Market Newsdesk

NEW YORK, Sept. 15, 2026 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — SueWallSt notifies investors in Hyliion Holdings Corp. (NYSE: HYLN) that a securities class action has been filed on behalf of shareholders who purchased securities between May 12, 2026 and June 23, 2026. Find out if you may be eligible to recover losses. You may also contact Joseph E. Levi, Esq. at [email protected] or (888) SueWallSt.

HYLN closed at $7.37 per share on June 22, 2026 and at $4.92 per share on June 24, 2026, a two-day decline of $2.45 per share, or 33.24%. Approximately $133 million of the Company’s disclosed $400 million potential pipeline was tied to one non-binding letter of intent. The lead plaintiff deadline is October 27, 2026.

What the Company Disclosed

Hyliion’s first quarter 2026 disclosures stated that the Company and VFG Holdings, LLC had entered a non-binding letter of intent to pursue deployment of up to 250 KARNO Cores, or approximately 50 megawatts, over the next five years, and described VFG as a developer of turnkey data center solutions including power infrastructure, compute systems, site development, and financing. Management told investors that signed non-binding letters of intent represented “a potential of about $400 million of revenue at today’s current pricing.” Disclosure language indicated only that the arrangement remained subject to execution of a definitive purchase agreement.

Disclosure Gaps Alleged

• No disclosure of when the counterparty was formed. The complaint states VFG was incorporated on January 5, 2026, roughly four months before the announcement.
• No disclosure of the counterparty’s headcount, described in a June 23, 2026 research report as four employees.
• No disclosure of VFG’s funding history or capital resources; the report cited an absence of publicly available funding data.
• No disclosure of what evaluation, if any, was performed regarding VFG’s ability to finance and develop a proposed $133 million deployment.
• No quantification for investors of how much of the $400 million pipeline figure rested on the single VFG letter of intent.

Why Pipeline Specificity Allegedly Mattered

The complaint challenges the adequacy of a pipeline figure calculated by applying current pricing to non-binding letters of intent, arguing that the presentation gave investors a revenue anchor without the counterparty information needed to weigh its reliability. Plaintiffs also point to the Company’s August 12, 2026 disclosure, after the Class Period, that revenue guidance was raised by 50% from $10 million to about $15 million while management acknowledged that most customer interest was “not yet reflected in LOIs or purchase contracts.”

“Generic descriptions of a counterparty’s capabilities cannot substitute for disclosing what a company actually knew, or did not know, about that counterparty’s ability to perform. Here the allegations concern a letter of intent that reportedly accounted for roughly one-third of a disclosed pipeline.” — Joseph E. Levi, Esq.

Submit your information to learn more or call (888) SueWallSt.

WHY SUEWALLST: SueWallSt is powered by Levi & Korsinsky LLP. Levi & Korsinsky LLP has established itself as a nationally-recognized securities litigation firm that has secured hundreds of millions of dollars for aggrieved shareholders and built a track record of winning high-stakes cases. The firm has extensive expertise representing investors in complex securities litigation and a team of over 70 employees to serve our clients. For seven years in a row, Levi & Korsinsky has ranked in ISS Securities Class Action Services’ Top 50 Report as one of the top securities litigation firms in the United States.

Frequently Asked Questions About the HYLN Lawsuit

Q: When did Hyliion Holdings Corp. allegedly mislead investors? A: The Class Period runs from May 12, 2026 to June 23, 2026. The complaint alleges that corrective disclosures revealed information that caused a significant stock decline.

Q: What court was the HYLN class action filed in? A: The case was filed in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas, Austin Division, governed by the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995.

Q: Who are the defendants named in the HYLN lawsuit? A: The complaint names Hyliion Holdings Corp. and individual defendants including senior executives who signed SEC filings, made public statements, or certified financial disclosures under Sarbanes-Oxley.

Q: What documents do I need to submit my information? A: Brokerage statements or trade confirmations showing purchase dates, share quantities, prices paid, and any subsequent sale dates and prices.

Q: What happens after I contact Levi & Korsinsky? A: An attorney will review your trading history at no cost and provide an initial assessment of your potential eligibility.

Q: What does it cost me to participate? A: There is no upfront cost to submit your information and review whether you may be eligible to recover. Should you choose to participate in the securities class action, they are generally handled on a contingency basis, with any attorneys’ fees and expenses subject to court approval.

Q: Do I need to go to court or give testimony? A: No. The overwhelming majority of class members never appear in court or give depositions. If there is a settlement or recovery, eligible class members generally submit a claim form to seek their portion.

Q: What if I live outside the United States? A: U.S. securities class actions generally cover purchases on U.S. exchanges regardless of the investor’s country of residence.

