Saxena White P.A. Files New Securities Class Action Lawsuit Against Cepton, Inc. and Related Parties, Expanding the Class Period and Claims Asserted

Core Viewpoint - Saxena White P.A. has initiated a securities class action lawsuit against Cepton, Inc. and its executives, alleging violations of the Securities Exchange Act related to a "take-private" acquisition by Koito Manufacturing Co., Ltd. The lawsuit claims that Cepton misled shareholders regarding the true value of the company and failed to disclose critical information during the merger process [1][8][10]. Group 1: Class Action Details - The class action expands the class period from July 29, 2024, to January 7, 2025, and includes claims on behalf of all individuals and entities that sold Cepton common stock during this period [2]. - The lawsuit is filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, and investors wishing to serve as lead plaintiff must file a motion by December 8, 2025 [3]. Group 2: Company Background - Cepton, based in San Jose, California, specializes in high-performance lidar technologies aimed at enhancing safety and enabling autonomy in automotive and smart infrastructure markets [4]. - Koito Manufacturing Co., Ltd. invested $200 million in Cepton, acquiring 30.1% of Cepton's voting power and two seats on its Board of Directors [4]. Group 3: Merger and Valuation Issues - Cepton received a credible acquisition proposal from a third party valued at more than double the merger price of $3.17 per share, which was not disclosed to shareholders [5][9]. - A new production award estimated to generate approximately $40 million in revenue over three years was not disclosed to the Board prior to the merger approval, affecting the fairness opinion provided by Cepton's financial advisor [6][9]. Group 4: Allegations of Misleading Information - The class action alleges that Cepton's executives authorized materially false and misleading proxy statements that omitted crucial information regarding the merger, leading shareholders to undervalue their stock [8][10]. - The lawsuit claims that shareholders were deprived of essential information that would have influenced their decision to vote on the merger, resulting in financial losses [9][10].