INVESTOR ALERT Investors in Mullen Automotive, Inc. f/k/a Net Element, Inc. with Substantial Losses Have Opportunity to Lead Mullen Automotive Class Action Lawsuit – MULN

The law firm of Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP announces that purchasers of Mullen Automotive, Inc. f/k/a Net Element, Inc. (NASDAQ: MULN) securities between June 15, 2020 and April 6, 2022, both dates inclusive (the “Class Period”) have until July 5, 2022 to seek appointment as lead plaintiff in Schaub v. Mullen Automotive, Inc. f/k/a Net Element, Inc., No. 22-cv-03026 (C.D. Cal.). Commenced on May 5, 2022, the Mullen Automotive class action lawsuit charges Mullen Automotive and certain of its top executive officers with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. A similar lawsuit, Gru v. Mullen Automotive, Inc. f/k/a Net Element, Inc., No. 22-cv-00976, is also pending in the Central District of California.

If you suffered significant losses and wish to serve as lead plaintiff of the Mullen Automotive class action lawsuit, please provide your information here:

https://www.rgrdlaw.com/cases-Mullen-Automotive-Inc-fka-Net-Element-In ...

You can also contact attorney J.C. Sanchez of Robbins Geller by calling 800/449-4900 or via e-mail at [e-mail]. Lead plaintiff motions for the Mullen Automotive class action lawsuit must be filed with the court no later than July 5, 2022.

CASE ALLEGATIONS: Mullen Automotive purports to be an electronic vehicle (“EV”) manufacturer. On November 5, 2021, Mullen Technologies, Inc. underwent a merger with and into Net Element, Inc. and changed its name to Mullen Automotive, Inc. In announcing its merger, Mullen Automotive represented that it “expect[ed] to launch the Dragonfly K50, a luxury sports car, in the first half of 2021 through ICI (Independent Commercial Importers).” Prior to the merger, Mullen Automotive’s shares traded under the ticker symbol NETE.

The Mullen Automotive class action lawsuit alleges that defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Mullen Automotive overstated its ability and timeline regarding production; (ii) Mullen Automotive overstated its deals with business partners, including Qiantu Motor; (iii) Mullen Automotive overstated its battery technology and capabilities; (iv) Mullen Automotive overstated its ability to sell its branded products; (v) Net Element did not conduct proper due diligence into Mullen Technologies; (vi) the Dragonfly K50 was not (solely) delayed due to the COVID-19 pandemic; and (vii) as a result, defendants’ public statements were materially false and/or misleading at all relevant times.