the marketing affected their buying decisions.

    In a tentative opinion, U.S. District Judge William Orrick said that he was inclined to grant class certification.

  • Plaintiffs Sought in RLX Technology Class-Action Suit

    Plaintiffs Sought in RLX Technology Class-Action Suit

    Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP are now seeking additional plaintiffs for a federal securities class action lawsuit that has been filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of investors that purchased RLX Technology Inc. The lawsuit was filed by Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP on behalf of investors.

    The filed complaint alleges that the Registration Statement misrepresented and omitted, among other things, RLX’s exposure to China’s then-existing campaign to establish a national standard for e-cigarettes that would bring them into line with regular cigarette regulations, according to a press release.

    “The truth was revealed when draft regulations were posted by the Ministry of Industry and Information Technology, before the market opened on March 22, 2021, eight weeks after RLX’s IPO, which confirmed e-cigarettes and new tobacco products would be regulated similar to traditional tobacco offerings,” the release states.

    Following the news out of China, the price of RLX’s shares suffered an enormous decline. On March 22, 2021, RLX’s ADR closed at $10.15 per share, down nearly 48 percent from its previous close of $19.46 on March 19, 2021, the previous trading day.

  • Class-Action Lawsuit Filed by RLX Investor

    Class-Action Lawsuit Filed by RLX Investor

    RLX Technology is facing a class-action lawsuit started by an investor who claims the Chinese e-cigarette manufacturer overstated its financials and misrepresented potential regulatory risks when it filed the paperwork for its initial public offering (IPO) in the U.S.

    Credit: Zerbor

    The lawsuit, submitted Wednesday by shareholder Alex Garnett in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, alleges RLX’s registration statement from last October omitted the impact of ongoing efforts by Chinese regulators to tighten sales of electronic cigarettes, according to an article in The Wall Street Journal.

    The case is captioned Garnett v. RLX Technology Inc., No. 21-cv-05125, and is assigned to Judge Paul A. Engelmayer. The RLX Technology class-action lawsuit charges that the company, certain members of its officers and directors, and the underwriters of its IPO with violations of the Securities Act of 1933.

    Companies under rules established by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission have to disclose any known events or uncertainties that at the time of an IPO caused or were likely to not represent future earnings. RLX stock fell sharply in March after Chinese authorities announced their intent to more heavily regulate the Chinese vapor market. Garnett filed the lawsuit on behalf of other RLX investors.

    The lawsuit alleges investors purchased RLX shares at artificially inflated prices, in part because the company omitted and misrepresented information in the registration statement. As the stock price dropped, RLX investors lost hundreds of millions of dollars, the lawsuit states.

    At least two other law firms in recent weeks said they are investigating on behalf of investors to determine whether RLX failed to disclose relevant information to investors. Rosen Law Firm and Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, among others, are reportedly seeking RLX investors who want to join the class-action suit.

    RLX on June 2 reported revenue of CNY2.4 billion ($366.1 million), for the quarter ended March 31, up from CNY368.6 million the prior-year period. The company booked a net loss of CNY267 million, compared with a profit of CNY12.1 million during the prior-year quarter.