ENOVIX CORPORATION SHAREHOLDERS HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO RECOVER THEIR INVESTMENT LOSSES
Bernstein Liebhard LLP announces that a securities class action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of investors who purchased or acquired Enovix Corporation (“Enovix” or the “Company”) (NASDAQ: ENVX) common stock between February 2, 2021 and January 3, 2023, inclusive. The lawsuit seeks to recover Enovix shareholders’ investment losses.
If you purchased securities in Enovix Corporation between February 2, 2021 and January 3, 2023, inclusive, and would like to discuss your legal rights and/or options, please click “Join Class Action” above.
On February 22, 2021, Enovix announced plans to become a publicly traded company. Five months after this announcement, on July 15, 2021, Enovix became a publicly traded company. Rather than go public through a traditional initial public offering (“IPO”), Enovix merged with a special purpose acquisition company (“SPAC”), a public shell corporation with no business of its own other than to acquire a private company. On July 14, 2021, Enovix was officially acquired by RSVAC, which then changed its name to Enovix Corporation.
Plaintiff alleges that Defendants made materially false and misleading statements throughout the Class Period, starting with statements made at the time of the de-SPAC, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about Enovix’s revenues and ability to manufacture its proprietary battery technology. Plaintiff alleges that Enovix would also have to create a process to manufacture its batteries at a large enough scale to satisfy the needs of its customers. Otherwise, it could not monetize its proprietary technology.
Just months before the merger, Enovix had received key equipment to establish its first manufacturing line at its “Fab-1” facility in Fremont, California. Although Enovix had previously produced and delivered sample batteries using its pilot production line, the pilot line produced only 20 batteries per day. Building a full-scale production facility was therefore a key step to producing batteries at a commercial level.
In November 2021, Enovix announced that it had begun developing a second automated production line at its Fab-1 facility. The second line, the Company told investors, would be a “workhorse” focusing on batteries for mobile electronics, such as laptops and smartphones, thereby supporting Enovix’s “ramp” to achieve meaningful scale and revenue in the consumer electronics market starting in 2023.
Enovix assured its investors in a March 2022 letter that moving from the R&D to the production phase would “distinguish us from other advanced battery companies that have claimed technology breakthroughs but remain years away from commercialization. To that end, Enovix also began to develop plans for a second production facility, Fab-2. Defendants told investors that Fab-2 would take lessons from Fab-1 and use different equipment, purportedly to occupy a smaller footprint and save the Company from having to rent a larger, more expensive space, while also delivering products more efficiently. However, Fab-2’s buildout was still years away.
On November 1, 2022, Enovix announced its financial results for 3Q22. Enovix revealed that in that quarter it realized only $8,000 in revenue. Enovix revealed that it would be “dialing back” its work on improving the Gen1 lines in favor of shifting its focus to its future Gen2 lines because the supposed improvements were not having the desired results on output. Consequently, Enovix “anticipate[d] achieving lower overall output from Fab-1 in 2023.” Enovix shares fell $8.34 over 40% on this news.
Then, on January 3, 2023, Defendant Rodgers held a special presentation for investors via conference call. On the call, Rodgers revealed that the Company’s second production facility and Gen2 lines would be delayed by several additional months because of the equipment failures experienced in the Fab-1 lines. Enovix’s share price fell another 41% on this news.
If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than March 7, 2023. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn’t require that you serve as lead plaintiff. If you choose to take no action, you may remain an absent class member.
Since 1993, Bernstein Liebhard LLP has recovered over $3.5 billion for its clients. In addition to representing individual investors, the Firm has been retained by some of the largest public and private pension funds in the country to monitor their assets and pursue litigation on their behalf. As a result of its success litigating hundreds of lawsuits and class actions, the Firm has been named to The National Law Journal’s “Plaintiffs’ Hot List” thirteen times and listed in The Legal 500 for ten consecutive years.
ATTORNEY ADVERTISING. © 2022 Bernstein Liebhard LLP. The law firm responsible for this advertisement is Bernstein Liebhard LLP, 10 East 40th Street, New York, New York 10016, (212) 779-1414. Prior results do not guarantee or predict a similar outcome with respect to any future matter.