First Solar, Inc. Securities Fraud Class Action

First Solar investors may receive additional information about the case by clicking the link "Submit Your Information" above.  If you are a member of the class described below, you may no later than March 8, 2022 move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff of the class, if you so choose.

Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP has filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of those who purchased or acquired First Solar, Inc. (“First Solar”) (NASDAQ: FSLR) common stock between February 22, 2019, and February 20, 2020, inclusive (the “Class Period”).

Case Background:
First Solar is a manufacturer of solar energy panels and powerplants. First Solar’s business is comprised of multiple segments. The modules segment (“Modules”) manufactures photovoltaic solar panel units, which are then installed at project development sites or sold to third parties. First Solar’s project development segment (“Project Development”) buys land, develops sites, installs solar panel units, and then sells the entire site to a buyer, typically a utility provider or large tech company. The complaint alleges that the defendants misrepresented to investors the development of its newest “Series 6” solar module, the cost per unit it could achieve with that module, and the impact the changeover to this new product would have on the viability of its other business segments.

The truth began to emerge on January 15, 2020, when Barclays reported that, among other things, “First Solar ha[d] seemingly been, in large part, priced-out of the U.S. downstream solar market,” and that First Solar had concealed its rapidly declining market share through misleading financial reporting. According to analysts at Barclays, First Solar was obfuscating this fact by improperly reporting its Project Development pipeline to make it seem like First Solar maintained a stronger market share, despite the fact that some projects on the pipeline had been completed in prior years. Following this news, the price of First Solar stock fell $4.03 per share, or nearly 7%, from a close of $58.78 on January 14, 2020, to close at $54.75 per share on January 15, 2020.

Then, on February 6, 2020, Barclays issued another report and suggested that, in an attempt to gain back its market share, First Solar was “bidding more aggressively, leading to lower [Project Development contract] prices, and finally cutting into margins.”  Following this news, the price of First Solar stock fell $0.45 per share, from a close of $53.10 on February 5, 2020, to close at $52.65 per share on February 6, 2020.

Finally, on February 20, 2020, First Solar announced that it was exploring a sale of its Project Development business. On the same day, First Solar acknowledged it was experiencing “challenges with regard to certain aspects of the overall cost per watt” and that First Solar would not be realizing its cost per watt goals, despite having previously represented that it had been “slightly ahead of” its goals as recently as the previous quarter. Then, First Solar stated that it would no longer be disclosing a discrete cost per watt for its Series 6 units. Following this news, the price of First Solar stock fell by $8.73 per share, or nearly 15%, from a close of $59.32 per share on February 20, 2020, to close at $50.59 per share on February 21, 2020.

The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, the defendants willfully or recklessly made and/or caused First Solar to make false and misleading statements that failed to disclose that: (1) the Series 6 module was grossly underperforming and was unable to hit its wattage targets; (2) when the units installed at the Project Development sites were unable to produce the contractually mandated wattage target, additional units needed to be installed – an additional cost borne by First Solar; (3) when additional Series 6 units had to be installed at Project Development sites to compensate for the insufficient and inconsistent wattage, rather than properly charging the costs of the additional Series 6 units to the Modules segment, Fist Solar instead improperly booked the cost of the additional units to another company segment; and (4) as a result of the foregoing, the defendants’ positive statements about First Solar’s business, operations and prospects were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

A lead plaintiff is a representative party that acts on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. In order to be appointed lead plaintiff, the Court must determine that the class member’s claim is typical of the claims of other class members, and that the class member will adequately represent the class. Your ability to share in any recovery is not, however, affected by the decision whether or not to serve as a lead plaintiff. Filling out the online form above or communicating with any counsel is not necessary to participate or share in any recovery achieved in this case.  Any member of the purported class may move the court to serve as a lead plaintiff through counsel of his/her choice, or may choose to do nothing and remain an inactive class member.

If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions concerning this notice or your rights or interests with respect to these matters, please contact Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP:  James Maro, Esq. (484) 270-1453 or via e-mail at info@ktmc.com.  If you would like additional information about the suit, please click on the link "Submit Your Information" above and fill out the form as promptly as possible.