Microvast Holdings (MVST) investors have until September 21, 2026 to seek the lead-plaintiff role in a federal securities class action covering purchases made between April 1, 2025 and March 16, 2026. The complaint alleges the company overstated its margin targets and its ability to complete the Huzhou Phase 3.2 expansion by the end of 2025, with four disclosures between June 2025 and March 2026 driving the stock down roughly 55 percent.
Two national plaintiffs' firms are competing for the lead-plaintiff role in a securities class action against Microvast Holdings Inc., with investors who bought the Nasdaq-listed battery maker between April 1, 2025 and March 16, 2026 given until September 21, 2026 to seek control of the case. The class period brackets four separate disclosures that erased roughly 55 percent of the company's market value across 12 months, ending with a 34.2 percent single-day drop.
"The complaint alleges that defendants overstated Microvast's ability to reach its margin targets and to complete the Huzhou Phase 3.2 expansion by the end of 2025," Pamela A. Mayer, a partner at Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP, said in the firm's September 21 notice. Faruqi & Faruqi LLP, which filed its own reminder the same day, directs investors to partner Josh Wilson at 877-247-4292.
The damages theory rests on the gap between what Microvast told investors about its Chinese manufacturing buildout and what its financial statements later showed. The company announced the Huzhou Phase 3.2 expansion at the start of the class period, saying added capacity would be online before the end of 2025, and paired that with guidance for improved margins under a "strategic repositioning away from low-margin segments."
The first crack came on June 25, 2025, when short seller Grizzly Research published a report alleging Microvast "is fabricating a significant part of its business and capabilities," including by overstating activity at its production facilities. The stock fell as much as $0.40, or about 10.23 percent, intraday before closing at $3.90. On August 1, 2025, the company disclosed the departure of Chief Financial Officer Schultz just three months after he joined; shares dropped $0.30, or 9.93 percent, to close at $2.72 on August 4, 2025.
The expansion timeline slipped on November 10, 2025, when Microvast said production following Huzhou Phase 3.2 would not begin until the first quarter of 2026 — after repeatedly telling investors the capacity would be online by the fourth quarter of 2025. Shares fell $0.50, or about 10 percent, to $4.48 on November 11, 2025.
The final disclosure, and the one that anchors the damages calculation, arrived on March 16, 2026. Microvast reported gross margin of approximately 1 percent for the quarter ended December 31, 2025, down from roughly 36 percent a year earlier, which it attributed to inventory impairment charges on "specialized ESS components." Revenue of $96.5 million for the quarter fell 15 percent year over year and missed the $136.4 million consensus estimate by $39.9 million. Shares fell $0.79, or 34.2 percent, to close at $1.52 on March 17, 2026.
The appointment matters less for the class than for the pace of the case. The court names the investor with the largest financial interest in the relief sought who is also adequate and typical of class members, and that investor then directs strategy and any settlement talks. Kaplan Fox, founded in 1956, cites more than $10 billion recovered for clients, including a $2.425 billion recovery for Bank of America shareholders and $800 million for the Arkansas Teacher Retirement System in litigation against Allianz Global Investors. Faruqi & Faruqi, founded in 1995, says it has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for investors.
Neither firm's notice states a claimed loss figure or a class size, and no damages estimate has been disclosed. Microvast has not publicly responded to the complaint, and no motion to dismiss has been docketed as of the September 21 deadline.
For a company whose shares closed at $1.52 after the final disclosure, the practical exposure is twofold. A securities judgment or settlement would land on a balance sheet already absorbing inventory impairments, and the discovery process will pull internal documents on Huzhou construction progress and margin forecasting into the public record — material that competitors including CATL and BYD, both larger players in the same lithium-ion and energy-storage market, can read alongside investors.
The next scheduled date is the September 21, 2026 lead-plaintiff motion deadline. If no investor with a substantial loss steps forward, the court can appoint the most adequate plaintiff among those who do move, which typically slows the case. If an institutional holder with a large class-period position files, expect a consolidated complaint and a defense motion to dismiss within the following two quarters — the point at which the litigation either narrows to specific statements or expands to cover the full class period.
This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute investment advice.
