Stellantis N.V.
| Company Name | Stellantis N.V. |
| Stock Symbol | STLA |
| Class Period | February 26, 2025 to February 05, 2026 |
| Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline | June 08, 2026 |
Submit Your Information
If you suffered a loss on your Stellantis N.V. 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 February 6, 2026, Stellantis disclosed that a “reset” of its business had “resulted in charges of approximately €22.2 billion … including cash payments of approximately €6.5 billion, which are expected to be paid over the next four years.” The Company explained that the reset and charges were due in significant part to the need to shift organizational priorities, stakeholder relationships, supply chains, execution, and quality control due to “an initial overestimation of pace of adoption of electrification in the regions.” Specifically, the Company cited “substantially reduced volume and profitability expectations for [battery-powered electric vehicles (“BEV”)] products.”
On this news, Stellantis’s stock price fell $2.26, or 23.7%, to close at $7.28 per share on February 6, 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) the Company was not truly equipped or positioned to grow its adjusted operating income as forecasted; (2) the electrification market was either not truly growing as Defendants claimed or that Stellantis was not well positioned to capitalize upon it and convert the opportunity to growth; (3) Stellantis would ultimately be required to take on considerable charges to adjust its priority, focus, and overall execution in a shift away from BEV; and (4) 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.
Submit Your Information