Workflow
C3.AI INVESTOR ALERT: C3.ai, Inc. Investors with Substantial Losses Have Opportunity to Lead the C3.ai Class Action Lawsuit
C3.aiC3.ai(US:AI) Prnewswireยท2025-08-25 12:40

Core Viewpoint - The C3.ai class action lawsuit alleges that the company and its executives misled investors regarding the company's revenue outlook and growth potential, particularly in relation to CEO Thomas M. Siebel's health concerns, leading to significant stock price declines following disappointing financial results [3][4]. Group 1: Lawsuit Details - The lawsuit, titled Liggett v. C3.ai, Inc., seeks to represent purchasers of C3.ai securities and claims violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 [1][2]. - Allegations include creating a false impression of reliable revenue projections and minimizing risks associated with the CEO's health, which ultimately did not align with the company's actual performance [3]. Group 2: Financial Impact - On August 8, 2025, C3.ai announced disappointing preliminary financial results for Q1 of fiscal year 2026 and reduced its revenue guidance for the full fiscal year, attributing these issues to leadership reorganization and the CEO's health [4]. - Following this announcement, C3.ai's stock price fell by more than 25% [4]. Group 3: Lead Plaintiff Process - The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 allows any investor who purchased C3.ai securities during the class period to seek appointment as lead plaintiff, representing the interests of the class [5]. - The lead plaintiff can choose a law firm to litigate the case, and participation as lead plaintiff does not affect the ability to share in any potential recovery [5]. Group 4: About Robbins Geller - Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP is a leading law firm specializing in securities fraud and shareholder litigation, having secured over $2.5 billion for investors in 2024 alone [6]. - The firm has been recognized for its significant recoveries in securities class action cases, including the largest recovery in history of $7.2 billion in the Enron case [6].