Intrusion, Inc.

Intrusion develops, sells, and supports products that purport to protect entities from cyberattacks by combining advanced threat intelligence with real-time artificial intelligence. It offers three products: Shield, a cybersecurity solution packaged as a comprehensive, real-time AI-based Security-as-a-Service; TraceCop, a big data tool with IP intelligence, including reputation information on known good and known bad active IP addresses; and Savant, a network monitoring solution that identifies suspicious traffic in real-time.

On April 14, 2021, White Diamond Research published a report alleging, among other things, that Intrusion’s product, Shield, “has no patents, certifications, or insurance, which are all essential for selling cybersecurity products” and that “Shield is based on open-source data already available to the public.” Thus, the report stated that “Shield is a repackaging of pre-existing technology rather than an innovative offering.” Moreover, the report alleged that the claims that Shield “stopp[ed] a total of 77,539,801 cyberthreats from 805,110 uniquely malicious entities . . . in the 90-day beta program” were “outlandish,” leading White Diamond to question “[h]ow have these companies been able to function so far, as they’ve been attacked many times per minute by ransomware, malware, data theft, phishing and DDoS attacks?”

On this news, the Company’s share price fell $4.50, or over 16%, to close at $23.75 per share on April 14, 2021, on unusually heavy trading volume. The share price continued to decline by $3.22, or 14%, over the next trading session to close at $20.53 per share on April 15, 2021.

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: (1) that Intrusion’s Shield product was merely a repackaging of existing technology in the Company’s portfolio; (2) that Shield lacked the patents, certifications, and insurance critical to the sale of cybersecurity products; (3) that the Company had overstated the efficacy of Shield’s purported ability to protect against cyberattacks; (4) that, as a result of the foregoing, Intrusion’s Shield was reasonably unlikely to generate significant revenue; and (5) 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.