Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. Reminds Investors That Class Action Lawsuits Have Been Filed Against FibroGen, Canaan, Credit Suisse, and Franklin Wireless and Encourages Investors to Contact the Firm

NEW YORK, May 13, 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 FibroGen, Inc. (NASDAQ: FGEN), Canaan, Inc. (NASDAQ: CAN), Credit Suisse Group AG (NYSE: CS), and Franklin Wireless Corp. (NASDAQ: FKWL). 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.

FibroGen, Inc. (NAADSAQ: FGEN)

Class Period: November 8, 2019 to April 6, 2021

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: June 11, 2021

On August 18, 2019, the Company issued a press release announcing, “Positive Phase 3 Pooled Roxadustat Safety and Efficacy Results” and that shortly thereafter on December 23, 2019, FibroGen announced that it had submitted a New Drug Application to the Food and Drug Administration for roxadustat.

On April 6, 2021, the Company revealed that its previously disclosed safety data included undisclosed post-hoc changes to the stratification factors and did not include analyses based on the pre-specified stratification factors. As a result of these changes, FibroGen was forced to concede that roxadustat, contrary to prior representations, did not reduce the risk of cardiovascular events or hospitalization as compared to a currently approved anemia injection used as a control based on pre-specified stratification factors.

On this news, the Company’s share price fell $14.90, or 43%, to close at $19.74 per share on April 7, 2021.

The complaint, filed on April 12, 2021, alleges that defendants failed to disclose to investors: (i) that the Company’s prior disclosures of U.S. primary cardiovascular safety analyses from the roxadustat Phase 3 program for the treatment of anemia of CKD included post-hoc changes to the stratification factors; (ii) that FibroGen’s analyses with the pre-specified stratification factors result in higher hazard ratios (point estimates of relative risk) and 95% confidence intervals; (iii) that, based on these analyses, the Company could not conclude that roxadustat reduces the risk of (or is superior to) MACE+ in dialysis, and MACE and MACE+ in incident dialysis compared to epoetin-alfa; (iv) that, as a result, the Company faced significant uncertainty that its NDA for roxadustat as a treatment for anemia of CKD would be approved by the FDA; and (v) that, as a result of the foregoing, defendants’ statements about the Company's business, operations and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

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

Canaan, Inc. (NASDAQ: CAN)

Class Period: February 10, 2021 to April 9, 2021

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: June 14, 2021

Canaan designs, manufactures and sells bitcoin mining machines, primarily in the Peoples Republic of China (the “PRC”). It is organized under the laws of the Cayman Islands, headquartered in Hangzhon PRC and its ADRs are listed and trade on the NASDAQ Global Market.

On Monday, April 12, 2021, Canaan issued a press release finally disclosing its actual 4Q20 and FY20 financial results for the period ended December 31, 2020, including a 93% year-over-year decrease in computing power sold and net revenues for the quarter.

On this news, the market price of Canaan ADRs collapsed from their close of $18.67 per ADR on April 9, 2021 to close at $13.14 per ADR on April 12, 2021, a decline of nearly 30%.

The complaint, filed on April 15, 2021, alleges that the statements Canaan issued during the Class Period about the Company’s business metrics and financial prospects were materially false and misleading in that they concealed that due to ongoing supply chain disruptions and the introduction of the Company’s next-generation A12 series bitcoin mining machines – which had cannibalized sales of the older product offerings – Canaan’s 4Q20 sales had declined more than 93% year-over-year compared to its fourth quarter fiscal year 2019 (“4Q19”) sales and more than 93% quarter-over-quarter compared to its third quarter FY20 (“3Q20”) sales. As a result, Canaan’s 4Q20 total net revenues had decreased to RMB38.2 million (US$5.9 million) from RMB463.2 million in the 4Q19 and RMB163.0 million in the 3Q20.

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

Credit Suisse Group AG (NYSE: CS)

Class Period: October 29, 2020 to March 31, 2021

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: June 15, 2021

The complaint, filed on April 16, 2021, alleges that during the Class Period defendants issued materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company’s business metrics and financial prospects. Specifically, defendants concealed material defects in the Company’s risk policies and procedures and compliance oversight functions and efforts to allow high-risk clients to take on excessive leverage, including Greensill Capital (“Greensill”) and Archegos Capital Management (“Archegos”), exposing the Company to billions of dollars in losses.

As a result of defendants’ false statements, Credit Suisse ADRs traded at artificially inflated prices, reaching a high of $14.95 per ADR by February 2021.

Subsequently, Credit Suisse revealed billions of dollars in losses tied to the collapse of its Greensill-linked funds and the implosion of total return swap positions Credit Suisse had entered into with Archegos.

These corporate scandals have revealed grave deficiencies in Credit Suisse’s risk and compliance activities, causing the price of Credit Suisse ADRs to plummet, reaching a low of just $10.60 per ADR by March 31, 2021.

For more information on the Credit Suisse class action go to: https://bespc.com/cases/CS

Franklin Wireless, Inc. (NADSAQ: FKWL)

Class Period: September 17, 2020 to April 8, 2021

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: June 15, 2021

Franklin purports to be a leading provider of intelligent wireless solutions such as mobile hotspots, routers, trackers, and other devices.

On April 1, 2021, Franklin stated that it “ha[d] been notified of reports of battery issues in some of its wireless hotspot devices.” It also stated that the Company was “working with its battery and device manufacturing partners and carrier customer to determine the cause and extent of the problem.”

On this news, the Company’s share price fell $0.35, or 1.65%, to close at $20.77 per share on April 5, 2021, the next trading session.

On April 8, 2021, media reported that Verizon Wireless is recalling certain hotspot devices. According to CNBC, Verizon “is recalling 2.5 million hotspot devices after discovering that the lithium ion battery can overheat, creating a fire and burning hazard.” Moreover, the “recall impacts Ellipsis Jetpack mobile hotspots imported by Franklin Wireless Corp. and sold between April 2017 and March 2021.”

On this news, the Company’s share price fell $2.82, or 14%, to close at $17.33 per share on April 8, 2021.

On April 9, 2021, Franklin stated that its customer Verizon Wireless “has issued a voluntary recall of its Jetpack Hotspot devices imported by Franklin.” The Company stated that “[a]t this time, fewer than 20 reports of trouble have been received with over 2 million devices in [sic] sold over the last three and a half years.”

On this news, the Company’s share price fell $4.07, or nearly 23%, to close at $13.26 per share on April 9, 2021.

The complaint, filed on April 16, 2021, 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 Franklin’s hotspot devices suffered from battery issues, including overheating, thereby presenting a fire hazard; (2) that, as a result, it was reasonably likely that the Company’s customers would recall Franklin’s devices; (3) that, as a result, Franklin would suffer reputational harm; 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 Franklin class action go to: https://bespc.com/cases/FKWL

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