April 19, 2021 - An investor in shares of Arcimoto, Inc. (NASDAQ: FUV) filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York over alleged violations of Federal Securities Laws by Arcimoto, Inc. in connection with certain allegedly false and misleading statements made between February 14, 2018 and March 22, 2021.
Arcimoto, Inc. designs, develops, manufactures, and sells three-wheeled electric vehicles.
Arcimoto, Inc. reported that its annual Total Revenue rose from $0.98 million in 2019 to $2.17 million in 2020, and that its Net Loss rose from $15.34 million in 2019 to $18.12 million in 2020.
On March 23, 2021, Bonitas Research published a short-seller report on Arcimoto, Inc.. In the report, Bonitas alleges that Arcimoto, Inc. fabricated pre-orders to generate fake demand, only delivered on 19 of the 422 alleged pre-orders since 2018, sold a 13 of the 19 pre-orders to an undisclosed related party, and failed to notify customers that Arcimoto filed a total production recall notice with the United States Government’s federal agency, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.
Shares of Arcimoto, Inc. (NASDAQ: FUV) declined to as low as $12.40 per share on April 7, 2021.
According to the complaint the plaintiff alleges on behalf of purchasers of Arcimoto, Inc. (NASDAQ: FUV) common shares between February 14, 2018 and March 22, 2021, that the defendants violated Federal Securities Laws. More specifically, the plaintiff claims that between February 14, 2018 and March 22, 2021 the defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that the preorders of Arcimoto’s Fun Utility Vehicles (“FUVs”) were fabricated or never completed, with only 19 units delivered out of an alleged preorder of 422, that Arcimoto failed to disclose to customers that nearly 100% of its vehicles delivered were under safety recall, that Arcimoto’s largest customer, R-Key-Moto, was an undisclosed related party owned by insider FOD Capital, LLC, that Arcimoto’s partnership with HULA was an undisclosed related party transaction, and that as a result, defendants’ public statements were materially false and/or misleading at all relevant times.