Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. Reminds Investors That Class Action Lawsuits Have Been Filed Against Li Auto, Sprout Social, Inari, and UnitedHealth and Encourages Investors to Contact the Firm

NEW YORK, June 03, 2024 (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 Li Auto Inc. (NASDAQ: LI), Sprout Social, Inc. (NASDAQ: SPT), Inari Medical, Inc. (NASDAQ: NARI), and UnitedHealth Group Incorporated (NYSE: UNH). 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.

Li Auto Inc. (NASDAQ: LI)

Class Period: February 26, 2024 - March 20, 2024

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: July 9, 2024

Li Auto operates in the energy vehicle market in the People's Republic of China and designs, develops, manufactures, and sells smart electric vehicles. The Company's product line includes multi-purpose vehicles and sport utility vehicles.

In early 2024, Li Auto made a series of announcements touting the purportedly high demand for its electric vehicles and representing that the Company was "consistently improving operating efficiency throughout the year." In late February 2024, Li Auto announced that it expected to deliver between 100,000 and 103,000 vehicles in the first quarter of 2024, "representing an increase of 90.2% to 95.9% from the first quarter of 2023." Shortly thereafter, on March 1, 2024, Li Auto launched its first battery electric vehicle model, the Li MEGA. According to the Company, the Li MEGA "provides big families with a blend of energy replenishment experience as efficient as traditional [internal combustion engine] vehicle refueling, next-generation design and exceptionally low drag coefficient, roomy and comfortable space, flagship-level performance and safety features, and superior intelligent experience."

Throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Li Auto had overstated the demand for its vehicles and the efficacy of its operating strategy in launching the Li MEGA; (ii) accordingly, the Company was unlikely to meet its Q1 2024 vehicle deliveries estimate; (iii) the foregoing, once revealed, was likely to have a material negative impact on the Company's financial condition; and (iv) as a result, the Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

On March 21, 2024, Li Auto issued a press release disclosing that, "[d]ue to lower-than-expected order intake, the Company now expects its vehicle deliveries for the first quarter of 2024 to be between 76,000 and 78,000 vehicles, revised from the previous vehicle delivery outlook of between 100,000 and 103,000 vehicles." In addition, the Company stated that the Li MEGA had an operating strategy that was "mis-paced," noting that operations were planned as if the model had already entered the "scaling phase" of sales-that is, the phase focusing mainly on customer acquisition, team building, and operational efficiency for sustainable growth-while it was still in the early "validation" period, during which the Company would focus on creating a product market fit by idea validation and product refinement. Further, the Company stated that it will revert to the validation phase of sales by shifting its focus toward its core user group, target sales to cities with stronger purchasing power, and then will look to expand to a broader user base.

On this news, Li Auto's American Depositary Share ("ADS") price fell $2.55 per ADS, or 7.48%, to close at $31.53 per ADS on March 21, 2024.

For more information on the Li Auto class action go to: https://bespc.com/cases/LI

Sprout Social, Inc. (NASDAQ: SPT)

Class Period: November 2, 2023 - May 2, 2024

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: July 12, 2024

On May 2, 2024, after the markets closed, Sprout Social announced the Company’s operating results for the first fiscal quarter of 2024, disclosing that the Company had missed its revenue guidance for the quarter. The company also revised its full year 2024 revenue guidance downward $20 million. The Company’s Chief Financial Officer (“CFO”) Joe Del Preto (“Del Preto”) stated the Company had “underestimated the magnitude of enterprise seasonality” and that the Company had also been “self-inducing sales execution headwinds.” During the earnings call held on the same day, the Company’s Present and incoming Chief Executive Officer (“CEO”), Ryan Barretto (“Barretto”) disclosed that the Company “made several important strategic decisions heading into Q1” which the Company “thought [it] could manage [] without disruption, but they collectively set us back.” Barretto stated these decisions “happened in Q4 and the execution of it happened in Q1.” Barretto further disclosed the Company’s shift in business had “changed materially” and “affect[ed] revenue recognition and planning” which would now be “heavily weighted to traditional enterprise buying cycles.” Justyn Howard (“Howard”), the Company’s current CEO, also disclosed that the Company had to spend “energy and calorie” in the first quarter on “tactical decisions” including “spending time with the team on Tagger enablement.” Barretto explained further, stating “[f]rom a sales team perspective, the maturity of the sales team, we did a lot of enablement in Q1 across our entire customer-facing or to make sure that we are up to speed with all of the elements of influencer and our Tagger platform.”

