Lucid Group, Inc. Securities Fraud Class Action

Lucid 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 May 31, 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 Lucid Group, Inc. (“Lucid”) (NASDAQ: LCID) common stock between November 15, 2021, and February 28, 2022, inclusive (the “Class Period”).

Case Background:
Lucid, a Delaware corporation with principal executive offices in Newark, California, designs, engineers, builds, and sells luxury electric vehicles (“EVs”).  Specifically, Lucid currently sells an electric sedan, the Lucid Air, and plans to launch an electric SUV, the Lucid Gravity.

On February 22, 2021, prior to the commercial launch of the Lucid Air, Lucid announced its plans to merge with Churchill Capital Corp. IV, a special purpose acquisition company, in a transaction that would allow Lucid securities to be publicly traded and would provide Lucid with $4.4 billion in capital.  As Lucid transitioned into a publicly traded company, Defendants assured investors that Lucid would produce 577 EVs in 2021, 20,000 EVs in 2022, and 49,000 EVs in 2023 (including 12,000 of the Gravity SUV, which would launch that year).

On November 15, 2021, the first day of the Class Period, Lucid announced the company’s first quarterly results following the commercial launch of the Lucid Air on September 28, 2021.  In Lucid’s press release announcing these results, the company touted its growth potential, stating that Lucid “[c]ontinued to invest in the business, readying production and deliveries.”  The press release also assured investors that Lucid “successfully began production of vehicles for customer deliveries, continued investing in capacity expansion of our manufacturing facility in Arizona, and opened new retail and service locations in advance of the Lucid Air launch.”  Additionally, Lucid confirmed that the company “remain[s] confident in our ability to achieve 20,000 units in 2022,” and touted “the expansion of [Lucid’s] manufacturing capacity,” which was “expected to provide production capacity for up to 90,000 vehicles per year by the end of 2023 by expanding Lucid Air.”  

In addition to touting the company’s production capabilities, Defendants also assured investors that supply chain issues, which were plaguing other auto manufacturers, would not interfere with Lucid’s ability to reach its production targets.

Throughout the Class Period, Defendants repeatedly assured investors that Lucid’s production capacity was rapidly increasing and that Lucid would reach its production targets. 

On February 28, 2022, however, investors learned the truth about Lucid’s production capabilities when Lucid issued a press release revealing that it had only delivered approximately 125 EVs in 2021, still had only produced approximately 400 EVs by February 28, 2022 (falling short of its 577-vehicle target for 2021), and would only produce between 12,000 and 14,000 EVs in 2022 (falling short of its 20,000-vehicle target).  During Lucid’s quarterly earnings call that same day, Lucid also revealed that it would need to delay the launch of the Lucid Gravity until 2024 (versus a prior launch date in 2023).  Despite its previous assurances that Lucid was not experiencing any supply chain issues, Lucid attributed its slashed production outlook to “the extraordinary supply chain and logistics challenges [Lucid] encountered.” 

Following this news, the price of Lucid common stock fell $3.99 per share, or more than 13%, from a close of $28.98 per share on February 28, 2022, to a close at $24.99 per share on March 1, 2022.

The complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, the Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about Lucid’s business and operations.  Specifically, Lucid overstated its production capabilities while concealing that “extraordinary supply chain and logistics challenges” were hampering Lucid’s operations from the start of the Class Period.  As a result of the Defendants’ wrongful acts and omissions, and the significant decline in the market value of Lucid’s common stock, Lucid investors have suffered significant damages.

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.