Expired
Lead Plaintiff Deadline
Apr 3, 2026
Please Upload related files below
Fill in below.
Tell us the stocks you own using SnapTrade, and we will keep you informed about class action litigation related to your stocks. We monitor critical case developments that may affect the price of your shares and your possible monetary recovery. SnapTrade only shares the tickers you own and your transaction history, not your account numbers. Using SnapTrade and participating in our monitoring service is free and does not create any attorney-client relationship or obligation on your part.
Don’t miss out on possible monetary recovery - link your brokerage account with SnapTrade.
The filed complaint alleges that Plug Power Inc made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) defendants had materially overstated the likelihood that funds attributed to the loan through the U.S. Department of Energy’s Loan Program’s Office would ultimately become available to Plug Power, and/or that Plug Power would ultimately construct the hydrogen production facilities necessary to receive those funds; (ii) as such, Plug Power was likely to pivot toward more modest projects with less commercial upside; and (iii) as a result, the Company’s public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.
In order to be eligible to join the PLUG class action lawsuit, you must have incurred a loss on shares of Plug Power purchased during the class period listed above.
If you suffered a loss in Plug Power during the relevant time frame or pursuant to the relevant offering(s), you have until April 3, 2026 to request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff.
A federal securities fraud class action has been filed against Plug Power Inc. (NASDAQ: PLUG) under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 covering January 17, 2025 through November 13, 2025. Investors allege Plug Power and its senior executives misrepresented the status and prospects of a loan through the U.S. Department of Energy's loan guarantee program and the Company's ability to build the hydrogen facilities tied to that financing. During the year, the Company publicly expressed confidence in the DOE process and near-term construction timelines, while downplaying revenue from data center backup power generation projects.
The story shifted when top leaders abruptly resigned, the Company suspended activities under the DOE loan program, and press reports confirmed that six planned hydrogen plants were on hold, putting at risk a $1.66 billion DOE loan closed in January. Following these events, Plug Power's NASDAQ: PLUG stock fell in multiple steps, and investors allege significant losses.
“Most PLUG shareholders never file or join the class action, which means they miss out on potential recovery funds,” said Attorney Joseph Levi.
Case Name: Ortolani v. Plug Power Inc. et al.
Case No.: 1:26-cv-165 (MAD/DJS)
Jurisdiction: U.S. District Court, Northern District of New York
Filed on: February 2, 2026
Plug Power provides hydrogen fuel cell turnkey solutions and green hydrogen infrastructure for the electric mobility and stationary power markets in the hydrogen fuel cells industry in North America and Europe, including hydrogen storage and production equipment, liquefaction technology, hydrogen fuel delivery, and development of hydrogen production plants to produce zero-carbon or low-carbon hydrogen.
January 17, 2025 – November 13, 2025, inclusive.
All persons and entities other than Defendants that purchased or otherwise acquired Plug Power securities during the Class Period, listed on the NASDAQ as PLUG, may be eligible to join the Plug Power Inc. (PLUG) class action lawsuit.
The lawsuit targets Plug Power Inc., its Chief Executive Officer Andrew Marsh, and its Chief Financial Officer Paul B. Middleton, alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5. According to the complaint, Defendants told investors they were progressing smoothly with a large DOE loan guarantee tied to building hydrogen production facilities and that the path to construction was clear.
The narrative begins on March 4, 2025, when Marsh told investors on the FY 2024 earnings call that Plug had ongoing, positive discussions with the DOE and expected construction to begin in the fourth quarter, with an 18-to-24-month completion timeline. That same day, Middleton stated there were "not new conditions," asserting the loan had been finalized in early January and only routine "bureaucracy" remained to kick off the Texas project (part of the DOE loan program). Marsh also said on March 4 that investors should not expect meaningful revenue from the data center power generation segment for two to three years.
Through the spring and summer, the Company reiterated confidence. On May 12, 2025, Marsh said on the Q1 2025 call that "the underlying program is contracted, obligated and we believe secure," adding that Plug needed to get Texas started by year-end. Then on August 11, 2025, during the Q2 2025 call, he said Plug remained confident it could begin construction on DOE-supported projects before the end of the year. Behind these statements, investors allege a different picture: Defendants had materially overstated the likelihood that DOE loan funds would be available and that Plug would build the required hydrogen facilities, and failed to disclose material facts about draw conditions and compliance hurdles. The complaint alleges Plug was in fact likely to pivot toward more modest projects with less commercial upside, including a shift toward data center power arrangements, rendering these public assurances materially false and misleading throughout the Class Period.
The sequence began to unravel on October 7, 2025, when Plug announced via press release and Form 8-K that CEO Andrew Marsh would step down and President Sanjay Shrestha would also depart, reflecting abrupt executive leadership changes, just a month before expected third-quarter results. Weeks later, on November 10, 2025, the Company issued a press release, filed its Form 10-Q, and held a call revealing it had signed a nonbinding letter of intent to monetize electricity rights in New York and another location with a major U.S. data center developer and, "as a result, we have suspended activities under the DOE loan program, allowing us to redeploy capital" away from DOE-backed hydrogen production facilities. Management added the transaction was expected to close in the first quarter.
The next turn came on November 13, 2025, when the Washington Examiner reported that Plug confirmed it had suspended activities on plans to construct six facilities to produce and liquefy zero or low-carbon hydrogen (green hydrogen), putting at risk the $1.66 billion loan from the U.S. Department of Energy it had closed in January. These revelations directly contradicted the earlier messages of steady DOE progress, imminent construction, and the downplaying of near-term data center-related opportunities about the DOE loan program's availability and construction milestones.
Investors reacted as the disclosures landed. On October 7, 2025, after the leadership departures were announced, Plug Power's stock fell $0.26 per share, or 6.29%, to close at $3.87 per share that day, part of a multi-stage stock price decline. Following the November 10, 2025 disclosure that DOE loan activities were suspended, the stock fell another $0.09 per share, or 3.39%, to close at $2.53 per share on November 11, 2025.
As coverage confirmed the suspension of the hydrogen buildout on November 13, 2025, the shares fell $0.48 per share, or 17.58%, over the next two trading sessions, closing at $2.25 per share on November 14, 2025, as the market absorbed corrective disclosures. The complaint ties these step-down moves to the correction of prior assurances about the DOE loan and construction timelines.
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.
TOP