Skip to Content

FuelCell Energy, Inc.

  • Company: FuelCell Energy, Inc.
  • Ticker: FCEL
  • Class Action Period: June 24, 2026 – September 01, 2026
44 Days Left Lead Plaintiff Deadline: November 10, 2026

Submit Your Information

If you suffered a loss on your FuelCell Energy, Inc. investments or would like to inquire about joining an action to recover your loss under the federal securities laws, please complete the form below. Please note that submission of this form does not by itself form an attorney-client relationship nor does filling out this form mean you have joined any lawsuit.

Background

On September 2, 2026, before the market opened, FuelCell reported its fiscal third quarter 2026 financial results, reporting a net loss of $45.3 million. According to the Company’s press release, this reflected “a higher gross loss than the prior year period,” which was caused by “product costs and manufacturing overhead that currently exceed the contractual pricing established under the CEPA with Fit Energy.” Further, FuelCell reported that the annualized production rate was “below the production volume at which we expect our cost structure to align with market-based pricing for orders of this scale,” and as a result, the Company recorded a $17 million charge to “reflect the impact of contractual pricing provisions associated with specific inventory and firm purchase commitments” arising from Phase 0 of the CEPA.

On this news, FuelCell shares fell $2.68 or 15.69% to close at $14.40 on September 2, 2026, thereby injuring investors.

The complaint filed in this class action alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company’s business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to investors that: (1) that the Company’s manufacturing capacity was inadequate to generate the production rate required under the CEPA; (2) that, as a result, the Company’s annualized production rate for deliveries under the CEPA with Fit Energy was slower than expected; (3) that, as a result, the Company was incurring higher product costs and manufacturing overhead expenses; (4) that, as a result of the slower production rate, the Company was reasonably likely to incur charges in connection with the CEPA; (5) that the foregoing was a known trend affecting the Company’s profitability; and (6) that, as a result of the foregoing, Defendants’ positive statements about the Company’s business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

 

Submit Your Information