Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP Announces that purchasers and acquirers C3.ai, Inc. (“NYSE: AI”): (a) Class-A common stock pursuant to and/or traceable back to the offering documents for C3.ai’s initial public offering (the “IPO”); and/or (b), securities between December 9, 2022 and February 15, 2022 (the “Class Period”), have until May 3, 2022, inclusive, 2022 (the “Class Period”) to become ai, Inc. The C3.ai class-action lawsuit – captioned The Reckstin Family Trust v. C3.ai Inc., no. 22-cv-01413 (N.D. Cal.) C3.ai and certain of its top executives and directors are charged with violating the Securities Act of 1933/or Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
Click here to submit your information if you have suffered severe losses and would like to be a lead plaintiff in the C3.ai lawsuit. J.C. Sanchez of Robbins Geller by calling 800/449-4900 or via e-mail at [email protected] The court must receive the lead plaintiff motions in the C3.ai lawsuit by May 3, 2022.
CASE ALLEGATIONS. C3.ai is an enterprise AI (“AI”) software company. C3.ai claims to have strategic partnerships in the oil and gas markets, FIS for financial services markets, Raytheon, AWS, Intel and Microsoft. According to the IPO’s offer documents, C3.ai sold 15.5 million shares its Class A common stock to public for $42.00 per share. This represented an approximate amount of $610 million to C3.ai after any underwriting discounts or commissions.
The C3.ai class-action lawsuit claims that the IPO’s offering papers were improperly prepared. They contained false statements of material facts or omitted other facts to make the statements not misleading. Further, the C3.ai lawsuit alleges that defendants and the IPO’s offering materials throughout the Class Period made misleading and false statements, or failed to disclose the following: (i) C3.ai had a deteriorating partnership with Baker Hughes; (iii). C3.ai used a flawed accounting method to hide the deterioration in its Baker Hughes partnership; C3.ai also faced significant challenges in product adoption, salesforce turnover, and (iv) C3.aiii had to its total addressable market (“TAM”), its market growth and its market; and its market; and its market; and its market; and its market; and its market; and its market; and its market; and the size of its business partners with major; and was misleading publicly
Spruce Point Capital Management published a strong sell research opinion and report on C3.ai on February 16, 2022. Spruce Point claimed that it had discovered, among other things: “[e]vidence that a severely compromised partnership with Baker Hughes, which is also C3.ai’s largest customer”, “[s]igns regarding problematic financial reporting and accounting regarding Baker Hughes joint venture, and a revolving doors in C3.ai’s Chief Financial Officer position”, “[c]hallenges with product adoption and significant salesforce turnover make C3.ai unlikely to meet aggressive analyst estimates”, “[e]vidence,” including discrepancies regarding its TAM, the pace of its market, and its [TAM], its], and its market growth, and its customers, HewlettPackard Enterprises, Intel, Hewlett packard Enterprises, Google Cloud, Hew, Intel, Hewlett packard Enterprises like Microsoft, HewlettPackard Enterprises and its [TAM], its]], its [TAM], its] and its [TAM], its], and its [TAM], its] and its (Sp]
The price of C3.ai class A common stock continued to trade below $42.00 per share IPO price as of the filing of the C3.ai lawsuit. This is a significant loss for investors.
THE LEAD PLAINTIFF CLASS PROCESS The Private Securities Reform Act of 1995 allows any investor who bought Class A common stock pursuant to and/or traceable back to the offering documents in connection with the IPO or securities during the Class Period, to apply to be appointed as the lead plaintiff in the C3.ai class-action lawsuit. The lead plaintiff is usually the movant who has the most financial interest in the relief sought. However, he or she must also be typical and adequate to the putative classes. The lead plaintiff represents all class members and acts as a director of the class action lawsuit. To litigate the class action lawsuit, the lead plaintiff may choose any law firm it wishes. The ability of an investor to share in the future recovery of the class-action lawsuit is not tied to being the lead plaintiff.
ABOUT ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & LLP – Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP has the largest U.S. law office representing investors in securities class action lawsuits. Robbins Geller lawyers have secured many of the most significant shareholder recoveries in history. This includes the largest ever securities class action recovery – $7.2 Billion – in In Re Enron Corp. Sec. Litig. Litigation. Please visit http://www.rgrdlaw.com for more information.
Advertising for attorneys
Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Attorneys may perform services in any one of our offices.
CONTACT Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP
655 W. Broadway, San Diego, CA 92101
J.C. Sanchez, 800-449-4900