NEW YORK, October 17, 2020 / PRNewswire / – Pomerantz LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed against Blink Charging Company (“Blink” or the “Company”) (NASDAQ: BLNK) and certain of its officers. The class action, filed in United States District Court of the Southern District of Florida, and listed as 20-cv-23643, is in the name of a class consisting of all persons other than defendants who have purchased or otherwise acquired Blinksecurities between March 6, 2020, and August 19, 2020, inclusive (the “Class Period”). This action is brought on behalf of the Class for violation of Sections 10 (b) and 20 (a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”), 15 USC §§ 78j (b) and 78t (a) and rule 10b-5 promulgated by the SEC, 17 CFR § 240.10b-5.
If you are a shareholder who purchased Blink Securities during the Class Period, you have until 23 october 2020, to ask the Court to appoint you as the principal plaintiff in the class. A copy of the complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com. To discuss this action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at [email protected] or 888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll free, Ext. 7980. Those inquiring by e-mail are encouraged to include their mailing address, phone number and number of shares purchased.
[Click here for information about joining the class action]
According to its latest annual report filed on Form 10-K with the SEC, Blink claims to be “one of the principal owners, operators and suppliers of ‘electric vehicle (‘ EV ‘) charging equipment and charging services. Blink offers both residential and commercial electric vehicle charging equipment, allowing electric vehicle drivers to easily charge in a variety of locations.
Recently, Blink touted the alleged growth of its electric vehicle charging network, claiming that “drivers can easily charge at any [Blink’s] 15,000 charging stations. “Over the past few months, Blink’s share price has risen from around $ 1.40 at $ 3.12 per share at an intraday high of $ 14.58 per share on July 30, 2020.
The complaint alleges that throughout the class action period, the defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding the business of the company. Specifically, the defendants have made false and / or misleading statements and / or failed to disclose that: (i) many of Blink’s charging stations are damaged, neglected, non-functional, inaccessible or inaccessible; (ii) Blink’s purported partnerships and expansions with other companies were overstated; (iii) the alleged growth of the Company’s network has been overestimated; and (iv) therefore, the Company’s public statements were materially false and misleading at all material times.
Culper went on to detail which of the 242 stations his investigators visited in the Atlanta, Chicago, Miami, and San Diego metropolitan areas, twenty-three times (9.5% of total), Blink’s map claimed there were chargers on site, but Culper investigators were unable to locate chargers or locate all chargers claimed. In thirty-nine cases (16.1% of the total), Culper investigators “found magazines which, even if they existed, were visibly damaged and / or non-functional,” and that “[a]While many of these chargers have been left in the elements for almost a decade, the most common warping has been due to sun damage and heat. In addition, in 18 other cases (7.4% of the total), Culper investigators “found that inaccessible to the general public,” and that “[m]one of them was behind locked garages or restricted only to the use of employees (in office buildings) or residents (in condominiums or apartments).In short, our sample suggests that of the 3,275 chargers listed on the company’s map, only 67%, or 2,192 exist, are functional and accessible to the public.”
The Culper report included photos, from several locations, of Blink chargers that were severely damaged, inaccessible and / or non-functional. It also included details of interviews with parking attendants and other locals who described lack of use and / or other issues with the Blink chargers.
Also on August 19, 2020, analyst Mariner Research Group (“Mariner”) released another report that was very critical of Blink. Mariner wrote that “Blink’s revenue growth has lagged significantly in the electric vehicle industry – but CEO Farkas did>$ 7 million in compensation during this period. We believe this is due to persistent issues related to product quality, customer churn rate and user experience, and believe these issues will continue to hamper [Blink]the growth. “
Mariner concluded: “[W]We believe the business should be valued at its liquidation, or book value, of only 17c in a downward and downward scenario. $ 2 one part in a bull case scenario. . . . The average of our target prices produces a baseline goal of $ 1.09, a decrease of 91% compared to 08/18/20 To close.”
On this news, Blink’s share price fell from its Aug 18, 2020 closing price of $ 10.23 per share to a August 20, 2020 closing price of $ 7.94 per share. This represents a two-day drop of about 22.4%. Indeed, the intraday price on August 20, 2020 reached as low as $ 6.42 per share.
The Pomerantz firm, with offices in New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, and Paris is recognized as one of the leading companies in the areas of corporate, securities and antitrust litigation. Founded by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as the dean of the class action bar, Pomerantz was a pioneer in the field of class actions in securities. Today, more than 80 years later, Pomerantz continues the tradition it established, fighting for the rights of victims of securities fraud, breach of fiduciary duty and professional misconduct. The firm has recovered numerous indemnities of several million dollars on behalf of the members of the group. See www.pomerantzlaw.com.
Robert S. Willoughby
SOURCE Pomerantz LLP