Hertz Global Holdings, Inc.

On January 11, 2024, Hertz disclosed that it would be selling approximately 20,000 electric vehicles (“EVs”) from its US rental fleet, about one-third of its global EV fleet, “to better balance supply against expected demand of EVs.” The Company advised that “Adjusted Corporate EBITDA for the fourth quarter of 2023 [would] be negatively impacted by the incremental net depreciation expense associated with the EV sales plan, and further burdened by higher depreciation expense in the ordinary course as residual values for vehicles generally fell throughout the quarter greater than previously expected.”

On this news, Hertz’s stock price fell $0.40, or 4.3%, to close at $8.95 per share on January 11, 2024, thereby injuring investors.

Then, on April 25, 2024, Hertz released its first quarter 2024 financial results, falling short of consensus estimates. The Company stated that that vehicle depreciation in the quarter increased $588 million, primarily driven by deterioration in estimated forward residual values and disposition losses on internal combustion engine (“ICE”) vehicles compared to gains in the prior-year quarter. Additionally, Hertz reported a $195 million charge to vehicle depreciation to write down EVs held for sale that were remaining in inventory.

On this news, Hertz’s stock price fell $1.12, or 19.3%, to close at $4.68 per share on April 25, 2024, thereby injuring investors further.

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) Hertz had downplayed the financial impact of vehicle depreciation, and/or overstated its ability to track and manage vehicle depreciation; (2) demand for Hertz’s EVs was not as strong as Defendants had led investors to believe; (3) Hertz had too many vehicles, particularly EVs, in its fleet to remain profitable; (4) as a result of all the foregoing, Hertz was likely to incur significant losses on the disposition of both its ICE vehicles and EVs; (5) all the foregoing was likely to, and did, have a significant negative impact on Hertz’s financial results; and (6) as a result, Defendants’ positive statements about the Company’s business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times.