Market Newsdesk

NEW YORK, Aug. 04, 2026 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — SueWallSt highlights the contrast raised in a recently commenced lawsuit between Futu Holdings Limited’s (NASDAQ: FUTU) public assurances and what allegedly happened behind the scenes. Investors who purchased FUTU securities between May 24, 2023 and May 27, 2026 and suffered losses may be entitled to compensation. Find out if you might be eligible to recover losses or contact Joseph E. Levi, Esq. at [email protected] or (888) SueWallSt.

FUTU shares lost $34.10 per share on May 22, 2026, a 27.5% single-session decline, after regulators proposed penalties of approximately USD 271 million. The lead plaintiff deadline is August 25, 2026.

The Promise: Compliance Through Rectification

Beginning in 2023, Futu repeatedly told the investing public that it was cooperating with the China Securities Regulatory Commission. In its FY2023 annual report filed with the SEC, the Company stated it had “taken and may continue to take rectification measures on our business based on the requirements from the CSRC.” The Company pointed to the removal of its Futubull app from mainland Chinese app stores as evidence of its compliance efforts. Across multiple SEC filings through 2025, Futu used nearly identical language, creating the impression that regulatory risk was being actively managed and reduced.

The Reality: Continued Unlicensed Operations

The CSRC’s May 2026 Notification Letter told a different story, the lawsuit contends. According to the action, Futu entities in mainland China and Hong Kong had continued to conduct securities business, public fund sales, and futures business without obtaining the requisite licenses or approval. The rectification measures Futu publicly touted allegedly did not stop the unlicensed activity that regulators had flagged years earlier.

The Numbers: Promised vs. Actual

• The Promise: “We have taken rectification measures … based on the requirements from the CSRC” (FY2023 and FY2024 20-F filings)
• The Reality: CSRC proposed confiscation of RMB 470 million in illegal gains, confirming alleged continued unlicensed operations
• The Promise: Risk factor language framing penalties as speculative possibilities that “could” or “may” occur
• The Reality: RMB 1.85 billion aggregate penalty proposed, approximately USD 271 million
• The Promise: Quarterly earnings releases touting paying client growth from 1.5 million to over 3.3 million (funded accounts) and client assets surging past HK$900 billion
• The Reality: Revenue generated from mainland Chinese investors was allegedly derived from unlicensed activity, rendering reported financial growth figures materially misleading

What the Lawsuit Alleges About the Gap

The complaint asserts that Futu’s public statements created a false narrative of regulatory cooperation while the Company continued the precise conduct the CSRC had warned against. Quarter after quarter, Futu reported surging client numbers, expanding trading volumes, and rising revenues without disclosing that a material portion of this growth allegedly stemmed from business conducted in violation of Chinese securities regulations.

The gap between what investors were told and what was allegedly occurring is at the core of this securities action. When the CSRC finally proposed its penalty in May 2026, investors absorbed losses of more than $34 per share in a single trading session, followed by an additional $5.31 per share decline days later when Q1 2026 earnings reflected the penalty’s financial impact.

“Companies that make specific promises to investors about future performance have an obligation to disclose known risks to those projections. The contrast between Futu’s repeated assurances of regulatory cooperation and the scale of the proposed penalty raises serious questions about the adequacy of the Company’s disclosures throughout the Class Period.” — Joseph E. Levi, Esq.

Click here to submit your information and learn more about the case
or contact Joseph E. Levi, Esq. at (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 FUTU Lawsuit

Q: What specific misstatements does the FUTU lawsuit allege? A: The complaint alleges Futu Holdings made materially false or misleading statements regarding its compliance with CSRC regulatory requirements and the adequacy of its rectification measures during the Class Period. When the true state of affairs was revealed through the CSRC’s proposed RMB 1.85 billion penalty, the stock price declined sharply.

Q: How much did FUTU stock drop? A: Shares fell approximately 27.5%, a decline of $34.10 per share, after the Company disclosed receipt of a CSRC Notification Letter proposing penalties of approximately USD 271 million. Shares dropped an additional 4.8% ($5.31 per share) days later when Q1 2026 earnings reflected the penalty.

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

Q: What do FUTU investors need to do right now? A: Investors may gather brokerage records showing purchase dates, share quantities, and prices paid. Contact SueWallSt, a brand of Levi & Korsinsky LLP, for a no-cost, no-obligation case evaluation at [email protected] or (212) 363-7500. 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: 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. You submit a claim form to receive your portion of recovery.

