Nextracker Inc.
Case Overview
36 Days Left to Seek Lead Plaintiff
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: | Lead Plaintiff Deadline: 02/25/2025 |
Status: | Status: Investigating |
Company Name: | Company Name: Nextracker Inc. |
Court: | Court: Northern District of California |
Case Number: | Case Number: 3:24cv09467 |
Class Period: | Class Period: 08/10/2023 - 10/24/2024 |
Ticker: | Ticker: NXT |
Related Attorneys: | Lead Attorneys: Thomas W. Elrod |
Related Practices: | Related Practices: Securities |
The law firm of Kirby McInerney LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on behalf of those who acquired Nextracker Inc. (“Nextracker” or the “Company”) (NASDAQ:NXT) securities during the period from February 1, 2024, through August 1, 2024 (“the Class Period”). Investors have until February 25, 2025, to apply to the Court to be appointed as lead plaintiff in the lawsuit.
On August 1, 2024, Nextracker revealed that its revenue had declined sequentially, from $737 million in the fourth fiscal quarter of 2024 to $720 million during the first fiscal quarter of 2025. Additionally, Nextracker’s GAAP gross profit had declined sequentially, from $340 million in the fourth fiscal quarter of 2024 to $237 million during the first fiscal quarter of 2025. Notably, Nextracker did not raise guidance for the first time since it became a public company in February 2023, implying a slowdown in growth for the remainder of the year. In a related earnings call, Nextracker conceded that it was not effectively offsetting the timing headwinds impacting the overall industry, admitting that “it is taking longer for projects to be fulfilled in real life due to” “construction permits or interconnection delays.” On this news, the price of Nextracker shares declined by $4.85 per share, or approximately 10.3%, from $46.83 per share on August 1, 2024, to close at $41.98 on August 2, 2024.
The complaint alleges that defendants, throughout the Class Period, made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) the impact of project delays on Nextracker’s business, financial results, and prospects was far more severe than represented to investors; (2) permitting and interconnection delays had materially impaired Nextracker’s ability to convert backlog into revenue at historical conversion rates; (3) Nextracker had been unable to offset the negative impact from project delays through increased client demand and the purported ability to pull forward its other projects in the manner represented by defendants; and (4) Nextracker did not possess the competitive advantages which purportedly shielded it from industry-wide headwinds or the ability to effectively offset the adverse effects of project delays as claimed by defendants.
On August 1, 2024, Nextracker revealed that its revenue had declined sequentially, from $737 million in the fourth fiscal quarter of 2024 to $720 million during the first fiscal quarter of 2025. Additionally, Nextracker’s GAAP gross profit had declined sequentially, from $340 million in the fourth fiscal quarter of 2024 to $237 million during the first fiscal quarter of 2025. Notably, Nextracker did not raise guidance for the first time since it became a public company in February 2023, implying a slowdown in growth for the remainder of the year. In a related earnings call, Nextracker conceded that it was not effectively offsetting the timing headwinds impacting the overall industry, admitting that “it is taking longer for projects to be fulfilled in real life due to” “construction permits or interconnection delays.” On this news, the price of Nextracker shares declined by $4.85 per share, or approximately 10.3%, from $46.83 per share on August 1, 2024, to close at $41.98 on August 2, 2024.
The complaint alleges that defendants, throughout the Class Period, made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) the impact of project delays on Nextracker’s business, financial results, and prospects was far more severe than represented to investors; (2) permitting and interconnection delays had materially impaired Nextracker’s ability to convert backlog into revenue at historical conversion rates; (3) Nextracker had been unable to offset the negative impact from project delays through increased client demand and the purported ability to pull forward its other projects in the manner represented by defendants; and (4) Nextracker did not possess the competitive advantages which purportedly shielded it from industry-wide headwinds or the ability to effectively offset the adverse effects of project delays as claimed by defendants.