Never Miss Another Deadline

Scan the QR code or click the button to join.

Join on WhatsApp

Never Miss Another Deadline

Scan the QR code or click the button to join.

Join on WhatsApp

Never Miss Another Deadline

Scan the QR code or click the button to join.

Join on WhatsApp

Never Miss Another Deadline

Scan the QR code or click the button to join.

Join on WhatsApp

Never Miss Another Deadline

Scan the QR code or click the button to join.

Join on WhatsApp

Never Miss Another Deadline

Scan the QR code or click the button to join.

Join on WhatsApp

Never Miss Another Deadline

Scan the QR code or click the button to join.

Join on WhatsApp

Never Miss Another Deadline

Scan the QR code or click the button to join.

Join on WhatsApp

Never Miss Another Deadline

Scan the QR code or click the button to join.

Join on WhatsApp

Never Miss Another Deadline

Scan the QR code or click the button to join.

Join on WhatsApp

Introduction

A securities class action lawsuit has been filed against Vital Farms, Inc. (NASDAQ: VITL), its CEO Russel Diez-Canseco, and its CFO Thilo Wrede on behalf of investors who purchased Vital Farms securities between May 8, 2025 and February 26, 2026. The complaint, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, alleges that defendants made materially false and misleading statements about the company's transition to a new enterprise resource planning (ERP) system, failing to disclose that the implementation would cause significant disruptions to shipments and production and result in the loss of critical retail shelf space. When Vital Farms revealed on February 26, 2026 that it had missed its own revenue guidance and was still struggling to recapture shelf space lost during the ERP transition, VITL shares fell $2.68, or 10.8%, to close at $22.11.

Company Profile

Vital Farms is the leading U.S. brand of pasture-raised eggs and butter, headquartered in Austin, Texas. The company focuses on ethical food production, animal welfare, and sustainable farming, and its common stock trades on NASDAQ under the ticker symbol VITL.

Class Period

May 8, 2025 – February 26, 2026, inclusive.

Investors who purchased or acquired Vital Farms (VITL) securities during the Class Period may be entitled to seek recovery under the federal securities laws.

Allegations

The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Vital Farms and its senior executives misled investors about the risks and consequences of the company's multi-year transition to a new ERP system. Vital Farms had repeatedly disclosed that the ERP implementation was "fundamental" to its planned operational improvements and required the significant time and attention of management and key crew members. Yet according to the complaint, defendants knew or recklessly disregarded that the ERP rollout would cause material disruptions to the company's shipments and production, disruptions they failed to disclose to investors, instead presenting the risks only as hypothetical possibilities in boilerplate risk disclosures.

The alleged misrepresentations began with Vital Farms' first quarter 2025 10-Q, filed May 8, 2025, when CFO Thilo Wrede announced the ERP launch date had been pushed from summer to early fall 2025 to "ensure flawless switchover." The complaint alleges that this delay itself signaled the complexity and risk of the transition, yet defendants continued to present the implementation in optimistic terms while signing Sarbanes-Oxley certifications attesting to the accuracy of the company's financial reporting and internal controls. In the second quarter 2025 earnings call on August 7, 2025, Wrede confirmed the ERP remained on track for early fall and raised full-year 2025 revenue guidance from $740 million to $770 million, further reinforcing investor confidence in the company's trajectory.

By the third quarter 2025 earnings call on November 4, 2025, the ERP had gone live and production had already slowed. The complaint alleges defendants sought to minimize these disruptions, with Wrede characterizing the slowdown as lasting only "the first two weeks of the fourth quarter" and claiming it was "always part of our plan." Wrede further assured investors that "the business has quickly bounced back and we are now operating at pre go live shipment levels" and raised guidance again to $775 million. 

According to the complaint, these statements were materially false and misleading because the production disruptions were more severe and longer-lasting than defendants acknowledged, resulting in delayed shipments during the critical holiday period that cost Vital Farms valuable retail shelf space, a consequence defendants failed to disclose.

The Truth Emerges

On February 26, 2026, before markets opened, Vital Farms filed its 2025 annual report revealing that fiscal year 2025 revenue came in at $759.4 million, missing the company's own raised guidance of $775 million. The company also reported earnings per share of $0.35, falling short of the $0.39 market consensus. The 2025 10-K acknowledged what the complaint alleges defendants had concealed for months: that Vital Farms "experienced temporary disruptions in order and fulfillment levels following the launch date of the new ERP system" in the fourth quarter of fiscal 2025.

During the accompanying earnings call, CFO Wrede admitted that "volume growth so far is lagging our initial expectations" and revealed that the company was "still recapturing shelf space" lost after "several weeks of slow shipments following our ERP implementation last year during the lead-up to the peak holiday period." CEO Diez-Canseco acknowledged the "short-term dislocation" and described ongoing efforts to rebuild retailer relationships, telling analysts the company was shifting from retailers asking "can you ship what you're talking about" to conversations about how to "grow together." These admissions directly contradicted the third quarter assurances that the business had "quickly bounced back" and that the slowdown had "no impact" on full-year guidance.

Market Reaction

Following the February 26, 2026 disclosures, Vital Farms stock declined $2.68 per share, or 10.8%, to close at $22.11. The sharp sell-off reflected the market's reassessment of the company's operational condition after learning that the ERP-related disruptions were materially worse than defendants had represented, that revenue had missed guidance, and that the company was still working to recapture lost retail shelf space months after the ERP went live.

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.

Never Miss Another Deadline

Scan the QR code or click the button to join.

Join on WhatsApp

Introduction to Atara Biotherapeutics, Inc. (ATRA) Securities Class Action Lawsuit

A securities fraud class action has been filed against Atara Biotherapeutics, Inc. (NASDAQ: ATRA) on behalf of investors who purchased or acquired securities between May 20, 2024 and January 9, 2026, under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule 10b-5. Investors allege that the company and its executives misrepresented the regulatory prospects for tabelecleucel, a T-cell immunotherapy, by concealing manufacturing deficiencies and fundamental flaws in the clinical trial used to support approval from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, including the accelerated approval pathway. The complaint alleges that manufacturing issues at a third-party facility and design defects in the ALLELE study made FDA approval unlikely, yet executives promoted the product's imminent approval and planned early 2025 launch. When the FDA issued two Complete Response Letters and later placed clinical holds on Atara’s active IND applications, Atara’s stock fell sharply across three separate disclosures, including declines of 40.5%, 7.91%, and 56.99%, according to the complaint.

Atara Biotherapeutics, Inc. (ATRA) Securities Lawsuit Case Details

Case Name: Jeremy Chin Zhi Kuang v. Atara Biotherapeutics, Inc., et al.