On this news, Sprout Social’s stock price fell $19.33, or 40.1%, to close at $28.82 per share on May 3, 2024, 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: (1) the Company’s sales and revenue growth were not indicative of the Company’s growth as it transitioned to an enterprise sales cycle; (2) that the Company faced integration challenges with its acquisition of Tagger; (3) as a result, the Company was “self inducing sales headwinds;” (4) as a result, the Company would revise fiscal year 2024 revenue guidance; and (5) 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 Sprout Social class action go to: https://bespc.com/cases/SPT

Inari Medical, Inc. (NASDAQ: NARI)

Class Period: February 24, 2022 - February 28, 2024 (Common Stock Only)

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: July 12, 2024

Inari is a medical device company that develops and manufactures a variety of products, including minimally invasive, novel, catheter-based mechanical thrombectomy devices and their accessories to address the unique characteristics of specific medical conditions. These products are aimed at improving outcomes for patients suffering from venous thromboembolism (“VTE”) and other vascular diseases and conditions. During the Class Period, Defendants consistently touted Inari’s “record revenue,” purportedly driven by “the strength in our core VTE business.” But Defendants failed to disclose that a significant portion of its expenses were used to compensate medical professionals improperly for using Inari’s products. In truth, while Defendants were speaking positively about the Company’s growth prospects, it had been engaging in illegal business practices. Specifically, the Company had been unlawfully compensating health care professionals in violation of the federal Anti-Kickback Statute and Civil False Claims Act. Defendants also misled investors regarding business expenses in order to conceal their illicit conduct.

The market was thus shocked when, after the close of trading on February 28, 2024, Inari revealed in its Form 10-K for fiscal year 2023 that it had received a civil investigative demand from the U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division, in connection with an investigation under the federal Anti-Kickback Statute and Civil False Claims Act, requesting information and documents primarily relating to meals and consulting service payments provided to health care professionals.

On this news, Inari’s stock price plummeted over $12 per share or 21% the very next trading day – from a closing price of $58.26 per share on February 28, 2024 to $46.12 per share on February 29, 2024 – wiping out approximately $700 million in market capitalization in one trading day and damaging investors.

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

UnitedHealth Group Incorporated (NYSE: UNH)

Class Period: March 14, 2022, - February 27, 2024 (Common Stock Only)

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: July 16, 2024

UnitedHealth is an American multinational health insurance and services company comprised of two distinct and complementary businesses: Optum and UnitedHealthcare. UnitedHealthcare provides health insurance to individuals, employers, and small businesses and is the largest insurance provider in the United States. Optum provides healthcare-related services, including software solutions, payment services, and data analytics.

On January 6, 2021, UnitedHealth announced an agreement to acquire Change Healthcare (“Change”) and integrate it into its Optum business. Change is a healthcare technology company that provides data solutions aimed at improving clinical decision making and simplifying payment processes across the healthcare system. On February 24, 2022, the U.S. Department of Justice (“DOJ”) filed a lawsuit challenging UnitedHealth’s acquisition of Change. The DOJ alleged that the proposed acquisition would violate antitrust laws because the integration of Change and Optum would give UnitedHealth unparalleled access to information regarding nearly every health insurer, as well as health data on every single American. Ultimately, the court in the DOJ action permitted the acquisition, repeatedly crediting UnitedHealth’s firewall policy and commitment to preventing the sharing of data between UnitedHealthcare and Optum as the rationale for allowing the deal to proceed.

The complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, UnitedHealth repeatedly assured investors that it had taken steps to avoid anti-competitive behavior, including by setting up “robust firewall processes” to prevent customer sensitive information (“CSI”) from being shared between UnitedHealthcare and Optum after the merger. Specifically, UnitedHealth explicitly stated that Optum “invests extraordinary time, money, and resources into safeguarding [CSI] and keeping it walled off from UnitedHealthcare” and that “UnitedHealth Group’s existing firewalls and data-security policies prohibit employees from improperly sharing external-customer CSI.” As a result of these misrepresentations, UnitedHealth stock traded at artificially inflated prices during the Class Period.

The complaint further alleges that the truth emerged on February 27, 2024, when the Wall Street Journal reported that the DOJ had re-opened its antitrust investigation into UnitedHealth. In that article, the public learned for the first time that the DOJ was investigating the relationships between the Company’s various segments, including Optum. As a result of this disclosure, the price of UnitedHealth stock declined by $27 per share, erasing nearly $25 billion in shareholder value.

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

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. Marion Passmore, Esq.
(212) 355-4648
[email protected]
www.bespc.com

Source: Bragar Eagel & Squire