Workflow
ROSEN, A LEADING INVESTOR RIGHTS LAW FIRM, Encourages Mullen Automotive, Inc. f/k/a Net Element, Inc. Investors to Secure Counsel Before Important Deadline in Securities Class Action – MULN, NETE
LAWCS Disco(LAW) GlobeNewswire News Room·2025-02-27 19:40

Core Viewpoint - Rosen Law Firm is reminding investors who purchased Mullen Automotive, Inc. securities during the specified Class Period of the upcoming lead plaintiff deadline on April 14, 2025 [1]. Group 1: Class Action Details - Investors who purchased Mullen securities between February 3, 2023, and March 13, 2024, may be entitled to compensation without any out-of-pocket fees through a contingency fee arrangement [2]. - A class action lawsuit has already been filed, and interested parties can join by contacting the law firm or visiting their website [3][6]. - The lead plaintiff must file a motion with the Court by April 14, 2025, to represent other class members in the litigation [3]. Group 2: Law Firm Credentials - Rosen Law Firm has a strong track record in securities class actions, having achieved the largest settlement against a Chinese company at the time and being ranked No. 1 for securities class action settlements in 2017 [4]. - The firm has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for investors, including over $438 million in 2019 alone [4]. - Founding partner Laurence Rosen was recognized as a Titan of Plaintiffs' Bar by Law360 in 2020, and many attorneys at the firm have received accolades from Lawdragon and Super Lawyers [4]. Group 3: Case Allegations - The lawsuit alleges that Mullen made false and misleading statements regarding its intentions for a reverse stock split, overstated partnerships and battery technology capabilities, and failed to disclose material information about financing agreements [5]. - Specific allegations include the CEO's knowledge of the necessity for a reverse stock split and the failure to disclose prior convictions of a key individual involved with the company [5]. - The lawsuit claims that these misleading statements resulted in investor damages when the true information became public [5].