Case No.: 2:26-cv-03083

Jurisdiction: U.S. District Court, Central District of California

Filed on: March 23, 2026

Atara Biotherapeutics, Inc. (ATRA) Company Profile

Atara Biotherapeutics, a clinical-stage biopharmaceutical company develops therapies for patients with solid tumors, hematologic cancers, and autoimmune diseases in the United States and the United Kingdom. The company's lead product candidate is tabelecleucel (tab-cel, EBVALLO), a T-cell immunotherapy program classified as a biologic for the treatment of Epstein-Barr virus positive post-transplant lymphoproliferative disease, including adult and pediatric patients two years and older, with commercialization support from Pierre Fabre Médicament.

Atara Biotherapeutics, Inc. (ATRA) Securities Lawsuit Class Period

May 20, 2024 – January 9, 2026, inclusive.

All persons and entities other than Defendants that purchased or otherwise acquired Atara securities (ATRA) may be eligible to join the Atara Biotherapeutics, Inc. (ATRA) class action lawsuit, including common stock traded on NASDAQ.

Allegations in the Atara Biotherapeutics, Inc. (ATRA) Securities Class Action Lawsuit

The complaint names Atara Biotherapeutics, Inc. and four executives as defendants: AnhCo Thieu Nguyen (President and CEO since September 2024), Pascal Touchon (CEO during most of the class period and later Chairman), Eric Hyllengren (CFO and COO), and Yanina Grant-Huerta (Chief Accounting Officer). Investors allege these defendants promoted tabelecleucel's regulatory approval prospects for accelerated approval while concealing critical manufacturing problems at a third-party manufacturing facility and clinical trial deficiencies that made FDA approval unlikely for the EBVALLO Biologics License Application.

On May 20, 2024, as Atara submitted its Biologics License Application to the FDA for EBV+ post-transplant lymphoproliferative disease (EBV+PTLD), then-CEO Pascal Touchon called the BLA submission "a significant moment for Atara" and stated the company looked forward "to continued collaboration with the FDA on its review" and preparation "for the potential launch of this innovative therapy in the U.S." Two months later, on July 17, 2024, after the FDA accepted the BLA for priority review, Touchon described the acceptance as "a significant milestone" and said the company continued working "to help prepare for the potential launch in the U.S. in early 2025." On August 12, 2024, Touchon told investors the company was "making significant progress with the agency towards the target action date of January 15, 2025, while supporting our partner Pierre Fabre with their U.S. launch preparation." On November 12, 2024, new CEO AnhCo Thieu Nguyen characterized the first quarter of 2025 as "positioned to be transformational for the company, with the potential for FDA approval of tab-cel and transition of this business to our partner Pierre Fabre."

According to the complaint, these statements were materially false because manufacturing issues at a third-party facility and inherent deficiencies in the ALLELE study design, a single-arm trial, made FDA approval unlikely. The complaint alleges that these manufacturing problems subjected Atara to heightened regulatory scrutiny and jeopardized ongoing clinical trials, while the study defects in design, conduct, and analysis undermined the evidence needed for accelerated approval. Investors allege defendants knew or recklessly disregarded that tabelecleucel's regulatory prospects were overstated and that these issues would have a significant negative impact on the company's business and financial condition, in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and SEC Rule 10b-5.

The Truth Emerges

The truth began surfacing on January 16, 2025, when Atara announced it received a Complete Response Letter from the FDA rejecting the tabelecleucel BLA, stating the application could not be approved in its present form. The company disclosed that the CRL was "solely related to observations as part of a standard pre-license inspection of a third-party manufacturing facility for EBVALLO." Five days later, on January 21, 2025, Atara revealed that the FDA had placed a clinical hold on the company's active Investigational New Drug applications due to "inadequately addressed GMP compliance issues identified during the pre-license inspection of the third-party manufacturing facility." These disclosures contradicted executives' repeated assurances about regulatory progress and launch readiness.

Nearly a year later, on January 12, 2026, the FDA issued a second Complete Response Letter, or CRL, that exposed deeper problems with the tabelecleucel application and reiterated that the BLA could not be approved in its present form. The agency stated that "the single arm ALLELE trial is no longer considered to be adequate to provide evidence of effectiveness for accelerated approval" and that "the trial's interpretability is confounded due to trial study design, conduct, and analysis." This revelation contradicted the company's longstanding representations that the ALLELE study supported approval and that launch was imminent.

Market Reaction

The market reacted swiftly to each disclosure. On January 16, 2025, when Atara announced the first Complete Response Letter citing manufacturing facility issues, the stock price fell $5.33 per share, or 40.5%, to close at $7.83 per share. Five days later, on January 21, 2025, when the company disclosed the FDA's clinical hold due to GMP compliance issues, shares fell another $0.52 per share, or 7.91%, to close at $6.05 per share. The most severe decline occurred on January 12, 2026, when Atara revealed the second CRL stating the ALLELE trial was inadequate for approval. The stock plummeted $7.79 per share, or 56.99%, to close at $5.88 per share in a single-day move. Across these three disclosures, investors who purchased during the class period suffered substantial losses as the company's regulatory setbacks unfolded.

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.

Never Miss Another Deadline

Scan the QR code or click the button to join.

Join on WhatsApp

Check Eligibility

Introduction to Lufax Holding Ltd (LU) Securities Class Action Lawsuit

A securities fraud class action has been filed against Lufax Holding Ltd (NYSE: LU) and two of its executives for alleged misrepresentations in violation of Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Section 20(a) control person liability made between April 7, 2023 and January 26, 2025. Investors allege that the company repeatedly assured shareholders that its internal controls and financial reporting were effective, while certain financial results were materially misstated. In January 2025, the company disclosed that its auditor PricewaterhouseCoopers had raised significant concerns about financial disclosures and that its audit opinions for 2022 and 2023 Annual Reports could no longer be relied upon. The subsequent restatement revealed that net profit had been overstated by RMB 917.0 million for 2022 and RMB 81.4 million for 2023, causing the stock to decline by approximately 22% over three trading sessions.

Lufax Holding Ltd (LU) Securities Lawsuit Case Details

Case Name: Kam Wai Mau v. Lufax Holding Ltd, et al.

Case No.: 2:26-cv-03071

Jurisdiction: U.S. District Court, Central District of California

Filed on: March 21, 2026

Lufax Holding Ltd (LU) Company Profile

Lufax describes itself as a leading financial services enabler for small business owners in China, operating in retail credit and credit enablement, with headquarters in Shanghai's Pudong New District, and is a publicly traded financial technology holding company incorporated in the Cayman Islands.

Lufax Holding Ltd (LU) Securities Lawsuit Class Period

April 7, 2023 – January 26, 2025, inclusive.

Investors who purchased or otherwise acquired Lufax Holding Ltd securities publicly traded on the NYSE during the Class Period and suffered damages may be eligible to join the Lufax Holding Ltd (LU) class action lawsuit, including American Depositary Shares.

Allegations in the Lufax Holding Ltd (LU) Securities Class Action Lawsuit

According to the complaint, Lufax Holding Ltd, Chief Executive Officer Yong Suk Cho, and Chief Financial Officer David Siu Kam Choy allegedly misled investors about the effectiveness of the company's internal controls and the accuracy of its financial reporting throughout the class period, by issuing false and misleading statements and failing to disclose material adverse facts.

