Microvast Holdings, Inc. Class Action Lawasuit - MVST
Case Summary
Investors who suffered a loss and would like to learn more, click here to contact us.
The Microvast class action lawsuit seeks to represent purchasers or acquirers of Microvast Holdings, Inc. (NASDAQ: MVST) securities between April 1, 2025 and March 16, 2026, inclusive (the “Class Period”). Captioned Graham v. Microvast Holdings, Inc., No. 26-cv-05804 (S.D. Tex.), the Microvast class action lawsuit charges Microvast and certain of Microvast’s top current and former executives with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
If you suffered substantial losses and wish to serve as lead plaintiff of the Microvast class action lawsuit, please provide your information in the form on this page. You can also contact attorneys Ken Dolitsky or Michael Albert of Robbins Geller by calling 800/851-7783 or via e-mail at info@rgrdlaw.com. Lead plaintiff motions for the Microvast class action lawsuit must be filed with the court no later than September 21, 2026.
CASE ALLEGATIONS: Microvast engages in the design, development, and manufacturing of battery components and systems primarily for electric commercial vehicles and energy storage systems.
The Microvast class action lawsuit alleges that defendants throughout the Class Period made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) due to, among other things, inventory management issues and delays in commercial vehicle rollouts by Microvast’s customers, defendants had overstated Microvast’s ability to reach its margin targets; and (ii) defendants overstated Microvast’s ability to complete the Huzhou Phase 3.2 expansion by the end of 2025.
The Microvast class action lawsuit further alleges that on June 25, 2025, Grizzly Research issued a report alleging that Microvast “is fabricating a significant part of its business and capabilities,” including by overstating the level of activity at its production facilities, including the Huzhou facility, and likewise overstating the prospective economic opportunities from its commercial partnerships. On this news, the price of Microvast stock fell more than 10%, according to the complaint.
On August 1, 2025, Microvast allegedly announced the departure of its Chief Financial Officer, Carl T. (Pat) Schultz, just three months after he joined Microvast. On this news, the price of Microvast stock fell nearly 10% further, according to the complaint.
Then, on November 10, 2025, Microvast issued a press release reporting its financial and operating results for the quarter ended September 30, 2025, allegedly revealing that production following the Huzhou Phase 3.2 expansion would not begin until the first quarter of 2026, after repeatedly advising investors that the additional capacity associated with the expansion would be online by the fourth quarter of 2025. On this news, the price of Microvast stock fell an additional 10%, according to the complaint.
Finally, on March 16, 2026, Microvast issued a press release reporting its financial and operating results for the quarter and year ended December 31, 2025, allegedly reporting that gross margin declined to approximately 1% for the quarter, down from approximately 36% for the same period in the prior year. Microvast attributed the decline to inventory impairment charges arising from “specialized ESS components,” according to the Microvast class action lawsuit. Microvast also allegedly reported revenue of $96.5 million for the quarter, representing a 15% year-over-year decrease and falling well short of the consensus estimate of $136.4 million. On this news, the price of Microvast stock fell 34%, according to the complaint.
THE LEAD PLAINTIFF PROCESS: The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 permits any investor who purchased or acquired Microvast securities during the Class Period to seek appointment as lead plaintiff in the Microvast 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 Microvast class action lawsuit. The lead plaintiff can select a law firm of its choice to litigate the Microvast class action lawsuit. An investor’s ability to share in any potential future recovery is not dependent upon serving as lead plaintiff of the Microvast class action lawsuit.
ABOUT ROBBINS GELLER: Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP is one of the world’s leading law firms representing investors in securities fraud and shareholder rights litigation. Our Firm ranked #1 on the most recent ISS Securities Class Action Services Top 50 Report, recovering more than $916 million for investors in 2025. This marks our fourth #1 ranking in the past five years. And in those five years alone, Robbins Geller recovered $8.4 billion for investors – $3.4 billion more than any other law firm. With 200 lawyers in 10 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 ever – $7.2 billion – in In re Enron Corp. Sec. Litig.