STMicroelectronics N.V.
Investors that purchased the Company’s securities and have suffered a loss, please fill in transaction information below, or email to info@portnoylaw.com.
There is no cost or obligation associated with submitting your information. If you are a shareholder who suffered a loss, please submit your contact information and purchase information to participate in the putative class action.
We also encourage you to contact Lesley F. Portnoy of The Portnoy Law Firm, at 310.692.8883, to discuss your rights free of charge. You can also reach us through the firm’s website at www.portnoylaw.com, or by email at info@portnoylaw.com.
If you choose to take no action, you can remain an absent class member.
Joining the case through the Portnoy Law website enables investors to learn about their legal claims and take an active role in recovering their losses.
The Portnoy Law Firm represents investors around the world and specializes in securities class action lawsuits and shareholder rights litigation.
CONTACT:
Portnoy Law Firm
Lesley F. Portnoy, Esq.,
www.portnoylaw.com
Office: 310.692.8883
1800 Century Park East, Suite 600
Los Angeles, CA 90067
info@portnoylaw.com
On July 25, 2024, STM announced its financial results for the second quarter of 2024 and lowered its revenue expectations for the entire fiscal year, citing that “customer orders for Industrial did not improve and Automotive demand declined.”
In response to this news, STM’s stock price dropped by $6.07, or 15.3%, closing at $33.47 per share on July 25, 2024, resulting in losses for investors.
The class action complaint claims that during the Class Period, the Defendants made materially false or misleading statements and failed to disclose significant negative information about the Company’s business, operations, and future prospects. Specifically, the complaint alleges that Defendants did not reveal that: (1) the Company lacked adequate visibility to support the guidance it provided; (2) the Company did not effectively assess its visibility or was unprepared to manage the ongoing challenges in its target industries; and (3) consequently, the Defendants’ positive statements regarding the Company’s business and outlook were materially misleading and lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times
