OPENDOOR ALERT

Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. Announces that a Class Action Lawsuit Has Been Filed Against Opendoor Technologies, Inc. and Encourages Investors to Contact the Firm - Seite 2

On December 21, 2020, the Company’s post-Merger common stock and warrants began publicly trading on the Nasdaq Stock Market (“NASDAQ”) under the ticker symbols “OPEN” and “OPENW”, respectively.

On September 19, 2022, citing a review of industry data, Bloomberg reported that the Company appeared to have lost money on 42% of its transactions in August 2022 (as measured by the prices at which it bought and sold properties). Bloomberg further reported that the data was even worse in key markets such as Los Angeles, California, where Opendoor lost money on 55% of sales, and Phoenix, Arizona, where it lost money on 76% of sales. Worse, a global real estate tech strategist interviewed by Bloomberg, Mike DelPrete, predicted that, based on his analyses, September would likely be even worse for Opendoor than August. Bloomberg’s findings evidenced the failure of Opendoor’s algorithm to adjust accurately to changing market conditions.

Following the Bloomberg report, Opendoor’s stock price fell $0.50 per share, or 12,32%, over the following two trading sessions, to close at $3.56 per share on September 20, 2022 – an 88.61% decline from the Company’s first post-Merger closing stock price of $31.25 per share on December 21, 2020 (the “Initial Closing Price”).

As of the time the complaint was filed, Opendoor’s common stock was trading significantly below the Initial Closing Price and continues to trade below its initial value from the Merger, damaging investors.

According to the complaint, the Offering Documents for the Merger were negligently prepared and, as a result, contained untrue statements of material fact or omitted to state other facts necessary to make the statements made not misleading and were not prepared in accordance with the rules and regulations governing their preparation. Additionally, throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company’s business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, the Offering Documents and Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) the algorithm (“Algorithm”) used by the Company to make offers for homes could not accurately adjust to changing house prices across different market conditions and economic cycles; (ii) as a result, the Company was at an increased risk of sustaining significant and repeated losses due to residential real estate pricing fluctuations; (iii) accordingly, Defendants overstated the purported benefits and competitive advantages of the Algorithm; and (iv) as a result, the Offering Documents and Defendants’ public statements throughout the Class Period were materially false and/or misleading and failed to state information required to be stated therein.