Ford Motor Company
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 24, 2024, after the market closed, Ford reported its second-quarter financial results for 2024, indicating that the Company’s “[p]rofitability was affected by an increase in warranty reserves” and “higher warranty costs.” Consequently, Ford revised its full-year earnings outlook for its electric vehicle segment to account for “higher warranty costs than originally planned.” Reports from analysts and major news outlets, including The Associated Press and The Washington Post, noted that warranty and recall expenses reached $2.3 billion in the second quarter—$800 million more than in the first quarter and $700 million higher than the same period last year.
As a result of this news, Ford’s stock price dropped by $2.51, or 18.36%, closing at $11.16 per share on July 25, 2024, with unusually high trading volume.
The class action complaint alleges that, during the Class Period, the Defendants made materially false and misleading statements and failed to disclose significant adverse information regarding the Company’s business and prospects. Specifically, it claims that the Defendants did not inform investors that: (1) there were deficiencies in the quality assurance of certain vehicle models; (2) these deficiencies were leading to increased warranty costs; (3) the Company’s warranty reserves did not accurately reflect the quality issues of the sold vehicles; (4) as a consequence, the Company’s profitability was likely to be negatively impacted; and (5) due to these issues, the Defendants’ positive statements about the Company’s business and future lacked a reasonable basis and were materially misleading.