On April 7, 2023, when Lufax Holding Ltd filed its 2022 Annual Report on Form 20-F with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, management with the participation of the CEO and CFO concluded that disclosure controls and procedures were effective as of December 31, 2022, ensuring that information required under the Exchange Act was properly recorded, processed, summarized and reported within specified timeframes. Management further concluded that internal control over financial reporting was effective as of that date.

The following year, on April 23, 2024, management issued nearly identical assurances in the company's 2023 Annual Report on Form 20-F filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. Once again, with the participation of the CEO and CFO, management concluded that disclosure controls and procedures were effective as of December 31, 2023, and that internal control over financial reporting was effective as of that date.

The complaint alleges these repeated assurances created a false picture of financial reliability and operational integrity, including material misstatements in financial reports. Investors allege that behind these confident statements, Lufax Holding Ltd actually lacked adequate internal controls and that certain financial results were materially misstated, in contravention of Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5. The complaint contends that defendants' statements about the company's business, operations, and prospects were materially false and misleading and lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times.

The Truth Emerges

The alleged deception began to unravel on January 27, 2025, when Lufax Holding Ltd filed a Form 6-K current report with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission revealing that it had fired PricewaterhouseCoopers as its auditor. The disclosure revealed that PwC had significant concerns about Lufax Holding Ltd's financial disclosures, particularly the 2022 and 2023 Annual Reports. The concerns were serious enough that PwC stated its audit opinions for those years and those Annual Reports should no longer be relied upon. PwC disclosed that on October 25, 2024, it received information during a conversation with a then-current senior executive that raised concerns about certain possible related party transactions of the company.

The full extent of the financial misstatements became clear on February 17, 2026, when Lufax Holding Ltd filed its 2024 Annual Report on Form 20-F. Independent auditors following a re-audit found that certain line items were inaccurately recorded in the consolidated financial statements, and restated its financial results. The overstatement of total income for 2022 was RMB 493.8 million, while total income for 2023 was understated by RMB 33.3 million. These errors resulted in a decrease in net profit of RMB 917.0 million for 2022 and RMB 81.4 million for 2023. These revelations directly contradicted management's prior assurances that internal controls were effective and financial reporting was accurate.

Market Reaction

On January 27, 2025, when news of the auditor dismissal and concerns became public, Lufax Holding Ltd ADSs fell $0.40 per ADS, a decline of 13.8%, closing at $2.49 per ADS on the NYSE. The selloff continued the following day as Lufax Holding Ltd ADSs fell a further $0.17 per ADS, down 6.82%, to close at $2.32 per ADS on January 28, 2025. On January 29, 2025, the stock declined an additional $0.06 per ADS, or 2.58%, closing at $2.26 per ADS, reflecting an approximately 22% decline across three trading sessions.

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.

Never Miss Another Deadline

Scan the QR code or click the button to join.

Join on WhatsApp

Introduction to Hercules Capital, Inc. (HTGC) Securities Class Action Lawsuit

A securities fraud class action has been filed against Hercules Capital, Inc. (NYSE: HTGC), a Business Development Company (BDC), and certain executives on behalf of investors who purchased securities between May 1, 2025 and February 27, 2026 under the federal securities laws, including Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Investors allege the company and its leadership misrepresented the rigor of its due diligence processes, loan origination procedures, and portfolio valuation methods while touting disciplined underwriting as a hallmark of the business. According to the complaint, the company's deal sourcing essentially amounted to copying Google Ventures' investments, its valuation team was understaffed with inadequate oversight, and it misclassified portfolio investments to obscure software debt exposure. When these practices were revealed through an investigative report, Hercules Capital's stock price fell sharply, causing significant losses to investors.

Hercules Capital, Inc. (HTGC) Securities Lawsuit Case Details

Case Name: Hunter Hanlon Taylor v. Hercules Capital, Inc., et al.

Case No.: 3:26-cv-02465-VC

Jurisdiction: U.S. District Court, Northern District of California

Filed on: March 20, 2026

Hercules Capital, Inc. (HTGC) Company Profile

Hercules Capital is a private credit firm, headquartered in San Mateo, California, also known as a Business Development Company, which specializes in making private loans to companies through loan origination and underwriting to venture-backed portfolio investments and describes itself as the largest non-bank source of venture financing in the market. The company manages more than $5.7 billion of assets with a concentrated focus on portfolio investments across life sciences and technology in the private credit sector and focuses on life sciences investments, venture-backed technology investments, and private equity/sponsor-backed technology investments.

Hercules Capital, Inc. (HTGC) Securities Lawsuit Class Period

May 1, 2025 – February 27, 2026, inclusive.

All persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired Hercules Capital securities during the Class Period and were damaged thereby may be eligible to join the Hercules Capital, Inc. (HTGC) class action lawsuit.

Allegations in the Hercules Capital, Inc. (HTGC) Securities Class Action Lawsuit

The complaint targets Hercules Capital, Inc., Chief Executive Officer Scott Bluestein, and Chief Financial Officer Seth H. Meyer for allegedly misleading investors about the company's underwriting standards and portfolio management practices in violation of federal securities laws. Throughout the class period, the company filed quarterly reports on May 1, 2025, July 31, 2025, and October 30, 2025 stating that prospective portfolio companies were subject to completion of due diligence and final investment committee approval processes. On February 12, 2026, CEO Bluestein issued a press release emphasizing that the company was maintaining disciplined underwriting as its hallmark and remained committed to fundamental principles of disciplined credit and underwriting. That same day, the company filed its Form 10-K stating that the origination process for investments included sourcing, screening, preliminary due diligence, and deal structuring and negotiation. According to the complaint, these representations painted a picture of robust oversight and careful analysis, but the reality was starkly different because deal sourcing managers relied on other investors' due diligence by copying the Google Ventures investment list. Investors allege the company overstated the due diligence applied to its deal sourcing and loan origination, as well as to its portfolio valuation process despite a valuations team that lacked cross-team review and adequate checks, and reported misclassified portfolio investments that underrepresented its software debt exposure, which the complaint says comprised approximately 35% (about $1.5 billion) of the loan portfolio and was marked at or around part. As a result, the complaint alleges the company overstated and misrepresented its portfolio valuations, rendering defendants' positive statements about the company's business, operations, and prospects materially misleading and lacking a reasonable basis.

