Introduction

A securities class action lawsuit has been filed against SES AI Corporation (NYSE: SES) and its CEO Qichao Hu on behalf of investors who purchased SES AI securities between January 29, 2025 and March 4, 2026. The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, defendants made materially false and misleading statements about SES AI's business prospects, overstating the expected results of deals with companies that had limited or no meaningful operations, while concealing material logistics constraints that impacted fourth quarter 2025 revenues. When the Company reported fourth quarter 2025 results on March 4, 2026 and issued 2026 revenue guidance of $30 million to $35 million, far below the $51.67 million analysts expected, the stock plunged. On March 5, 2026, SES shares fell $0.63 per share, or 36.8%, to close at $1.08. Investors allege this decline caused losses for shareholders who purchased SES securities at artificially inflated prices.

Company Profile

SES AI Corporation is a developer and manufacturer of AI-enhanced lithium-metal and lithium-ion rechargeable battery technologies and battery materials for energy storage systems, urban air mobility, drones, robotics, electric vehicles, and other applications. The Company is incorporated in Delaware with its head office in Woburn, Massachusetts, and its common stock trades on the New York Stock Exchange under the ticker symbol SES.

Class Period

January 29, 2025 – March 4, 2026, inclusive.

Investors who purchased or acquired SES AI Corporation (SES) securities during the Class Period may be entitled to seek recovery under the federal securities laws.

Allegations

The complaint alleges that SES AI Corporation and its CEO Qichao Hu engaged in a scheme to artificially inflate the Company's stock price by announcing deals with business partners that lacked the capacity to generate meaningful revenue, while simultaneously promoting an AI platform called "Molecular Universe" whose commercial viability was allegedly overstated. According to the lawsuit, defendants made materially false and misleading statements beginning on January 29, 2025, when SES AI announced a memorandum of understanding with AISPEX, a Texas-based retail energy provider, targeting up to $45 million in revenue for battery energy storage system solutions at a crypto mining site in Texas. The complaint alleges this announcement materially overstated the likelihood of long-term revenues because AISPEX did not have any meaningful crypto mining operations in Texas. A December 2025 short-seller report by Wolfpack Research later revealed that AISPEX's listed headquarters was a "ramshackle building surrounded by shipping containers" bearing the signage of a different company, and that no progress had been made on the deal.

On the Company's fourth quarter 2024 earnings call on February 25, 2025, Defendant Hu reiterated the AISPEX deal and highlighted a "significant purchase order" with Data Blanket, an AI drone startup, for lithium-metal cells. The complaint alleges these statements were materially false because SES AI never actually delivered any product to Data Blanket, which the lawsuit describes as a small startup with only a handful of employees and limited business capacity. The Company also announced the completion of its acquisition of Shenzen UZ Energy Co., Ltd. in September 2025, stating it positioned SES AI to become "an active player in the global $300 billion ESS market." According to the complaint, this statement was materially misleading because UZ Energy was a low-margin business with very little U.S. presence. Its U.S.-related entity reportedly shared an address with two other companies, and its registered agent had been sued for allegedly helping launder money as part of a billion-dollar Ponzi scheme.

The complaint further alleges that SES AI's October 2025 announcement of a joint venture with Hisun New Energy Materials to commercially supply electrolyte materials discovered by Molecular Universe was materially false because Hisun had no manufacturing capacity within the United States. According to the Wolfpack Research report, Hisun's planned Texas facility site remained undeveloped swampland, its listed corporate address was a residential home, and it appeared to have only one U.S. employee. More broadly, the complaint alleges that SES AI created an appearance of revenue for Molecular Universe through circular transactions, buying equipment from companies in exchange for those companies buying Molecular Universe licenses. The complaint also cites a former employee who characterized the AI platform as "kind of a toy" with limited practical value due to a major bottleneck at the synthesis and testing stage. The complaint also alleges that SES AI's Q3 2025 quarterly report, which included Sarbanes-Oxley certifications signed by Defendant Hu, contained materially misleading risk disclosures that failed to acknowledge logistics constraints the Company knew were already materially impacting fourth quarter revenues. As late as January 16, 2026, at the Needham Growth Conference, Defendant Hu discussed the Company's revenue guidance and growth prospects without disclosing these logistics issues. Notably, the complaint alleges that SES AI's Chief Science Officer, Dr. Hong Gan, sold 500,000 shares of company stock for over $1 million in proceeds in November 2025 and January 2026, shortly after and during the period in which these alleged misrepresentations were being made.

The Truth Emerges

The first significant challenge to defendants' narrative came on December 9, 2025, when Wolfpack Research published a detailed short-seller report alleging that SES AI had announced "phantom deals" with entities lacking substantial operations and had promoted Molecular Universe to distract from the impending loss of major OEM customers Honda and Hyundai. The report documented site visits to AISPEX's headquarters, Hisun's purported facility location, and UZ Energy's U.S. address, finding a pattern of business partners whose physical presence and operational capacity did not match SES AI's public representations. A former employee quoted in the report described Molecular Universe subscriptions as effectively rebates on equipment purchases rather than genuine demand for the product.

The full extent of the alleged misrepresentations became clear on March 4, 2026, when SES AI held its fourth quarter earnings call. CFO Jing Nealis disclosed that logistics constraints had delayed shipments at the end of the year, pushing approximately $1.5 million of revenue into the first quarter of 2026, constraints that the complaint alleges the Company knew about but concealed during Defendant Hu's January 2026 conference appearance. More critically, the Company issued 2026 revenue guidance of $30 million to $35 million, dramatically below the $51.67 million Wall Street analysts had expected, confirming concerns about the pace and sustainability of commercialization that defendants' prior statements had obscured.

Market Reaction

The market reaction to SES AI's disappointing fourth quarter results and weak 2026 guidance was severe. On March 5, 2026, SES shares fell $0.63 per share, or 36.8%, to close at $1.08. Financial publication Benzinga reported that shares were "trading sharply lower" after the Company "posted mixed fourth-quarter results and issued a 2026 sales outlook that trailed Wall Street expectations," noting that the below-consensus guidance raised "concerns about the pace of commercialization" for SES AI's energy storage systems, drone battery, and materials businesses.

Next Steps

●       Lead Plaintiff Deadline: June 26, 2026

●       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

Introduction

A securities class action lawsuit has been filed against Regencell Bioscience Holdings Limited (NASDAQ: RGC) and certain of its top officials on behalf of investors who purchased or acquired Regencell securities between October 28, 2024 and October 31, 2025. The complaint alleges that defendants made materially false and misleading statements by downplaying the company's vulnerability to market manipulation and the resulting risks to investors, even as RGC's share price surged nearly 48,650% during the Class Period without any corresponding change in business fundamentals. The truth began to emerge on October 31, 2025, when Regencell disclosed that it had received a subpoena from the U.S. Department of Justice indicating a federal investigation into trading in its ordinary shares. On this news, RGC shares fell $3.09 per share, or 18.56%, to close at $13.56 on November 3, 2025, causing significant losses to investors.

Company Profile

Regencell Bioscience Holdings Limited is a purported early-stage bioscience company focused on the research, development, and commercialization of traditional Chinese medicine for the treatment of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder and autism spectrum disorder. According to the complaint, the company, which has been publicly listed on the NASDAQ since July 2021, has twelve employees, no approved or salable products, no revenue, and has incurred operating losses since its formation. The complaint further alleges that the company reported research and development costs of only $0.95 million and $1.07 million for the fiscal years ended June 30, 2025 and 2024, respectively. Regencell is a controlled company under NASDAQ rules, with approximately 88.8% of its shares held by directors and executive officers, the vast majority by its founder, Chairman, and CEO, Defendant Yat-Gai Au.

Class Period

October 28, 2024 – October 31, 2025, inclusive.

Investors who purchased or acquired Regencell Bioscience Holdings Limited (RGC) 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, defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding the company's business, operations, and compliance policies by failing to disclose that Regencell was vulnerable and subject to market manipulation. According to the complaint, this alleged manipulation drove extraordinary volatility in RGC shares. The stock generally traded at less than $0.30 per share from the start of the Class Period through mid-March 2025 before allegedly surging to a high of $78.00 per share on June 17, 2025, representing a 48,650% increase. Despite having no revenue and no approved products, Regencell had a market value of approximately $14 billion as of the time of the complaint's filing, larger than all but 20 of the 261 companies in the Nasdaq Biotechnology Index, according to the complaint and The Wall Street Journal’s January 2026 reporting.

The complaint alleges that Regencell's SEC filings, including its 2024 annual report on Form 20-F filed during post-market hours before October 28, 2024, and its interim financial statements filed on June 30, 2025, contained only generic, catch-all risk warnings about potential share price volatility that were not tailored to the actual known risks. Rather than disclose the company's susceptibility to market manipulation, defendants attributed the extreme price swings primarily to short-selling activity, potential "short squeezes," and unidentified third-party news and social media activity. The Individual Defendants, CEO Yat-Gai Au and Financial Controller Michelle Chan, signed Sarbanes-Oxley certifications attesting that these filings did not contain untrue statements of material fact or omit material facts necessary to make the statements not misleading.

Plaintiffs allege that defendants knew or recklessly disregarded that these disclosures were inadequate. Defendant Au owned in excess of 80% of Regencell's ordinary shares at all relevant times, meaning the massive rise in share price produced an enormous increase in his personal net worth and, according to the complaint, made him undoubtedly highly attuned to significant fluctuations in the stock price. The complaint further alleges that by concealing the company's vulnerability to manipulation, defendants failed to comply with SEC Item 105, which requires disclosure of material risk factors, and Item 303, which requires disclosure of known trends or uncertainties likely to have a material impact on business results. The resulting volatility exposed investors to significant financial risk and subjected Regencell to a heightened risk of regulatory scrutiny and enforcement action.

The Truth Emerges

On October 31, 2025, during post-market hours, Regencell filed its annual report on Form 20-F for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2025. For the first time, the filing disclosed that "following recent volatility in the market for our Ordinary Shares, the Company received correspondence and a subpoena from the U.S. Department of Justice, indicating that the DOJ is conducting an investigation into the trading in our Ordinary Shares." The company revealed that the DOJ had requested production of documents and communications concerning corporate operational, financial, and accounting matters.

Regencell further disclosed that it expected to "continue to incur significant legal costs and other expenses in connection with responding to the investigation" and acknowledged that it "may be required to pay fines, penalties, damages or settlement costs in excess of our insurance coverage, if any, related to the investigation." The company also warned that the investigation could result in administrative, injunctive, or other proceedings against the company and its directors, officers, or employees. According to the complaint, this disclosure revealed that the company's prior framing of the volatility as primarily a product of short squeezes and third-party media activity had omitted the material fact that Regencell was subject to a federal investigation into the trading in its ordinary shares.

Market Reaction

Following the October 31, 2025 disclosure of the DOJ investigation, Regencell's ordinary shares fell $3.09 per share, or 18.56%, closing at $13.56 per share on November 3, 2025, the first trading day after the after-hours filing. This decline reflected the market's absorption of the federal investigation and the associated risks of fines, penalties, and enforcement action. The drop came after a Class Period in which RGC shares had already plummeted from their June 17, 2025 high of $78.00 per share, and the November 3 closing price represented a steep decline from the levels at which many investors had purchased shares during the period of extreme volatility.

Next Steps

●       Lead Plaintiff Deadline: June 23, 2026

●       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

Introduction

A securities class action lawsuit has been filed against Globant S.A. (NYSE: GLOB), its CEO Martin Migoya, CFO Juan Ignacio Urthiague, and former COO Patricia Pomies. The lawsuit covers investors who purchased or acquired Globant common stock between February 15, 2024 and August 14, 2025, alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The complaint alleges that defendants made materially false and misleading statements about the success of Globant's $1 billion strategic pivot to Latin America, concealing declining demand, client defections, project cancellations, and employee wage freezes that were undermining the Company's operations in the region. As the truth about these failures emerged over three corrective disclosures in 2025, Globant's stock price collapsed from over $210 per share to $66.46 per share, causing significant losses for investors.

Company Profile

Globant S.A. is a Luxembourg-incorporated international technology services company that provides digital consulting, software development, and IT outsourcing services to multinational corporations across a variety of sectors. The Company was founded in Argentina, maintains a workforce largely based in Latin America, and traditionally derived most of its revenue from U.S. clients before announcing a $1 billion strategic pivot to expand its Latin American business in mid-2023.

Class Period

February 15, 2024 – August 14, 2025, inclusive.

Investors who purchased or acquired Globant S.A. (GLOB) 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, Globant and its senior executives painted a consistently optimistic picture of the Company's Latin American expansion to investors. Beginning with the Q4 2023 earnings call on February 15, 2024, CEO Martin Migoya described Globant's "prominence" in Latin America as "particularly beneficial" and highlighted "significant investments in Mexico and Brazil," which together accounted for 38% of the Company's regional revenue. CFO Juan Ignacio Urthiague told investors the Company was "very confident about our ability to grow in Latin America" and emphasized that Brazil and Mexico represented opportunities to "significantly expand" Globant's presence. In the Company's Annual Report filed February 29, 2024, Globant described employee retention as "one of our main priorities and a key driver of operational efficiency and productivity" and emphasized its strategy of expanding its global delivery footprint to "gain access to additional pools of talent."

According to the complaint, these statements were materially false and misleading. In reality, as alleged in the complaint, Globant's Latin American strategy was failing. The Company was facing declining demand for its services, client defections, and project cancellations across the region. Globant's high-profile December 2023 acquisition of Iteris, a Brazilian digital consulting firm, was troubled, as former Iteris clients allegedly left because of Globant's high hourly rates, and the Company allegedly failed to properly integrate Iteris employees, who never received promised salary and benefit increases. Meanwhile, Globant had frozen wages for employees in Mexico and Argentina beginning in late 2023. Given the high inflation rates in those countries, particularly Argentina, which experienced double-digit inflation, these wage freezes effectively amounted to wage cuts, triggering widespread employee unrest that further degraded the Company’s ability to deliver quality services to clients.

The complaint alleges that defendants continued to conceal these problems through successive quarterly earnings calls. On the Q1 2024 call, Migoya described Globant as the "employer of choice" in Latin America and claimed the Company was in a "forefront position, outpacing other players in the industry." Urthiague told investors that Argentine salaries had experienced "a very good impact" and that the Company was "not expecting big changes," while Argentine employees' purchasing power was being eroded by frozen wages and persistent inflation. On the Q2 2024 call, COO Patricia Pomies stated that demand was "very, very high" and that the Company was "continu[ing] hiring in many of the countries," while Urthiague described Latin America as "a great place to be." By the Q3 2024 call in November, Pomies claimed the Company was "slightly growing year-over-year" in Latin America and would "start growing faster," while in reality the Computer Trade Association had formally petitioned Globant's CEO for urgent salary increases and workers alleged the Company was blocking unionization efforts. According to the complaint, defendants knew or recklessly disregarded that these positive representations were materially misleading because they had access to internal information about the deteriorating conditions in Latin America, including declining client demand, the wage freezes, employee unrest, and the failure of the Iteris acquisition.

The Truth Emerges

The truth about Globant's Latin American operations emerged through a series of disclosures in 2025. On February 20, 2025, the Company reported Q4 2024 results that missed guidance, revealing a 1.3% decrease in Latin American revenue and offering more muted Q1 2025 guidance. On the earnings call, Migoya acknowledged for the first time that the situation in Latin America during 2024 had been "a little bit rocky" due to "political turmoil and different things" in Brazil and Colombia, while Urthiague pointed to "a lot of political noise in Q4." This was the first time Globant gave investors any indication that its Latin American expansion had encountered significant problems during 2024.

On May 15, 2025, the Company reported disappointing Q1 2025 results that disclosed further deterioration. Globant acknowledged "a challenging macroeconomic and geopolitical context" affecting spending patterns among its largest Latin American customers and revealed that Latin American revenue had declined 9% year-over-year, "with notable contractions in Mexico and Brazil." Migoya conceded that "growth in some countries in Latin America [was] lower than expected," while the Company stated bluntly that "Mexico [is] suffering. Brazil is suffering." The full extent of the failures was revealed on August 14, 2025, when Globant reported Q2 2025 results disclosing that it had reduced headcount by approximately 1,000 employees and taken a $47.6 million restructuring charge. On the earnings call, defendants admitted that headcount in Latin America had been declining "for a number of quarters" and discussed the "deterioration" in Brazil and Mexico throughout 2024 and into 2025, a stark contradiction of the Company's prior statements about growth and expansion in those markets.

Market Reaction

Globant's stock price suffered three sharp declines as the truth about its Latin American operations reached the market. Following the February 20, 2025 disclosures, GLOB fell $58.45 per share, a decline of nearly 28%, from a closing price of $210.17 on February 20 to $151.72 on February 21, 2025. The May 15, 2025 disclosures triggered a further decline of $31.37 per share, more than 23%, with the stock falling from $132.84 to $101.47 on May 16, 2025. The August 14, 2025 revelations drove the stock down an additional $11.66 per share, a decline of nearly 15%, from $78.12 to $66.46 on August 15, 2025. In total, GLOB's stock price declined from $210.17 per share before the first corrective disclosure to $66.46 per share after the final disclosure, a cumulative loss of approximately 68% across the three corrective events.

Next Steps

●       Lead Plaintiff Deadline: June 23, 2026

●       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

Introduction

A securities class action lawsuit has been filed against LKQ Corporation and certain of its current and former senior executives by the City of Miami General Employees' & Sanitation Employees' Retirement Trust. The lawsuit covers investors who purchased or acquired LKQ common stock between February 27, 2023 and July 23, 2025, inclusive. The complaint alleges that defendants made materially false and misleading statements about the success and strategic benefits of LKQ's approximately $2.1 billion acquisition of Uni-Select, including its U.S. subsidiary FinishMaster, while concealing that FinishMaster was losing major customers and market share from the time the acquisition was announced. As the truth about deteriorating performance in LKQ's North American segment emerged through a series of disclosures between April 2024 and July 2025, LKQ's stock price suffered cumulative declines totaling over $24 per share, causing significant losses for investors.

Company Profile

LKQ Corporation is a global distributor of alternative collision replacement parts, recycled engines, and other vehicle components for the repair of automobiles, headquartered in Antioch, Tennessee. The Company's common stock trades on the NASDAQ under the ticker symbol LKQ.

Class Period

February 27, 2023 – July 23, 2025, inclusive.

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

Allegations

The complaint alleges that beginning on February 27, 2023, when LKQ announced a definitive agreement to acquire competitor Uni-Select for approximately $2.1 billion, defendants launched a campaign of materially false and misleading statements about the acquisition's strategic value. Uni-Select's U.S. subsidiary, FinishMaster, operated approximately 200 automotive refinish and painting service locations and accounted for roughly 40% of Uni-Select's annual revenue. In its press release announcing the acquisition, LKQ represented that the deal was a "compelling strategic fit" that would "enhance LKQ's business and drive profitable growth" with "minimal integration risk." Defendant Zarcone, then CEO, further assured analysts that LKQ was "highly confident" it would capture $55 million in cost synergies within three years.

As the integration progressed through 2023 and into 2024, defendants allegedly continued to misrepresent FinishMaster's performance. On the October 2023 third-quarter earnings call, after the acquisition closed in August 2023, Defendant Zarcone described the deal as a "bespoke and highly synergistic opportunity" that would "further widen the competitive moat around our North American business." On the same earnings call, Defendant Rick Galloway, CFO, told investors the team was "accelerating synergies related to FinishMaster branches" and expressed confidence the transaction would be accretive in 2024. By February 2024, Defendant Justin Jude, who would succeed Zarcone as CEO, declared the integration was "ahead of schedule" and that LKQ was "confident in our ability to exceed the $55 million of synergies previously disclosed." Even on April 23, 2024, the same day LKQ slashed its financial guidance, Jude insisted the acquisition would "enable us to widen the moat around our North American business and capitalize on revenue synergies."

According to the complaint, these statements were false because FinishMaster was losing major customers and market share from the time the acquisition was first announced, and those losses only worsened as the integration proceeded. LKQ later revealed in October 2024 that customer losses began "pre-acquisition or pre-closing and leading into post-acquisition." The complaint alleges defendants knew or recklessly disregarded these facts. Defendant Zarcone discussed trends in FinishMaster's customer base as early as October 2023, acknowledging the team had a full picture of the business's records, yet failed to disclose the customer attrition. Zarcone, who oversaw the acquisition and departed in June 2024 as the truth began surfacing, sold over $14 million of his personally held LKQ shares. After each partial disclosure, defendants allegedly continued to reassure investors, claiming FinishMaster had "helped improve our margins," that business had "stabilized," and that the integration delivered "a higher level of synergies than originally planned," even as FinishMaster's deterioration continued to erode LKQ's North American segment results.

The Truth Emerges

The truth about FinishMaster's deteriorating performance emerged through a series of disclosures spanning more than a year. On April 23, 2024, LKQ lowered both its revenue and earnings guidance for fiscal year 2024, attributing the reduction to worsening performance in its North American segment, where FinishMaster was being integrated. The Company blamed slowing demand and warmer weather, but simultaneously announced the departure of CEO Zarcone, who had overseen the acquisition. On July 25, 2024, LKQ reported disappointing second-quarter 2024 earnings, revealing it had missed the reduced revenue targets set only one quarter earlier, and further cut its financial guidance. Then, on October 24, 2024, the Company made its most direct admission: FinishMaster's recent earnings misses were driven by significant customer losses that began before the acquisition even closed. Defendants acknowledged these losses started "pre-acquisition or pre-closing and leading into post-acquisition," directly contradicting months of reassurances about the deal's strategic benefits.

Despite these admissions, defendants continued to misrepresent the trajectory of the business. As late as February 2025, Defendant Jude boasted that the North American team had delivered the integration "faster than expected" with "a higher level of synergies than originally planned." On April 24, 2025, however, LKQ revealed that its Wholesale North America segment missed quarterly revenue targets by approximately $200 million and missed adjusted EBITDA margin targets by $24 million, suffering a year-over-year EBITDA decline of 9%, as competitors continued to take market share by undercutting LKQ on price. Finally, on July 24, 2025, LKQ reported that the segment's margin deterioration had continued, with EBITDA targets missed by approximately $20 million and a year-over-year EBITDA decline of 11%, driven predominantly by business losses from increased competition.

Market Reaction

LKQ's stock price suffered a series of significant declines as the scope of FinishMaster's customer losses and the deterioration of the North American segment became clear. On April 23, 2024, following the lowered guidance and CEO departure announcement, LKQ shares fell $7.28 per share, or 14.9%. On July 25, 2024, after the Company missed its already-reduced revenue targets and further cut guidance, the stock dropped another $5.53 per share, or 12.4%. On April 24, 2025, when LKQ disclosed that its North American segment had missed revenue targets by approximately $200 million and EBITDA margin targets by $24 million, shares declined $4.87 per share, or 11.6%. The final disclosure on July 24, 2025, revealing continued margin deterioration and an 11% year-over-year EBITDA decline driven by competitive losses, sent the stock down $6.88 per share, or 17.8%. In total, these corrective disclosures resulted in cumulative per-share declines exceeding $24.

Next Steps

●       Lead Plaintiff Deadline: June 22, 2026

●       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

Introduction

A securities class action lawsuit has been filed against Babcock & Wilcox Enterprises, Inc. (NYSE: BW) and two of its senior executives in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio on behalf of investors who purchased or acquired BW securities between November 5, 2025 and March 11, 2026. The complaint alleges that defendants made materially false and misleading statements about the company's business prospects by repeatedly touting a purported $2.4 billion power generation contract without disclosing that BW's largest shareholder, BRC Group Holdings, stood on both sides of the transaction and maintained close ties to BW's counterparty. When a short seller report exposed these undisclosed relationships and questioned whether BW would ever recognize revenue from the contract, BW's stock price fell $1.71 per share, or 11.59%, to close at $13.05 on March 12, 2026, causing significant losses for investors who purchased shares at artificially inflated prices.

Company Profile

Babcock & Wilcox Enterprises, Inc., along with its subsidiaries, delivers energy and emissions-control products and services to industrial, electric utility, municipal, and other customers across the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom, Indonesia, and the Philippines. The company's common stock, 6.50% senior notes due 2026, and 7.75% Series A cumulative perpetual preferred stock trade on the New York Stock Exchange under the ticker symbols BW, BWNB, and BW PRA, respectively.

Class Period

November 5, 2025 – March 11, 2026, inclusive.

Investors who purchased or acquired Babcock & Wilcox Enterprises, Inc. (NYSE: BW) 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, defendants made materially false and misleading statements about the value and legitimacy of a major power generation contract that BW presented as a transformational entry into the AI data center power supply market. On November 4, 2025, the company announced a limited notice to proceed for a project valued at over $1.5 billion to deliver one gigawatt of power for an AI factory owned by Applied Digital Corporation. Defendant Kenneth Young, BW's Chairman and CEO, described the deal's impact as "profound," claiming it added over $3 billion to the company's pipeline and brought the total global pipeline to over $10 billion. Defendants simultaneously entered into an at-the-market offering, raising $67.5 million in just two days, capital Defendants explicitly connected to the power generation deal.

According to the complaint, defendants continued to amplify the significance of the contract through multiple SEC filings, press releases, and an earnings conference call. During the Q3 earnings call on November 10, 2025, Defendant Young told investors that BW could recognize between 10% and 15% of the projected $1.5 billion contract value in fiscal year 2026, representing "significant upside" to the company's existing guidance of $70 million to $85 million in adjusted EBITDA. Chief Financial Officer Cameron Frymyer echoed these projections while also announcing that despite initially promising to pause the at-the-market offering, defendants had decided to resume share sales. On March 4, 2026, BW announced it had received full notice to proceed on a $2.4 billion design-build agreement with Base Electron, described as an independent power producer "backed by Applied Digital," sending BW shares up 45% in a single session.

The complaint alleges defendants failed to disclose critical facts that undermined the legitimacy of these representations. BW's largest shareholder, BRC Group Holdings (formerly B. Riley Financial), stood on both sides of the power generation contract: BRC's Co-CEO and Chairman, Bryant R. Riley, was also a director of Base Electron, and Base Electron's registered address matched BRC's headquarters rather than Applied Digital's. Base Electron itself was not incorporated until December 23, 2025, seven weeks after defendants announced the limited notice to proceed with a counterparty that did not yet exist. Meanwhile, Applied Digital's existing data center projects had already secured power through conventional grid agreements, calling into question whether Applied Digital even needed the power generation services BW would purportedly supply.

The complaint further alleges that the purported $2.4 billion contract value was misleading because only approximately $434 million was a fixed fee, while the remaining $1.96 billion consisted of variable charges and other undisclosed amounts. Moreover, Applied Digital could unilaterally terminate its guarantee of Base Electron's obligations under the agreement for as little as $50 million. BRC capitalized on the inflated stock price by selling its entire directly-held position in BW common stock for approximately $10.4 million at $9 per share, 140% above BW's closing price on the last trading session before the power generation deal was announced.

The Truth Emerges

On March 12, 2026, Wolfpack Research published a short report that exposed the undisclosed relationships at the heart of the power generation contract. The report revealed that BRC Co-CEO and Chairman Bryant Riley was a director of Base Electron, that Base Electron's registered address matched BRC's headquarters rather than Applied Digital's, and that Base Electron's articles of incorporation were not filed until December 23, 2025, weeks after BW had announced the limited notice to proceed. Wolfpack alleged that "the ultimate purpose of this deal may be to provide exit liquidity for" BRC, pointing to BRC's $10.4 million sale of its entire directly-held BW position at prices inflated by the very deal announcements defendants had promoted.

The Wolfpack report also undermined the premise that Applied Digital needed the power BW would purportedly generate. According to the report, Applied Digital's more established data center projects had already secured power through conventional grid agreements, and its prospective projects appeared likely to rely on existing grid power rather than new power plants that BW would construct. Combined with the revelation that Applied Digital could terminate its guarantee of Base Electron's obligations for as little as $50 million, the report's findings called into question whether BW was ever likely to recognize meaningful revenue from the contract that defendants had valued at $2.4 billion and used to justify a 470% increase in reported backlog.

Market Reaction

Following publication of the Wolfpack Research report on March 12, 2026, BW shares fell $1.71 per share, or 11.59%, to close at $13.05. The decline erased a significant portion of the gains BW had accumulated since defendants first announced the power generation deal on November 4, 2025, when the stock had last closed at $3.74 per share in the prior trading session. The stock had risen over 198% to $11.15 by February 3, 2026, and surged an additional 45% to $11.80 on March 4, 2026, when defendants announced the full $2.4 billion contract, gains that the complaint alleges were built on materially false and misleading statements about the nature and legitimacy of the underlying transaction.

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 Soleno Therapeutics, Inc. (SLNO) Securities Class Action Lawsuit

A securities class action lawsuit under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 has been filed against Soleno Therapeutics, Inc. (NASDAQ: SLNO) and certain of its executives for the period between March 26, 2025 and November 4, 2025. Investors allege that the company and its officers made materially false and misleading statements regarding the safety profile and commercial viability of VYKAT XR (DCCR), the company’s only commercial product used to treat hyperphagia in patients with Prader-Willi syndrome.

According to the complaint, while executives touted a favorable safety profile with no new safety signals and strong commercial adoption, the company had allegedly concealed significant safety concerns including risks of excess fluid retention, pre-diabetes, diabetes, pulmonary edema, and congestive heart failure. As these safety issues emerged publicly through an investigative report, a patient death, and management admissions of commercial disruption, Soleno Therapeutics, Inc.’s stock price moved from over $90 per share to lows of less than $45 per share, reflecting a pattern of material stock price declines.

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

Soleno Therapeutics, Inc. (SLNO) Securities Lawsuit Case Details

Case Name: City of Pontiac Police and Fire Retirement System v. Soleno Therapeutics, Inc., et al.

Case No.: 3:26-cv-01979

Jurisdiction: U.S. District Court, Northern District of California, San Francisco Division

Filed on: March 6, 2026

Soleno Therapeutics, Inc. (SLNO) Company Profile

Soleno Therapeutics (NASDAQ: SLNO), a rare disease focused biopharmaceutical company, is a pharmaceutical company focused on developing therapies for rare diseases and is headquartered in Redwood City, California. At the time of the complaint filing, the company’s only commercial product, reflecting its single-product company dependency, was diazoxide choline extended-release tablets (DCCR), marketed as VYKAT XR, for the treatment of hyperphagia in individuals with Prader-Willi syndrome, including hyperphagia in PWS.

Soleno Therapeutics, Inc. (SLNO) Securities Lawsuit Class Period

March 26, 2025 – November 4, 2025, inclusive.

All persons who purchased Soleno Therapeutics, Inc. common stock during the Class Period may be eligible to join the Soleno Therapeutics, Inc. (SLNO) class action lawsuit, including investors who purchased common stock on the NASDAQ (NASDAQ: SLNO).

Allegations in the Soleno Therapeutics, Inc. (SLNO) Securities Class Action Lawsuit

The complaint targets Soleno Therapeutics, Inc. and three of its executives: Anish Bhatnagar, Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of the Board; James Mackaness, Chief Financial Officer; and Meredith Manning, Chief Commercial Officer, alleging violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Investors allege that these defendants made materially false and misleading statements about the safety profile and commercial prospects of VYKAT XR throughout the class period and downplayed or concealed material safety concerns and related commercial risks.

On March 26, 2025, as the product received approval, by the Food and Drug Administration, CEO Bhatnagar emphasized on a conference call that the label “reflects VYKAT’s favorable safety and tolerability profile, contains no [box] warnings, no contraindications for diabetes, no exclusions for severity of hyperphagia, and no requirement for a risk evaluation and mitigation strategy or REMS program.”

Just weeks later on May 7, 2025, Bhatnagar highlighted in a press release that “the high level of interest that we are experiencing, as reflected in both patient start forms and unique prescribers, reflects the significant unmet need that VYKAT XR can address as a first-to-market treatment for this debilitating condition.” During the second quarter, Soleno Therapeutics, Inc. reported $32.7 million in revenue from DCCR sales, and by August 6, 2025, Bhatnagar told investors on a conference call that “discontinuation rates are substantially lower than what we saw even in clinical trials” and assured them that “we have not seen anything in the postmarketing setting that is different from the clinical trial setting. So there are no new safety signals,” while investors allege the company downplayed adverse events.

According to the complaint, these statements were materially false and misleading because the company’s Phase 3 clinical trial program had allegedly systematically downplayed, misrepresented, or concealed significant evidence of safety concerns potentially related to DCCR administration, including issues related to excess fluid retention in clinical trial participants, and other adverse events. The complaint alleges that DCCR posed materially greater safety risks than disclosed and had materially lower commercial viability due to undisclosed risks of significant and widespread adverse events, including risks related to patient discontinuation rates, lower patient adoption, prescriber reluctance, adverse regulatory action, and potential reputational and legal fallout.

The Truth Emerges

The truth began to surface on August 15, 2025, when Scorpion Capital LLC published an extensively researched exposé, a 415-page report titled “Russian Roulette With Prader-Willi Children: How The Latest Rare Disease Price-Gouging Scheme Fleeced the FDA, Parents, And Its Own Study Investigators With A Worthless, Toxic Drug.” The report detailed problems with Soleno Therapeutics, Inc.’s clinical trial conduct, safety and efficacy concerns with DCCR, and patient reports of serious adverse reactions, with key trial investigators broadly rebuking VYKAT XR as a failure and looming safety disaster, including high risks of pre-diabetes, diabetes, pulmonary edema, and congestive heart failure, which plaintiffs allege helped reveal previously undisclosed safety concerns.

On September 10, 2025, Soleno Therapeutics, Inc. filed a Form 8-K with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission disclosing that a patient had died after taking DCCR, though the company stated that the treating physician and Soleno Therapeutics, Inc.’s own assessment concluded the death was not related to treatment with VYKAT XR.

Finally, on November 4, 2025, during an earnings call, CEO Bhatnagar admitted that the Scorpion Capital Report had caused a “disruption” in DCCR’s launch trajectory, signaling commercial launch disruption and concerns within the Prader-Willi syndrome community, with a lower number of patient start forms and increased discontinuations beginning after the report’s publication. These revelations directly contradicted the company’s prior assurances about VYKAT XR’s favorable safety profile, absence of new safety signals, strong commercial adoption, and low discontinuation rates. What executives had portrayed as a successful first-to-market treatment with robust demand was now revealed to face significant safety concerns and commercial headwinds.

Market Reaction

Following the August 15, 2025 Scorpion Capital Report, which alleged safety and clinical-trial concerns related to DCCR, Soleno Therapeutics, Inc.’s stock price (NASDAQ: SLNO) declined from more than $77 per share on August 14, 2025 to close at approximately $68 per share on August 18, 2025, nearly a 12% drop over two trading days on above-average trading volume.

After the September 10, 2025 disclosure of the patient death, the stock fell from more than $70 per share on September 9, 2025 to close at approximately $57 per share on September 11, 2025, approximately a 19% drop over two trading days on above-average trading volume, continuing a pattern of stock price declines following the disclosures described in the complaint. On November 5, 2025, following the company’s third quarter results and CEO Bhatnagar’s admission of commercial disruption along with a social media post about congestive heart failure, amplifying safety concerns, the stock plummeted from nearly $64 per share on November 4, 2025 to close at approximately $47 per share, a one-day drop of approximately 27% on above-average trading volume.

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

Check Eligibility

Check Eligibility

Introduction to Super Micro Computer, Inc. (SMCI) Securities Class Action Lawsuit

A securities fraud class action has been filed against Super Micro Computer, Inc. (NASDAQ: SMCI), asserting claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on behalf of investors who purchased or acquired the company’s securities between February 2, 2024 and March 19, 2026. Investors allege that Super Micro and its executives made materially false or misleading statements, and failed to disclose that a significant portion of the Company’s server sales were to China-based companies, that those transactions violated U.S. export control laws, and that there were material weaknesses in the Company’s controls to ensure compliance with those laws and regulations. On March 19, 2026, the U.S. Justice Department announced criminal indictments alleging that approximately $2.5 billion worth of servers housing U.S. artificial intelligence technology were diverted to customers in China in violation of U.S. export control laws. The next day, Super Micro’s stock fell 33.3% to $20.53 per share amid unusually heavy trading.

Super Micro Computer, Inc. (SMCI) Securities Lawsuit Case Details

Case Name: Apurva Bhuva v. Super Micro Computer, Inc., et al.

Case No.: 5:26-cv-02606

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

Filed on: March 25, 2026

Super Micro Computer, Inc. (SMCI) Company Profile

Super Micro Computer is headquartered in San Jose, California, and publicly traded on the Nasdaq exchange under the ticker NASDAQ: SMCI. The company designs, develops, and manufactures high-performance server and storage systems, primarily for artificial intelligence, data center, and cloud solutions customers. The company’s flagship products are servers that integrate Nvidia graphics processing units and are subject to strict U.S. export controls, including regulations governing U.S.-origin GPU technology administered by the U.S. Department of Commerce barring their sale to China without a license.

Super Micro Computer, Inc. (SMCI) Securities Lawsuit Class Period

February 2, 2024 – March 19, 2026, inclusive.

All persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired Super Micro securities, including common stock traded on the Nasdaq exchange during the Class Period and were damaged thereby may be eligible to join the Super Micro Computer, Inc. (SMCI) class action lawsuit.

Allegations in the Super Micro Computer, Inc. (SMCI) Securities Class Action Lawsuit

The complaint alleges that Super Micro, CEO Charles Liang, and CFO David Weigand made materially false and misleading statements during the Class Period while failing to disclose that a significant portion of server sales were to China-based companies, that those transactions violated U.S. export control laws, and that there were material weaknesses in the Company’s controls to ensure compliance with those laws and regulations. On April 30, 2024, CEO Charles Liang announced record third quarter revenue of $3.85 billion with year-over-year growth of 200%, attributing the success to strong demand for AI rack scale solutions and the company’s ability to expand its market leadership in AI infrastructure, while he and David Weigand certified the effectiveness of internal controls in SEC filings. The company continued celebrating explosive growth throughout 2024 and into 2025, even as Hindenburg Research published a report on August 27, 2024 highlighting ongoing internal control weaknesses, with Liang announcing on August 6, 2024 that fiscal 2024 revenue surged 110% year over year to $14.9 billion, driven by what he described as record demand for new AI infrastructures.

During this period, the complaint alleges that a significant portion of these celebrated sales were actually servers illegally diverted to companies based in China in violation of U.S. export control laws, including AI servers assembled in the United States with Nvidia GPUs that were routed through Southeast Asia to conceal their ultimate China destination. On August 5, 2025, Liang touted the company’s solid progress in fiscal year 2025, claiming 47% annual growth fueled by AI solution leadership across multiple customer segments including what he termed sovereign entities, while concealing a dependence on China-based sales for a significant portion of revenue. By November 4, 2025, Liang projected at least $36 billion in revenue for fiscal year 2026, citing a rapidly expanding order book that included more than $13 billion in Blackwell Ultra orders, which investors allege lacked a reasonable basis because export compliance controls were deficient. Throughout these announcements, investors allege that defendants concealed material weaknesses in the company’s controls to ensure compliance with applicable export control laws and regulations, even after Ernst & Young LLP resigned as the independent auditor on October 30, 2024 citing concerns about management integrity and board independence, all while the illegal sales scheme allegedly generated approximately $2.5 billion in revenue between 2024 and 2025.

The Truth Emerges

On March 19, 2026, after the market closed, the U.S. Justice Department announced the unsealing of an indictment against three individuals associated with Super Micro for engaging in a scheme to divert massive quantities of servers housing U.S. artificial intelligence technology containing Nvidia GPUs to customers in China in violation of U.S. export control laws by routing shipments through Southeast Asia. The announcement revealed that these activities were conducted to drive sales in violation of U.S. law, enabling the sale of approximately $2.5 billion worth of servers between 2024 and 2025, including more than $510 million diverted in a six-week period between April and May 2025. Super Micro confirmed that the charged individuals had been affiliated with the company, including co-founder Yih-Shyan Wally Liaw, who resigned from the board following the indictment, and reported that two employees were placed on administrative leave and one contractor’s relationship was terminated, and stated that Super Micro was not named as a defendant in the DOJ criminal case, while acknowledging the company had been cooperating fully with the government’s investigation.

These revelations followed the company’s prior statements celebrating record growth and market leadership and supported allegations that significant server sales were illegally diverted to China in violation of U.S. export control laws and that the company lacked adequate export compliance controls. The complaint alleges there were material weaknesses in the companys export compliance controls, and that, during the Class Period, executives highlighted a fast-growing order pipeline, artificially inflating the stock price and significant Blackwell Ultra demand exceeding $13 billion.

Market Reaction

On March 20, 2026, following the Justice Department’s announcement, Super Micro’s stock price (NASDAQ: SMCI) collapsed $10.26, or 33.3%, closing at $20.53 per share on unusually heavy trading volume, wiping out approximately $6.1 billion in market value. The single-day decline came as investors absorbed the DOJ’s disclosures about an alleged scheme to divert servers to China in violation of U.S. export control laws, including the sale of approximately $2.5 billion worth of servers between 2024 and 2025, and the criminal indictments of individuals associated with the company.

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 Driven Brands Holdings Inc. (DRVN) Securities Class Action Lawsuit

A securities fraud class action has been filed against Driven Brands Holdings Inc. (NASDAQ: DRVN) and certain of its officers and directors, alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 on behalf of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired Driven Brands Holdings Inc. common stock between May 9, 2023, and February 24, 2026. Investors allege that the company misrepresented its financial condition and the effectiveness of its internal controls through a series of inaccurate financial reports, including its consolidated financial statements, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission. 

On February 25, 2026, in a Form 8-K Current Report, the company revealed that material errors permeated nearly three years of financial statements, requiring comprehensive restatements across fiscal years 2023 and 2024 and all quarterly and year-to-date periods through September 2025. The stock declined (approximately 39.8%) on the disclosure as investors learned the financial statements they had relied upon required comprehensive restatements.

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

Driven Brands Holdings Inc. (DRVN) Securities Lawsuit Case Details

Case Name: Clark v. Driven Brands Holdings Inc.

Case No.: 1:26-cv-01902

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

Filed on: March 9, 2026

Driven Brands Holdings Inc. (DRVN) Company Profile

Driven Brands Holdings Inc. is the largest automotive services company in North America, publicly traded on the NASDAQ as DRVN, operating approximately 4,900 locations across more than 15 countries. The company provides automotive aftermarket maintenance, car wash, collision, and glass services through major brands including Take 5 Oil Change, Meineke Car Care Centers, Maaco, and Auto Glass Now.

Driven Brands Holdings Inc. (DRVN) Securities Lawsuit Class Period

May 9, 2023-February 24, 2026, inclusive.

Investors who purchased or otherwise acquired Driven Brands Holdings Inc. common stock traded on NASDAQ: DRVN during the Class Period may be eligible to join the Driven Brands Holdings Inc. (DRVN) class action lawsuit.

Allegations in the Driven Brands Holdings Inc. (DRVN) Securities Class Action Lawsuit

The complaint targets Driven Brands Holdings Inc. and five executives who allegedly misled investors through material misstatements and omissions about the company's financial performance and internal controls throughout nearly three years of operations. Named as defendants are Jonathan Fitzpatrick, who served as Chief Executive Officer from 2012 through May 9, 2025; Michael F. Diamond, Chief Financial Officer from August 9, 2024, through the end of the class period; Michael Beland, Senior Vice President and Chief Accounting Officer from July 2021 to January 3, 2025; Daniel Rivera, who became President and Chief Executive Officer on May 9, 2025; and Rebecca Fondell, who assumed the role of Senior Vice President and Chief Accounting Officer on the same date.

According to the complaint, the company filed a series of condensed consolidated quarterly reports with the Securities and Exchange Commission that painted a picture of consistent revenue growth driven by same-store sales and net store expansion. On May 9, 2023, Fitzpatrick and Beland reported revenue increased 20% to $562 million in the first quarter. Three months later, on August 9, 2023, they announced revenue climbed 19% to $607 million in the second quarter. By November 9, 2023, they disclosed third-quarter revenue rose 12% to $581 million, continuing the narrative of steady growth. As late as November 5, 2025, Rivera and Fondell certified that the company's disclosure controls and procedures were designed effectively and would provide a reasonable level of assurance, while failing to disclose material weaknesses in internal controls over financial reporting.

The complaint alleges that Driven Brands later disclosed multiple accounting issues affecting its financial reporting, including lease accounting, cash reconciliation, expense classification, income tax provision, supply and other revenue recognition, fixed assets, cloud computing costs, lease cash application, and other balance-sheet and income-statement misclassifications. The complaint further alleges that the company identified improperly recognized revenue in its ATI business, primarily related to fiscal year 2025.

The Truth Emerges

On February 25, 2026, Driven Brands Holdings Inc. filed a Current Report on Form 8-K under the Securities Exchange Act revealing that two days earlier, on February 23, 2026, the Audit Committee of the Board of Directors had concluded there were material errors in the company's previously issued consolidated financial statements for fiscal years 2023 and 2024 and quarterly periods through September 27, 2025. 

The company announced that its consolidated financial statements for each of the quarterly and year-to-date periods within fiscal year 2024 as well as the quarterly and year-to-date periods through September 27, 2025, should not be relied upon, constituting a multi-year financial restatement, and delayed filing its 2025 Form 10-K. Management admitted it had identified material weaknesses in the company's internal control over financial reporting, concluding that internal controls and disclosure controls were not effective as of December 27, 2025.

These revelations contradicted nearly three years of financial reporting and internal control certifications made in SEC filings. Every quarterly revenue growth figure reported from May 2023 through November 2025 was now suspect, and the assurances about effective disclosure controls that Rivera and Fondell had provided just months earlier proved unfounded.

Market Reaction

The market reacted swiftly to the disclosure. On February 25, 2026, Driven Brands Holdings Inc.'s stock opened at $9.99 per share for DRVN on the NASDAQ, down from its closing price of $16.61 on February 24, 2026, a decline of $6.62 (approximately 39.8%). That single-day drop reflected investor’s reaction to the company’s disclosure that its financial statements for 2023, 2024, and quarterly periods in 2025 should not be relied upon and would be restated, triggering investor losses and securities litigation.

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

A securities class action lawsuit has been filed against United Homes Group, Inc. (NASDAQ: UHG) and certain of its current and former executives in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The complaint alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 on behalf of investors who purchased or acquired United Homes securities between May 19, 2025 and February 22, 2026. The lawsuit alleges that defendants made materially false and misleading statements by concealing that the Company's controlling shareholder, founder Michael Nieri, was pursuing a course of conduct designed to force a sale of the Company at a steep discount to shareholders, including by effectively driving the resignation of six of seven board members and leveraging his controlling interest to devalue the Company. When the full scope of Nieri's alleged scheme was revealed through a series of disclosures culminating in a February 2026 acquisition announcement at $1.18 per share, an over 50% discount to the prior trading price, United Homes' stock suffered devastating cumulative losses.

Company Profile

United Homes Group, Inc. is a residential home building company incorporated in Delaware and headquartered in Chapin, South Carolina. The Company's Class A common shares trade on the NASDAQ exchange under the ticker symbol UHG. As of April 2025, founder Michael Nieri and his family members held 100% of Class B shares, representing 79% of voting power, and 68.8% of Class A shares.

Class Period

May 19, 2025 – February 22, 2026, inclusive.

Investors who purchased or acquired United Homes Group, Inc. (UHG) 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, defendants concealed that United Homes' founder, Executive Chairman, and controlling shareholder Michael Nieri intended to force a sale of the Company on terms detrimental to public investors. Beginning on May 19, 2025, the Company announced the formation of a special committee of independent directors to explore strategic alternatives "to maximize shareholder value," including a potential sale, asset disposition, or refinancing. Nieri publicly stated the Company was "committed to maximizing value for all of our shareholders." According to the complaint, these representations were materially false and misleading because they concealed Nieri's actual intentions and the actions he was taking to devalue the Company and engineer a forced sale.

The complaint further alleges that throughout the summer of 2025, the Company continued to present an image of good-faith strategic exploration. In its second quarter 2025 earnings release on August 7, 2025, CEO Jack Micenko highlighted operational progress and product initiatives, while the Company reiterated that the strategic alternatives review was ongoing and aimed at maximizing shareholder value. The Company's Form 10-Q filed August 8, 2025 affirmed effective internal disclosure controls and procedures, and included a risk factor warning that the strategic alternatives process "may not be successful[,]" a warning the complaint characterizes as misleading given what defendants allegedly knew about Nieri's plans. Throughout these disclosures, the complaint alleges defendants failed to reveal that Nieri was not acting in the best interests of the Company and its public investors.

At the core of the alleged scheme, the complaint contends that Nieri leveraged his 79% voting control to effectively force the resignation of the Company's independent directors when they attempted to check his authority. When the special committee concluded its review and unanimously determined that remaining independent was in shareholders' best interests, the dissident directors conditioned their continued service on Nieri stepping down as Executive Chairman and forgoing remaining compensation. Nieri refused, and six of seven board members resigned, leaving Nieri as the sole remaining director with control over the Company's fate. The complaint alleges this was not an unexpected governance crisis but rather the predictable result of Nieri's deliberate campaign to consolidate control and force a sale on his terms.

The Truth Emerges

The truth began to surface on October 20, 2025, when United Homes filed a Form 8-K revealing the outcome of the special committee's review. While the committee had unanimously concluded that continuing as an independent public company was in shareholders' best interests, the filing disclosed a dramatic corporate governance breakdown: the entire board, except Nieri, had either resigned immediately or announced their intention to resign by November 14, 2025, after Nieri refused to step down as Executive Chairman. The revelation that the Company's controlling shareholder had effectively driven out the independent board members who disagreed with him stunned the market.

The damage deepened on November 6, 2025, when the Company's third quarter earnings release revealed the operational fallout from the mass board resignations. United Homes disclosed it had been "engaged in discussions with various key counterparties, including its lenders, land banking partners, and insurers" about maintaining compliance with loan covenants and "the pressing need to identify replacement directors." The Company further reported a 29% year-over-year decline in home closings and a 23% decline in revenue. The subsequent Form 10-Q filed November 7, 2025 disclosed that key counterparties including auditors had "expressed concern regarding UHG's ongoing corporate governance" and warned that failure to seat replacement directors could result in NASDAQ delisting, inability to obtain audit opinions, and default under debt arrangements.

The full extent of the alleged scheme became clear on February 23, 2026, when United Homes announced it had agreed to become a wholly owned subsidiary of Stanley Martin Homes, LLC in an all-cash transaction valuing the enterprise at approximately $221 million. Shareholders would receive just $1.18 per share, an over 50% discount to the $2.38 closing price on the last trading day before the announcement. The complaint alleges this fire-sale acquisition was the culmination of Nieri's deliberate strategy to devalue the Company and force a sale that served his interests at the expense of public shareholders.

Market Reaction

United Homes' stock suffered three devastating declines as the truth emerged. On October 20, 2025, following disclosure of the mass board resignations and Nieri's refusal to step down, UHG shares fell $2.23 per share, or 52.46%, to close at $2.03 on unusually heavy trading volume. On November 6, 2025, after the Company revealed deteriorating financial results and significant operational difficulties stemming from the governance crisis, UHG fell an additional $0.11 per share, or 7.6%, to close at $1.34 on unusually heavy volume.

The most damaging blow came on February 23, 2026, when the Stanley Martin acquisition was announced at $1.18 per share. UHG shares fell $1.23, or 51.68%, to close at $1.15 on unusually heavy trading volume. The $1.18 deal price represented an over 50% discount to the prior day's $2.38 closing price, and a precipitous decline from the Class Period high of $4.49 reached on August 22, 2025.

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

A securities class action lawsuit has been filed against Upstart Holdings, Inc. (NASDAQ: UPST) and several of its senior executives on behalf of investors who purchased or acquired Upstart securities between May 14, 2025 and November 4, 2025. The complaint, filedin the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, alleges that defendants made materially false and misleading statements about the accuracy and performance of the company's flagship AI underwriting model, Model 22, and its impact on loan approval rates, conversion rates, and revenue growth. According to the lawsuit, defendants concealed that Model 22 frequently overreacted to negative macroeconomic signals, producing overly conservative credit assessments that materially undermined Upstart's revenue results and rendered its repeatedly raised full-year 2025 revenue guidance unreliable. When these issues surfaced on November 4, 2025, during Upstart's third-quarter earnings release and conference call, the company's stock price fell $4.49 per share, or 9.71%, to close at $41.75 the following day, causing significant losses to investors.

Company Profile

Upstart Holdings, Inc. operates a cloud-based artificial intelligence lending platform in the United States. The company's platform facilitates unsecured personal loans, small dollar loans, auto refinance and retail loans, auto secured personal loans, and home equity lines of credit, using proprietary AI models to assess borrower risk through a process the company calls "risk separation."

Class Period

May 14, 2025 – November 4, 2025, both dates inclusive.

Investors who purchased or acquired Upstart Holdings, Inc. (UPST) 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, Upstart's senior leadership, CEO Dave Girouard, CFO Sanjay Datta, CTO Paul Gu, and CMO Chantal Rapport, aggressively promoted the capabilities of Model 22, the latest iteration of Upstart's AI underwriting system launched in early May 2025. Defendants portrayed Model 22 as a breakthrough that was driving substantially higher loan approval rates, improved conversion rates, and accelerating revenue growth. On the strength of these representations, Upstart raised its full-year 2025 revenue guidance twice during the Class Period, first in May to approximately $1.01 billion and then again in August to approximately $1.055 billion, including an increase of $70 million in expected fee revenue, citing improvements driven specifically by Model 22.

At Upstart's inaugural AI Day on May 14, 2025, the Individual Defendants highlighted the model's purported superiority over traditional underwriting, with investor presentations depicting how the company's proprietary AI purportedly drove higher approval rates than traditional underwriting models. During the second-quarter earnings call on August 5, 2025, Defendant Girouard attributed the company's growth "primarily" to Model 22, while Defendant Datta credited the model for improving contribution margins and take rates. Defendant Gu described Model 22's ability to identify "many, many small subtle relationships in the data" as the source of higher approval rates. The Q2 2025 Form 10-Q, certified by Defendants Girouard and Datta under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, attributed substantial increases in transaction volume and conversion rates to "model improvements." According to the complaint, these statements created an increasingly optimistic picture of Upstart's trajectory that was disconnected from what defendants knew about Model 22's actual behavior.

The lawsuit alleges that defendants knew or recklessly disregarded that Model 22 frequently overreacted to negative macroeconomic signals in performing its risk-separation processes, resulting in overly conservative credit assessments that reduced loan approvals and conversion rates. Defendant Gu later admitted on the Q3 2025 earnings call that defendants had "knowingly" chosen to make the model "more conservative on the credit side in earlier parts of the quarter." The complaint further alleges that defendants' failure to disclose these material deficiencies in Model 22 violated Item 303 of SEC Regulation S-K, which required disclosure of known trends or uncertainties reasonably likely to have a material unfavorable impact on revenues. Meanwhile, during the Class Period, Defendant Girouard sold 208,335 shares of Upstart stock for proceeds exceeding $13.5 million, Defendant Datta sold 26,985 shares for over $1.4 million, and Defendant Gu sold 5,000 shares for over $344,000.

The Truth Emerges

On November 4, 2025, after the market closed, Upstart reported third-quarter 2025 results that revealed the scope of Model 22's problems. The company reported Q3 revenue of $277 million, missing both its own guidance of approximately $280 million and consensus estimates by $2.62 million. Upstart also guided for Q4 2025 revenue of only $288 million, significantly below the $303.7 million consensus estimate, and cut its full-year 2025 revenue guidance to approximately $1.035 billion from the $1.055 billion it had projected just three months earlier. Expected full-year fee revenue was slashed to approximately $946 million from the prior outlook of approximately $990 million.

During the accompanying earnings call, the defendants directly attributed the shortfall to Model 22. Defendant Girouard acknowledged that the company's "risk models responded to macroeconomic signals they observed by moderately reducing approvals and increasing interest rates," driving a decline in conversion rates from 23.9% in Q2 to 20.6% in Q3. He conceded the model may have been "overreacting" and that the negative impact would continue into Q4. Defendant Gu went further, admitting that the model was "overly responsive" to changes and plagued by "measurement error," and that defendants had been "knowingly making a choice" to run the model more conservatively, a disclosure that directly contradicted the confident assurances made throughout the Class Period about Model 22's accuracy and its ability to drive sustained growth.

Market Reaction

Following these disclosures, Upstart's stock price fell $4.49 per share, or 9.71%, to close at $41.75 on November 5, 2025. The reaction was swift and severe across Wall Street: Morgan Stanley slashed its price target on UPST to $45 from $70, noting that Upstart needed to demonstrate its AI model and forecasting could "sufficiently adapt to UMI volatility." Goldman Sachs cut its target to $40 from $54, warning that "recent trends in volume are likely to underscore the limited forward visibility in the model." Citigroup reduced its target to $80 from $100, Bank of America cut to $71 from $81, Needham lowered to $56 from $82, and Stephens & Co. dropped to $40 from $55. American Banker reported that Upstart's stock had "plummeted" not because of poor profits, but because "its own AI model intentionally tightened the credit box, causing a miss on loan origination volume."

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

A securities class action lawsuit has been filed against New Era Energy & Digital, Inc. (NASDAQ: NUAI), its CEO Everett Willard Gray II, and former CFO Michael J. Rugen on behalf of investors who purchased New Era Energy securities between November 6, 2024 and December 29, 2025. The complaint alleges that defendants made materially false and misleading statements about the company's business operations, its progress on a flagship AI data center project, and its involvement in a fraudulent oil-and-gas well scheme in New Mexico. According to the complaint, when the truth emerged through a short-seller report on December 12, 2025, and a subsequent report revealing a New Mexico Attorney General lawsuit on December 29, 2025, NUAI shares suffered sharp declines, falling a combined 68% from the Class Period high of $8.50 per share and causing significant losses for investors.

Company Profile

New Era Energy & Digital, Inc., formerly known as New Era Helium Inc., is an oil and natural gas company that became publicly traded on the NASDAQ in December 2024 through a business combination with Roth CH Acquisition V Co. The company's primary revenue source is oil and gas wells located in Chaves County, New Mexico, operated by its subsidiary Solis Partners. During the Class Period, New Era Energy was also pursuing a strategic pivot into AI infrastructure, with its purported flagship venture being the Texas Critical Data Center, a reported large-scale AI and high-performance computing data center campus located in Ector County, Texas.

Class Period

November 6, 2024 – December 29, 2025, inclusive.

Investors who purchased or acquired New Era Energy & Digital, Inc. (NUAI) 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, defendants made materially false and misleading statements about New Era Energy's business, financial condition, and prospects across multiple SEC filings and press releases. Beginning with the November 6, 2024 proxy statement soliciting shareholder approval of the company's business combination with Roth CH Acquisition V Co., through subsequent annual and quarterly reports and investor presentations, defendants allegedly misrepresented the company's financial results, including its asset retirement obligations, and overstated its progress toward developing its flagship Texas Critical Data Center project.

According to the complaint, defendants repeatedly touted "tangible progress across all fronts including engineering, permitting, regulatory filings, and land expansion" for the Texas Critical Data Center. An October 2025 press release highlighted "significant progress on obtaining air permits" and stated the company was "pursuing a minor source air permit." A November 2025 investor presentation filed with the SEC represented that "phase two" of the project, which included regulatory permitting, was "underway." The complaint alleges these statements were materially misleading because no permit applications had been submitted to any relevant state or federal agency.

The complaint further alleges that defendants concealed New Era Energy's involvement in what the New Mexico Attorney General would later characterize as a "fraudulent oil-and-gas scheme." Plaintiffs allege that CEO Gray orchestrated a pattern of transferring oil and gas wells among a network of related entities he controlled, including Remnant Oil, Acacia Resources, and Solis Partners, siphoning revenue from productive wells while strategically placing liability-bearing entities into bankruptcy to avoid plugging and remediation costs that New Mexico law required. Of NUAI's 406 gas wells, 346 were allegedly acquired from companies that went bankrupt operating those same wells, including 87 wells from Remnant Oil, a company Gray co-founded and led into bankruptcy in 2019 after hundreds of regulatory violations. Those 87 wells were reportedly transferred to Solis Partners, a New Era Energy subsidiary allegedly "dominated and controlled" by Gray, for a listed purchase price of just $10, while Acacia was left with the bulk of environmental liabilities.

The complaint alleges defendants knew or recklessly disregarded that the company's reported financial results, including its asset retirement obligations, were materially false and misleading because they failed to account for the true scope of the company's environmental liabilities and the fraudulent nature of the well transfers that generated the company's revenue. Throughout the Class Period, Gray served as CEO, and beginning June 2025, also assumed the role of CFO, a period during which, according to the Fuzzy Panda Research report quoted in the complaint, three of four independent board members and the prior CFO departed the company.

The Truth Emerges

On December 12, 2025, market research outlet Fuzzy Panda Research published a detailed report alleging that Gray had "a long history (~20 years) of incinerating value at oil & gas pink sheet companies" and that his companies declined an average of 98%. The report revealed that the company's AI data center pivot was a "fantasy," disclosing that searches of Texas, New Mexico, and federal government databases for the construction and environmental permits NUAI would need to build its data centers and power plants returned nothing, "not even an application[,]" despite the company's repeated representations to investors of significant permitting progress. The report also detailed Gray's alleged "playbook" of enriching insiders through related-party transactions, including converting related-party loans to equity and paying fees to friends and family.

On December 29, 2025, Hunterbrook Media reported that the New Mexico Attorney General had filed a sweeping enforcement lawsuit against New Era Energy, Solis Partners, and Gray, among others. The lawsuit accused the defendants of orchestrating a fraudulent scheme to "siphon revenue from wells that produce fossil fuels while abandoning environmental cleanup obligations." The Attorney General's complaint alleged a broader pattern of fraudulent transfers, self-dealing, and false statements to regulators, including the use of shell entities and strategic bankruptcies to evade responsibility. The complaint alleged that Gray formed Solis Partners specifically "to receive Remnant's best wells" while ensuring affiliated entities would be unable to meet their environmental obligations, leaving the state as the "plugger of last resort" for hundreds of abandoned wells.

Market Reaction

Following the publication of the Fuzzy Panda Research report on December 12, 2025, NUAI shares fell $0.25, or 6.9%, to close at $3.35 on unusually heavy trading volume, as the market absorbed the report's findings regarding the company's lack of permit applications and Gray's history of value destruction at prior companies.

The more severe decline came on December 29, 2025, when the Hunterbrook Media report revealed the New Mexico Attorney General's fraud lawsuit. NUAI shares plummeted $1.87, or 41%, to close at $2.69 per share on unusually heavy trading volume. The cumulative impact of the two corrective disclosures drove the stock approximately 68% below its Class Period high of $8.50 per share, reached on December 9, 2024, when the company became a public entity through its business combination with Roth CH Acquisition V Co.

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

A securities class action lawsuit has been filed against Pinterest, Inc. (NYSE: PINS), CEO William Ready, and CFO Julia Brau Donnelly on behalf of investors who purchased or acquired Pinterest securities between February 7, 2025 and February 12, 2026. The complaint, filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, alleges that defendants made materially false and misleading statements about Pinterest's ability to navigate macroeconomic headwinds, particularly the impact of U.S. tariffs on its largest advertising partners, while concealing that the company was experiencing or was likely to experience significant revenue declines that would ultimately necessitate a major corporate restructuring. As the truth emerged through a series of disappointing earnings reports and a restructuring announcement involving a nearly 15% workforce reduction, Pinterest's stock price suffered three significant declines, ultimately closing at $15.42 per share on February 13, 2026.

Company Profile

Pinterest is a visual social media platform where users organize content into themed "boards" that reflect their interests in various products and services. The company generates substantially all of its revenue from advertising, with a substantial portion coming from a small number of advertisers, particularly large retail and consumer packaged goods companies, who leverage Pinterest's platform to reach high-intent shoppers across the marketing funnel.

Class Period

February 7, 2025 – February 12, 2026, inclusive.

Investors who purchased or acquired Pinterest, Inc. (PINS) 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, defendants consistently assured investors that Pinterest's business model was resilient, durable, and well-positioned to thrive regardless of the macroeconomic environment. Beginning with the company's Q4 2024 earnings call on February 6, 2025, CEO William Ready told investors that Pinterest's lower-funnel advertising innovations had "compounding effects over not just multiple quarters, but multiple years," while CFO Julia Donnelly described the business as "inherently profitable." Ready emphasized that Pinterest was "demonstrating that we can be a much larger portion of the overall ad market" and pointed to the company's deepening relationships with its largest, most sophisticated advertisers as evidence of sustainable growth.

According to the complaint, defendants continued making these representations even as the macroeconomic landscape deteriorated for Pinterest's core advertising partners. At a Morgan Stanley conference on March 6, 2025, Ready dismissed tariff-related concerns by asserting that "in any environment, people are still going to shop" and claiming Pinterest had "a real secular growth story" with fundamentals that "have just never been better." During the Q1 2025 earnings call on May 8, 2025, Ready declared that Pinterest's "strategy and consistent execution has made Pinterest more resilient than ever," while Donnelly stated that the company was "confident in our multiple revenue initiatives" and its "ability to compete effectively across a number of scenarios." When analysts specifically asked about tariff-exposed categories showing softness, Donnelly acknowledged only "small pockets of spend" had been impacted and reassured the market that "the fundamentals of our business remain strong." By the Q2 2025 earnings call on August 7, 2025, Donnelly identified retail as continuing to be a "sources of strength" and described the macroeconomic environment as "a relatively more constructive environment than feared."

The complaint alleges defendants knew or recklessly disregarded that these statements were materially false and misleading. Specifically, plaintiffs allege that Pinterest was experiencing or was likely to experience materially reduced revenues from its advertising partners, that defendants overstated the company's ability to manage the impact of U.S. tariffs on its largest retail advertisers, and that the severity of these headwinds was significant enough that Pinterest was facing an imminent need to restructure its operations. The complaint further alleges that during the Class Period, the Individual Defendants together sold approximately 421,903 shares of company stock for over $13.5 million in proceeds, with Ready selling 141,126 shares for over $4.3 million and Donnelly selling 280,777 shares for over $9.1 million, providing them with a financial motive to maintain the stock's artificially inflated price.

The Truth Emerges

The truth began to surface on November 4, 2025, when Pinterest reported its Q3 2025 financial results and issued Q4 revenue guidance with a midpoint of $1.325 billion, below the consensus expectation of $1.34 billion. During the earnings call, Donnelly acknowledged that Pinterest "faced pockets of moderating ad spend" as "larger U.S. retailers navigate tariff-related margin pressure in the current environment." This was a stark reversal from the confident assurances defendants had provided throughout the preceding months. Analyst reactions were swift: RBC Capital Markets cut its price target from $45 to $38, writing that "tariff-related weakness showed up for the first time" and would "reinforce PINS' lack of customer diversity for the bears"; Citi slashed its target from $50 to $38, identifying headwinds from "larger U.S. retailers moderating ad spend amid tariff-related margin pressures"; and HSBC reduced its target from $44.30 to $34.50. Yet even during this same earnings call, defendants continued to downplay the severity of the situation, with Donnelly insisting that "overall, we still feel really good about our mid- to high teens kind of revenue growth targets over the medium and long term."

The second corrective disclosure came on January 27, 2026, when Pinterest announced a board-approved global restructuring plan that included a reduction in force affecting nearly 15% of the company's workforce, along with office space reductions. The company estimated pre-tax restructuring charges of approximately $35 million to $45 million. Analysts viewed the announcement as a harbinger of further deterioration: RBC characterized it as "foreshadowing a revenue shortfall," Wells Fargo called it a "cautious early read on '26 revenue outlook," and HSBC bluntly stated, "We hate to say it, but it's not working."

The full extent of the damage became clear on February 12, 2026, when Pinterest reported Q4 2025 revenue of $1.32 billion, below the consensus estimate of $1.33 billion, and provided Q1 2026 revenue guidance of $951 million to $971 million, well below the consensus estimate of $980.6 million. CEO Ready acknowledged an "exogenous shock this year related to tariffs, which are disproportionately affecting ad spend from our top retail advertisers" and admitted that the company's "higher mix of large retailers relative to some of our peers has resulted in us feeling more of an impact." CFO Donnelly conceded that "our largest retail advertisers created a more meaningful headwind than we expected" and warned that "we expect these headwinds will continue and may become slightly more pronounced in Q1."

Market Reaction

The series of corrective disclosures devastated Pinterest's stock price. Following the Q3 2025 earnings report on November 4, 2025, PINS fell $7.16 per share, or 21.76%, to close at $25.75 on November 5, 2025. When the company announced its restructuring plan on January 27, 2026, the stock declined an additional $2.49 per share, or 9.61%, to close at $23.41. The final blow came after the Q4 2025 earnings report on February 12, 2026, when PINS dropped $3.12 per share, or 16.83%, to close at $15.42 on February 13, 2026. HSBC again cut its price target, this time by 30% from $24.90 to $17.40, noting that the "combinations of decelerating revenues and margin pressure in the 1Q26 guidance still caught us off-guard." Over the course of these three corrective events, Pinterest shareholders suffered significant losses and damages as the stock price declined precipitously.

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

A securities class action lawsuit has been filed against Aldeyra Therapeutics, Inc. (NASDAQ: ALDX) and certain of its senior officers on behalf of investors who purchased or acquired Aldeyra securities between November 3, 2023 and March 16, 2026. The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding the clinical trial results for reproxalap, the company's lead drug candidate for the treatment of dry eye disease. According to the lawsuit, defendants repeatedly touted reproxalap's "broad-based, rapid-onset activity" and "consistent" clinical results while concealing that the trial results were, in fact, inconsistent and that any positive findings were unreliable and not meaningful. When the U.S. Food and Drug Administration issued a Complete Response Letter on March 17, 2026, rejecting the drug's application and citing a "lack of substantial evidence" of efficacy, Aldeyra's stock price collapsed by approximately 70.7%, closing at $1.24 per share.

Company Profile

Aldeyra Therapeutics, Inc. is a biotechnology company focused on discovering and developing therapies for immune-mediated diseases. The company's lead product candidate, reproxalap, is a novel reactive aldehyde species (RASP) inhibitor that was under investigation as a treatment for dry eye disease.

Class Period

November 3, 2023 – March 16, 2026, inclusive.

Investors who purchased or acquired Aldeyra Therapeutics (ALDX) securities during the Class Period may be entitled to seek recovery under the federal securities laws.

Allegations

The complaint alleges that Aldeyra Therapeutics and its senior officers, CEO Todd C. Brady, Head of Finance Michael Alferi, and former interim CFO Bruce M. Greenberg, made a series of materially false and misleading statements about the clinical trial performance of reproxalap, the company's flagship drug candidate. In SEC filings spanning the entire Class Period, defendants consistently represented that reproxalap had "demonstrated broad-based, rapid-onset activity and consistent safety across a number of Phase 2 and Phase 3 clinical trials" and that it had shown "consistent statistically significant and clinically relevant activity across a variety of symptoms and signs, occurring as early as within minutes of dosing."

These representations appeared in the company's quarterly report for the third quarter of 2023, filed November 3, 2023, and were signed by Brady and Greenberg. Substantially identical language was repeated in the annual reports for fiscal years 2023, 2024, and 2025, filed on March 7, 2024, February 28, 2025, and February 27, 2026, respectively. The fiscal year 2023 report was signed by Brady and Greenberg, while the fiscal year 2024 and 2025 reports were signed by Brady and Alferi, who assumed the principal financial officer role on August 31, 2024.

According to the complaint, these statements were materially false and misleading because the clinical trial results for reproxalap were not consistent across studies. The complaint alleges that this inconsistency rendered the positive findings defendants highlighted unreliable and not meaningful, a reality defendants knew or recklessly disregarded. By repeatedly characterizing reproxalap's trial data as demonstrating consistent efficacy, defendants allegedly concealed the fundamental weakness in the clinical evidence supporting the drug's viability, artificially inflating the price of Aldeyra securities throughout the Class Period.

The Truth Emerges

On March 17, 2026, before the market opened, Aldeyra disclosed in a Form 8-K filing that the company had received a Complete Response Letter from the FDA, a formal rejection of its drug application. The Complete Response Letter was devastating in its assessment: the FDA stated there was "a lack of substantial evidence" that reproxalap "will have the effect it purports or is represented to have" and that "the application has failed to demonstrate efficacy in adequate and well controlled studies in the treatment of signs and symptoms of dry eye disease."

Critically, the FDA's letter directly contradicted the core of defendants' years-long representations to investors. The agency stated that "the inconsistency of study results raises serious concerns about the reliability and meaningfulness of the positive findings" and that "the totality of evidence from the completed clinical trials does not support the effectiveness of the product." The complaint alleges that FDA's characterization of the trial results as inconsistent confirmed that the confident language about consistent activity in the company's SEC filings had been materially misleading.

Market Reaction

The market's response to the FDA's Complete Response Letter was swift and severe. On March 17, 2026, ALDX shares plummeted $2.99, or approximately 70.7%, to close at just $1.24 per share. The magnitude of the decline reflects the degree to which the market had relied on defendants' repeated assurances about the consistency and significance of reproxalap's clinical data, assurances that the FDA's letter revealed to be materially misleading.

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