Market Newsdesk

NEW YORK, Aug. 10, 2026 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — Levi & Korsinsky, LLP notifies investors in Primoris Services Corporation (NYSE: PRIM) that a class action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of shareholders who purchased securities between August 5, 2025 and June 22, 2026. Find out if you might qualify for recovery or call (212) 363-7500.

June 22, 2026: $23.39 per-share decline, 21.6% drop, $84.95 closing price. 2026 Adjusted EPS guidance revised from $5.80-$6.00 to $2.05-$2.60. Adjusted EBITDA guidance revised from $560 million-$580 million to $275 million-$325 million. Lead plaintiff deadline: September 21, 2026.

Alleged Renewable Energy Project Oversight Failures

The filing states that Primoris performed substantial renewable energy work under fixed-price construction contracts, where profitability depended on accurately estimating total project costs and controlling expenses during execution. The action claims the Company represented that it maintained disciplined bidding, well-developed estimating processes, and effective project controls while material cost overruns were allegedly developing across significant renewable energy projects.

As set forth in the complaint, Primoris used a cost-to-cost input method to recognize revenue over time, making reliable cost-to-complete forecasting central to reported revenue, gross profit, and income. Plaintiffs allege that deficiencies in estimating, forecasting, and project oversight caused expected project costs to be understated and expected profitability to be overstated.

Alleged Six-Project Impact by the Numbers

• Six renewable energy projects were identified by Primoris as affected by substantial challenges, cost overruns, and project delays.
• 2026 Adjusted EPS guidance was reduced from $5.80-$6.00 to $2.05-$2.60.
• 2026 Adjusted EBITDA guidance was lowered from $560 million-$580 million to $275 million-$325 million.
• Primoris projected 2026 Renewables revenue of approximately $2.1 billion.
• The complaint alleges challenging soil conditions, unfavorable weather, delayed project starts, and execution issues increased pressure on margins.

Why Cost-to-Complete Forecasting Allegedly Mattered

The lawsuit contends that each reporting period required Primoris to reassess estimated project costs and recognize material changes through cumulative catch-up adjustments when those changes became known. Plaintiffs allege the Company delayed recognition of cost overruns and margin deterioration, making financial guidance and repeated assurances about project execution allegedly baseless.

“The complaint raises serious questions about whether investors received accurate information about the cost controls behind Primoris’ renewable energy project portfolio. When guidance changes this sharply after alleged estimating failures, shareholders deserve a careful review of what was known and when.” — Joseph E. Levi, Esq.

Submit your information now or call (212) 363-7500.

WHY LEVI & KORSINSKY — Ranked in ISS Securities Class Action Services’ Top 50 Report for seven consecutive years, Levi & Korsinsky, LLP is a nationally recognized leader in shareholder rights litigation. With a team of over 70 professionals, the firm has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. Investors who suffered losses have until September 21, 2026 to seek appointment as lead plaintiff.

Frequently Asked Questions About the PRIM Lawsuit

Q: How much did PRIM stock drop? A: Primoris shares fell approximately 21.6%, a decline of $23.39 per share, after the Company announced that an internal review identified substantial challenges, cost overruns, and project delays affecting six renewable energy projects.

Q: What specific misstatements does the PRIM lawsuit allege? A: The complaint alleges Primoris made materially false or misleading statements regarding disciplined bidding, estimating processes, cost-to-complete forecasting, project controls, and financial guidance during the Class Period.

Q: What court was the PRIM class action filed in? A: The case was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Dallas 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 documents should PRIM investors gather? A: Brokerage statements or trade confirmations showing purchase dates, share quantities, prices paid, and any subsequent sale dates and prices may help evaluate potential losses.

Q: What if I already sold my PRIM 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. Securities class actions are generally handled on a contingency basis, and any attorneys’ fees and expenses awarded to class counsel are subject to court approval.

CONTACT:
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP
Joseph E. Levi, Esq.
Ed Korsinsky, Esq.
33 Whitehall Street, 27th Floor
New York, NY 10004
[email protected]
Tel: (212) 363-7500
Fax: (212) 363-7171

Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes.