The Truth Emerges

On February 27, 2026, Hunterbrook Media published an investigative report entitled "The Myth of Hercules Capital" based on interviews with former employees that contradicted the company's public representations and scrutinized Hercules Capital's private credit practices. According to a former Hercules analyst who worked on deal sourcing, the company's process essentially amounted to going on the website for Google Ventures and just seeing what they invest in and copying it rather than conducting independent due diligence. A former member of Hercules' finance team described the valuations team as consisting of just four people in a single reporting line responsible for dozens of companies with few checks or cross-team review, highlighting inadequate internal controls in the valuation process. The report also revealed that the company underrepresented its significant software debt exposure by assigning certain businesses that described themselves as software companies to categories outside of software, even as industry software debt was in distressed territory and while the company marked software loans at par, or about 100 cents on the dollar. These revelations directly contradicted the company's repeated assurances about disciplined underwriting, robust due diligence processes, and comprehensive sourcing methodologies that had been presented to investors throughout the class period and called into question the integrity of portfolio valuation.

Market Reaction

On February 27, 2026, following publication of the Hunterbrook Media report, Hercules Capital's stock price fell $1.22, or 7.9%, to close at $14.21 per share on unusually heavy trading volume for HTGC, reflecting a single-day decline tied to the disclosure.

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.

Never Miss Another Deadline

Scan the QR code or click the button to join.

Join on WhatsApp

Introduction to Power Solutions International, Inc. (PSIX) Securities Class Action Lawsuit

A securities fraud class action has been filed against Power Solutions International, Inc. (NASDAQ: PSIX) and two of its executives in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The lawsuit covers the period from May 8, 2025 through March 2, 2026, the putative class period. Investors allege the company misrepresented its ability to capture sales demand for power systems in the data center market and minimized the costs and inefficiencies associated with ramping up manufacturing capacity to meet that demand, including understated manufacturing capacity enhancement costs. According to the complaint, while executives touted record-breaking sales growth and strong demand, the company was actually experiencing significant manufacturing inefficiencies and gross margin compression that would undermine its financial performance. When the alleged truth emerged through two alleged corrective disclosures in late 2025 and early 2026, PSIX shares fell $15.55, or 19.14%, on November 7, 2025, and $24.84, or 28.97%, on March 3, 2026, according to the complaint.

Power Solutions International, Inc. (PSIX) Securities Lawsuit Case Details

Case Name: Don Dishion v. Power Solutions International, Inc., et al.

Case No.: 1:26-cv-03149

Jurisdiction: U.S. District Court, Northern District of Illinois

Filed on: March 20, 2026

Power Solutions International, Inc. (PSIX) Company Profile

Power Solutions International, Inc., headquartered in Wood Dale, Illinois, designs, engineers, manufactures, and sells engines and power systems, including alternative-fuel, emissions-certified offerings. The company mainly sells small engines used in industrial equipment like forklifts, transportation vehicles like transit buses, micro-power systems, and power solutions for data centers, serving both stationary and mobile applications across industrial and data center markets.

Power Solutions International, Inc. (PSIX) Securities Lawsuit Class Period

May 8, 2025 – March 2, 2026, inclusive.

Investors who purchased or otherwise acquired Power Solutions securities (ticker PSIX on the NASDAQ) during the Class Period and suffered damages may be eligible to join the Power Solutions International, Inc. (PSIX) class action lawsuit.

Allegations in the Power Solutions International, Inc. (PSIX) Securities Class Action Lawsuit

The complaint targets Power Solutions International, Inc., along with Chief Executive Officer Dino Xykis and Chief Financial Officer Xun Li, alleging they made materially false and misleading statements and omissions about the company's business operations and prospects during the class period, in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

On May 8, 2025, Xykis announced the company's "best first quarter performance in the Company's history," highlighting 42% year-over-year sales growth and a 168% increase in net income, attributing the results to "growing demand for our solutions particularly in power systems, combined with company wide operational enhancements and a continued commitment to financial discipline." Three months later, on August 7, 2025, Xykis declared the second quarter marked "the strongest sales and profit performance in our Company's history," with 74% year-over-year sales growth and 138% increase in net income, again emphasizing "strong demand for our power systems solutions" and "disciplined execution of our strategy." On November 6, 2025, the CEO announced "the highest sales in our company's history," with sales increasing 62% and net income rising 59%, underscoring "the robust demand for our power systems solutions, particularly within the data center market."

According to the complaint, these statements were misleading because they concealed critical problems beneath the surface, including material adverse facts about operating inefficiencies and manufacturing capacity, and because the positive statements allegedly lacked a reasonable basis. Investors allege the company overstated its ability to capture sales demand for power systems solutions in the data center market and understated the impact of its enhancements to manufacturing capacity, including the expected costs and the nature of related inefficiencies, such as manufacturing capacity enhancement costs and supply chain performance issues. The complaint alleges that while executives touted operational enhancements and strong execution, the company was actually struggling with significant manufacturing challenges tied to an accelerated production ramp-up for data center product lines that would severely compress gross margins and undermine the profitability of its data center business.

The Truth Emerges

The truth began to surface on November 6, 2025, when Power Solutions released its third quarter 2025 financial results after the market closed and disclosed operating metrics affecting gross margin. The company revealed that gross margin had decreased 5.0% year-over-year to 23.9%, attributing the decline in part to "temporary inefficiencies related to our accelerated production ramp-up" for "key data center product lines." The company also disclosed it anticipated sales growth of only 45% for full year 2025 year-over-year, a sharp deceleration from the 74% growth reported in the second quarter and 62% growth in the third quarter. These revelations contradicted prior statements about operational enhancements and the strength of the company's strategic execution, and exposed operating inefficiencies tied to the production ramp-up.

The full extent of the problems became clear on March 2, 2026, when Power Solutions announced fourth quarter and full year 2025 financial results after the market closed. The company disclosed that gross margin had declined 8% year-over-year for full year 2025 due to "operating inefficiencies related to our accelerated production ramp-up for data center product lines." The company provided its outlook for 2026, projecting only "moderate margin improvement from the products serving data center markets." CEO Xykis admitted that "operating efficiency was impacted by the ramp up of new manufacturing capacity and increased volumes across certain product lines," and that management was "executing specific actions to improve supply chain performance and manufacturing cost structures" and was only "beginning to see measurable improvements." According to the complaint, these disclosures indicated that the manufacturing inefficiencies and margin pressures associated with the accelerated ramp-up for data center product lines were more substantial than prior statements had suggested.

Market Reaction

Following the November 6, 2025 disclosure of Q3 2025 earnings, Power Solutions' (NASDAQ: PSIX) stock price fell $15.55, or 19.14%, to close at $65.69 per share on November 7, 2025, on unusually heavy trading volume. The damage intensified after the March 2, 2026 disclosure of Q4 and full year 2025 results, when the stock (PSIX) fell $24.84, or 28.97%, to close at $60.91 on March 3, 2026, with unusually heavy trading volume on both disclosure dates.

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.

Never Miss Another Deadline

Scan the QR code or click the button to join.

Join on WhatsApp

Introduction to Coty Inc. (COTY) Securities Class Action Lawsuit

A securities fraud class action has been filed against Coty Inc. (NYSE: COTY), a publicly traded mid-cap company in the global beauty and personal care sector listed on the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE: COTY), and two of its executives in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The lawsuit covers investors who purchased or acquired Coty common stock between November 5, 2025, and February 4, 2026. Investors allege that the company misrepresented its growth potential for fiscal year 2026, including forward-looking guidance on like-for-like revenue and adjusted profitability, claiming business trends were improving and projecting a return to sales and profit growth in the second half of the year. In reality, the complaint alleges, defendants issued materially misleading business information in violation of federal securities laws, Coty’s Consumer Beauty segment was underperforming, margins were compressed by increased marketing investments, and its Prestige fragrance segment was experiencing slowing growth. These alleged misstatements caused investors to purchase Coty securities at artificially inflated prices before the truth emerged in early February 2026, following disappointing second quarter fiscal 2026 results and the withdrawal of prior fiscal 2026 EBITDA guidance.

Coty Inc. (COTY) Securities Lawsuit Case Details

Case Name: Suvega Srinivasan v. Coty Inc., et al.

Case No.: 1:26-cv-02343

Jurisdiction: U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York

Filed on: March 23, 2026

Coty Inc. (COTY) Company Profile

Coty Inc., together with its subsidiaries, manufactures, markets, distributes, and sells branded beauty products worldwide, and its common stock trades on the New York Stock Exchange under the ticker COTY, as a mid-cap consumer company. The company operates through two segments-Prestige and Consumer Beauty-providing fragrance, color cosmetics, and skin and body care products through prestige retailers, including perfumeries, department stores, e-retailers, direct-to-consumer websites, and duty-free shops.

Coty Inc. (COTY) Securities Lawsuit Class Period

November 5, 2025 – February 4, 2026, inclusive.

All investors who purchased or otherwise acquired Coty common stock during the Class Period are potentially eligible to participate in the class action, including purchasers of NYSE: COTY shares.

Allegations in the Coty Inc. (COTY) Securities Class Action Lawsuit

The complaint targets Coty Inc., Chief Executive Officer Sue Nabi, and Chief Financial Officer Laurent Mercier for allegedly misleading investors about the company’s growth prospects during fiscal year 2026 through optimistic forward-looking guidance. On November 5, 2025, CEO Sue Nabi announced in a press release and earnings call that Coty’s underlying business trends were already improving, in line to slightly ahead of expectations, particularly in Prestige. She stated the company saw tremendous potential to accelerate momentum through new brand launches, innovations, market-leading e-commerce, and globally scaled brick-and-mortar presence, and expected second quarter sales at the more favorable end of previous guidance, reinforcing the company’s forward-looking guidance narrative with a return to sales and profit growth in the second half of fiscal year 2026.

The following day, on November 6, 2025, CFO Laurent Mercier reinforced this optimism during an earnings call, stating that the company continued to expect sales (like-for-like revenue) to return to growth in the second half as sell-in and sell-out reached alignment, supported by key launches in Prestige and more favorable comparisons. He also projected adjusted EBITDA, a non-GAAP profitability metric, to return to growth in the second half, targeting around $1 billion for the year.

According to the complaint, these statements concealed material adverse facts about the true state of Coty’s business. Investors allege that the Consumer Beauty segment was actually underperforming, margins were being compressed by increased marketing investments, and the Prestige fragrance segment was experiencing slowing growth rather than the improvement executives publicly described, amounting to materially misleading disclosures under federal securities laws.

The Truth Emerges

The alleged deception began to unravel on February 4, 2026, when newly appointed Interim CEO Markus Strobel delivered prepared remarks acknowledging that Coty’s financial results in the past 18 months had been disappointing. He admitted that the company’s performance versus the market had been inconsistent, and in the second quarter, sell-out was flat, underperforming the market by several points in the critical fragrance category. Strobel conceded that while Coty had outstanding assets and capabilities, the company had not been delivering at the level it should.

The next day, on February 5, 2026, Coty announced its second quarter results and issued a press release revealing disappointing earnings and a like-for-like revenue decline of approximately 3% in the quarter with worsening performance in the Consumer Beauty segment. The company withdrew its prior fiscal year 2026 guidance for EBITDA and free cash flow and provided guidance solely for Q3 due to what CFO Laurent Mercier described as operational discipline that had slipped across the organization over the past two years. These revelations directly contradicted the executives’ prior statements about improving business trends and returning to growth.

Market Reaction

Investors reacted swiftly to these disclosures, with NYSE: COTY shareholders seeing sharp losses. After the market closed on February 4, 2026, following Strobel’s prepared remarks, Coty’s common stock declined from a closing price of $3.43 per share to $3.15 per share on February 5, 2026 on the New York Stock Exchange, a drop of approximately 8%. The decline accelerated after Coty’s formal earnings announcement and guidance withdrawal. On February 6, 2026, the stock fell further to $2.66 per share, an additional 16% decline from the previous day’s close. Over the two-day period from February 4 to February 6, 2026, Coty’s stock price fell a total of $0.77 per share, representing a decline of approximately 22%.

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.

Never Miss Another Deadline

Scan the QR code or click the button to join.

Join on WhatsApp

Introduction to Kyndryl Holdings, Inc. (KD) Securities Class Action Lawsuit

A securities fraud class action has been filed under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 against Kyndryl Holdings, Inc. (NYSE: KD) covering August 1, 2024 through February 9, 2026. Investors allege the company misstated its financial results and downplayed serious internal control problems while assuring the market that any control issues did not cause misstatements-and later that controls were effective. On February 9, 2026, Kyndryl announced it could not timely file its quarterly report (Form 10-Q for Q3 FY2026, ended December 31, 2025), disclosed an investigation by the SEC Division of Enforcement into cash management and related disclosures, and admitted material weaknesses in internal control over financial reporting including information and communication and tone at the top, saying prior control effectiveness conclusions should not be relied upon. The news hit hard. Kyndryl's stock fell $12.90 per share, or 55%, to close at $10.59 on February 9, 2026, wiping out about $3 billion in market capitalization.

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

Kyndryl Holdings, Inc. (KD) Securities Lawsuit Case Details

Case Name: Brander v. Kyndryl Holdings, Inc. et al.
Case No.: 1:26-cv-00782
Jurisdiction: U.S. District Court, Eastern District of New York
Filed on: February 11, 2026

Kyndryl Holdings, Inc. (KD) Company Profile

Kyndryl is a technology services company that provides infrastructure services, focused on enterprise IT infrastructure services and operating in more than 60 countries. The company describes itself as engaging in the provision of infrastructure services and is incorporated in Delaware, and its common stock trades on the NYSE under ticker KD.

Kyndryl Holdings, Inc. (KD) Securities Lawsuit Class Period

August 1, 2024-February 9, 2026, inclusive.

All persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired publicly traded Kyndryl securities on the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE: KD) during the Class Period may be eligible to join the Kyndryl Holdings, Inc. (KD) class action lawsuit.

Allegations in the Kyndryl Holdings, Inc. (KD) Securities Class Action Lawsuit

The complaint targets Kyndryl Holdings, Inc. and senior executives Martin J. Schroeter (Chief Executive Officer and Chairman), David B. Wyshner (Chief Financial Officer during the period), and Vineet Khurana (Senior Vice President, Global Controller, and Principal Accounting Officer), and alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5. 

According to investors, the defendants told the market that control issues were contained and did not cause misstatements, and later asserted that controls were effective-assurances that allegedly concealed the true scope of internal control failures and misstated financials, and failed to disclose material weaknesses in internal control over financial reporting. 

The story begins on August 7, 2024, when CEO Schroeter and CFO Wyshner signed Kyndryl's 1Q25 Form 10-Q acknowledging a material weakness in information technology general controls and stating disclosure controls were not effective. Yet they told investors that "These control deficiencies did not result in a misstatement to the annual or interim consolidated financial statements." During this period, the company emphasized free cash flow and adjusted free cash flow in its investor communications. They repeated the same message in the 2Q25 Form 10-Q on November 7, 2024, and again in the 3Q25 Form 10-Q on February 6, 2025. 

The tone shifted in 2025. On May 30, 2025, in the 2025 Form 10-K, Schroeter and Wyshner concluded that as of March 31, 2025, Kyndryl's internal control over financial reporting was effective and that disclosure controls were effective, asserting compliance with disclosure controls and procedures under the Securities Exchange Act. They maintained that position into fiscal 2026, stating in the 1Q26 Form 10-Q on August 5, 2025, and the 2Q26 Form 10-Q on November 5, 2025, that disclosure controls and procedures were effective at those quarter-ends. Meanwhile, investors allege a different reality. 

The complaint asserts that Kyndryl's financial statements during the Class Period were materially misstated; that the company lacked adequate internal controls and at times understated internal control issues, including deficiencies in cash management practices; and that these problems were so significant the company would be unable to timely file its Form 10-Q for the quarter ended December 31, 2025 (Q3 FY2026). As a result, the complaint alleges defendants' statements about Kyndryl's business, operations, and prospects were false and misleading or lacked a reasonable basis, constituting material misstatements and omissions actionable as securities fraud.

The Truth Emerges

The truth surfaced on February 9, 2026, when Kyndryl filed a Notification of Late Filing (Form 12b-25) and a Current Report on Form 8-K, with the Securities and Exchange Commission, following the February 5, 2026 departures of its CFO, General Counsel, and Controller. The company disclosed it could not timely file its quarterly report (Form 10-Q for Q3 FY2026, ended December 31, 2025) and that the SEC's Division of Enforcement had made voluntary document requests regarding cash management practices, related disclosures-including the drivers of its adjusted free cash flow metric-and the efficacy of internal control over financial reporting. 

Through its Audit Committee, Kyndryl announced a review of those areas , including an internal accounting review of cash management practices, disclosure controls, and free cash flow metrics and "certain other matters." That same day, management admitted it anticipated reporting material weaknesses in internal control over financial reporting for the quarter to be reported, for the full fiscal year ended March 31, 2025, and for the first two fiscal quarters of fiscal 2026 (Q1 and Q2 FY2026). The weaknesses were expected to include controls related to information and communication and tone at the top, and Kyndryl stated that its prior assessment of internal control effectiveness as of March 31, 2025 should no longer be relied upon. These admissions directly contradicted earlier assurances that controls were effective and that identified deficiencies had not resulted in misstatements.

Market Reaction

Before the market opened on February 9, 2026, investors learned of the late filing and SEC investigation, and by the close Kyndryl's stock had fallen $12.90 per share, or 55%, to finish at $10.59, a single-day decline on NYSE: KD that erased approximately $3 billion in market capitalization. The sharp, same-day drop followed Kyndryl's disclosures of its late filing, SEC document requests regarding cash management and related disclosures, and its anticipation of material weaknesses in internal control over financial reporting.

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.

Frequently Asked Questions

Never Miss Another Deadline

Scan the QR code or click the button to join.

Join on WhatsApp

Introduction to Picard Medical, Inc. (PMI) Securities Class Action Lawsuit

A federal securities fraud class action has been filed against Picard Medical, Inc. (NASDAQ: PMI) under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, including Rule 10b-5 and Sections 10(b) and 20(a) on behalf of investors who bought Picard securities between September 2, 2025 and October 31, 2025. Investors allege defendants misled the market by omitting that Picard's stock was being driven by a fraudulent social media promotion scheme targeting retail investors that used impersonated financial professionals, and concealed artificial trading activity. 

Behind the upbeat messaging, public reports later described an artificial buying frenzy fueled by false online claims and coordinated trading. When these reports surfaced and volatility spiked, the company stated it was not aware of any undisclosed material change, omitting mention of false rumors and manipulation. Investors say they were harmed when the stock crashed to $3.99 on October 24, 2025, a single-day 70% decline, and then continued falling to approximately $2.00 per share.

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

Picard Medical, Inc. (PMI) Securities Lawsuit Case Details

Case Name: Louie v. Picard Medical, Inc. et al.
Case No.: 5:26-cv-01024
Jurisdiction: U.S. District Court, Northern District of California, San Jose Division
Filed on: February 2, 2026

Picard Medical, Inc. (PMI) Company Profile

Picard is a holding company that owns SynCardia Systems, LLC, based in Tucson, Arizona, a medical technology business that manufactures and sells the only U.S. Food and Drug Administration and Health Canada approved implantable total artificial heart, the SynCardia TAH artificial heart. The company operates in the U.S., Europe, and China, as a medical device manufacturer and reports work on a next-generation fully implantable total artificial heart, with an FDA-approved product line.

Picard Medical, Inc. (PMI) Securities Lawsuit Class Period

September 2, 2025-October 31, 2025, inclusive.

All persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired Picard securities during the Class Period, including common stock trading under the ticker symbol PMI may be eligible to join the Picard Medical, Inc. (PMI) class action lawsuit.

Allegations in the Picard Medical, Inc. (PMI) Securities Class Action Lawsuit

According to the complaint, the lawsuit targets Picard Medical, Inc.; CEO Patrick NJ Schnegelsberg; CFO Bernard Skaggs; Matt Schuster; directors Yuncai "Richard" Fang and Chris Hsieh; underwriters Westpark Capital, Inc., Sentinel Brokers Company, Inc., R.F. Lafferty & Co. Inc., and American Trust Investments; and auditor MaloneBailey, LLP. Investors allege defendants presented a positive picture of Picard's business and stock while omitting the artificial trading and online promotion allegedly propelling the share price, constituting material misstatements and omissions under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act.

The story begins on September 2, 2025, when Picard's IPO prospectus told investors it owns SynCardia, which "manufactures and sells the only U.S. Food and Drug Administration and Health Canada approved implantable total artificial heart." On September 15, 2025, Patrick NJ Schnegelsberg issued a press release touting second-quarter strength, citing "over 200% revenue growth year-over-year," improved operations, and IPO proceeds to fund development and expansion that allegedly lacked a reasonable basis. As the stock rose into late October, the company continued to speak positively about operations and prospects and omitted material risk disclosures about stock promotion and market manipulation.