Q: What does it cost me to participate? A: Nothing. Securities class actions are handled on a pure contingency basis. No upfront fees, no retainer, no out-of-pocket costs.

Q: When did Futu Holdings allegedly mislead investors? A: The Class Period runs from May 24, 2023 to May 27, 2026. The alleged fraud was revealed through corrective disclosures on May 22, 2026 and May 28, 2026, causing significant stock declines on both dates.

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, Aug. 04, 2026 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — SueWallSt highlights the gap alleged between Embecta Corp.’s (NASDAQ: EMBC) promises and its actual performance. A securities class action has been filed on behalf of investors who purchased EMBC securities between November 25, 2025 and May 4, 2026. Check if you might be eligible to recover your investment losses or contact Joseph E. Levi, Esq. at [email protected] or (888) SueWallSt.

Embecta Corp. projected $1.071 billion to $1.093 billion in fiscal year 2026 revenue. The company delivered a revised range of $1.015 billion to $1.035 billion — a $75 million shortfall. Adjusted EPS guidance of $2.80 to $3.00 became $1.55 to $1.75. Shares fell 57.8% on May 5, 2026, dropping from $9.25 to $3.90. The lead plaintiff deadline is August 17, 2026.

The Promise

Between November 25, 2025 and February 5, 2026, management laid out a fiscal year 2026 outlook built on confidence. The complaint recounts that on November 25, 2025, the company issued guidance calling for adjusted constant currency revenue flat to down 2%, adjusted operating margins of 29% to 30%, adjusted EPS of $2.80 to $3.00, and free cash flow of $180 million to $200 million. On February 5, 2026, that guidance was reaffirmed, though management noted it expected to come in closer to the lower end of the ranges due to incremental U.S. headwinds.

The Reality

On May 5, 2026, Embecta reported second quarter results that shattered every projection. As detailed in the action, adjusted constant currency revenue fell 17.4% year-over-year — not the flat-to-down-2% the company had promised. The complaint chronicles that management disclosed share loss concentrated at a single customer, softening retail volumes for insulin pens and pen needles, and patient purchasing shifts to channels where Embecta does not participate.

Promise vs. Actual: By the Numbers

• Revenue guidance: Promised $1.071B–$1.093B; revised to $1.015B–$1.035B — a reduction of approximately $75 million
• Adjusted operating margin: Promised 29%–30%; revised to 22.25%–23.25% — nearly 700 basis points lower at midpoint
• Adjusted EPS: Promised $2.80–$3.00; revised to $1.55–$1.75 — a cut of approximately 43% at midpoint
• Free cash flow: Promised $180M–$200M; revised to $95M–$105M — roughly half of original projections
• Quarterly dividend: Cut from $0.15 to $0.01 per share — a 93% reduction
• Pen needle revenue: Reduced by approximately $53 million from prior expectations

What the Lawsuit Alleges About the Gap

The action contends that the gap between Embecta’s projections and its actual results was not the product of sudden, unforeseeable market shifts. The lawsuit asserts that U.S. pen needle weakness — including competitive share loss at a major customer and retail volume softness — was developing during the period when management reaffirmed guidance and described the pen needle business in overwhelmingly positive terms. According to the filing, shareholders purchased EMBC stock at artificially inflated prices based on guidance that the company knew or recklessly disregarded was unattainable.

“Companies that make specific promises to investors about future performance have an obligation to disclose known risks to those projections. The magnitude of the gap between Embecta’s guidance and its actual results raises serious questions about what was known internally when that guidance was reaffirmed.” — Joseph E. Levi, Esq.

Learn more about the case
or call Joseph E. Levi, Esq. at (888) SueWallSt.

LEAD PLAINTIFF DEADLINE: August 17, 2026

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 EMBC Lawsuit

Q: What specific misstatements does the EMBC lawsuit allege? A: The complaint alleges Embecta made materially false or misleading statements regarding its fiscal year 2026 revenue guidance, the stability of its pen needle segment, and its adjusted earnings outlook during the class period. When the true state of U.S. business weakness was revealed on May 5, 2026, the stock price declined 57.8%.

Q: When did Embecta allegedly mislead investors? A: The class period runs from November 25, 2025 to May 4, 2026. During this window, management issued and reaffirmed fiscal year guidance that the lawsuit alleges was unattainable due to known U.S. market weakness.

Q: What do EMBC investors need to do right now? A: Investors may gather brokerage records showing purchase dates, share quantities, and prices paid. Contact SueWallSt, a brand of Levi & Korsinsky LLP, for a no-cost, no-obligation case evaluation at [email protected] or (212) 363-7500. No immediate action is required to remain eligible as an absent class member.

Q: What if I already sold my EMBC shares — can I still recover losses? A: Yes. Eligibility is based on when you purchased, not whether you still hold them. Investors who bought during the class period and sold at a loss may still 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. You submit a claim form to receive your portion of recovery.

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, Aug. 04, 2026 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — SueWallSt provides context on the evolution of investor sentiment surrounding Peabody Energy Corporation (NYSE: BTU), James C. Grech, Mark A. Spurbeck, and Marc E. Hathhorn, and the securities class action filed on behalf of purchasers between October 14, 2024 and May 4, 2026. Find out if you could qualify to recover your per-share losses or contact Joseph E. Levi, Esq. at [email protected] or (888) SueWallSt.

BTU shares fell from a Class Period high of $39.50 to $25.00, a decline of 36.7%, as two corrective disclosures revealed that Centurion mine’s celebrated ramp-up had stalled.

The Early Optimism

Peabody Energy cultivated extraordinary investor enthusiasm around its Centurion mine beginning in October 2024. The company described the project as a generational asset: 140 million tonnes of premium hard coking coal, a 25-year mine life, and a net present value of $2.1 billion. Shareholders were told development was running “ahead of schedule,” that longwall production had been accelerated to February 2026, and that the workforce was expanding rapidly. By early February 2026, the CEO reported on an earnings call that during a recent Australia visit, the team was “installing the very last shield.”

This narrative drove BTU shares upward. Investors priced in Centurion’s projected 3.5 million tons of 2026 shipments, the anticipated jump in met coal realizations from 70% to 80% of benchmark, and the promise of $113-per-ton segment costs.

The Growing Concerns

The first crack appeared on March 30, 2026, when Peabody Energy issued a terse Regulation FD disclosure cutting Centurion’s first-quarter output estimate from 700,000 tons to just 250,000 tons. The company cited “greater-than-anticipated mine commissioning challenges” but offered no specifics. BTU dropped 9.7% in a single session. Analysts noted the vagueness. Jefferies flagged that the miss was more than half the original estimate. UBS, while maintaining coverage, acknowledged the need for “a slightly more conservative outlook.”

Investors reportedly expressed frustration at the absence of detail. The company had spent 18 months building confidence around precise timelines and metrics, then retreated behind a single phrase: “commissioning challenges.”

The Breaking Point

On May 5, 2026, the full scope of Centurion’s problems surfaced. The earnings call revealed that 8-year-old repurposed equipment had failed under load, that electrical and mechanical breakdowns in conveyors and chutes had slowed the longwall to a crawl, and that moisture accumulation and floor softening had compromised roof integrity. Full-year Centurion volume was slashed from 3.5 million to 2.5 million tons. Met segment costs surged to $123-$133 per ton, far above the $113 target. The segment recorded a $7 million adjusted EBITDA loss, an $80 million swing from what Centurion was expected to contribute.

BTU fell another 5.7% to close at $25.00.

The Sentiment Shift

• October 2024: Management declared Centurion “on time and on budget,” stoking enthusiasm for the project’s transformative potential
• July 2025: The longwall start was accelerated to February 2026, reinforcing confidence that execution was exceeding expectations
• February 2026: The CEO personally confirmed final shield installation; BTU reached its $39.50 Class Period high on March 27, 2026
• March 30, 2026: First-quarter guidance slashed by 64% with minimal explanation, triggering a 9.7% single-day decline and investor skepticism
• May 5, 2026: Full disclosure of equipment age, mechanical failures, and roof control problems erased remaining confidence and revealed the $80 million EBITDA impact
• The gap between “world-class team” assurances and 8-year-old equipment sitting on shelves for years crystallized the disillusionment

“Investor confidence depends on receiving truthful information from the companies they invest in. When a company builds a detailed, optimistic narrative over 18 months and then reveals in stages that fundamental equipment and geological problems existed, shareholders deserve to understand whether those risks were known earlier than disclosed.” — Joseph E. Levi, Esq.

LEAD PLAINTIFF DEADLINE: August 24, 2026

Submit your information here
or call Joseph E. Levi, Esq. at (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 BTU Lawsuit

Q: When did Peabody Energy allegedly mislead investors? A: The class period runs from October 14, 2024 to May 4, 2026. During this time, the company allegedly made materially false and misleading statements about the Centurion mine’s ramp-up timeline, equipment readiness, and production guidance. The alleged fraud was revealed through corrective disclosures on March 30, 2026 and May 5, 2026, causing significant stock declines.

Q: How much did BTU stock drop? A: Shares fell approximately 36.7%, a decline of $14.50 per share, from the Class Period high of $39.50 to $25.00 after the company disclosed the full extent of Centurion mine’s commissioning failures and slashed its metallurgical coal segment guidance. Investors who purchased shares during the class period at artificially inflated prices may be entitled to compensation.

Q: What do BTU investors need to do right now? A: Investors may gather brokerage records showing purchase dates, share quantities, and prices paid. Contact SueWallSt, a brand of Levi & Korsinsky LLP, for a no-cost, no-obligation case evaluation at [email protected] or (212) 363-7500. No immediate action is required to remain eligible as an absent class member.

Q: What if I already sold my BTU shares — can I still recover losses? A: Yes. Eligibility is based on when you purchased, not whether you still hold them. Investors who bought during the class period and sold at a loss may still 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. You submit a claim form to receive your portion of recovery.

Q: What does it cost me to participate? A: Nothing. Securities class actions are handled on a pure contingency basis. No upfront fees, no retainer, no out-of-pocket costs.

Q: What if I missed the lead plaintiff deadline? A: The deadline applies only to investors seeking lead plaintiff appointment. Class members who miss it can still participate in any settlement or recovery.

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, Aug. 04, 2026 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — SueWallSt announces that a securities class action has been filed against Nano-X Imaging Ltd. (NASDAQ: NNOX).

YOU MAY BE AFFECTED IF YOU:

• Purchased NNOX stock between March 31, 2025 and April 17, 2026
• Lost money on your Nano-X investment
• Acquired shares in or traceable to the Company’s November 2025 registered direct offering

Find out if you might qualify for recovery
or contact Joseph E. Levi, Esq. at [email protected] or (888) SueWallSt.

Nano-X’s stock fell $0.695 per share, or 24.39%, closing at $2.155 on April 20, 2026, after corrective disclosures revealed a $17.5 million impairment charge and a forced restructuring of the Company’s Korean manufacturing operations. Motions for lead plaintiff must be filed with the Court by August 11, 2026.

The Alleged Registration Statement Misrepresentations

Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule 10b-5 prohibit making untrue statements of material fact or omitting facts necessary to make statements not misleading. The action contends that when Nano-X conducted its November 2025 registered direct offering, raising $15 million in gross proceeds from a single institutional investor, the Company’s public disclosures contained materially misleading representations about its manufacturing efficiency and demand trajectory.

As pleaded in the complaint, Nano-X sold 3,826,530 ordinary shares while allegedly concealing that its self-owned Korean chip manufacturing facility was poorly aligned with actual product demand, that operating expenses and cash burn were escalating unsustainably, and that a significant restructuring was foreseeable.

Alleged Offering Proceeds and Defendant Motivation

The complaint identifies the November 2025 Offering as evidence of scienter. As alleged, while disseminating materially false statements to maintain artificially inflated share prices, Nano-X reaped $15 million in gross proceeds from the offering. The action claims defendants had both the motive and opportunity to commit fraud: the offering was priced and executed at a time when management allegedly knew that production operations were misaligned with demand and that the Korean facility faced likely impairment.

• The offering closed on November 25, 2025, just days after management touted “significant progress” across “three strategic growth pillars”
• Management represented the Company was “building a leaner, more focused organization” while allegedly concealing the need for a full manufacturing restructuring
• The 2024 annual report valued property and equipment at $45.4 million, yet within months a $17.5 million impairment would be recorded against Korean facility assets
• Plaintiffs allege the offering documents failed to disclose known trends regarding manufacturing-demand misalignment, violating Item 303 of SEC Regulation S-K

IPO Due Diligence and Scienter

The securities action asserts that defendants certified SEC filings under Sarbanes-Oxley that contained no untrue statements of material fact, while allegedly knowing that Korean manufacturing operations were unsustainable. The complaint points to repeated, highly specific statements about operational efficiency on earnings calls throughout the Class Period as evidence that defendants were intimately focused on manufacturing performance and thus aware of the growing disconnect between production capacity and actual demand.

“The PSLRA provides important protections for investors harmed by alleged securities violations. When companies raise capital from investors while allegedly concealing material operational failures, the statutory framework exists to hold them accountable.” — Joseph E. Levi, Esq.

Submit your information now
or contact Joseph E. Levi, Esq. at (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 NNOX Lawsuit

Q: Who is eligible to join the NNOX investor lawsuit? A: Investors who purchased NNOX stock or securities between March 31, 2025 and April 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 NNOX lawsuit allege? A: The complaint alleges Nano-X made materially false or misleading statements regarding manufacturing efficiency, product demand, and operational scalability during the class period. When the true state was revealed, the stock price declined sharply.

Q: When did Nano-X allegedly mislead investors? A: The class period runs from March 31, 2025 to April 17, 2026. The alleged fraud was revealed through corrective disclosures on April 20, 2026, causing a significant stock decline.

Q: What do NNOX investors need to do right now? A: Investors may gather brokerage records showing purchase dates, share quantities, and prices paid. Contact SueWallSt, a brand of Levi & Korsinsky LLP, for a no-cost, no-obligation case evaluation at [email protected] or (212) 363-7500. No immediate action is required to remain eligible as an absent class member.

Q: What if I already sold my NNOX shares — can I still recover losses? A: Yes. Eligibility is based on when you purchased, not whether you still hold them. Investors who bought during the class period and sold at a loss may still 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: Can I join a different law firm’s lawsuit instead? A: Multiple firms often file competing complaints. The court consolidates and appoints a single lead counsel. Contacting Levi & Korsinsky before August 11, 2026 ensures your losses are considered.

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, Aug. 04, 2026 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — SueWallSt alerts investors in Black Rock Coffee Bar, Inc. (NASDAQ: BRCB) of a pending securities class action. Class Period: September 12, 2025 through May 12, 2026. Submit your information now or contact Joseph E. Levi, Esq. at [email protected] | (888) SueWallSt.

BRCB shares lost $3.32 per share, a 30.3% single-day decline, after the Company revealed that its store expansion was cannibalizing existing locations. The Court has set August 17, 2026, as the deadline to apply for lead plaintiff appointment.

The Alleged “Disciplined, Data-Driven” Site Selection Claim

Throughout the Class Period, management told investors that Black Rock Coffee followed a “disciplined, data-driven approach to site selection” that would “build awareness with limited sales transfer.” The lawsuit asserts these representations created a materially misleading picture of how the Company chose new locations and what impact those openings would have on existing store revenue.

The action claims that management repeatedly emphasized a concentric-circle expansion model designed to increase density without meaningful revenue loss at established stores. According to the complaint, this portrayal omitted that new openings were already shifting volume away from high-performing locations.

Industry Context: Site Selection and Brand Density Risks in Quick-Service Beverage

Quick-service coffee and beverage operators face a well-documented tension between density-driven brand awareness and same-store revenue dilution. The lawsuit contends Black Rock Coffee’s public statements did not adequately address this tension, instead presenting expansion as almost entirely accretive.

• The Company claimed “ample whitespace” in existing markets while allegedly experiencing measurable cannibalization in Phoenix and other maturing territories
• Management described “minimal sales transfer” at least three times across SEC filings and earnings calls, as alleged in the complaint
• The concentric-circle model was presented as operationally validated, yet the lawsuit alleges the Company lacked a reasonable basis for claiming limited revenue impact
• The 1,000-store target by 2035 and 20% annual growth rate were promoted without disclosing that density was already pressuring same-store metrics
• Revenue of $55.45 million in Q1 2026 missed consensus estimates, as the effects of cannibalization emerged publicly

Why Site Selection Adequacy Allegedly Matters to Investors

For a growth-stage coffee chain that raised approximately $306.5 million in IPO proceeds partly to fund expansion, the integrity of its site selection methodology was central to the investment thesis. The lawsuit asserts that management’s claims about “limited sales transfer” were not simply aspirational but were presented as descriptions of existing conditions, making them actionable under federal securities law.

“Investors deserve transparency about material risks that could affect their investments. When a company’s core growth narrative depends on a specific operational claim, such as minimal cannibalization from new store openings, shareholders are entitled to accurate information about whether that claim reflects reality.” — Joseph E. Levi, Esq.

Find out if you might qualify to recover losses
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 BRCB Lawsuit

Q: Who is eligible to join the BRCB investor lawsuit? A: Investors who purchased BRCB stock or securities between September 12, 2025 and May 12, 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 BRCB lawsuit allege? A: The complaint alleges Black Rock Coffee Bar made materially false or misleading statements regarding its site selection methodology and the impact of new store openings on existing store revenue during the class period. When the true state was revealed, the stock price declined sharply.

Q: What do BRCB investors need to do right now? A: Investors may gather brokerage records showing purchase dates, share quantities, and prices paid. Contact SueWallSt, a brand of Levi & Korsinsky LLP, for a no-cost, no-obligation case evaluation at [email protected] or (212) 363-7500. No immediate action is required to remain eligible as an absent class member.

Q: What if I already sold my BRCB shares — can I still recover losses? A: Yes. Eligibility is based on when you purchased, not whether you still hold them. Investors who bought during the class period and sold at a loss may still 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 missed the lead plaintiff deadline? A: The deadline applies only to investors seeking lead plaintiff appointment. Class members who miss it can still participate in any settlement or recovery.

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, Aug. 04, 2026 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — SueWallSt alerts investors in Planet Fitness, Inc. (NYSE: PLNT) of a pending securities class action on behalf of shareholders who purchased securities from November 6, 2025 through May 6, 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.

PLNT shares declined from $63.96 to $44.01 per share on May 7, 2026, a $19.95 per-share drop, or approximately 31.19%. The Court has set September 14, 2026 as the deadline to apply for lead plaintiff appointment.

“Investors deserve transparency about material risks that could affect their investments, including pricing assumptions and long-term targets that depend on member acquisition trends. Here, the lawsuit asserts that Planet Fitness investors were not given a complete picture of risks tied to the Black Card rollout and the three-year growth algorithm.” — Joseph E. Levi, Esq.

Alleged Black Card Price Increase Fitness Securities Issue

The lawsuit asserts that Planet Fitness presented confidence in a planned national Black Card price increase to $29.99 while allegedly failing to disclose that its marketing conditions were undermining net member joins during the critical first-quarter sign-up period. As alleged, the Company’s long-term growth algorithm depended heavily on rate increases and membership volume that could not be achieved without a marketing reset.

Fitness Subscription Pricing Trends and Growth Assumptions

The action claims that the pricing narrative mattered because Planet Fitness operates an HVLP subscription model where modest changes in joins, cancellations, and tier mix can affect revenue expectations. The complaint focuses on several investor-relevant issues:

• The Black Card price increase was allegedly built into growth expectations before the Company had a sustainable marketing path to support joins.
• The three-year growth algorithm allegedly relied on a 75% rate and 25% volume mix that became difficult to sustain under weaker acquisition trends.
• Management allegedly maintained confidence in pricing and demand despite internal headwinds during the peak sign-up season.
• The Company later paused the planned Black Card rollout pending a broader pricing review.
• Planet Fitness also withdrew the long-term three-year growth algorithm introduced months earlier.

Why Pricing Adequacy Allegedly Matters to PLNT Investors

As alleged, the Black Card rollout was not a side issue. It was tied to same-club sales growth, revenue growth, adjusted EBITDA, and adjusted net income per share expectations. On May 7, 2026, Planet Fitness reduced same-club sales growth guidance from 4% to 5% to approximately 1%, lowered revenue growth expectations from approximately 9% to approximately 7%, and reduced adjusted EBITDA growth expectations from approximately 10% to approximately 6%.

Learn more about the case

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 PLNT Lawsuit

Q: Who is eligible to join the PLNT investor lawsuit? A: Investors who purchased PLNT stock or securities between November 6, 2025 and May 6, 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: How much did PLNT stock drop? A: Shares fell approximately 31.19%, a decline of $19.95 per share, after Planet Fitness disclosed slower net member growth, reduced 2026 guidance, withdrew its three-year growth algorithm, and paused the planned national Black Card price increase. Investors who purchased shares during the Class Period at allegedly artificially inflated prices and suffered losses may be eligible to seek compensation.

Q: What specific misstatements does the PLNT lawsuit allege? A: The complaint alleges Planet Fitness made materially false or misleading statements regarding the effectiveness of its marketing strategy, its ability to drive membership growth, the planned Black Card price increase, and its three-year growth algorithm during the Class Period. When the Company announced reduced guidance and paused the Black Card price rollout, the stock price declined sharply.

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 documents should PLNT investors gather? A: Brokerage statements or trade confirmations showing purchase dates, share quantities, prices paid, and any subsequent sale dates and prices.

Q: What if I already sold my PLNT 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.