| COMPANY |
Edison International |
| COURT |
United States District Court for the Central District of California |
| CASE NUMBER |
2:25-cv-01383 |
| JUDGE |
The Hon. Michael Walter Fitzgerald |
| CLASS PERIOD |
February 25, 2021 through February 6, 2025 |
| SECURITY TYPE |
Securities |
LEAD PLAINTIFF DEADLINE IS APRIL 21, 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 Edison International (“Edison”) (NYSE: EIX) securities between February 25, 2021, and February 6, 2025, inclusive (the “Class Period”).
Edison is the parent holding company of Southern California Edison Company (“SCE”). SCE is an investor-owned public utility primarily engaged in the business of supplying and delivering electricity to an approximately 50,000 square mile area of southern California. Throughout the Class Period, Edison claimed that SCE uses its Public Safety Power Shutoffs ("PSPS") program to “proactively de-energize power lines to mitigate the risk of catastrophic wildfires during extreme weather events.”
The Class Period begins on February 25, 2021. On that day, Edison filed a Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, which stated that “SCE also uses its PSPS program to proactively de-energize power lines to mitigate the risk of catastrophic wildfires during extreme weather events.”
On January 7, 2025, a fire began in the area of Eaton Canyon (the “Eaton Canyon Fire”) in the unincorporated census designated place in Los Angeles County, California. Following the outbreak of the Eaton Canyon Fire, on January 8, 2025, Edison issued a press release stating that its “distribution lines immediately to the west of Eaton Canyon were de-energized well before the reported start time of the fire, as part of SCE’s Public Safety Power Shutoff (PSPS) program.” On January 12, 2025, however, Edison disclosed in a press release that there were “no interruptions or operational/electrical anomalies in the 12 hours prior to the fire’s reported start time until more than one hour after the reported start time of the fire.”
Then on January 13, 2025, a lawsuit was filed in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles alleging that the fires originated from Edison’s power lines. Specifically, the complaint included eye-witness accounts and photographs that indicated the fire was started by Edison’s electrical equipment. On this news, the price of Edison’s stock dropped by $7.73, or approximately 11.89%, from closing at $65.00 on January 10, 2025, to close at $57.27 on January 13, 2025, the next trading day.
On February 6, 2025, The Wall Street Journal published an article titled, “Edison Unit Says Its Equipment May Have Been Involved in SoCal Fires.” Specifically, the article reported that, SCE “submitted two letters to the California Public Utilities Commission with updates on its analysis of the Eaton and Hurst wildfires, saying it believes its equipment may be associated with the start of the Hurst fire.” On this news, the price of Edison’s stock dropped by $1.28, or approximately 2.4%, to close at $51.16 on February 6, 2025.
The complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Edison’s claim that SCE used its PSPS program to “proactively de-energize power lines to mitigate the risk of catastrophic wildfires during extreme weather events,” was false; (2) this resulted in heightened fire risk in California and heightened legal exposure to Edison; and (3) as a result, Defendants’ statements about Edison’s business, operations, and prospects, were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all times.
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.