Then, on October 24, 2025, after volatility spiked, the company released a statement asserting it was "not aware of any undisclosed material change in the Company's operations or financial condition" to account for the stock's swings. The complaint alleges that, during the Class Period, defendants' public statements and risk disclosures omitted that Picard's stock was the subject of a fraudulent stock promotion campaign and artificial trading activity.

Behind the scenes, investors allege a coordinated social-media-based promotion, a pump-and-dump scheme used impersonated financial professionals to spread sensational but baseless claims, creating a retail buying frenzy. The complaint further alleges that insiders and/or affiliates used offshore or nominee accounts during the price inflation campaign to execute coordinated insider share dumping. As a result, the complaint claims defendants' positive statements about Picard's business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading and lacked a reasonable basis that manufactured demand and artificially inflated the stock price.

The Truth Emerges

According to the complaint, on October 23, 2025, investigations and public reports described how Picard had become the subject of an illicit social-media-driven promotion spreading false rumors and social media misinformation that artificially inflated its stock price, with touts from impersonators in online forums and chat groups as the market learned the truth about the company's trading activity. Despite warning signs and public reports of manipulation as early as September 30, 2025, the company had not issued investor warnings before the crash or disclosed artificial trading activity.

The next day, on October 24, 2025, Picard addressed the volatility but said it was not aware of any undisclosed material changes in operations or finances that would explain the price moves while continuing to omit material adverse facts about the promotion scheme. These revelations and responses contradicted the company's prior optimism and its omission of manipulation risks from its public statements and stock price manipulation.

Market Reaction

The market moved in stages. In the weeks after the September 2, 2025 IPO, Picard's share price surged from $4.00 to an intraday high of $13.68, and on October 23, 2025, it closed at $13.20. After the October 23 close, during aftermarket trading, the stock abruptly fell; by October 24, 2025, it had crashed to $3.99 per share, reflecting a single-day 70% stock price crash, and subsequently declined to approximately $2.00 per share.

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.

Never Miss Another Deadline

Scan the QR code or click the button to join.

Join on WhatsApp

Introduction to Aquestive Therapeutics, Inc. (AQST) Securities Class Action Lawsuit

A securities fraud class action has been filed under the federal securities laws against Aquestive Therapeutics, Inc. (NASDAQ: AQST) and its CEO Daniel Barber on behalf of investors who purchased Aquestive securities traded on the NASDAQ under ticker AQST between June 16, 2025 and January 8, 2026. Investors allege that defendants misrepresented the status of the company's New Drug Application for Anaphylm, a sublingual film epinephrine treatment for anaphylaxis, repeatedly assuring shareholders that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approval process was on track for January 31, 2026, the PDUFA action date. In reality, the complaint alleges, Aquestive concealed or minimized significant deficiencies related to human factors-including packaging, use, administration, and labeling-that would ultimately prevent approval. When the FDA disclosed these deficiencies in January 2026 and issued a Complete Response Letter rejecting the application, Aquestive's stock price collapsed, falling over 37% in a single day.

Aquestive Therapeutics, Inc. (AQST) Securities Lawsuit Case Details

Case Name: Vincent Modica v. Aquestive Therapeutics, Inc., et al.

Case No.: 3:26-cv-02317

Jurisdiction: U.S. District Court, District of New Jersey

Filed on: March 5, 2026

Aquestive Therapeutics, Inc. (AQST) Company Profile

Aquestive Therapeutics is a pharmaceutical company based in Warren, New Jersey, and publicly traded on the NASDAQ committed to advancing medicines through innovative science and delivery technologies, including its PharmFilm oral drug delivery platform. The Company’s pipeline includes treatments for neurologic conditions such as epilepsy. One of the company's key pharmaceuticals is Anaphylm, an allergic reaction treatment that is a sublingual film formulation of epinephrine, also known as AQST-109, designed for emergency treatment of severe allergic reactions.

Aquestive Therapeutics, Inc. (AQST) Securities Lawsuit Class Period

June 16, 2025 – January 8, 2026, inclusive.

All investors who purchased or otherwise acquired Aquestive securities during the Class Period, including NASDAQ-listed AQST common stock, may be eligible to join the Aquestive Therapeutics, Inc. (AQST) class action lawsuit.

Allegations in the Aquestive Therapeutics, Inc. (AQST) Securities Class Action Lawsuit

The complaint targets Aquestive Therapeutics, Inc. and its CEO Daniel Barber for allegedly misleading investors about the regulatory approval timeline for Anaphylm, a device-free sublingual film epinephrine treatment designed for anaphylaxis. On June 16, 2025, CEO Barber announced the FDA's acceptance of the company's New Drug Application, the Anaphylm NDA, declaring that Anaphylm represented "a breakthrough in anaphylaxis treatment" and emphasizing its convenience as a product "thinner than a credit card" that required no special storage. He stated the company was "one step closer to getting this life-saving innovation in the hands of the patients and caregivers who need it most." During this period, defendants continued to express confidence in the approval process. On August 11, 2025, Barber announced preparations for "a potential U.S. launch in 2026" with "regulatory progress on track." The following day, during an earnings call, he told investors the company was "now less than 6 months away" from the FDA action date and assured them: "I'm pleased to tell you this morning that we are on track across the important elements of Anaphylm. We are on track in our FDA review process." On November 5, 2025, after the FDA decided not to convene an Advisory Committee, Barber stated that this decision "further advances our regulatory path" and that the NDA "remains on track for the scheduled January 31, 2026 PDUFA goal date," a PDUFA action date that investors watched closely.

According to the complaint, defendants created the false impression that Aquestive was on track to receive approval for Anaphylm by the January 31, 2026 PDUFA date while concealing or minimizing the significance of human factors deficiencies involving the drug's packaging, use, administration, and labeling, deficiencies in the NDA that precluded labeling discussions and post-marketing commitments. The lawsuit alleges that the FDA had identified deficiencies preventing approval discussions and raising approvability concerns, which meant approval could not be granted without remediation. These material omissions caused investors to purchase Aquestive securities at artificially inflated prices throughout the class period.

The Truth Emerges

On January 9, 2026, Aquestive disclosed that the company had received an FDA letter identifying deficiencies in the NDA that precluded discussion of post-marketing commitments, effectively halting approval and labeling discussions. The announcement stated that although the notification did not specify the deficiencies, the FDA's concerns prevented the approval process from moving forward, and the company was working to understand and resolve the issues. Less than a month later, on February 2, 2026, Aquestive announced that the FDA had issued a Complete Response Letter on January 30, 2026, one day before the January 31 PDUFA action date, formally rejecting the Anaphylm application. The CRL cited specific deficiencies in the Anaphylm human factors validation study, including instances of difficulty opening the pouch and incorrect film placement, which the FDA believed could cause significant safety issues in the setting of anaphylaxis.

These revelations directly contradicted defendants' repeated assurances throughout the class period that the approval process was on track and progressing smoothly toward the January 31, 2026 deadline. The disclosure exposed that significant regulatory obstacles existed well before the PDUFA date, undermining the optimistic narrative defendants had presented to investors about the drug's imminent approval and commercial launch.

Market Reaction

The market reacted swiftly to the January 9, 2026 disclosure of FDA deficiencies. Aquestive's common stock on the NASDAQ fell from a closing price of $6.21 per share on January 8, 2026 to $3.91 per share on January 9, 2026, a decline of $2.30 or over 37% in a single day.

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.

Never Miss Another Deadline

Scan the QR code or click the button to join.

Join on WhatsApp

Introduction to Gartner, Inc. (IT) Securities Class Action Lawsuit

A securities fraud class action has been filed, alleging violations of the federal securities laws, including the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 and Section 20(a) against Gartner, Inc. (NYSE: IT) and two of its executives on behalf of investors who purchased Gartner common stock on the New York Stock Exchange, ticker NYSE: IT, between February 4, 2025, and February 2, 2026. Investors allege that the company misrepresented its ability to achieve accelerating contract value growth rates and meet consulting revenue targets through materially false and misleading statements and material omissions in public financial disclosures despite ongoing industry challenges. The truth allegedly emerged in two phases during 2025 and early 2026, when Gartner disclosed significant declines in contract value growth and consulting segment shortfalls that contradicted optimistic projections and prior forward-looking revenue guidance. These revelations resulted in a cumulative decline of approximately 48% across two disclosure dates, an event-driven stock price decline that investors attribute to corrective disclosures.

Gartner, Inc. (IT) Securities Lawsuit Case Details

Case Name: Kevin Schmidt v. Gartner, Inc., et al.

Case No.: 3:26-cv-00394

Jurisdiction: U.S. District Court, District of Connecticut

Filed on: March 17, 2026

Gartner, Inc. (IT) Company Profile

Gartner is a global company operating in the information technology research and advisory sector that provides technology and business insights to its clientele through guidance, tools, conferences, and direct consulting, and is listed on the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE) as NYSE: IT. The Company operates through three segments: Business and Technology Insights, Conferences, and Consulting, generating $6.5 billion in revenue for full year 2025, as reflected in its Q4 2025 financial results.

Gartner, Inc. (IT) Securities Lawsuit Class Period

February 4, 2025-February 2, 2026, inclusive, the putative class period under federal securities laws

All investors who purchased or otherwise acquired Gartner common stock (NYSE: IT) during the Class Period may be eligible to join the Gartner, Inc. (IT) class action lawsuit.

Allegations in the Gartner, Inc. (IT) Securities Class Action Lawsuit

The complaint targets Gartner, Inc., Chief Executive Officer and Chairman Eugene A. Hall, and Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer Craig W. Safian for allegedly misrepresenting the company's growth prospects and operational capabilities to investors throughout the class period through materially false and misleading statements and material omissions in their public financial disclosures.

On February 4, 2025, Safian announced during an earnings call that the company's guidance and forward-looking revenue forecast reflected contract value continuing to accelerate during 2025, stating that with 12% to 16% research CV growth, the company would deliver double-digit revenue growth, which investors allege was a misleading statement.

During the same earnings call, Hall reinforced this optimistic outlook, explaining that over the course of 2025 and when exiting the year, he expected CV growth to exceed 7.8% and continue accelerating first to double digits and then to the medium-term objective of 12% to 16%, which, investors allege, artificially inflated the stock price. The company maintained this confident stance throughout the following months, including in SEC disclosures and investor communications.

On May 6, 2025, Hall announced that first quarter financial results were ahead of expectations with contract value growing 7%, and assured investors that the company would continue to provide significant value to clients and emerge from the current environment even stronger, which plaintiffs allege omitted adverse information about the Consulting segment's ability to meet internal targets. He reiterated expectations to reaccelerate CV growth to the target of 12% to 16% when the macroeconomic environment returned to normal, a forward-looking statement that plaintiffs challenge.

By November 4, 2025, Hall told investors during an earnings call that the selling environment with tariff-impacted companies was starting to improve, suggesting there was more tariff certainty and clients were focused on how to deal with it, statements investors allege concealed persisting headwinds to contract value growth.

According to the complaint, these statements concealed that Gartner was not truly equipped to handle ongoing challenges in its industry to either meet consulting revenue targets or to increase or even maintain its CV growth rate, in violation of federal securities laws. The company's repeated claims of being able to achieve 12-16% CV growth rates in a normal macroeconomic environment allegedly proved to be unrealistic, causing investors to purchase Gartner securities at artificially inflated prices and, as a result, investors suffered losses.

The Truth Emerges

The truth began to surface on August 5, 2025, when Gartner announced, in a corrective disclosure to the market, a surprising decline in its CV growth rate during its second quarter fiscal 2025 earnings release and call, which investors identify as the first corrective disclosure. The company revealed that overall CV growth had declined from 7% the previous quarter to only 5%, while CV growth excluding the U.S. federal government had similarly dropped from 8% to merely 6%. Hall acknowledged during the earnings call that the company had a high degree of confidence in what caused these headwinds because they tracked the reason for every loss for both renewals and potential new business, identifying the largest headwind as being with the U.S. federal government.

The full truth finally emerged on February 3, 2026, when Gartner again announced a significant decline in its CV growth rate, as part of its Q4 2025 financial results, which had faltered another 2% both including and excluding federal contracts. For the first time, the company disclosed a significant shortfall of its Consulting segment's performance against internal projections, reporting fourth quarter consulting revenue of $134 million compared with $153 million in the year ago period, and provided a 2026 outlook with a 2026 revenue forecast below analyst expectations. Fourth quarter contract value grew only 1% year-over-year, while CV outside the U.S. federal government grew just 4%, and its 2026 revenue guidance was below consensus analyst expectations. These revelations directly contradicted the company's prior assurances about accelerating CV growth and the ability to meet consulting segment targets.

Market Reaction

The market reacted sharply to these disclosures, with a significant stock price decline on each announcement date. On August 5, 2025, following the earnings call that revealed declining CV growth rates, Gartner's stock price on the New York Stock Exchange fell from a closing price of $336.71 per share on August 4, 2025, to $243.93 per share, a decline of $92.78 or approximately 27.55%, a single-day stock drop consistent with event-driven securities litigation.

The damage continued on February 3, 2026, when the company announced further CV decline and consulting segment shortfalls. The stock fell from a closing price of $202.40 per share on February 2, 2026, to $160.16 per share, a decline of $42.24 or nearly 20.87% in one day, and the stock closed lower following the earnings announcement.

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.

Never Miss Another Deadline

Scan the QR code or click the button to join.

Join on WhatsApp