On February 20, 2024, Fox Factory Holding Corp. was sued for violations of the federal securities laws in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia on behalf of investors who purchased or otherwise acquired Fox Factory common stock between May 6, 2021 and November 2, 2023, inclusive (the “Class Period”).
Recent Security Class Actions
According to the Complaint, Sunnova Energy International Inc. provides energy as a service in the U.S. The Company offers electricity, as well as operations and maintenance, monitoring, repairs and replacements, equipment upgrades, on-site power optimization, and diagnostics services.The Complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company’s business, operations, and compliance policies. Specifically, the Complaint alleges Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Sunnova routinely engaged in predatory business practices against disadvantaged homeowners and communities, (ii) the foregoing conduct subjected the Company to a heightened risk of regulatory and/or governmental scrutiny, as well as significant reputational and/or financial harm; and (iii) as a result, the Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.
According to the Complaint, Dick’s Sporting Goods, Inc. is a leading sporting goods retailer that sells sports equipment, apparel, footwear, and accessories to retail consumers throughout the United States. DSG is an “omnichannel” retailer, meaning it offers products to consumers in physical store locations as well as online and through mobile apps. The Company has over 700 physical locations across the United States.The Complaint alleges that during the Class Period, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) demand for products in DSG’s Outdoor segment was slowing faster than Defendants represented, resulting in excess inventory; (ii) the “structural changes” that Defendants repeatedly touted, including differentiated products, improved pricing technology, and more efficient clearance channels, did not allow the Company to manage its excess inventory without hurting the Company’s profitability; (iii) the need to liquidate excess inventory, including in the Outdoor segment, would have a materially negative effect on the Company’s profitability; and (iv) as a result of (i)-(iii) above, Defendants’ statements about DSG’s business condition and prospects were materially false and misleading when made.
According to the Complaint, Amplitude, Inc. makes software for what it refers to as “digital optimization,” or the process of helping companies figure out more about how their customers engage with the companies’ digital experiences. Amplitude’s technology is designed to provide insights regarding how customers interact with digital platforms or “apps,” allowing companies to determine which features are resonating with customers and tweak their products to maximize user engagement, monetization, and other desirable metrics.The Complaint alleges that during the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and misleading statements. Specifically, the Complaint alleges Defendants misrepresented and failed to disclose the following adverse facts, which were known to Defendants or recklessly disregarded by them as follows: (a) that Amplitude’s land-and-expand strategy was years away from significantly accelerating revenues among its newer client cohorts; (b) that the rapid acceleration in the Company’s 2Q21 results resulted from the ephemeral effects of the COVID-19 pandemic which had not continued by the start of the Class Period, as Amplitude clients were expanding at a slower pace; and (c) that, as a result of (a)-(b) above, Amplitude’s business, operations, financial results, and prospects were materially worse than represented to investors during the Class Period.
According to the Complaint, Amylyx Pharmaceuticals, Inc. is a commercial-stage biotechnology company that engages in the discovery and development of treatments for ALS, also known as Lou Gehrig's disease, and other neurodegenerative diseases. The Company's products include, among others, AMX0035 (commercially referred to as "RELYVRIO" in the U.S.), a dual UPR-Bax apoptosis inhibitor composed of sodium phenylbutyrate and taurursodiol, for the treatment of ALS in adults in the U.S.
The Complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, the Complaint alleges Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Defendants had overstated RELYVRIO's commercial prospects; (ii) patients were discontinuing treatment with RELYVRIO after six months; (iii) the rate at which new patients were starting treatment with RELYVRIO was decreasing; (iv) accordingly, Defendants had also overstated RELYVRIO's prescription rate; (v) Defendants attempted to hide the foregoing negative trends from investors and the market by blocking analysts from viewing RELYVRIO's prescription data; and (vi) as a result, Defendants' public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.
