| COMPANY |
Fluor Corporation |
| COURT |
United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas |
| CASE NUMBER |
3:25-cv-02496 |
| JUDGE |
Honorable David C. Godbey |
| CLASS PERIOD |
February 18, 2025 through July 31, 2025 |
| SECURITY TYPE |
Securities |
LEAD PLAINTIFF DEADLINE IS NOVEMBER 14, 2025.
If you have suffered losses and would like to discuss your rights, please fill out this form or you may contact Jonathan Naji, Esq. at (484) 270-1453 or via e-mail at info@ktmc.com.
Case Background:
A class action lawsuit was filed on behalf of those who purchased or otherwise acquired Fluor Corporation (“Fluor”) (NYSE: FLR) securities between February 18, 2025, and July 31, 2025, inclusive (the “Class Period”).
Fluor provides engineering, procurement, and construction, fabrication and modularization, and project management services worldwide. Fluor operates through three segments: Urban Solutions, Energy Solutions, and Mission Solutions. Fluor's infrastructure projects in its Urban Solutions segment include work on, among other things, the Gordie Howe International Bridge ("Gordie Howe"), as well as the Interstate 365 Lyndon B. Johnson ("I-635/LBJ") and Interstate 35E ("I-35") highways in Texas.
The Class Period begins on February 18, 2025, when Fluor issued a press release during pre-market hours reporting its fourth quarter and full year (“FY”) 2024 financial results. Fluor also provided financial guidance for the FY of 2025, while highlighting that the company had built “a robust reimbursable backlog across diverse end markets, strengthening our capital structure, developing strong engineering and project execution teams,” and that these “efforts have positioned Fluor to deliver significant value and opportunities for our clients, employees and shareholders.” During the accompanying call with investors and analysts held that same day discussing the results, Fluor touted that the company’s “infrastructure business continues to make good progress on the Gordie Howe project,” and that on “the I-635 LBJ project, construction is now 70% complete. Substantial completion is forecasted for Q2 of 2026.”
On May 2, 2025, Fluor issued a press release reporting its first quarter 2025 financial results and reaffirmed the company’s financial guidance for FY 2025, notwithstanding Fluor’s acknowledgement of the potential negative impacts of ongoing economic uncertainty on Fluor's business resulting from trade tensions and other market conditions. Contemporaneously, during the accompanying call with investors and analysts, Fluor touted the purported health and stability of Fluor's and its customers' operations and the strength of the company's risk mitigation strategy, both for itself and its clients.
On August 1, 2025, Fluor issued a press release reporting its financial results for the second quarter of 2025. Specifically, Fluor reported non-GAAP EPS which missed consensus estimates by $0.13, and revenue which missed consensus estimates and which amounted to a 5.9% year-over-year decline. Fluor blamed these disappointing results on, among other things, growing costs in multiple infrastructure projects due to subcontractor design errors, price increases, and scheduling delays, as well as reduced capital spending by customers. Additionally, Fluor provided a negatively revised financial outlook for FY 2025. That same day, during the accompanying call with investors and analysts, Fluor's CEO disclosed that the infrastructure projects that had negatively impacted Fluor's Q2 2025 results were the Gordie Howe, I-635/LBJ, and I-35 projects. On this news, Fluor's stock price fell $15.35 per share, or 27.04%, to close at $41.42 per share on August 1, 2025.
The complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) costs associated with the Gordie Howe, I-635/LBJ, and I-35 projects were growing because of, among other things, subcontractor design errors, price increases, and scheduling delays; (2) the foregoing, as well as customer reduction in capital spending and client hesitation around economic uncertainty, was having, or was likely to have, a significant negative impact on Fluor’s business and financial results; and (3) accordingly, Fluor’s financial guidance for FY 2025 was unreliable and/or unrealistic, the effectiveness of Fluor’s risk mitigation strategy was overstated, and the impact of economic uncertainty on Fluor’s business and financial results was understated.
What is a Lead Plaintiff?
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.