NEW YORK, Jan. 13, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., a nationally recognized shareholder rights law firm, reminds investors that class actions have been commenced on behalf of stockholders of Wolfspeed, Inc. (NYSE: WOLF), Xerox Holdings Corporation (NASDAQ: XRX), Visa Inc. (NYSE: V), and Humacyte, Inc. (NASDAQ: HUMA). Stockholders have until the deadlines below to petition the court to serve as lead plaintiff. Additional information about each case can be found at the link provided.
Wolfspeed, Inc. (NYSE: WOLF)
Class Period: August 16, 2023 - November 6, 2024
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: January 17, 2025
According to the complaint, defendants provided the public with revenue projections that depended on Wolfspeed's Mohawk Valley fabrication facility ramping its production to meet and/or exceed demand for its 200mm wafer product. On November 6, 2024, Wolfspeed announced its financial results for the first quarter of fiscal year 2025 and unveiled guidance for the second quarter well below expectations. While defendants had repeatedly claimed that 20% utilization of the Mohawk Valley fabrication facility would result in $100 million revenue out of the facility, defendants now guided to a range 30% to 50% below that mark. The Company attributed its results and lowered guidance to "demand … ramp[ing] more slowly than we originally anticipated" as "EV customers revise their launch time lines as the market works though this transition period."
Investors and analysts reacted immediately to Wolfspeed's revelation. The price of Wolfspeed's common stock declined dramatically. From a closing market price of $13.71 per share on November 6, 2024, Wolfspeed's stock price fell to $8.33 per share on November 7, 2024, a decline of about 39.24% in the span of just a single day.
For more information on the Wolfspeed class action go to: https://bespc.com/cases/WOLF
Xerox Holdings Corporation (NASDAQ: XRX)
Class Period: January 25, 2024 - October 28, 2024
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: January 20, 2025
On April 23, 2024, before the market opened, the Company revealed that for second quarter 2024, quarterly revenue was down 12.4% year-over-year to $1.50 billion, net loss fell to -$113 million (down $184 million year-over-year), and equipment sales declined 25.8% year-over-year to $290 million. The Company admitted, in part, “geographic simplification” had driven the year-over-year decline. The Company also partially disclosed that its “Reinvention” plan had been “initially disruptive to sales operations” but assured investors it was “seeing the benefits of the new business unit-led operating model in equipment order momentum.”
On this news, the Company’s share price fell $1.66, or 10.11%, to close at $14.76 per share on April 23, 2024, on unusually heavy trading volume.
Then, on October 29, 2024, before the market opened, the Company revealed “lower-than-expected improvements in sales force productivity” and “delays in the global launch of two new products” had led to “sales underperformance.” The Company disclosed that for third quarter 2024, quarterly revenue was down 7.5% year-over-year to $1.53 billion, net loss fell to -$1.2 billion (down $1.3 billion year-over-year), and equipment sales declined 12.2% year over year to $339 million. In a corresponding earnings call, the Company’s Chief Operating Officer John Bruno revealed the product delay was in fact a “forecasting issue” where the Company “had higher expectations that we were going to flush through the older product” which it needed to “sell through” in order to “make those transitions.”
On this news, the Company’s share price fell $1.79, or 17.41%, to close at $8.49 per share on October 29, 2024, on unusually heavy trading volume.
The complaint filed in this class action alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company’s business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to investors: (1) that, after a large workforce reduction, the Company’s salesforce was reorganized with new territory assignments and account coverage; (2) that, as a result, the Company’s salesforce productivity was disrupted; (3) that, as a result, the Company had a lower rate of sell-through of older products; (4) that the difficulties in flushing out older product would delay the launch of key products; (5) that, as a result, Xerox was likely to experience lower sales and revenue; and (6) that, as a result of the foregoing, Defendants’ positive statements about the Company’s business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.
For more information on the Xerox class action go to: https://bespc.com/cases/XRX
Visa Inc. (NYSE: V)
Class Period: November 16, 2023 - September 23, 2024
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: January 20, 2025
According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Visa was not in compliance with federal antitrust laws; (2) Visa did not have effective internal programs and policies to assess and control compliance with federal antitrust laws; and (3) as a result, Defendants’ public statements were materially false and/or misleading at all relevant times. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages.
For more information on the Visa class action go to: https://bespc.com/cases/V
Humacyte, Inc. (NASDAQ: HUMA)
Class Period: May 10, 2024 - October 17, 2024
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: January 17, 2025
The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, the Complaint alleges that Defendants failed to disclose to investors: (1) that the Company's Durham, North Carolina facility failed to comply with good manufacturing practices, including quality assurance and microbial testing; (2) that the FDA's review of the BLA would be delayed while Humacyte remediated these deficiencies; and (3) that, as a result, there was a substantial risk to FDA approval of ATEV for vascular trauma; and (4) that, as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.
For more information on the Humacyte class action go to: https://bespc.com/cases/HUMA
About Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C.:
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. is a nationally recognized law firm with offices in New York, California, and South Carolina. The firm represents individual and institutional investors in commercial, securities, derivative, and other complex litigation in state and federal courts across the country. For more information about the firm, please visit www.bespc.com. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes.
Contact Information:
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C.
Brandon Walker, Esq.
Marion Passmore, Esq.
(212) 355-4648
investigations@bespc.com
www.bespc.com
