Lilium N.V.

On October 24, 2024, before the market opened, Lilium disclosed that it had been unable to raise sufficient additional funds to continue the operations of the Company’s principal operating wholly owned German subsidiaries. As a result, the managing directors of the subsidiaries determined that they are overindebted and are, or will, become unable to pay their existing liabilities. The Company disclosed that, subject to certain limited exceptions, the Company will lose control of the subsidiaries.

On this news, Lilium’s stock price fell $0.33, or 61.6%, to close at $0.21 per share on October 24, 2024, on unusually heavy trading volume. The Company’s stock price continued to fall in the subsequent trading day, falling $0.06, or 28.8%, to close at $0.15 per share on October 25, 2024, on unusually heavy trading volume.

Then, on November 4, 2024, before the market opened, the Company reported that, following the insolvency of the Company’s subsidiaries, Lilium had not been able to raise sufficient additional funds to conduct its ongoing business consistent with past practice. The Company disclosed that “funding for the Company is not feasible.” As a consequence, the Company would be “obliged to file for insolvency.”

On this news, Lilium’s stock price fell $0.015, or 15.5%, to close at $0.083 per share on November 4, 2024, on unusually heavy trading volume. The Company’s stock price continued to fall in the subsequent trading day, falling $0.031, or 36.97%, to close at $0.052 per share on November 5, 2024, on unusually heavy trading volume.

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: (1) Defendants overstated the progress of the Company’s fundraising activities; (2) Defendants overstated the likelihood and/or feasibility of obtaining sufficient funding to continue operations; (3) Defendants failed to sufficiently disclose the imminent insolvency of the Company and its subsidiaries; and (4) 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.