CONTACT:

Levi & Korsinsky, LLP
Joseph E. Levi, Esq.
33 Whitehall Street, 27th Floor
New York, NY 10004
[email protected]
Tel: (888) SueWallSt
Fax: (212) 363-7171

Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes.

NEW YORK, Sept. 15, 2026 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — SueWallSt reminds purchasers of Park Ha Biological Technology Co., Ltd. (NASDAQ: BYAH) securities that a class action was filed on behalf of investors who acquired shares between December 27, 2024 and July 8, 2025. Find out if you could qualify to recover your per-share losses. You may also contact Joseph E. Levi, Esq. at [email protected] or (888) SueWallSt.

BYAH closed at $41.01 on July 7, 2025 and at $2.99 on July 8, 2025, a per-share decline of approximately $38.02, or roughly 93%. The last day to move for lead plaintiff is September 28, 2026.

How Alleged Artificial Inflation Is Measured Per Share

The lawsuit maintains that BYAH shares traded at artificially inflated prices throughout the Class Period and that the single-session repricing on July 8, 2025 reflected the removal of alleged inflation rather than a response to any newly disclosed operating result. Plaintiffs assert that no material corporate development was announced to explain either the stock rise from the $4.00 IPO price or the subsequent collapse.

What Rights Class Members Have

Investors do not need to have sold their shares to be class members, and no action is required to remain an absent class member. Recovery in a securities class action is generally calculated on a per-share basis using documented purchase and sale activity during the Class Period.

• IPO price of $4.00 per share on December 27, 2024, with 1,200,000 shares sold for approximately $4.8 million in proceeds
• Class Period high of $41.49 intraday on July 7, 2025, against roughly 26.4 million shares outstanding
• Closing price of $2.99 on July 8, 2025 on volume exceeding 8.9 million shares
• Per-share decline of approximately $38.02 in one trading session, or about 93%
• More than $1 billion in market capitalization erased on July 8, 2025
• Claims asserted under Sections 11, 12 and 15 of the Securities Act and Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act

“When companies fail to disclose material information, shareholders may suffer significant losses. Here the complaint alleges that BYAH investors paid prices inflated by promotional activity the Company never addressed, and the $38.02 per-share decline is the measure of that alleged harm.” — Joseph E. Levi, Esq.

Submit your information here or call (888) SueWallSt.

WHY SUEWALLST: SueWallSt is powered by Levi & Korsinsky LLP. Levi & Korsinsky LLP has established itself as a nationally-recognized securities litigation firm that has secured hundreds of millions of dollars for aggrieved shareholders and built a track record of winning high-stakes cases. The firm has extensive expertise representing investors in complex securities litigation and a team of over 70 employees to serve our clients. For seven years in a row, Levi & Korsinsky has ranked in ISS Securities Class Action Services’ Top 50 Report as one of the top securities litigation firms in the United States.

Frequently Asked Questions About the BYAH Lawsuit

Q: How much did BYAH stock drop? A: Shares fell approximately 93%, a decline of about $38.02 per share, closing at $2.99 on July 8, 2025 after the single-session collapse that followed an alleged artificial price surge. Investors who purchased during the Class Period at allegedly inflated prices may be eligible to seek compensation.

Q: When did Park Ha allegedly mislead investors? A: The Class Period runs from December 27, 2024 to July 8, 2025. The complaint alleges the July 8, 2025 collapse followed disclosures and events revealing information that caused a significant decline in share value.

Q: Who are the defendants named in the BYAH lawsuit? A: The complaint names Park Ha Biological Technology Co., Ltd. along with individual defendants including senior executives and directors who signed the registration statement, as well as the Company’s auditor and IPO underwriters.

Q: What is the BYAH lead plaintiff deadline? A: The deadline to apply for lead plaintiff appointment is September 28, 2026. This deadline applies only to investors seeking to serve as lead plaintiff. Class members who do not apply may still participate in any recovery without acting before that date.

Q: What if I already sold my BYAH shares — can I still recover losses? A: Yes. Eligibility is based on when you purchased, not whether you still hold the shares. Investors who bought during the Class Period and sold at a loss may still be eligible.

Q: What does it cost me to participate? A: There is no upfront cost to contact the firm. Securities class actions are generally handled on a pure contingency basis, with no retainer and no out-of-pocket costs. Any attorneys’ fees and expenses awarded to class counsel are subject to court approval.

Q: What do BYAH investors need to do right now? A: Gather brokerage records including purchase dates, share quantities, and prices paid. Contact SueWallSt, a brand of Levi & Korsinsky LLP, for a no-cost, no-obligation evaluation at [email protected] or (212) 363-7500. No immediate action is required to remain eligible to participate in the investigation.