According to the Complaint, Xponential Fitness, Inc. claims to be the largest global franchisor of boutique fitness brands, with a platform offering ten brands in categories that include Pilates, indoor cycling, barre, stretching, rowing, dancing, boxing, running, functional training, and yoga.On June 26, 2023, short-biased analyst firm Fuzzy Panda Research published a report titled “Xponential Fitness (XPOF) – ‘Abusive Franchisor That Is A House Of Cards’". Among other revelations, the Fuzzy Panda Report alleged that one of the individual Defendants has had a long history of misleading investors, including being exposed on camera for using “boiler room” tactics to mislead investors in connection with a prior venture and issuing false claims that Xponential “never closed a store.” On this news, the price of Xponential common stock fell more than 37%.The Complaint alleges that during the Class Period, Defendants disseminated materially false and misleading statements and failed to disclose the full truth about the Company's operations, leading to artificial inflation in the price of Xponential common stock.
According to the Complaint, Archer-Daniels-Midland Company ("ADM") is a multinational food processing and commodities trading corporation that engages in the production of oilseeds, corn, wheat, cocoa, and other agricultural commodities.
The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material facts, about the performance and prospects of ADM's Nutrition segment and its accounting practices. Specifically, the Complaint alleges Defendants made positive statements about the Nutrition segment as a future profit-driver for the Company, with the ability to capitalize on healthier eating trends and rising consumer demand for natural ingredients and flavoring, and that Defendants created the impression that the Nutrition segment's growth would provide more diversification and earnings stability for ADM. However, the Complaint alleges that the Nutrition segment's ostensibly impressive growth was inaccurate and subject to improper accounting practices, and Defendants also downplayed the segment's eventual decline in 2023. The Complaint claims that Defendants' actions caused the price of ADM common stock to trade at artificially inflated levels during the Class Period.
According to the Complaint, ON Semiconductor Corporation manufactures and sells semiconductor components for various electronic devices worldwide.
The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants misrepresented to investors: (1) the demand for the Company's silicon carbide ("SiC") and other products, and (2) the sustainability of the Company's revenue growth, by overstating the impact of the Company's long-term supply agreements ("LTSAs") on the achievability of its revenue streams. The Complaint further alleges that investors were significantly harmed as a result of Defendants' false and misleading statements and material omissions. During the Class Period, the Company's market capitalization value reached a high of $46.6 billion on August 1, 2023, before falling to $28.2 billion on October 30, 2023.
According to the Complaint, the General Motors Company is an automotive manufacturing company that designs, builds, and sells trucks, crossovers, cars, and automobile parts worldwide. The Company markets its vehicles primarily under the Buick, Cadillac, Chevrolet, GMC, Baojun, and Wuling brand names.
Cruise is GM's majority-owned global segment responsible for the development and commercialization of AV technology. Cruise has secured various testing and driving permits for its AVs on the ostensible premise that those AVs were sufficiently safe for such purposes.
The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, the Complaint alleges Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) GM downplayed concerns with its vehicles' airbags and the need to record additional warranty accruals for related product recalls; (ii) GM overstated the extent and efficacy of its efforts to analyze defects in its vehicles' airbag inflators; (iii) Cruise's AVs and/or AV technology were less safe and well-developed than Defendants had led investors, regulators, and the general public to believe; (iv) accordingly, regulatory approval of Cruise's AV products was unsustainable and the prospects for widespread regulatory approval and adoption of Cruise's AV products were overstated; (v) all the foregoing subjected GM to an increased risk of governmental and/or regulatory scrutiny and enforcement action, significant legal liabilities, product recalls, and reputational harm; and (vi) as a result, Defendants' public statements were materially false and/or misleading at all relevant times.
On December 7, 2023, The Estee Lauder Companies, Inc. was sued for violations of the federal securities laws in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of investors who purchased
or otherwise acquired Estee’s common stock between August 18, 2022 and May 2, 2023, inclusive (the “Class Period”).
