Monolithic Power Systems Inc.

On October 30, 2024, Monolithic released its third quarter 2024 financial results, disclosing that its Enterprise Data revenue had declined sequentially during the quarter to $184 million, missing consensus estimates by nearly 13%. The Company further revealed that customer order patterns had fallen materially below recent historical trends, which was expected to continue.

On this news, Monolithic’s stock price fell $160.51, or 17.5%, to close at $759.30 per share on October 31, 2024, thereby injuring investors.

Then, on November 11, 2024, Edgewater Research published a report revealing that Nvidia had canceled half of its outstanding Monolithic orders and would be eliminating Monolithic as a supplier due to persistent “[p]erformance issues” with the Company’s power modules.

On this news, Monolithic’s stock price fell $113.99, or 14.97%, to close at $647.31 per share on November 11, 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: (1) that Monolithic’s voltage regulator modules and power management integrated circuits were suffering from significant performance and quality control issues; (2) that the defects had, in turn, negatively impacted the performance of certain products offered by Nvidia in which such products were used; (3) that Monolithic had failed to adequately address and resolve known issues affecting the performance of the power management solutions the Company supplied to Nvidia; (4) that Monolithic’s relationship with Nvidia – the Company’s most important customer – had been irreparably damaged due to the significant performance and quality control problems affecting the products it supplied to Nvidia and the Company’s failure to adequately address such issues; and (5) 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.