Q: What if I live outside the United States? A: U.S. securities class actions generally cover purchases on U.S. exchanges regardless of the investor’s country of residence.

CONTACT:
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP
Joseph E. Levi, Esq.
33 Whitehall Street, 27th Floor
New York, NY 10004
[email protected]
Tel: (888) SueWallSt
Fax: (212) 363-7171

Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes.

ATLANTA, Sept. 15, 2026 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — A shareholder class action lawsuit has been filed against AST SpaceMobile, Inc. (“AST”) (NASDAQ: ASTS). The lawsuit alleges that Defendants made false and misleading statements and/or failed to disclose material adverse facts including allegations that: (i) AST’s increasing capital requirements were likely to increase its debt load and share dilution with greater frequency and at greater scale than Defendants had signaled to investors; (ii) accordingly, Defendants had overstated the sufficiency of AST’s capital and liquidity position to achieve its strategic and business goals; (iii) Defendants likewise overstated the durability of AST’s competitive position in the satellite D2C market; (iv) even following the EchoStar Transaction, Defendants continued overstating AST’s competitive position in the satellite D2C market; (v) AST was experiencing slow user adoption in the U.S. and Japan; (vi) the foregoing was likely to have a significant negative impact on AST’s business and financial prospects; and (vii) as a result, Defendants’ public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

If you purchased AST shares between March 4, 2025 and July 15, 2026, and experienced a loss on that investment, you are encouraged to discuss your legal rights by contacting Corey D. Holzer, Esq. at [email protected], by toll-free telephone at (888) 508-6832, or by visiting the firm’s website at www.holzerlaw.com/case/ast-spacemobile/ for more information.

The deadline to ask the court to be appointed lead plaintiff in the case is November 13, 2026.

Holzer & Holzer, LLC, an ISS top rated securities litigation law firm for 2021, 2022, 2023, and 2025, dedicates its practice to vigorous representation of shareholders and investors in litigation nationwide, including shareholder class action and derivative litigation. Since its founding in 2000, Holzer & Holzer attorneys have played critical roles in recovering hundreds of millions of dollars for shareholders victimized by fraud and other corporate misconduct. More information about the firm is available through its website, www.holzerlaw.com, and upon request from the firm. Holzer & Holzer, LLC has paid for the dissemination of this promotional communication, and Corey Holzer is the attorney responsible for its content.

CONTACT:
Corey D. Holzer, Esq.
(888) 508-6832 (toll-free)
[email protected]

NEW YORK, Sept. 15, 2026 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — SueWallSt notifies investors in Bloom Energy Corporation (NYSE: BE) that a class action has been filed on behalf of shareholders who purchased securities between February 27, 2025 and July 8, 2026. Find out if you might qualify for recovery. You may also contact Joseph E. Levi, Esq. at [email protected] or (888) SueWallSt.

BE shares fell $15.28 per share, or 5.7%, to close at $254.29 on July 8, 2026, on unusually heavy trading volume, after a published research report questioned the origin of the Company’s scandium supply. The lead plaintiff deadline is September 28, 2026.

The Alleged Intermediary Routing Playbook

Scandium is the rare earth dopant that stabilizes the zirconia ceramic electrolyte inside Bloom’s solid oxide fuel cells. As pleaded, the metal reached the Company’s U.S. operations along four China-linked routes: scandium oxide shipped directly to the Newark, Delaware plant on at least four occasions between August 2023 and May 2024, plus scandium-bearing ceramics and powders moving through intermediaries in Thailand, Japan, and South Korea. Plaintiffs allege this structure understated the Company’s true dependence on Chinese material.

Supply Chain Rerouting and Third-Party Assemblers

The action contends that a Chinese sensor supplier told the Shenzhen Stock Exchange in November 2025 that Bloom “has begun changing its supply-chain process,” directing shipments not to the United States but to Bloom’s “other overseas suppliers,” who “complete assembly before shipping on to the United States,” in order to “gradually reduce direct exports to the U.S. and thereby mitigate the impact of U.S. tariff policies.” That filing named Kaori Heat Treatment in Taiwan and MTAR Technologies in India as the waypoints beginning in 2025.

Operational Sourcing Allegations by the Numbers

• More than 154 metric tons of ceramic electrolyte membranes shipped to Bloom from a Thailand-based subsidiary of a Chinese group between July 2024 and November 2025, as pleaded.
• Nearly 300 drums of “scandia” or “scandia-stabilized” powder received from a Japanese supplier whose corporate network includes a Chinese zirconium-compounds trading subsidiary.
• 127 billion won ($83 million) in 2025 purchases by a South Korean electrolyte materials supplier from its Chinese parent’s Hong Kong unit, according to Korean corporate disclosures cited in the action.
• More than 70% of Bloom’s temperature sensor purchases attributed to a single Chinese manufacturer over a roughly two-decade relationship.
• Approximately 50 billion won in expected Korean ceramic substrate production capacity tied to expanding Bloom orders.

