First Solar, Inc. Class Action Lawsuit – FSLR

Key Facts About First Solar, Inc. (NASDAQ: FSLR)

● The Allegation: The complaint alleges First Solar and its top executives overstated the company's ability to manage U.S. tariff policy impacts. They allegedly concealed how idling or underutilizing production facilities in Malaysia and Vietnam, combined with efforts to relocate production to the U.S., were likely to negatively impact 2026 performance.

● The Stock Drop: FSLR fell $33.09 per share, or 13.61%, to close at $210.12 per share on February 25, 2026, after the company reported earnings that missed expectations and issued weak fiscal year 2026 guidance; earlier, on January 7, 2026, FSLR fell $27.67 per share, or 10.29%, to close at $241.11 per share after Jefferies downgraded the stock citing ongoing international facility underutilization concerns.

● Class Period & Defendants: The class period runs from February 26, 2025 through February 24, 2026, inclusive. The named defendants are First Solar, Inc., Mark R. Widmar (Chief Executive Officer), and Alexander R. Bradley (Chief Financial Officer).

● Lead Plaintiff Deadline: August 24, 2026. No action is required before that date to remain a class member, and if representation is undertaken, the matter is handled on a contingency basis with no out-of-pocket cost to shareholders.

First Solar Class Action Summary


Company	First Solar, Inc. (NASDAQ: FSLR)
Lead Plaintiff Deadline	August 24, 2026
Class Period	February 26, 2025 – February 24, 2026
Stock Drop	January 7, 2026 – FSLR fell $27.67 (10.29%) to $241.11; February 25, 2026 – FSLR fell $33.09 (13.61%) to $210.12

Introduction

A securities class action has been filed against First Solar, Inc. (NASDAQ: FSLR). The suit covers investors who purchased or otherwise acquired First Solar (FSLR) securities between February 26, 2025 and February 24, 2026.

The complaint alleges that First Solar's leaders made materially false and misleading statements about tariff risks. They allegedly overstated the company's ability to handle U.S. trade policy. They also allegedly failed to disclose that idling or underutilizing production facilities in Malaysia and Vietnam was likely to negatively impact 2026 results.

As the alleged truth emerged, FSLR shares suffered steep declines. FSLR dropped 10.29% on January 7, 2026, after a Jefferies downgrade. It fell another 13.61% on February 25, 2026, after weak earnings and disappointing 2026 guidance.

Company Profile

First Solar, Inc. is a solar technology company that provides photovoltaic solar energy solutions. The company manufactures and sells PV solar modules that convert sunlight into electricity, with product offerings including its Series 6 Plus PV module, manufactured at facilities in locations including Malaysia and Vietnam.

Class Period

February 26, 2025–February 24, 2026

Investors who purchased or acquired First Solar (FSLR) securities during the Class Period may be eligible to seek recovery under the federal securities laws.

Allegations

The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, First Solar and its senior executives made materially false and misleading statements about the company's ability to navigate an evolving U.S. tariff landscape. Beginning with the company's fiscal year 2024 earnings call on February 25, 2025, Defendant Widmar portrayed solar energy as critical to the Trump administration's economic agenda, asserting that growing U.S. electricity demand would drive sustained need for solar capacity. Defendant Bradley simultaneously assured investors that the company was "deliberately oversold through 2026" on U.S. production and that sales contracts for international product deliveries "typically have some form of tariff protection."

After President Trump announced reciprocal tariffs on April 2, 2025, including rates of 24% on Malaysia and 46% on Vietnam (later reduced to 10%), defendants repeatedly characterized the tariff environment as, on balance, favorable for First Solar. During the first quarter 2025 earnings call, Defendant Widmar stated that "on balance, the political and trade environment continues to be an overall long term favorable" for the company. He acknowledged that First Solar "may need to further reduce or idle production" at its Malaysian and Vietnamese facilities, but framed this as a temporary measure preserving "optionality." By the second quarter earnings call, Defendant Widmar went further, claiming that trade developments had "strengthened First Solar's relative position in the solar manufacturing industry" and positioning the underutilization of Southeast Asian facilities as a strategic advantage that would allow the company to repurpose equipment for U.S. manufacturing tax credits.

According to the complaint, what defendants failed to disclose was that the intentional underutilization of production facilities in Malaysia and Vietnam, combined with the costs of relocating production to a new U.S. finishing facility in South Carolina, were likely to materially and negatively impact First Solar's projected performance in the 2026 fiscal year. The complaint alleges defendants knew or recklessly disregarded this risk. During the Class Period, the Individual Defendants sold 106,793 shares of First Solar common stock for over $17.1 million in proceeds, with Defendant Widmar collecting approximately $14.1 million and Defendant Bradley collecting over $2.9 million. The complaint further alleges that defendants violated Item 105 of SEC Regulation S-K by failing to adequately disclose the scope and severity of the risks that tariff policy and the company's responses to it posed to First Solar's business outlook.

The Truth Emerges

According to the complaint, the alleged truth began to emerge on January 7, 2026, when Jefferies downgraded First Solar to Hold from Buy and raised concerns about the company's international facility underutilization. The Jefferies report noted that throughout 2025, First Solar had lowered guidance, faced significant de-bookings, and experienced margin compression. The analyst flagged that international facilities "remain a pain point while tariffs exist" and that "underutilization at [international] facilities remains a concern," predicting that deployment opportunities would be more limited in 2026.

