Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit Against NIO Inc

NIO 7 Day : 4.6%

1 Year : -47.6%

Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP announced that it has filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, captioned Saye v. Nio Inc., et al., Case No. 22- cv-7252, on behalf of persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired NIO Inc. securities between March 1, 2021 and July 11, 2022, inclusive. Plaintiff pursues claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Investors are hereby notified that they have 60 days from this notice to move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff in this action. On June 28, 2022, Grizzly Research published a report alleging, among other things, that NIO inflated its net income by about 95% through sales to a related party, Wuhan Weineng Battery Asset Co. (“Weineng”). On this news, the Company’s American Depositary Shares (“ADSs” or “shares”) fell $0.59, or 2.5%, to close at $22.36 per share on June 28, 2022, on unusually heavy trading volume. Then, on July 11, 2022, NIO announced that it formed a special committee to oversee an investigation into the allegations in the Grizzly Research report. On this news, the Company’s shares fell $2.03, or 8.9% to close at $20.57 per share on July 11, 2022, 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) that NIO pulled forward revenue by selling batteries to a related party, which owned the batteries and managed users’ subscriptions; (2) that, through the related party, NIO also recognized enormous depreciation savings; (3) that, as a result of the foregoing, the Company’s revenue and net loss was overstated; 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.