ESS Tech Inc. Class Action Lawsuit - GWH
Investors who suffered a loss and would like to learn more, click here to contact us.
The ESS Tech class action lawsuit seeks to represent purchasers or acquirers of ESS Tech Inc. (NYSE: GWH) publicly traded securities between August 11, 2022 and December 7, 2022, inclusive (the “Class Period”). Captioned Wakefield v. ESS Tech Inc., No. 23-cv-00050 (D. Or.), the ESS Tech class action lawsuit charges ESS Tech and certain of its top executives with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
If you suffered substantial losses and wish to serve as lead plaintiff of the ESS Tech class action lawsuit, please provide your information in the form on this page. You can also contact attorney J.C. Sanchez of Robbins Geller by calling 800/449-4900 or via e-mail at firstname.lastname@example.org. Lead plaintiff motions for the ESS Tech class action lawsuit must be filed with the court no later than March 13, 2023.
CASE ALLEGATIONS: ESS Tech designs, builds, and deploys iron flow batteries for long-duration commercial and utility-scale energy storage applications requiring from 4 to 12 hours of flexible energy capacity. On August 11, 2022, ESS Tech announced a strategic partnership with Energy Storage Industries Asia Pacific (“ESI”) to “Deploy Long-Duration Energy Storage in Australia and Deliver an Expected 12 GWh of Iron Flow Batteries.”
The ESS Tech class action lawsuit alleges that throughout the Class Period defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) the purported agreement with ESI was in fact an undisclosed related party transaction because ESI was a de-facto subsidiary of ESS Tech masquerading as a third-party client; and (ii) ESS Tech misled investors with its partnership announcement in an attempt to signal business success to investors.
On December 7, 2022, Grizzly Research issued a short-seller report entitled “Caught Red-Handed: We Present Evidence that ESS Tech’s Biggest Customer is Really an Undisclosed Related Party Without Operations.” The Grizzly Research report stated that, among other things, ESS Tech misrepresented its revenue, ESI is not a real third party and has no business, questions whether the ESI project even exists, and ESS Tech’s aggressive projections of growth were based on non-existent customer demand. On this news, ESS Tech’s stock price fell 7.7%, damaging investors.
THE LEAD PLAINTIFF PROCESS: The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 permits any investor who purchased or acquired publicly traded ESS Tech securities during the Class Period to seek appointment as lead plaintiff in the ESS Tech 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 ESS Tech class action lawsuit. The lead plaintiff can select a law firm of its choice to litigate the ESS Tech class action lawsuit. An investor’s ability to share in any potential future recovery is not dependent upon serving as lead plaintiff of the ESS Tech class action lawsuit.
ABOUT ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP: Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP is one of the world’s leading complex class action firms representing plaintiffs in securities fraud cases. The Firm is ranked #1 on the most recent ISS Securities Class Action Services Top 50 Report for recovering nearly $2 billion for investors in 2021 – more than triple the amount recovered by any other plaintiffs’ firm. With 200 lawyers in 9 offices, Robbins Geller is one of the largest plaintiffs’ firms in the world and the Firm’s attorneys have obtained many of the largest securities class action recoveries in history, including the largest securities class action recovery ever – $7.2 billion – in In re Enron Corp. Sec. Litig.