“The complaint raises serious questions about whether investors received accurate information about where Bloom Energy’s critical fuel cell materials actually originated. Allegations that scandium moved through intermediary countries before reaching U.S. facilities go to the heart of what shareholders were told about supply chain and tariff exposure.” — Joseph E. Levi, Esq.

Submit your information now or call (888) SueWallSt.

WHY SUEWALLST: SueWallSt is powered by Levi & Korsinsky LLP. Levi & Korsinsky LLP has established itself as a nationally-recognized securities litigation firm that has secured hundreds of millions of dollars for aggrieved shareholders and built a track record of winning high-stakes cases. The firm has extensive expertise representing investors in complex securities litigation and a team of over 70 employees to serve our clients. For seven years in a row, Levi & Korsinsky has ranked in ISS Securities Class Action Services’ Top 50 Report as one of the top securities litigation firms in the United States.

Frequently Asked Questions About the BE Lawsuit

Q: What specific misstatements does the BE lawsuit allege? A: The complaint alleges Bloom Energy made materially false or misleading statements regarding its lack of dependence on China for scandium and other supply chain inputs during the Class Period. When a report alleging that Bloom relied on Chinese scandium routed through intermediaries was published, the stock price declined sharply.

Q: What court was the BE class action filed in? A: The case was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, governed by the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995.

Q: Who is eligible to join the BE investor lawsuit? A: Investors who purchased BE stock or securities between February 27, 2025 and July 8, 2026 and suffered financial losses may be eligible. Eligibility is based on purchase date and documented losses, not on whether you still hold the shares.

Q: What do BE investors need to do right now? A: Gather brokerage records including purchase dates, share quantities, and prices paid. Contact SueWallSt, a brand of Levi & Korsinsky LLP, for a no-cost, no-obligation evaluation at [email protected] or (212) 363-7500. No immediate action is required to remain eligible to participate in the investigation.

Q: What is a lead plaintiff and why does it matter? A: A lead plaintiff is the investor appointed by the court to represent the entire class. Lead plaintiffs are typically investors with the largest documented losses. Being appointed does not increase individual recovery but gives direct oversight of how the case is run.

Q: What if I already sold my BE shares — can I still recover losses? A: Yes. Eligibility is based on when you purchased, not whether you still hold the shares. Investors who bought during the Class Period and sold at a loss may still be eligible to participate.

Q: What does it cost me to participate? A: There is no upfront cost to submit your information and review whether you may be eligible to recover. Should you choose to participate in the securities class action, they are generally handled on a contingency basis, with any attorneys’ fees and expenses subject to court approval.

Q: What if I live outside the United States? A: U.S. securities class actions generally cover purchases on U.S. exchanges regardless of the investor’s country of residence.

CONTACT:
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP
Joseph E. Levi, Esq.
33 Whitehall Street, 27th Floor
New York, NY 10004
[email protected]
Tel: (888) SueWallSt
Fax: (212) 363-7171

Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes.

NEW YORK, Sept. 15, 2026 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — SueWallSt alerts investors in Flotek Industries, Inc. (NYSE: FTK) of a pending securities class action. Class Period: August 3, 2026 through August 17, 2026. Check if you might be eligible to recover your investment losses or contact Joseph E. Levi, Esq. at [email protected] | (888) SueWallSt.

FTK shares declined nearly 30%, a collective drop of $10.66 per share, across three consecutive disclosure days, and the projected $400 million, 10-year revenue backlog tied to the Puerto Rico agreement went to zero. The Court has set October 26, 2026 as the deadline to apply for lead plaintiff appointment.

The Alleged Puerto Rico Consortium Credibility Concentration

The lawsuit asserts that the announced 10-year agreement with the Puerto Rico Electric Power Authority depended on partners over whom the Company had limited control, with roughly 90% of project capacity supplied by third parties. As alleged, the group’s lead partner had been questioned by a federal oversight body months earlier over its organizational and financial capacity, and the contract award was later revoked after a participant stated its name and signature had been used without authorization.

Third-Party Vetting Risk in Consortium-Based Energy Contracts

• The contract accounted for approximately 57% of reported backlog
• Annual revenue of approximately $40 million was projected at full deployment
• Approximately 90% of project power generation capacity rested with outside parties
• A federally appointed oversight body voted to revoke approval and referred the matter to law enforcement
• Formal termination of the power purchase and operating agreement followed, effective immediately

Why Partner Diligence Adequacy Allegedly Matters to Investors

The action claims that generic contract-risk language did not convey the specific, allegedly known doubts surrounding the consortium, and that investors who purchased during the two-week Class Period paid prices that did not reflect those doubts.