The complaint alleges that the truth continued to emerge on February 24, 2026, when First Solar released fourth quarter and full year 2025 financial results. The company reported earnings that missed expectations by a wide margin and issued fiscal year 2026 revenue guidance of $4.9 billion to $5.2 billion, far below the consensus estimate of $6.16 billion. Defendant Bradley disclosed that the company intended to run its remaining end-to-end capacity in Malaysia and Vietnam "at low utilization rates this year despite the financial impact of doing so." Defendant Widmar acknowledged that these Southeast Asian factories were "running 20% or so" and "extremely underutilized," and that the company had been "wearing this for over a year now." He characterized the underutilization costs as the price of maintaining "option value" while waiting for tariff policy to evolve, a characterization that stood in sharp contrast to defendants' prior assurances that tariff impacts were manageable and that First Solar's competitive position was strengthening.

Market Reaction

First Solar's stock price suffered two significant declines as the alleged truth emerged. On January 7, 2026, following the Jefferies downgrade, FSLR fell $27.67 per share, or 10.29%, to close at $241.11 per share. The stock continued to trade at levels the complaint alleges were artificially inflated due to defendants' ongoing misrepresentations about the company's tariff exposure and 2026 outlook.

The more severe reaction came on February 25, 2026, the trading day following the company's disappointing fourth quarter results and weak 2026 guidance. FSLR dropped $33.09 per share, or 13.61%, to close at $210.12 per share. Multiple analysts downgraded the stock or slashed price targets in response: Baird Research downgraded to Neutral from Outperform and cut its target approximately 22.3% from $264 to $205; HSBC downgraded from Buy to Hold and reduced its target 24.6% from $280 to $211, citing "weak FY26 guidance" reflecting "cooling demand and operational challenges"; Deutsche Bank cut its target approximately 18.3% from $300 to $245; and Jefferies lowered its target approximately 21% from $260 to $205, writing that the guidance "disappointed even versus (lower) reset expectations, with limited visibility on recovery."

Next Steps

● Lead Plaintiff Deadline: August 24, 2026

● After the lead plaintiff deadline, the Court will consider any lead plaintiff motions.

● Defendants may file a motion to dismiss.

● If the case proceeds, the Court may later consider class certification.

Disclaimer: This shareholder alert is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified attorney for personalized guidance. No specific outcomes are guaranteed.

Check Eligibility

✓ Free case evaluation
✓ No cost or obligation
✓ See if you qualify

First Name *

Last Name *

Email *

Phone

Estimated Loss

Number of Shares

Purchase Date

Full Name

Submitting this form does not create an attorney-client relationship. Your information is confidential.

Or contact us directly:

(212) 363-7500 [email protected]

Never Miss Another Deadline

Choose your preferred way to stay informed of new case launches and settlement deadlines.

Scan the QR code or click the button to join.

Join on WhatsApp

First Name *

Last Name *

Email *

Full Name

Submitting this form does not create an attorney-client relationship. Your information is confidential.

[email protected] (212) 363-7500

Step 2 of 3

Certification of Plaintiff Pursuant to Federal Securities Laws

I, duly certify and say, as to the claims asserted under the federal securities laws, that:

I have reviewed a complaint filed in the action.
I did not purchase the security that is the subject of this action at the direction of plaintiff's counsel or in order to participate in this action.
I am willing to serve as a representative party on behalf of the class, including providing testimony at deposition and trial, if necessary.
My transaction(s) in First Solar, Inc. which are the subject of this litigation during the class period set forth in the complaint are set forth in the chart attached hereto.
Within the last 3 years,
I have not sought to serve nor have I served as a class representative in any federal securities fraud case. I have sought to serve as a class representative in
I will not accept any payment for serving as a representative party on behalf of the class beyond the Plaintiff's pro rata share of any recovery, except as ordered or approved by the court, including any award for reasonable costs and expenses (including lost wages) directly relating to the representation of the class.

Are you US Citizen?

Yes. I certify under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed this No. I certify under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed this

Clear

Signed pursuant to California Civil Code Section 1633.1, et seq. - and the Uniform Electronic Transactions Act as adopted by the various states and territories of the United States.

By your signature above, you confirm that have retained Levi & Korsinsky, LLP to represent you and the shareholder class as a lead plaintiff in the pending class action against First Solar, Inc. This representation will be on a contingency basis, meaning that Levi & Korsinsky will advance all expenses in the litigation and will only seek compensation and/or reimbursement of expenses if the firm obtains a recovery. Regardless of the result, we will never ask you to directly pay for any attorneys’ fees, expenses, or costs. Should we obtain a favorable result, we may ask the court to award us compensation and reimbursement of expenses to be paid by the defendants or as a portion of any class recovery. In exchange for our representation, you agree to cooperate as our client by providing, for example, relevant documents and deposition testimony, if necessary. During the course of this litigation, we may employ and/or work with other law firms, experts, and third-parties to successfully prosecute this action. If you are not appointed as the lead plaintiff or Levi & Korsinsky is not appointed as lead counsel, we will notify you of such decision at which time this representation will end unless otherwise extended by you and the firm. We look forward to working with you towards a successful resolution of this action.

I have reviewed the complaint linked in paragraph 1