Fifth Circuit Securities Litigation Quarterly: Third Quarter 2026

New securities class action filings

MICROVAST HOLDINGS, INC. (S.D. TEX., 4:26-CV-05804, FILED JULY 21, 2026)

• Filed on behalf of a putative class of investors who purchased or otherwise acquired Microvast securities between April 1, 2025, and March 16, 2026, inclusive.
• Asserts claims under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
• Alleges Defendants “made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company’s business, operations, and compliance policies,” and specifically that Defendants “made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) due to, inter alia, inventory management issues and delays in commercial vehicle rollouts by Microvast’s customers, Defendants had overstated Microvast’s ability to reach its margin targets; (ii) Defendants overstated Microvast’s ability to complete the Huzhou Phase 3.2 expansion by the end of 2025; and (iii) as a result, Defendants’ public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.”

PRIMORIS SERVICES CORP. (N.D. TEX., 3:26-CV-02416, FILED JULY 21, 2026)

• Filed on behalf of a putative class of investors who purchased or otherwise acquired Primoris common stock between August 5, 2025, and June 22, 2026, inclusive.
• Asserts claims under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
• Alleges Defendants misled investors “by representing that the Company maintained ‘disciplined bidding,’ ‘well-developed estimating processes,’ effective project controls, and reliable cost forecasting that enabled it to accurately price and execute fixed-price renewable energy projects, ‘manage risk,’ and reliably forecast revenues, margins, and earnings,” when allegedly “Primoris’ estimating, cost-to-complete forecasting, and project oversight processes were deficient, causing the Company to systematically underestimate project costs and risks on multiple significant renewable energy projects.”

DNOW INC. (S.D. TEX., 4:26-CV-06261, FILED AUGUST 3, 2026)

• Filed on behalf of a putative class of persons or entities who held DNOW common stock as of August 5, 2025, and were therefore entitled to vote at DNOW’s September 9, 2025, special meeting on the merger of DNOW and MRC Global Inc.
• Asserts claims under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
• Alleges the Proxy contained materially false and misleading statements concerning the merger, including insufficient warning of the merger’s risks given the possible post-merger price impacts of MRC Global’s new enterprise resource planning system, if poorly implemented.

HYLIION HOLDINGS CORP. (W.D. TEX., 1:26-CV-02375, FILED AUGUST 28, 2026)

• Filed on behalf of putative classes of investors who purchased or otherwise acquired Hyliion common stock between May 12, 2026, and June 23, 2026, inclusive.
• Asserts claims under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
• Alleges Defendants made materially false and misleading statements concerning the credibility of an announced commercial pipeline, including the extent of the company’s evaluation of its pipeline partner’s operational capabilities, financial resources, and ability to perform its obligations under the partnership.

AST SPACEMOBILE, INC. (W.D. TEX., 7:26-CV-00378, FILED SEPTEMBER 14, 2026)

• Filed on behalf of putative class of investors who purchased or otherwise acquired AST securities between March 4, 2025, and July 15, 2026, inclusive.
• Asserts claims under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
• Alleges Defendants “made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) AST’s increasing capital requirements were likely to increase the Company’s debt load and share dilution with greater frequency and at greater scale than Defendants had signaled to investors; (ii) accordingly, Defendants had overstated the sufficiency of AST’s capital and liquidity position to achieve it strategic and business goals; (iii) Defendants likewise overstated the durability of AST’s competitive position in the D2C market; (iv) even following the EchoStar Transaction, Defendants continued overstating AST’s competitive position in the satellite D2C market; (v) AST was experiencing slow user adoption in the U.S. and Japan; (vi) the foregoing was likely to have a significant negative impact on the Company’s business and financial prospects; and (vii) as a result, Defendants’ public statement were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.”

New securities class action settlements

CS DISCO, INC. (W.D. TEX., 1:24-CV-00028)

• $11.5 million settlement of case asserting claims under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
• Case initially filed in the Southern District of New York and transferred to the Western District of Texas in January 2024. Judge Ezra granted in part and denied in part Defendants’ motion to dismiss without prejudice, and denied Defendants’ motion for reconsideration of the court’s falsity and scienter rulings. The parties conducted discovery and briefed class certification. Magistrate Judge Lane recommended that Plaintiffs’ class certification motion be denied, and the parties agreed to the terms of the settlement shortly thereafter.
• Motion for preliminary approval of settlement filed on July 1, 2026. 

CORE SCIENTIFIC (W.D. TEX., 1:22-CV-01191)

• $1.5 million settlement of case asserting claims under the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
• Case initially filed on November 14, 2022. Core Scientific filed for Chapter 11 relief in the Southern District of Texas the following month, and Plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed Core Scientific as a defendant. The court dismissed Plaintiffs’ claims except for certain Securities Act and Section 14 claims. After Defendants moved for reconsideration, the court dismissed the remaining claims without prejudice. Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, and the court then referred the case to bankruptcy court. The parties agreed to a settlement and principle and moved to return the case to the district court to approve the settlement.
• Motion for preliminary approval of settlement filed on September 14, 2026.

ANADARKO PETROLEUM (S.D. TEX., 4:20-CV-00576)

• $114.5 million settlement of case asserting claims under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
• Case filed in the Southern District of Texas in February 2020. The Court denied Defendants’ motions to dismiss and granted Plaintiffs’ class certification motion, but the Fifth Circuit vacated the class certification order, finding Defendants should be afforded a sur-reply on class certification. In March, the Court on remand again granted Plaintiffs’ class certification motion, as well as denied the parties’ motions to exclude expert testimony. The parties briefed motions for summary judgment and agreed to the terms of the settlement shortly thereafter.
• Motion for preliminary approval of settlement filed on September 28, 2026.

Decisions of note

• British Airways Pension Trs. Ltd. v. Natera, Inc., No. 1:22-cv-00398 (W.D. Tex. July 28, 2026): Magistrate Judge Howell granted Plaintiffs’ motion to amend the scheduling order in a securities class action to add a deadline for Defendants to declare “explicitly and unambiguously” whether they will reference advice, opinions, or communications from counsel in defending the action. A negative response bars Defendants from relying on any aspect of their attorneys’ legal advice, opinions, or communications at summary judgment and trial.
• Ramirez v. Exxon Mobil Corp., No. 3:16-cv-3111 (N.D. Tex. Sept. 9, 2026): Following the complete defense verdict in the securities class action trial covered in our Q2 2026 edition, Judge Kinkeade denied Plaintiff’s motion for a new trial under Rule 59, concluding that the verdict was not against the great weight of the evidence and that Defendants’ closing argument did not irreparably prejudice the verdict.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.