“Investors deserve transparency about material risks that could affect their investments. The complaint here alleges that shareholders were not told of credible reasons to doubt the experience, organization, and financial capacity of the consortium behind a contract representing roughly 57% of the Company’s backlog.” — Joseph E. Levi, Esq.

Learn more about the case
or call (888) SueWallSt.

WHY SUEWALLST: SueWallSt is powered by Levi & Korsinsky LLP. Levi & Korsinsky LLP has established itself as a nationally-recognized securities litigation firm that has secured hundreds of millions of dollars for aggrieved shareholders and built a track record of winning high-stakes cases. The firm has extensive expertise representing investors in complex securities litigation and a team of over 70 employees to serve our clients. For seven years in a row, Levi & Korsinsky has ranked in ISS Securities Class Action Services’ Top 50 Report as one of the top securities litigation firms in the United States.

Frequently Asked Questions About the FTK Lawsuit

Q: Who is eligible to join the FTK investor lawsuit? A: Investors who purchased FTK stock or securities between August 3, 2026 and August 17, 2026 and suffered financial losses may be eligible. Eligibility is based on purchase date and documented losses — not on whether you still hold the shares.

Q: What specific misstatements does the FTK lawsuit allege? A: The complaint alleges Flotek Industries, Inc. made materially false or misleading statements regarding the $400 million PREPA agreement and the capacity of its consortium partners during the Class Period. When the contract cancellation and the alleged unauthorized signature were disclosed, the stock price declined sharply.

Q: Who are the defendants named in the FTK lawsuit? A: The complaint names Flotek Industries, Inc. and individual defendants including senior executives who allegedly signed SEC filings, made public statements, or certified financial disclosures under Sarbanes-Oxley.

Q: What do FTK investors need to do right now? A: Investors may gather brokerage records showing purchase dates, share quantities, and prices paid. Submit your information for a no-cost, no-obligation evaluation of your potential recovery. No immediate action is required to remain eligible as an absent class member.

Q: What is a lead plaintiff and why does it matter? A: A lead plaintiff is the investor appointed by the court to represent the entire class. Lead plaintiffs are typically investors with the largest documented losses. Being appointed does not increase individual recovery but gives direct oversight of how the case is run.

Q: What if I already sold my FTK shares — can I still recover losses? A: Yes. Eligibility is based on when you purchased, not whether you still hold the shares. Investors who bought during the Class Period and sold at a loss may still be eligible to participate.

Q: What does it cost me to participate? A: There is no upfront cost to submit your information and review whether you may be eligible to recover. Should you choose to participate in the securities class action, they are generally handled on a contingency basis, with any attorneys’ fees and expenses subject to court approval.

CONTACT:
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP
Joseph E. Levi, Esq.
33 Whitehall Street, 27th Floor
New York, NY 10004
[email protected]
Tel: (888) SueWallSt
Fax: (212) 363-7171

Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes.

NEW YORK, Sept. 15, 2026 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — SueWallSt notifies investors in Cogent Communications Holdings, Inc. (NASDAQ: CCOI) that a class action has been filed on behalf of shareholders who purchased securities between February 29, 2024 and May 1, 2026. Find out if you might qualify for recovery. You may also contact Joseph E. Levi, Esq. at [email protected] or (888) SueWallSt.

CCOI shares allegedly declined by more than 80%, approximately $69 per share, from a Class Period high of over $86 in November 2024 to less than $17 after May 1, 2026. Motions for lead plaintiff must be filed with the Court by September 21, 2026.

Alleged Spring Network Conversion and Wavelength Revenue Disclosure Issues

The complaint alleges that Cogent’s plan to turn the acquired T-Mobile Wireline Business, formerly Sprint, into a growth engine depended on reconfiguring a legacy voice network for optical wavelength services. The case centers on whether Cogent adequately disclosed the operational challenges associated with converting the former Sprint wireline network into a wavelength-optimized platform.

As pleaded, Cogent had acquired a business with negative 80% margin and declining revenues of more than 10% per year. The lawsuit claims that the Company’s ability to meet its wavelength growth strategy relied on reducing provisioning cycles and converting customer demand into revenue-generating connections.

Provisioning Delays Allegedly Undermined Customer Conversion

According to the filing, provisioning windows remained elongated at roughly 90 days and, at times, 120 days or more. The complaint further alleges that the Company described the network conversion as a “daunting” task while still presenting wavelength demand as a major growth driver.