NEW YORK, Aug. 10, 2026 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — Levi & Korsinsky, LLP notifies investors in EquipmentShare.com Inc. (NASDAQ: EQPT) that a class action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of shareholders who purchased securities between January 23, 2026 and June 23, 2026. Find out if you could qualify to recover your losses. You may also contact Joseph E. Levi, Esq. at [email protected] or (212) 363-7500.

The lawsuit centers on at least $77 million allegedly netted by founder-affiliated entities through undisclosed related-party transactions. EquipmentShare shares later traded more than 34.5% below the IPO price, and applications to serve as lead plaintiff must be filed by September 21, 2026.

The Alleged Related-Party Transaction Securities Fraud Methodology

According to the lawsuit, EquipmentShare described certain related-party arrangements in its IPO Registration Statement while allegedly omitting additional transactions involving founder-affiliated entities. The complaint alleges that investors were told many such transactions would be terminated or substantially reduced before the offering, while the alleged affiliate-payment structure remained material to the Company’s business.

The lawsuit contends that the alleged omissions mattered because EquipmentShare’s public filings and financial statements presented an incomplete picture of how revenue, equipment sales, rental economics, and OWN Program payments flowed among the Company and related entities.

Key Related-Party Transaction Allegations for Shareholders

• The complaint alleges EquipmentShare participated in additional undisclosed related-party transactions.
• Founder-affiliated entities allegedly received at least $77 million, with the actual figure alleged to be higher.
• The alleged network included EZ Equipment Zone, Bevel Financial, Armada Fleet Management, and numerous affiliated entities.
• The lawsuit contends the OWN Program and T3 platform allegedly facilitated fees and payments to related entities.
• The complaint alleges the Company’s financial statements were materially misleading because the extent of related-party involvement was not accurately disclosed.

How Affiliate Dealings Allegedly Affected Investor Losses

The complaint alleges that EquipmentShare’s IPO disclosures gave investors the impression that related-party exposure was being reduced and controlled. As alleged, when a research report later challenged that impression and identified additional affiliate transactions, EQPT investors experienced a sharp loss in market value.

“This case presents important questions about related-party transaction disclosure obligations in the equipment rental technology sector. The complaint alleges that investors were told affiliate dealings would be wound down while substantial payments allegedly continued through undisclosed entities. Investors should review whether their EQPT purchases were affected by those allegations.” — Joseph E. Levi, Esq.

Submit your information here or call (212) 363-7500. WHY LEVI & KORSINSKY: Over the past 20 years, 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 EQPT Lawsuit

Q: Who is eligible to join the EQPT investor lawsuit? A: Investors who purchased EQPT stock or securities between January 23, 2026 and June 23, 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 EQPT lawsuit allege? A: The complaint alleges EquipmentShare.com Inc. made materially false or misleading statements regarding related-party transactions, founder-affiliated entities, the OWN Program, and the Company’s financial statements during the Class Period. When a report alleged undisclosed related-party transactions netting founder-affiliated entities at least $77 million, the stock price declined sharply.

Q: What court was the EQPT class action filed in? A: The case was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York.

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 class. Lead plaintiffs are typically investors with the largest documented losses and provide oversight of how the case proceeds.

Q: What documents are useful for an eligibility review? A: Brokerage statements or trade confirmations showing purchase dates, share quantities, prices paid, and any subsequent sale dates and prices are typically useful.

Q: When did EquipmentShare allegedly mislead investors? A: The Class Period runs from January 23, 2026 to June 23, 2026. The complaint alleges that investors purchased EQPT securities while material information about related-party transactions and OWN Program activity was not fully disclosed.

Q: What do EQPT investors need to do right now? A: Investors may gather brokerage records showing purchase dates, share quantities, and prices paid. Contact 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: 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 September 21, 2026 ensures your losses are considered.

CONTACT:
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP
Joseph E. Levi, Esq.
Ed Korsinsky, Esq.
33 Whitehall Street, 27th Floor
New York, NY 10004
[email protected]
Tel: (212) 363-7500
Fax: (212) 363-7171

Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes.

NEW YORK, Aug. 10, 2026 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — Levi & Korsinsky, LLP notifies investors in Hertz Global Holdings, Inc. (NASDAQ: HTZ) that a class action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of shareholders who purchased securities between May 7, 2026 and June 23, 2026. Find out if you could qualify to recover your losses. Questions may be directed to Joseph E. Levi, Esq. at [email protected] or (212) 363-7500.

HTZ shares declined more than 40% to close at $3.00 on June 24, 2026. Applications to serve as lead plaintiff must be filed by September 22, 2026.

The Alleged Liquidity and Used-Car Market Securities Fraud

According to the lawsuit, Hertz assured investors that its liquidity position remained sufficient while characterizing the used-car market softness affecting its fleet economics as limited and manageable. The complaint alleges those statements lacked a reasonable basis because liquidity was deteriorating more rapidly than represented and used-car market weakness was allegedly recurring in a way that pressured vehicle residual values.

The action also focuses on Hertz’s “Back-to-Basics” strategy, which emphasized disciplined fleet rotation, a “Buy Right, Hold Right, Sell Right” framework, and progress toward Net Depreciation per Unit targets. The lawsuit contends that those representations allegedly failed to disclose the risk that Hertz would need distressed, dilutive financing only weeks later.

How Liquidity Assurances Allegedly Affected HTZ Investors

On June 24, 2026, Hertz announced $300 million of Exchangeable Senior First-Lien Secured PIK Notes due 2030, a concurrent share-lending offering of more than 37 million shares, “unexpected softness in the used car market,” and second-quarter Adjusted Corporate EBITDA guidance of only $50 million to $80 million. The next day, the financing was priced on allegedly more dilutive terms, upsized to $350 million with the possibility of up to $400 million.

Key Liquidity Allegations for Shareholders

• Hertz reported approximately $837 million of liquidity at the end of the first quarter and additional April financing of approximately $200 million.
• Management projected year-end liquidity “north of $1.5 billion,” which the complaint alleges overstated Hertz’s financial flexibility.
• The Company stated its cash, liquidity facilities, and refinancing options would be sufficient for the next twelve months and foreseeable future thereafter.
• The lawsuit alleges used-car market softness was not merely transitory or isolated, but materially affected DPU and Adjusted Corporate EBITDA.
• The June 2026 capital raise allegedly harmed existing shareholders through dilution and repriced HTZ shares sharply lower.

“This case presents important questions about liquidity disclosure obligations in the vehicle rental sector, where fleet values and financing access can directly affect shareholders. As alleged, Hertz’s assurances about year-end liquidity and used-car market stability were followed within weeks by a dilutive financing and a sharp decline in HTZ shares.” — Joseph E. Levi, Esq.

Submit your information here or contact Joseph E. Levi, Esq. at [email protected] or (212) 363-7500.

WHY LEVI & KORSINSKY: Over the past 20 years, 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 HTZ Lawsuit

Q: What is the HTZ class action lawsuit about? A: A securities class action has been filed against Hertz Global Holdings, Inc. (NASDAQ: HTZ) alleging materially false and misleading statements between May 7, 2026 and June 23, 2026. Shares fell more than 40% after the Company disclosed a dilutive financing, unexpected used-car market softness, and second-quarter Adjusted Corporate EBITDA guidance of $50 million to $80 million.

Q: Who is eligible to join the HTZ investor lawsuit? A: Investors who purchased HTZ stock or securities between May 7, 2026 and June 23, 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 HTZ lawsuit allege? A: The complaint alleges Hertz made materially false or misleading statements regarding liquidity, used-car market softness, fleet depreciation, DPU progress, and the Company’s ability to fund operations and obligations. When Hertz disclosed the financing and revised guidance, the stock price declined sharply.

Q: When did Hertz Global Holdings, Inc. allegedly mislead investors? A: The Class Period runs from May 7, 2026 to June 23, 2026. The complaint alleges that corrective disclosures on June 24, 2026 revealed information that caused a significant stock decline.

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 HTZ 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 for an evaluation. Securities class actions are generally handled on a pure 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.

CONTACT:

Levi & Korsinsky, LLP

Joseph E. Levi, Esq.

Ed Korsinsky, Esq.

33 Whitehall Street, 27th Floor

New York, NY 10004

[email protected]

Tel: (212) 363-7500

Fax: (212) 363-7171

Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes.

NEW YORK, Aug. 10, 2026 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — Levi & Korsinsky, LLP notifies investors in PROCEPT BioRobotics Corporation (NASDAQ: PRCT) that a class action has been filed on behalf of shareholders who purchased securities between February 28, 2024 and February 25, 2026. Find out if you might be eligible to recover losses. You may also reach Joseph E. Levi, Esq. at [email protected] or (212) 363-7500.

PRCT shares declined more than 75%, or approximately $75.00 per share, from an all-time high of about $100.00 to less than $25.00 after serial disclosures. Those wishing to serve as lead plaintiff must act by September 22, 2026.

PROCEPT BioRobotics Timeline Disclosure Events

The securities action alleges that PROCEPT BioRobotics timeline disclosure events show an escalating pattern: strong handpiece utilization statements in 2024, continued assurances in early 2025, reduced handpiece expectations in late 2025, and first-time procedure data in February 2026.

The complaint recounts that Procept’s valuation depended heavily on recurring handpiece revenue and the perceived utilization of installed AquaBeam Robotic Systems. As detailed in the action, investors allegedly were not told that a discount program incentivized bulk handpiece orders beyond actual procedure demand.

Timeline of Alleged Disclosure Failures

• February 2024: Procept reported sharply higher U.S. handpiece revenue and attributed growth to increased utilization and commercial execution.
• May 2024: Management allegedly reassured investors that handpiece orders and procedures remained aligned and that customers ordered as needed.
• April 2025: CFO Kevin Waters maintained full-year expectations of approximately 52,500 handpieces and cited confidence in quarterly procedure volumes.
• August 2025: Procept announced deteriorating handpiece shipments, guidance below consensus by nearly 500 units, and significant commercial leadership changes.
• November 2025: Procept reduced annual handpiece guidance by 1,000 units for field inventory optimization.
• February 2026: Procept disclosed actual procedure data, a 30% sequential handpiece unit contraction, and more than 10,000 units of cumulative excess field inventory.

Why the Sequence Matters to PRCT Shareholders

The lawsuit chronicles an alleged gap between reported handpiece sales and actual procedure demand. Plaintiffs contend the delayed disclosure of procedure data allowed investors to continue evaluating Procept as if handpiece growth reflected durable recurring demand.

“Timely disclosure of material developments is fundamental to fair and efficient markets. Here, the alleged progression from utilization assurances to inventory optimization and first-time procedure disclosures raises important questions for PRCT shareholders.” — Joseph E. Levi, Esq.

Click here to submit your information and learn more about the case or call (212) 363-7500.

Levi & Korsinsky, LLP — Top 50 securities litigation firm (ISS, seven consecutive years). Over 70 professionals. Hundreds of millions recovered.

Frequently Asked Questions About the PRCT Lawsuit

Q: Who may be eligible in the PRCT investor lawsuit? A: Investors who purchased PRCT stock or securities between February 28, 2024 and February 25, 2026 and suffered financial losses may be eligible. Eligibility is based on purchase date and documented losses, not on whether shares are still held.

Q: What specific misstatements does the PRCT lawsuit allege? A: The complaint alleges PROCEPT BioRobotics Corporation made materially false or misleading statements regarding handpiece utilization, the relationship between handpiece sales and actual procedures, field inventory levels, and the effects of an undisclosed discount program.

Q: What court was the PRCT class action filed in? A: The case was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, San Jose Division, and asserts claims under the federal securities laws.

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 class. Lead plaintiffs are typically investors with significant documented losses and provide oversight of how the case proceeds.

Q: What documents should PRCT investors gather? A: Investors should preserve brokerage statements or trade confirmations showing purchase dates, share quantities, prices paid, and any sale dates and sale prices.

Q: What if I already sold my PRCT shares, can I still recover losses? A: Yes. Eligibility generally depends on when shares were purchased and whether losses were suffered

CONTACT:

Levi & Korsinsky, LLP

Joseph E. Levi, Esq.

Ed Korsinsky, Esq.

33 Whitehall Street, 27th Floor

New York, NY 10004

[email protected]

Tel: (212) 363-7500

Fax: (212) 363-7171

Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes.

NEW YORK, Aug. 10, 2026 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — Levi & Korsinsky, LLP reminds 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. See if you could be eligible to recover or call (212) 363-7500.

CCOI allegedly declined from more than $86 per share in November 2024 to less than $17 per share after the Class Period, a loss of approximately $69 per share and more than 80%. Investors have until September 21, 2026 to seek lead plaintiff status.

Cogent Timeline Disclosure Events Under Scrutiny

The complaint presents a chronology in which Cogent repeatedly described a large optical wavelength backlog tied to the former Sprint wireline network, while allegedly failing to disclose that provisioning delays and customer attrition threatened conversion of that backlog into revenue.

As the filing states, the timeline matters because the wavelength business was central to Cogent’s stated path toward annual revenue growth of 5% to 7%, a $500 million wavelength sales run rate by May 2028, and a total revenue target above $1.5 billion.

Timeline of Alleged Disclosure Failures

• February 29, 2024: Cogent reported a wavelength backlog of approximately 2,300 orders and described the former Sprint network conversion as progressing, while also acknowledging extended provisioning windows.
• May 9, 2024: Management reported more than 2,400 wavelength opportunities and said demand for targeted routes and data centers was stronger than initially expected.
• August 8, 2024: Cogent reported more than 2,700 unique wavelength opportunities and stated that provisioning cycles remained elongated at about 90 days.
• November 2024: CCOI reached a Class Period high of more than $86 per share, according to the allegations.
• August 2025: Lenders seized and sold $82.5 million of pledged Cogent stockfollowing a margin call involving the Company’s chief executive.
• May 1, 2026: The Class Period ended amid alleged revelations that up to 90% of the wavelength backlog was lost and the dividend was cut by 98%.

Alleged Escalation From Backlog to Investor Harm

As set forth in the complaint, the alleged chronology is not simply a sequence of earnings calls. Plaintiffs contend the dates show a steady widening gap between public backlog messaging and the practical ability to provision wavelength services fast enough to retain customers.

The action claims this alleged gap became financially material when the backlog failed to convert as represented, the dividend policy was sharply reduced, and CCOI shares repriced far below their Class Period high.

“Timely disclosure of material developments is fundamental to fair and efficient markets. Here, the complaint alleges that investors received repeated backlog updates while material provisioning and conversion risks were not adequately disclosed.” — Joseph E. Levi, Esq.

Calculate your potential recovery or call (212) 363-7500.

Levi & Korsinsky, LLP — Top 50 securities litigation firm (ISS, seven consecutive years). Over 70 professionals. Hundreds of millions recovered.

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 demand for its optical wavelength business, the quality and convertibility of its backlog, the sustainability of its dividend policy, and risks tied to pledged executive shares during the Class Period. When alleged corrective information emerged, the stock price declined sharply.

Q: When did Cogent allegedly mislead investors? A: The Class Period runs from February 29, 2024 to May 1, 2026. The complaint alleges that corrective disclosures and related events revealed information that caused a significant decline in CCOI shares.

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 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 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 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: 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.

Ed Korsinsky, Esq.

33 Whitehall Street, 27th Floor

New York, NY 10004

[email protected]

Tel: (212) 363-7500

Fax: (212) 363-7171

Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes.