A securities class action has been filed against Owlet, Inc. (OWLT) on behalf of persons and entities (a) that purchased or otherwise acquired Owlet securities between March 31, 2021 through October 4, 2021. This case has been filed in the USDC – C.D.CA.
On July 15, 2021, Sandbridge combined with Owlet Baby Care Inc., a company that designs and sells products and services for parents to proactively monitor the health and wellness of their children, and the combined company was renamed Owlet (the “Business Combination”).
On October 4, 2021, Owlet revealed that it had received a warning letter from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”), which stated that “the Company’s marketing of its Owlet Smart Sock product . . . renders [it] a medical device requiring premarket clearance or approval from FDA.” Owlet has not obtained such clearance or approval. Moreover, the FDA “requests the Company cease commercial distribution of the Smart Sock for uses in measuring blood oxygen saturation and pulse rate where such metrics are intended to identify or diagnose desaturation and bradycardia using an alarm functionality to notify users that measurements are outside of preset values.”
On this news, Owlet’s stock price fell $1.29, or 23%, to close at $4.19 per share on October 4, 2021, on unusually heavy trading volume. As a result, Sandbridge investors who could have voted against the Business Combination and redeemed their shares at $10.00 per share suffered a loss of $5.81 per share.
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 Owlet was reasonably likely to be required to obtain marketing authorization for the Smart Sock because the FDA concluded it was a medical device; (2) that, as a result, Owlet was reasonably likely to cease commercial distribution of the Smart Sock in the U.S. until it obtained the requisite approval; and (3) 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.