NEW YORK, May 04, 2021 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., a nationally recognized shareholder rights law firm, reminds investors that a class action lawsuit has been filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of investors that purchased XL Fleet Corp. (NYSE:XL) securities between September 2, 2020 and March 2, 2021, inclusive (the Class Period). Investors have until May 7, 2021 to apply to the Court to be appointed as lead plaintiff in the lawsuit.
Click here to participate in the action.
On March 3, 2021, Muddy Waters Research published a report entitled XL Fleet Corp. (NYSE:XL): More SPAC Trash, alleging, among other things, that salespeople were pressured to inflate their sales pipelines materially in order to mislead XL's board and investors and that customer reorder rates are in reality quite low due to poor performance and regulatory issues. Citing interviews with former employees, the report alleged that at least 18 of 33 customers XL featured were inactive. Muddy Waters also claimed that XL has weak technology and that XL's announcement of future class 7-8 upfits seems highly promotional because the task is too technologically complex for XL engineers to deliver on the promised timeline.
On this news, the Company's stock price fell $2.09, or 13%, to close at $13.86 per share on March 3, 2021. The share price continued to decline by $2.69, or 19.4%, over two consecutive trading sessions to close at $11.17 per share on March 5, 2021.
The complaint, filed on March 8, 2021, 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 XL Fleet's salespeople were pressured to inflate their sales pipelines to boost the Company's reported sales and backlog; (2) that at least 18 of the 33 customers that XL featured were inactive and had not placed an order since 2019; (3) that XL's technology had been materially overstated and offered only 5% to 10% of fleet savings; (4) that XL lacks the supply chain and engineers to roll out new products on the announced timelines; and (5) 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.