NEW YORK, Sept. 15, 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 Piedmont Lithium Inc. (NASDAQ: PLL), Iterum Therapeutics plc (NASDAQ: ITRM), and HyreCar Inc. (NASDAQ: HYRE). 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.

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

Iterum Therapeutics plc (NASDAQ: ITRM)

Class Period: November 30, 2020 to July 23, 2021

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: October 4, 2021

On July 1, 2021, Iterum issued a press release “announc[ing] that the Company received a letter from the [U.S. Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”)] stating that, as part of their ongoing review of the [sulopenem New Drug Application “NDA”], the agency has identified deficiencies that preclude the continuation of the discussion of labeling and post marketing requirements/commitments at this time.”

On this news, Iterum’s ordinary share price fell $0.87 per share, or 37.99%, to close at $1.42 per share on July 2, 2021.

Then, on July 26, 2021, Iterum issued a press release announcing that it had received a Complete Response Letter from the FDA for the sulopenem NDA, “provid[ing] that the FDA has completed its review of the NDA and has determined that it cannot approve the NDA in its present form.”

On this news, Iterum’s ordinary share price fell $0.499 per share, or 44.16%, to close at $0.631 per share on July 26, 2021.

The complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) the sulopenem (“NDA”) lacked sufficient data to support approval for the treatment of adult women with uncomplicated urinary tract infections (“uUTIs”) caused by designated susceptible microorganisms proven or strongly suspected to be non-susceptible to a quinolone; (ii) accordingly, it was unlikely that the FDA would approve the sulopenem NDA in its current form; (iii) defendants downplayed the severity of issued and deficiencies associated with the sulopenem NDA; and (iv) as a result, the Company’s public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

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

HyreCar Inc. (NASDAQ: HYRE)

Class Period: May 14, 2020 to August 10, 2021

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: October 26, 2021

On August 10, 2021, HyreCar announced deeply disappointing results for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2021 (“Q2 2021”), including net losses of $9.3 million compared to losses of $3.8 million in the same period the prior year. Furthermore, HyreCar’s adjusted EBITDA loss for Q2 2021 was $7.1 million (four times higher than the $1.7 million adjusted EBITDA loss experienced in the second quarter of 2020) and its gross profit for Q2 2021 was just $0.8 million (less than one third HyreCar’s gross profit in the second quarter of 2020), with a gross profit margin of just 24%. Contemporaneously with the release, HyreCar disclosed that HyreCar had incurred skyrocketing costs of revenue during the quarter primarily as a result of significantly higher insurance claims incidence, including claims before March 31, 2021 “in excess of the reserves.” During HyreCar’s earnings call, executives revealed that HyreCar had been forced to revamp its claims processes and procedures and improve its risk price adjustments for policies issued by HyreCar. And when asked whether HyreCar was actually on track to achieve 45% to 50% gross margins in the near term as previously represented, HyreCar’s CFO essentially withdrew this goal, calling it a “shoot for the sky” aim and stating that “shooting for margin upwards of 40%” was more realistic.

On this news, HyreCar’s stock price fell $9.27 per share, nearly 50%, closing at $9.85 per share on August 11, 2021.

The complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, defendants made false and misleading statements and failed to disclose that: (i) HyreCar had materially understated its insurance reserves; (ii) HyreCar had systematically failed to pay valid insurance claims incurred prior to the Class Period; (iii) HyreCar had incurred significant expenses transitioning to its new third-party insurance claims administrator and processing claims incurred from prior periods; (iv) HyreCar had failed to appropriately price risk in its insurance products and was experiencing elevated claims incidence as a result; (v) HyreCar had been forced to dramatically reform its claims underwriting, policies, and procedures in response to unacceptably high claims severity and customer complaints; and (vi) as a result, HyreCar's operations and prospects were misrepresented because HyreCar was not on track to meet the financial estimates provided to investors during the Class Period, and such estimates lacked a reasonable basis in fact, including HyreCar’s purported gross margin, earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation, and amortization (“EBITDA”), and net loss trajectories.

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

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
[email protected]
www.bespc.com