Core Viewpoint - Fluor Corporation is facing a class action lawsuit due to alleged violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, with claims that the company and its executives made misleading statements regarding project costs and financial guidance during the specified class period [1][3]. Summary by Sections Class Action Details - The class action lawsuit is titled Maglione v. Fluor Corporation, No. 25-cv-02496 (N.D. Tex.), and it involves purchasers of Fluor securities from February 18, 2025, to July 31, 2025 [1]. - Interested parties have until November 14, 2025, to seek appointment as lead plaintiff in the lawsuit [1]. Allegations Against Fluor - The lawsuit alleges that Fluor failed to disclose increasing costs related to key infrastructure projects, including the Gordie Howe International Bridge and the I-635/LBJ and I-35 highways, due to subcontractor design errors, price increases, and scheduling delays [3]. - It is claimed that these issues, along with reduced capital spending from customers and economic uncertainty, negatively impacted Fluor's business and financial results [3]. - The lawsuit asserts that Fluor's financial guidance for fiscal year 2025 was unrealistic and that the effectiveness of its risk mitigation strategies was overstated [3]. Financial Performance - On August 1, 2025, Fluor reported second quarter 2025 non-GAAP earnings per share of $0.43, missing consensus estimates by $0.13, and revenue of $3.98 billion, which represented a 5.9% year-over-year decline and fell short of estimates by $570 million [4]. - The disappointing results were attributed to rising costs in infrastructure projects and reduced capital spending by clients, leading to a negatively revised financial outlook for fiscal year 2025 [4]. - Following the announcement of these results, Fluor's stock price dropped by over 27% [4]. Legal Process - The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 allows any investor who purchased Fluor securities during the class period to seek appointment as lead plaintiff [5]. - The lead plaintiff will represent the interests of all class members and can select a law firm of their choice for litigation [5]. About Robbins Geller - Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP is a prominent law firm specializing in securities fraud and shareholder litigation, having secured over $2.5 billion for investors in 2024 alone [6]. - The firm has a strong track record in obtaining significant recoveries in securities class action cases, including the largest recovery in history of $7.2 billion in the Enron case [6].

Core Viewpoint - Lockheed Martin Corporation is facing a class action lawsuit for alleged violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, with claims of misleading statements and lack of effective internal controls during the specified class period from January 23, 2024, to July 21, 2025 [1][3]. Group 1: Allegations and Financial Impact - The lawsuit alleges that Lockheed Martin made false statements regarding its internal controls and ability to meet contract commitments, which led to significant financial losses [3]. - On October 22, 2024, Lockheed Martin announced an $80 million loss on a classified program, causing its stock price to drop over 6% [4]. - On January 28, 2025, the company reported pre-tax losses of $1.7 billion related to classified programs, resulting in a stock price decline of more than 9% [5]. - On July 22, 2025, Lockheed Martin disclosed an additional $1.6 billion in pre-tax losses, including $950 million from its Aeronautics Classified program, leading to a nearly 11% drop in stock price [6]. Group 2: Legal Process and Representation - Investors who purchased Lockheed Martin securities during the class period can seek appointment as lead plaintiff in the lawsuit, representing the interests of the class [7]. - The lead plaintiff has the authority to select a law firm for litigation, and participation as lead plaintiff does not affect the ability to share in any potential recovery [7]. Group 3: Company Overview - Lockheed Martin is a major aerospace and defense company involved in the research, design, development, manufacture, integration, and sustainment of technology systems, products, and services [2].