The action claims customers who could not wait for Cogent’s provisioning delays were permitted to seek other solutions, weakening the business case that allegedly supported Cogent’s long-term revenue expectations.

Alleged Provisioning Impact by the Numbers

• Cogent acquired the former Sprint wireline assets for $1, subject to adjustments for net debt and net working capital.
• The acquired business allegedly had negative 80% margin before the transaction.
• The Company targeted a $500 million wavelength revenue run rate by May 2028.
• Provisioning cycles allegedly stretched to 90 to 120+ days during key periods.
• The complaint alleges that up to 90% of the wavelength backlog was ultimately lost.

The complaint raises serious questions about whether investors received accurate information regarding the operational challenges involved in converting the former Sprint network into a wavelength platform. The alleged provisioning issues warrant review of what investors were told and when.“ — Joseph E. Levi, Esq.

Submit your information now or call (888) SueWallSt.

WHY SUEWALLST: SueWallSt is powered by Levi & Korsinsky LLP. Levi & Korsinsky LLP has established itself as a nationally-recognized securities litigation firm that has secured hundreds of millions of dollars for aggrieved shareholders and built a track record of winning high-stakes cases. The firm has extensive expertise representing investors in complex securities litigation and a team of over 70 employees to serve our clients. For seven years in a row, Levi & Korsinsky has ranked in ISS Securities Class Action Services’ Top 50 Report as one of the top securities litigation firms in the United States.

Frequently Asked Questions About the CCOI Lawsuit

Q: What specific misstatements does the CCOI lawsuit allege? A: The complaint alleges Cogent Communications Holdings, Inc. made materially false or misleading statements regarding optical wavelength demand, backlog quality, provisioning challenges, and the sustainability of its dividend policy during the Class Period. When alleged corrective information regarding backlog loss and a 98% dividend cut was disclosed, the stock price declined sharply.

Q: When did Cogent Communications Holdings, Inc. allegedly mislead investors? A: The Class Period runs from February 29, 2024 to May 1, 2026. The complaint alleges that corrective disclosures revealed information that caused a significant stock decline.

Q: What court was the CCOI class action filed in? A: The case was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, governed by the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995.

Q: What is a lead plaintiff and why does it matter? A: A lead plaintiff is the investor appointed by the court to represent the entire class. Lead plaintiffs are typically investors with the largest documented losses. Being appointed does not increase individual recovery but gives direct oversight of how the case is run.

Q: What if I already sold my CCOI shares — can I still recover losses? A: Yes. Eligibility is based on when you purchased, not whether you still hold the shares. Investors who bought during the Class Period and sold at a loss may still be eligible to participate.

Q: Do I need to go to court or give testimony? A: No. The overwhelming majority of class members never appear in court or give depositions. If there is a settlement or recovery, eligible class members generally submit a claim form to seek their portion.

Q: What does it cost me to participate? A: There is no upfront cost to contact the firm. Securities class actions are generally handled on a pure contingency basis. No upfront fees, no retainer, and no out-of-pocket costs. Any attorneys’ fees and expenses awarded to class counsel are subject to court approval.

CONTACT:
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP
Joseph E. Levi, Esq.
33 Whitehall Street, 27th Floor
New York, NY 10004
[email protected]
Tel: (888) SueWallSt
Fax: (212) 363-7171

Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes.

NEW YORK, Sept. 15, 2026 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — Toll Brothers City Living, the urban development division of Toll Brothers, Inc. (NYSE: TOL), the nation’s leading builder of luxury homes, together with development joint venture partner Daiwa House, today announced the grand opening of its first model residence, now available to preview at Vista Pointe at Port Imperial, an exclusive waterfront condominium community on one of the last remaining waterfront parcels along New Jersey’s coveted Gold Coast. The model residence is now available to preview at the community located in West New York, New Jersey, on the Hudson River across from midtown Manhattan.

The model residence is a three-bedroom, two-and-a-half-bath home spanning 1,645 square feet. The open-concept floor plan is thoughtfully designed to maximize light, space, and views, with oversized windows that showcase Hudson River and Manhattan skyline vistas. The gourmet kitchen serves as a stylish centerpiece, equipped with a large island, quartz countertops, custom cabinetry, and paneled Bosch and Thermador appliances. A spa-inspired primary bathroom, expansive primary bedroom, and flexible secondary bedrooms complete the elevated living experience.

“Vista Pointe at Port Imperial represents a rare opportunity to own a luxurious home with panoramic views of Manhattan and the Hudson River in a thoughtfully designed and amenity-rich community,” said David Von Spreckelsen, President of Toll Brothers City Living. “This model residence gives potential home buyers a true perspective of the lifestyle that can be found at this highly sought-after waterfront location. Walking through the space, buyers can experience firsthand the light, the views, and the level of craftsmanship that define Vista Pointe.”

Vista Pointe redefines urban lifestyle with an exceptional collection of indoor and outdoor amenities. Residents enjoy a resort-style pool deck, an elevated courtyard, and a rooftop terrace outfitted with lounge areas, grills, and an outdoor TV. Wellness is prioritized with a state-of-the-art fitness center, sauna, and steam room. Social and creative pursuits flourish in the library, co-working lounges, game room, golf simulator room, children’s playroom, screening room, makerspace, and demonstration kitchen. Each residence includes one space in the onsite garage, with electric vehicle charging and additional spaces available for purchase.

Nestled in the heart of Port Imperial, Vista Pointe offers residents both tranquility and convenience. The waterfront esplanade at the doorstep of the community offers breathtaking views of Manhattan and stretches over 18 miles, ideal for jogging, biking, or leisurely strolls. A vibrant selection of restaurants, shops, and recreational activities are moments away. Easy access to Manhattan is available via a short shuttle to the Port Imperial ferry, offering a quick and scenic commute to the city.

Residences at Vista Pointe are available for immediate occupancy and begin from approximately $1 million. Sales and marketing are handled by Toll Brothers City Living, and the sales gallery is located at 10 Ave. at Port Imperial in West New York, New Jersey. For additional information or to schedule a visit, contact Toll Brothers at 201-386-3560 or visit VistaPointe.com.

About Toll Brothers City Living

Toll Brothers City Living^® is the urban development division of Toll Brothers, Inc., the nation’s leading builder of luxury homes. Toll Brothers City Living brings the extraordinary quality, value, and service familiar to luxury home buyers throughout the country to some of the most dynamic urban markets, including New York City; Hoboken and Jersey City, New Jersey; Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; and the Greater Washington, DC, metro area.

Toll Brothers, an award-winning FORTUNE 500 company, founded in 1967, builds new homes in communities in over 60 markets nationwide and is a publicly owned company with its common stock listed on the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE: TOL). Toll Brothers was named the #1 Most Admired Home Builder in Fortune magazine’s 2026 list of the World’s Most Admired Companies^®, the ninth year the Company has achieved this honor.* Toll Brothers has also been named Builder of the Year by Builder magazine and is the first two-time recipient of Builder of the Year from Professional Builder magazine.

To learn more about Toll Brothers City Living and its properties, visit TollBrothersCityLiving.com

About Daiwa House

From its humble beginnings in the early 1950s creating small, prefabricated housing to its status now as the largest single-family homebuilder in Japan, the Daiwa House Group continues to make strides in the United States by fulfilling its corporate mission of effective leadership, innovation and environmentalism through its wholly owned subsidiary: Daiwa House Texas Inc. Founded in 2011, the firm has already established a reputation for quality and excellence by developing premiere multifamily properties in most major metro areas across the country and, after the acquisition of Stanley Martin in 2017, Trumark Companies in 2020, and CastleRock Communities in 2021, construction of scores of robust single-family homes throughout the Texas, East, and West Coasts.

*From Fortune, ©2026 Fortune Media IP Limited. All rights reserved. Used under license.

Contact: Michael Duff, Toll Brothers, Senior Marketing Director, [email protected]

Photos accompanying this announcement are available at

https://www.globenewswire.com/NewsRoom/AttachmentNg/c803932c-7c3c-4a40-a459-2639097eaef3

https://www.globenewswire.com/NewsRoom/AttachmentNg/50c0887e-ed1f-433a-baf3-5e5edc98f453

https://www.globenewswire.com/NewsRoom/AttachmentNg/48033f0c-88b9-4a5c-a41e-e1e1a987dcaa

https://www.globenewswire.com/NewsRoom/AttachmentNg/a1be19f2-204b-466d-af40-2ee102d7ee10 

Sent by Toll Brothers via Regional Globe Newswire (TOLL-REG)

NEW YORK, Sept. 15, 2026 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — SueWallSt alerts investors in Microvast Holdings, Inc. (NASDAQ: MVST) of a pending securities class action on behalf of shareholders who purchased securities between April 1, 2025 and March 16, 2026. Check if you might be eligible to recover your investment losses. You may also contact Joseph E. Levi, Esq. at [email protected] or (888) SueWallSt.

MVST shares fell $0.79 per share, or 34.2%, to close at $1.52 on March 17, 2026. The Court has set September 21, 2026 as the deadline to apply for lead plaintiff appointment.

Executive Turnover Battery Securities Allegations

The lawsuit asserts that Microvast investors were not given a complete picture of risks tied to finance leadership instability and questions about the Company’s business representations. Before and during the Class Period, Microvast allegedly experienced unusual turnover in its finance function, including four different finance chiefs across a three-year span.

As alleged, one finance leader departed only about three months after joining, and the Company allegedly provided limited public explanation for multiple departures. The action claims this instability was material because investors were being asked to rely on Microvast’s financial outlook, margin targets, customer demand commentary, and manufacturing expansion timeline.

Battery Sector Governance Signals in Finance Leadership

• The securities action alleges that repeated finance leadership changes raised questions about internal controls and forecasting discipline.
• Investors allegedly relied on management’s representations about customer demand, operational progress, and profitability targets.
• The complaint contends that unexplained executive departures occurred while Microvast continued to promote growth and margin expectations.
• A short-seller report later accused the Company of overstating business capabilities, employee counts, and facility activity.
• The action claims these issues were relevant to investor assessments of credibility, execution risk, and valuation.

Short-Seller Fabrication Claims and Investor Credibility Concerns

On June 25, 2025, Grizzly Research issued a report alleging that Microvast was fabricating significant parts of its business and capabilities. The report challenged the Company’s descriptions of activity at its Huzhou facility and questioned the economic value of certain commercial partnerships, including a projected opportunity involving Gaussin.

The lawsuit asserts that these allegations were among the first signals that prior public statements may have omitted material risks. As alleged, investors later faced additional disclosures concerning customer rollout delays, inventory impairment, and missed financial expectations.

Why Disclosure Adequacy Allegedly Matters to Investors

Investors deserve transparency about material risks that could affect their investments, especially where a company is asking the market to rely on ambitious growth expectations while facing alleged governance and credibility concerns. The allegations here focus on whether shareholders received enough information to evaluate Microvast’s finance leadership turnover and challenged business claims. — Joseph E. Levi, Esq.

The action claims Microvast and certain officers made materially false or misleading statements during the Class Period in violation of federal securities laws. No class has been certified, and investors are not required to serve as lead plaintiff to remain absent class members.

Learn more about the case or call (888) SueWallSt.

WHY SUEWALLST: SueWallSt is powered by Levi & Korsinsky LLP. Levi & Korsinsky LLP has established itself as a nationally-recognized securities litigation firm that has secured hundreds of millions of dollars for aggrieved shareholders and built a track record of winning high-stakes cases. The firm has extensive expertise representing investors in complex securities litigation and a team of over 70 employees to serve our clients. For seven years in a row, Levi & Korsinsky has ranked in ISS Securities Class Action Services’ Top 50 Report as one of the top securities litigation firms in the United States.

Frequently Asked Questions About the MVST Lawsuit

Q: What specific misstatements does the MVST lawsuit allege? A: The complaint alleges Microvast Holdings, Inc. made materially false or misleading statements regarding its ability to achieve high gross margin targets, complete the Huzhou Phase 3.2 expansion by the end of 2025, and manage inventory and customer rollout risks during the Class Period. When the Company reported a Q4 2025 revenue miss, a gross margin decline to 1.0%, and a $32.5 million inventory impairment tied to specialized ESS components, the stock price declined sharply.

Q: When did Microvast allegedly mislead investors? A: The Class Period runs from April 1, 2025 to March 16, 2026. The complaint alleges that corrective disclosures revealed information that caused significant stock declines.

Q: What court was the MVST class action filed in? A: The case was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division, and is governed by the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995.

Q: What is a lead plaintiff and why does it matter? A: A lead plaintiff is the investor appointed by the court to represent the entire class. Lead plaintiffs are typically investors with the largest documented losses. Being appointed does not increase individual recovery but gives direct oversight of how the case is run.

Q: What happens after I contact Levi & Korsinsky? A: An attorney will review your trading history at no cost and provide an initial assessment of your potential eligibility.

Q: What if I already sold my MVST shares — can I still recover losses? A: Yes. Eligibility is based on when you purchased, not whether you still hold the shares. Investors who bought during the Class Period and sold at a loss may still be eligible to participate.

Q: What if my MVST losses are small — is it still worth contacting a lawyer? A: Yes. There is no minimum loss amount required to participate as a class member.

Q: Do I need to go to court or give testimony? A: No. The overwhelming majority of class members never appear in court or give depositions. If there is a settlement or recovery, eligible class members generally submit a claim form to seek their portion.

CONTACT:

Levi & Korsinsky, LLP

Joseph E. Levi, Esq.

33 Whitehall Street, 27th Floor

New York, NY 10004

[email protected]

Tel: (888) SueWallSt

Fax: (212) 363-7171

Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes.