NuScale Power Corporation Class Action Lawsuit – SMR

Introduction to NuScale Power Corporation (SMR) Securities Class Action Lawsuit

A securities fraud class action has been filed against NuScale Power Corporation (NYSE: SMR) and certain executives for alleged violations of federal securities laws, including the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Sections 10(b) and 20(a). The lawsuit covers investors who purchased NuScale Class A common stock on the NYSE under ticker SMR between May 13, 2025 and November 6, 2025. Investors allege that the company and its executives made materially false and misleading statements about the experience and capabilities of ENTRA1 Energy LLC, NuScale's exclusive commercialization partner for deploying small modular nuclear reactors and commercializing the NuScale Power Module technology globally. The complaint alleges that ENTRA1 was actually a three-year-old entity with no significant experience building, financing, or operating power facilities or other nuclear energy generation facilities, despite company representations suggesting otherwise. Following revelations about ENTRA1's lack of experience and a $495 million payment to the entity, with potential milestone payments exceeding $3 billion tied to a Tennessee Valley Authority agreement, NuScale's stock price collapsed more than 70% from its class period high of more than $57 per share.

“Most SMR shareholders never file or join the class action, which means they miss out on potential recovery funds,” said Attorney Joseph Levi.

NuScale Power Corporation (SMR) Securities Lawsuit Case Details

Case Name: Truedson v. NuScale Power Corporation et al.

Case No.: 3:26-cv-00328-JR

Jurisdiction: U.S. District Court, District of Oregon, Portland Division

Filed on: February 18, 2026

NuScale Power Corporation (SMR) Company Profile

NuScale Power Corporation is a nuclear technology company focused on scalable, modular reactors headquartered in Corvallis, Oregon, a publicly traded company on the NYSE (SMR) with Class A common stock. The company's core technology, the NuScale Power Module, part of its NPM technology platform, is a small modular nuclear reactor designed to generate 77 megawatt electrical for nuclear power generation within a broader power plant, occupying a footprint of approximately 76 feet in height by 15 feet in diameter in the highly technical and complicated nuclear energy sector.

NuScale Power Corporation (SMR) Securities Lawsuit Class Period

May 13, 2025-November 6, 2025, inclusive.

All purchasers of NuScale Class A common stock during the Class Period are potentially eligible class members and may be eligible to join the NuScale Power Corporation (SMR) class action lawsuit.

Allegations in the NuScale Power Corporation (SMR) Securities Class Action Lawsuit

The complaint targets NuScale Power Corporation, Chief Executive Officer John L. Hopkins, Chief Financial Officer Robert Ramsey Hamady, and Fluor Corporation for alleged securities fraud related to statements about ENTRA1 Energy in violation of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Sections 10(b) and 20(a).

Throughout the class period, defendants allegedly emphasized ENTRA1's qualifications and experience as NuScale's commercialization partner through an exclusive global partnership responsible for distributing and deploying the company's nuclear reactor technology worldwide to nuclear power generation facilities. On May 12, 2025, Hopkins stated during a conference call that potential customers were attracted to ENTRA1's commercial model designed to provide financial flexibility while mitigating deployment risks for power plant development.

On May 29, 2025, the company issued a press release describing ENTRA1 as holding global exclusive rights to commercialize NuScale's small modular reactors and providing carbon-free energy to a wider range of consumers as part of a global commercialization strategy. During the second quarter 2025 earnings call on August 7, 2025, Hopkins highlighted the partnership with ENTRA1 as key to deploying NuScale's technology, while Hamady emphasized that ENTRA1's ability to provide customized plant development and operating structures helped de-risk projects and meet customer needs for nuclear power generation projects.

On September 3, 2025, Hopkins praised ENTRA1's team of energy and finance veterans, stating they brought exceptional value through energy sales knowledge, investment capabilities, deep project finance expertise, and experience delivering large-scale power infrastructure and positioned ENTRA1 as an independent power plant development platform. Hopkins characterized this experience as exactly what was required for commercializing and deploying NuScale's technology at scale.

According to the complaint, these statements were materially false and misleading because ENTRA1 had never built, financed, or operated any significant projects, let alone projects in the highly technical field of nuclear power generation and lacked prior operating history in nuclear energy. Investors allege that NuScale placed its commercialization strategy and hundreds of millions of dollars with an entity lacking any significant prior experience in nuclear energy facilities, entrusting commercialization to ENTRA1 despite undisclosed risks.

The complaint alleges that the purported experience attributed to ENTRA1 actually referred to the Habboush Group, a distinct entity without significant nuclear power experience, and that NuScale's commercialization strategy faced material undisclosed risks of failure, delays, and regulatory challenges in nuclear facility development and licensing.

The Truth Emerges

The truth began emerging on November 6, 2025, when NuScale released its third quarter earnings after market close. The company revealed that general and administrative expenses had ballooned more than 3,000 percent to $519 million during the third fiscal quarter, up from $17 million in the prior year period, due largely to a $495 million payment to ENTRA1 for its Tennessee Valley Authority agreement, and reported a quarterly net loss of $532 million.

The agreement contemplated as many as 72 NuScale Power Modules and up to six gigawatts of nuclear generation capacity, meaning milestone payments to ENTRA1 could potentially exceed $3 billion. During the earnings conference call, analysts pressed management about ENTRA1's actual experience and track record and questioned ENTRA1's qualifications and lack of prior nuclear power generation experience. CFO Hamady essentially confirmed that ENTRA1 itself did not have the relevant experience, but rather that the company was referring to the experience of the principals of ENTRA1 instead of ENTRA1's own prior operating history. Hamady further clarified that ENTRA1 would not actually be building the power plants, but rather serving to coordinate projects, bring in partners, and secure deals with those who could execute, not operating facilities or constructing plants.

CEO Hopkins, when questioned, referred to over 45 years of experience at the Habboush Group rather than ENTRA1's own experience, reinforcing investors' allegation that experience was misattributed to the Habboush Group. Following the call, independent analyst reports from Guggenheim Securities and Barclays described ENTRA1 as a three-year-old company that had never built, financed, or operated anything and as an entity supporting the activities of a single individual. Guggenheim published a critical report highlighting these deficiencies. These revelations directly contradicted prior representations that ENTRA1 was an experienced independent power plant development platform with extensive capabilities for global commercialization of the NuScale Power Module.

Market Reaction

Following NuScale's (NYSE: SMR) November 6, 2025 after-hours earnings announcement, the company's stock price declined (12.4%) over a two-day trading period on abnormally high volume, falling from approximately $32 per share on November 6, 2025 to approximately $28 per share on November 10, 2025. Trading volume spiked dramatically, with more than 42 million NuScale shares traded on November 7, 2025 and more than 31 million shares traded on November 10, 2025, reflecting substantial investor losses. The stock continued falling in subsequent days, dropping to a low of just $17 per share by November 21, 2025, representing a decline of more than 70 percent below the class period high of more than $57 per share for Class A common stockholders.

Next Steps

● The Court will issue its order for lead plaintiff and counsel in the weeks after submissions are due.

● The Court will then consider motion for class certification.

● The Court will later consider a Motion to Dismiss.

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

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 NuScale Power Corporation 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 NuScale Power Corporation. 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