Core Viewpoint - The article discusses a class action lawsuit against Sarepta Therapeutics, alleging violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 due to misleading statements regarding the safety and efficacy of its gene therapy product, ELEVIDYS, during a specified class period [1][3]. Company Overview - Sarepta Therapeutics is a commercial-stage biopharmaceutical company focused on developing therapies for Duchenne muscular dystrophy, including the gene therapy ELEVIDYS [2]. Allegations of the Lawsuit - The lawsuit claims that Sarepta and its executives made false or misleading statements about ELEVIDYS, including significant safety risks, failure to detect severe side effects, and the potential for halting clinical trials due to adverse events [3]. - Specific incidents cited include: - On March 18, 2025, a patient treated with ELEVIDYS suffered acute liver failure leading to death, causing Sarepta's stock to drop over 27% [4]. - On April 4, 2025, Sarepta disclosed that EU authorities requested a review of the death, leading to a further stock decline of over 7% [5]. - On June 15, 2025, a second patient died from acute liver failure, prompting Sarepta to suspend shipments and pause dosing, resulting in a stock drop of over 42% [6]. - On June 24, 2025, the FDA announced an investigation into the risk of acute liver failure associated with ELEVIDYS, causing an additional stock decline of over 8% [7]. Legal Process - The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 allows investors who purchased Sarepta securities during the class period to seek appointment as lead plaintiff in the lawsuit, representing the interests of all class members [8].

Core Viewpoint - Fortrea Holdings Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit for alleged violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, with claims that the company and its executives made misleading statements regarding its financial performance and business model following its spin-off from Labcorp Holdings Inc. [1][3] Company Overview - Fortrea is a global clinical research organization (CRO) that provides development solutions for biopharmaceutical products and medical devices [2]. - The company was spun off from Labcorp in June 2023, with ongoing long-term projects at the time of the spin-off [2]. Allegations of the Lawsuit - The lawsuit claims that Fortrea overestimated revenue contributions from pre-spin projects, overstated cost savings from exiting transition services agreements (TSAs), and inflated its EBITDA targets for 2025 [3]. - Specific allegations include: - Overestimation of revenue from pre-spin projects [3]. - Overstatement of cost savings from exiting TSAs [3]. - Inflated EBITDA targets for 2025 [3]. - Overstated viability of Fortrea's post-spin business model [3]. Impact of Analyst Reports - On September 25, 2024, Jefferies downgraded Fortrea from buy to hold, citing weaknesses in its business model and a lack of material cost savings from exiting TSAs, leading to a stock price drop of over 12% [4]. - On December 6, 2024, Baird Equity Research downgraded Fortrea to neutral, resulting in an 8% decline in stock price after the company canceled two scheduled conferences [5]. Financial Performance Disclosure - On March 3, 2025, Fortrea announced that its revenue and adjusted EBITDA projections for 2025 were not aligned with prior expectations, revealing that pre-spin projects were underperforming and negatively impacting financial performance [6]. - Following this announcement, Fortrea's stock price fell by more than 25% [6].

Core Viewpoint - UroGen Pharma Ltd. is facing a class action lawsuit due to alleged violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, with claims centered around misleading statements regarding the effectiveness of its lead product, UGN-102, and its clinical study design [1][3]. Company Overview - UroGen Pharma Ltd. specializes in developing and commercializing solutions for specialty cancers, with its primary product being UGN-102, an intravesical solution aimed at treating low-grade intermediate risk non-muscle invasive bladder cancer [2]. Allegations of the Lawsuit - The lawsuit claims that UroGen made false or misleading statements and failed to disclose critical information, including: - The ENVISION clinical study for UGN-102 was inadequately designed, lacking a concurrent control arm, which undermined its ability to demonstrate substantial evidence of effectiveness [3]. - UroGen did not adequately address FDA warnings regarding the study design for its new drug application (NDA) for UGN-102, leading to a significant risk of NDA rejection [3][4]. Impact of FDA Findings - On May 16, 2025, the FDA released a briefing document indicating concerns about the ENVISION study's design, stating that the primary endpoints were difficult to interpret due to the absence of a concurrent control arm. This led to a nearly 26% drop in UroGen's stock price [4]. - Following the FDA's Oncologic Drugs Advisory Committee vote against the approval of UGN-102 on May 21, 2025, citing unfavorable benefit-risk assessment, UroGen's stock price fell nearly 45% [5]. Legal Process for Lead Plaintiff - The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 allows any investor who purchased UroGen securities during the specified class period to seek appointment as lead plaintiff in the class action lawsuit. The lead plaintiff represents the interests of all class members [6]. Law Firm Background - Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP is a prominent law firm specializing in securities fraud and shareholder litigation, having secured over $2.5 billion for investors in 2024 alone, and is recognized for obtaining significant recoveries in securities class action cases [7].