Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP announces that purchasers of First Solar, Inc. (NASDAQ: FSLR) common stock between February 22, 2019 and February 20, 2020, inclusive (the “Class Period”) have until March 8, 2022 to seek appointment as lead plaintiff in City of Pontiac General Employees’ Retirement System v. First Solar, Inc., No. 22-cv-00036 (D. Ariz.). Commenced on January 7, 2022, the First Solar class action lawsuit charges First Solar as well as certain of its top executives with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
If you suffered significant losses and wish to serve as lead plaintiff of the First Solar class action lawsuit, please provide your information by clicking here. You can also contact attorney J.C. Sanchez of Robbins Geller by calling 800/449-4900 or via e-mail at jsanchez@rgrdlaw.com. Lead plaintiff motions for the First Solar class action lawsuit must be filed with the court no later than March 8, 2022.
CASE ALLEGATIONS: First Solar is a manufacturer of solar energy panels and powerplants.
The First Solar class action lawsuit arises from defendants’ alleged repeated misrepresentations to investors regarding the development of its newest “Series 6” solar module, the cost per unit it could achieve with that module, and the impact the changeover to this new product would have on the viability of its other business segments. In reality, First Solar knew or recklessly disregarded that the Series 6 solar module was not commercially ready at the time of its release, had a component that was failing in the field and causing fires, was not able to hit its projected and touted wattage targets, and had an inconsistent output – all of which put First Solar at a competitive disadvantage.
On January 15, 2020, Barclays reported that, among other things, “First Solar ha[d] seemingly been, in large part, priced-out of the U.S. downstream solar market,” and that First Solar had concealed its rapidly declining market share through misleading financial reporting. According to analysts at Barclays, First Solar was obfuscating this fact by improperly reporting its project development pipeline to make it seem like First Solar maintained a stronger market share, despite the fact that some projects on the pipeline had been completed in prior years. On this news, the price of First Solar stock fell nearly 7%.
Then, on February 6, 2020, Barclays issued another report and suggested that, in an attempt to gain back its market share, First Solar was “bidding more aggressively, leading to lower [project development contract] prices, and finally cutting into margins.” On this news, the price of First Solar stock fell again.
Finally, on February 20, 2020, First Solar announced that it was exploring a sale of its Project Development business. On the same day, First Solar acknowledged it was experiencing “challenges with regard to certain aspects of the overall cost per watt” and that First Solar would not be realizing its cost per watt goals, despite having previously represented that it had been “slightly ahead of” its goals as recently as the previous quarter. Following this, First Solar stated that it would no longer be disclosing a discrete cost per watt for its Series 6 units. When asked by an industry analyst to further explain the decision to no longer provide discrete cost per watt data, First Solar executives claimed that customers had “start[ed] to hold [First Solar] accountable to a cost-plus model . . . [a]nd so we have purposely moved away from giving discrete cost per watt.” On this news, the price of First Solar stock declined nearly 15%, further damaging investors.
THE LEAD PLAINTIFF PROCESS: The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 permits any investor who purchased First Solar common stock during the Class Period to seek appointment as lead plaintiff in the First Solar class action lawsuit. A lead plaintiff is generally the movant with the greatest financial interest in the relief sought by the putative class who is also typical and adequate of the putative class. A lead plaintiff acts on behalf of all other class members in directing the class action lawsuit. The lead plaintiff can select a law firm of its choice to litigate the class action lawsuit. An investor’s ability to share in any potential future recovery of the class action lawsuit is not dependent upon serving as lead plaintiff.
ABOUT ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP: With 200 lawyers in 9 offices nationwide, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP is the largest U.S. law firm representing investors in securities class actions. Robbins Geller attorneys have obtained many of the largest shareholder recoveries in history, including the largest securities class action recovery ever – $7.2 billion – in In re Enron Corp. Sec. Litig. The 2020 ISS Securities Class Action Services Top 50 Report ranked Robbins Geller first for recovering $1.6 billion for investors that year, more than double the amount recovered by any other securities plaintiffs’ firm. Please visit http://www.rgrdlaw.com for more information.
Attorney advertising.
Past results do not guarantee future outcomes.
Services may be performed by attorneys in any of our offices.
https://www.linkedin.com/company/rgrdlaw
https://twitter.com/rgrdlaw
https://www.facebook.com/rgrdlaw
View source version on businesswire.com: https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20220128005498/en/
Contacts
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP
655 W. Broadway, San Diego, CA 92101
J.C. Sanchez, 800-449-4900
jsanchez@rgrdlaw.com
