We Give Shareholders A Voice.

(1) Hesai Group’s gross margin decrease was caused by a lower in-house utilization rate; (2) Hesai Group’s gross margin was 30% for the fourth quarter—which was completed over a month before the date of the amended registration statement; and (3); as a result, defendants’ public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times and negligently prepared.

(a) prior to the acquisition of the oil refinery in Mobile, Alabama, defendants had entered into inventory and crack spread hedging derivatives that significantly capped the profit margins on 50% of the Mobile refinery’s expected output over the period April 1, 2022 to September 30, 2022, affecting over 6.5 million barrels of refined fuel output. These hedges severely limited Vertex’s ability to capitalize on the record-high crack spreads that existed at the time of the acquisition and resulted in over $90 million in losses in the second quarter of fiscal year 2022; (b) prior to the acquisition of the Mobile refinery, defendants had entered into an inventory intermediation agreement with the investment bank Macquarie Group, whereby Macquarie purchased (from third parties), owned, and sold (to Vertex) all crude oil inventory to be used at the Mobile refinery and also purchased (from Vertex), owned, and sold (to third parties) all refined fuel inventory produced at the Mobile refinery. The strict terms of the arrangement, including requiring Vertex to purchase hedges to protect Macquarie’s position in holding the crude and refined inventory, combined with the fact that the oil market was in a state of backwardation in early 2022, resulted in Vertex incurring significant fees and inventory losses. The losses, which began as of the April 1, 2022 acquisition date, totaled $23 million during the second quarter of fiscal year 2022; (c) prior to the acquisition of the Mobile refinery, defendants had entered into an inventory purchase agreement with Shell Oil as part of the Mobile acquisition agreement. Vertex had anticipated purchasing approximately $100 million of crude oil and refined fuel inventory. Immediately prior to the closing of the acquisition, Vertex learned that pursuant to the terms of the purchase agreement, it would be required to purchase substantially more inventory from Shell Oil, totaling $164 million. Due to the state of backwardation in the oil market, Vertex was forced to pay Shell Oil above-market prices for the additional crude oil inventory. The additional Shell Oil inventory purchase triggered $13.3 million in inventory losses at or around the time of the acquisition; (d) immediately following the acquisition of the Mobile refinery, Vertex experienced production issues that caused significant shortfalls in refined fuel volumes. The production issues resulted in $8 million of lost profits during the second quarter of fiscal year 2022; (e) following the acquisition of the Mobile refinery, defendants overstated the purported profit margins that could be achieved at the refinery. Defendants represented that the “3-2-1 crack spread” was the appropriate benchmark for the Mobile refinery; however it was later revealed that the “2-1-1 crack spread,” which resulted in lower profits per barrel of production, was the more accurate profit benchmark for the Mobile refinery; and (f) as a result of the above misrepresentations and concealed facts, the Mobile refinery did not “generate[] strong EBITDA]” “[d]uring the first 30 days of operations,” and the Mobile refinery transition was not “seamless.”

(1) Allbirds was overemphasizing products that extended beyond the Company’s core offerings; (2) the Company’s non-core products had a narrower appeal and were not resonating with customers as well as the Company’s core products; (3) Allbirds was underinvesting in its core consumers’ favorite products to push the Company’s newer products with narrower appeal; (4) underinvesting in Allbirds’ core products was negatively impacting the Company’s sales; and (5) 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.

(i) the Company masked the distressed state of its tenants through sale-leaseback arrangements which were essentially round-robin transactions in that they allowed debt-saddled tenants to meet their obligations in the short-term; (ii) the Company fraudulently transferred hundreds of millions of dollars in what amounted to a bailout of financially distressed tenants; (iii) the Company concealed its fraudulent transfers with fake construction projects with purportedly high capital expenses, despite the fact that the Company entered into “triple-net leases,” which meant that its tenants were obligated to pay a significant portion of expenses, such as real estate taxes, insurance, and maintenance; and (iv) as a result, the Company’s public statements, including those with respect to the Pennsylvania Properties, were materially false and misleading at the time they were made.

According to the filed complaint, Plug was unable to effectively manage its supply chain and product manufacturing, resulting in reduced revenues and margins, increased inventory levels, and several large deals being delayed until at least 2023, among other issues. As a result, defendant’s statements about the Company’s business, operations, prospects, and ability to effectively manage its supply chain and production lacked a reasonable basis.

(1) the Company's Bristol, Pennsylvania plant had a troubled safety record while under prior ownership and continued to be unsafe after the Company acquired it; (2) defendants did not sufficiently disclose specific risks related to conducting operations at that plant; (3) operating a chemical plant with an unsafe history and presently unsafe operations exposed the Company to a heightened risk of a chemical spill or other adverse events; and (4) as a result, defendants statements about its business, operations, and prospects, were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all times.

(i) the Company maintained deficient internal accounting controls relating to its classification of certain loan balances and securities; (ii) as a result of the foregoing deficiencies, throughout 2022 the Company issued quarterly financial statements containing errors that would require subsequent revision; (iii) restatement of the foregoing financial statements would hinder the Company’s ability to timely file its annual report for 2022; and (iv) as a result, the Company’s public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

According to the complaint, Defendants misrepresented the strength of the Company’s balance sheet and liquidity position, while also understating the significant pressure rising interest rates posed to First Republic’s business model. Defendants also misrepresented the strength of the Company’s ability to deliver consistent results across different interest rate environments, the diversity of the Company’s deposit funding base, and the Company’s ability to generate net interest income (“NII”) growth and maintain stable net interest margin (“NIM”).

(1) LivePerson failed to address any material weaknesses with internal controls; (2) LivePerson’s third quarter financial statements, ended in September 30, 2022 failed to disclose its subsidiary, WildHealth’s, suspension of Medicare reimbursement; (3) as a result, LivePerson’s fourth quarter 2022 revenue would be affected; and (4) as a result, defendants’ statements about its business, operations, and prospects, were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times.

(1) the sale of Open Edge equipment should be accounted as financing leases; (2) there were material weaknesses in the Company’s internal controls over financial reporting related to Open Edge transactions; (3) as a result, the Company’s revenue had been overstated in certain periods; and (4) 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.

(i) the preclinical data submitted in support of FTX-6058 (an investigational oral fetal hemoglobin inducer for the treatment of sickle cell disease and other hemoglobinopathies) showed safety concerns regarding potential hematological malignancies; (ii) the foregoing safety concerns increased the likelihood that the FDA would place a clinical hold on preclinical studies of FTX-6058; (iii) accordingly, the Company had overstated FTX-6058’s clinical and/or commercial prospects; and (iv) as a result, the Company’s public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

(1) In addition to other misconduct, Kanye West made anti-Semitic comments in front of adidas staff, and even suggested naming an album after Adolf Hitler; (2) adidas was aware of his behavior, and failed to warn investors that it was aware of that behavior, and had considered ending the Partnership as a result of it; (3) adidas failed to take meaningful precautionary measures to limit negative financial exposure if the Partnership were to end as a result of West’s behavior; (4) adidas overstated the risk mitigation measures it took with regard to Yeezy shoes in the event that it terminated the Partnership; (5) as a result, Defendants’ public statements were materially false and/or misleading at all relevant times.

(i) defendants had no reason to believe UScellular’s “free upgrade” promotional activity, which was tested and trialed during the second quarter of 2022, was effective at reducing the UScellular’s postpaid churn rate as they represented to investors, as opposed to merely adding new postpaid subscribers, when its churn rate was actually increasing or remaining constant over most quarters in the class period; (ii) UScellular was not making progress with respect to its churn rate, as it represented to investors; (iii) UScellular was not in fact balancing its promotional activity and its profitability; (iv) due to extreme competition among postpaid carriers, UScellular did not have the flexibility to offset the costs from widespread, expensive promotions with price increases; and (v) as a result of the Companies’ decision for UScellular to continue engaging in heavy promotions to address its postpaid subscriber churn rate despite any lack of positive impact on churn rate, UScellular’s profitability substantially declined.

(1) Spirit lacked effective production quality controls; (2) as a result, Spirit incorrectly installed fittings designed to join the aft fuselage to the vertical tail for some Boeing 737 Max airplanes that Spirit sent to Boeing; (3) as a result, Spirit would have to develop an inspection and repair procedure for the affected fuselages; (4) the foregoing would negatively impact Spirit’s financial results; and (5) as a result of the foregoing, defendant’s positive statements about the Company’s business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

According to the complaint, throughout the Class Period defendants made numerous materially false and misleading statements and omissions concerning the Company’s ability to produce plant-based meats at scale. Specifically, defendants repeatedly assured investors that Beyond Meat conducted “extensive testing” to “ensure manufacturability” of its plant-based meat products at commercial scale, and touted the success of the Company’s product tests with its large-scale partnerships as “very positive.” Further, defendants blamed any delays in launching these large-scale partnerships on Covid-19.

(i) Icahn Enterprises was inflating its net asset value; (ii) the Company was using money taken in from new investors to pay out dividends to old investors; (iii) as a result, the Company would become the subject of criminal and/or regulatory scrutiny; and (iv) as a result of the foregoing, Defendant’s positive statements about the Company’s business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

(i) Legacy Stem suffered from material weaknesses in internal control over financial reporting related to accounting for the deferred cost of goods sold and inventory, certain revenue recognition calculations, and internal-use capitalized software calculations; (ii) the Company had overstated Legacy Stem's and its own post-Merger business and financial prospects; (iii) Stem's software revenue did not makeup 100% of the Company's services revenue; (iv) Stem had overstated the benefits expected to flow from its AP partnership; and (v) 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.

(a) Disney+ was suffering decelerating subscriber growth, losses, and cost overruns; (b) the true costs incurred in connection with Disney+ had been concealed by Disney executives by debuting certain content intended for Disney+ initially on Disney’s legacy distribution channels and then making the shows available on Disney+ thereafter in order to improperly shift costs out of the Disney+ segment; (c) Disney Media and Entertainment Distribution had made platform distribution decisions based not on consumer preference, consumer behavior, or the desire to maximize the size of the audience for the content as represented, but based on the desire to hide the full costs of building Disney+’s content library; (d) the Company was not on track to achieve its 2024 Disney+ paid global subscriber and profitability targets, that such targets were not achievable, and that such estimates lacked a reasonable basis in fact; and (e) as a result of (a)-(d) above, defendants had materially misrepresented the actual performance of Disney+, the sustainability of Disney+’s historical growth trends, the profitability of Disney+, and the likelihood that Disney could achieve its 2024 Disney+ subscriber and profitability targets.

i) the Company was experiencing significantly more competition in its United States complex generics business than disclosed; (ii) the Company was not able to effectively manage its base business erosion or create a stable revenue base; (iii) despite being on the Company’s only growth drivers, Viatris was actively planning to divest its biosimilars business in order to secure enough cash to let it purportedly meet its phase one goals; (iv) Viatris was deviating from the business model it touted throughout the Class Period and undertaking a significant global reshaping of its business which would undermine its ability to achieve stable revenue growth; and (v) the Company was anticipating less financial growth moving into 2022.

(i) the Company maintained deficient policies and procedures with respect to its information access barriers; (ii) accordingly, Virtu had overstated the Company’s operational and technological efficacy as well as its capacity to block the exchange of confidential information between departments or individuals within the Company; (iii) the foregoing deficiencies increased the likelihood that the Company would be subject to enhanced regulatory scrutiny; and (iv) as a result, defendants’ public statements were materially false and/or misleading at all relevant times.

(1) Charles River had engaged in illegal activity with respect to its importation of non-human primates for research; (2) as a result, Charles River was at a heightened risk of criminal and regulatory investigation by, inter alia, the U.S. Department of Justice; (3) as a result, Charles River would be forced to suspend shipments of primates from Cambodia; and (4) 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.

According to the complaint, defendants made false statements and/or concealed that TD Bank failed to disclose material information to the market that it had deficient internal controls that posed a significant risk to the closing of the First Horizon transaction. Specifically, TD Bank suffered from grossly ineffective internal controls regarding anti-money laundering practices and failed to appropriately report unusual transactions or suspicious activity to U.S. regulators. According to a report published by The Wall Street Journal, in “recent years,” TD Bank only “flagged 28 customer transactions” as suspicious. As a result, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency and the U.S. Federal Reserve refused to approve the transaction within the necessary time frames.

(1) there were material weaknesses in the Company’s internal controls over accounting and financial reporting; (2) as a result, the Company improperly booked sales of its BioSteel business unit; (3) as a result, the Company’s revenue was overstated; and (4) 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.

According to the complaint, defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts, about the Company’s business and operations. Specifically, defendants overstated the sustainability of Cutera’s revenue growth, failed to disclose significant conflicts among members of the Company’s senior leadership and Board, and failed to disclose several material weaknesses in the Company’s internal control over financial reporting. As a result of defendant's wrongful acts and omissions, and the significant decline in the market value of the Company's common stock, Cutera's investors have suffered significant damages.

(1) Florida Power and Light Company’s surreptitious orchestration of political misconduct exposed NEE to substantial legal and reputational risk; and (2) in light of the above, defendant’s positive statements about the Company’s business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

(i) Luminar had misappropriated an image of a competitor’s photonic integrated circuit (“PIC”) to market the Company’s own products and capabilities; (ii) the foregoing conduct subjected the Company to a heightened risk of, inter alia, litigation and/or regulatory enforcement action; (iii) all the foregoing, once revealed, was likely to negatively impact Luminar’s business and reputation; and (iv) as a result, the Company’s public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.