| COMPANY |
Monolithic Power Systems Inc. |
| COURT |
United States District Court for the Western District of Washington |
| CASE NUMBER |
2:25-cv-00220 |
| JUDGE |
The Hon. S Kate Vaughan |
| CLASS PERIOD |
February 8, 2024 through November 8, 2024 |
| SECURITY TYPE |
Common Stock |
LEAD PLAINTIFF DEADLINE IS APRIL 7, 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 has been filed on behalf of those who purchased or otherwise acquired Monolithic Power Systems, Inc. (“Monolithic”) (NASDAQ: MPWR) common stock between February 8, 2024, and November 8, 2024, inclusive (the “Class Period”).
The Class Period begins on February 8, 2024. The day before, after close of market on February 7, 2024, Monolithic issued a release announcing the company’s financial results for its fourth fiscal quarter and year ending December 31, 2023 (“4Q23 Release”). The 4Q23 Release stated that Monolithic’ s quarterly revenues decreased to $454 million from $460 million in the prior year quarter. The 4Q23 Release further stated that quarterly revenues within Monolithic’ s Enterprise Data business increased to $129 million from $68 million in the prior year quarter. That same day, Monolithic held a conference call with analysts to discuss the company’s financial and operational results for the fourth quarter of 2024. During the call, Monolithic emphasized the exceptional “performance” of Monolithic’ s power solutions and claimed that the company’s customers kept “requesting it” because Monolithic’ s products could solve “all [of their] issues” and was designed “to make sure we’re the best.” Monolithic further stated that the company had experienced “some issues” with its power management Stage 1 components, but reassured investors that “all these issues are resolved,” which Monolithic claimed would enable the company to “significantly” increase the amount of products installed on customer projects.
On October 30, 2024, Monolithic announced its third quarter 2024 financial results and revealed its Enterprise Data segment revenue declined sequentially during the quarter to $184 million, down from $187 million in the prior quarter, missing consensus estimates of $211 million by nearly 13%. On the corresponding earnings call, Monolithic’ s CFO revealed that customer order patterns had fallen materially below recent historical trends, which negatively impacted Enterprise Data revenues and was set to limit segment revenue growth in the upcoming quarter to low single digits. On this news, the price of Monolithic common stock declined $160.51 per share, or approximately 17.45%, from a close of $919.81 per share on October 30, 2024, to close at $759.30 per share on October 31, 2024.
Then, on November 11, 2024, Edgewater Research published a report revealing that Nvidia had canceled half of its outstanding Monolithic orders and intended to eliminate Monolithic as a supplier for Nvidia’s most-advanced Blackwell GPU variants due to persistent “[p]erformance issues” with Monolithic’ s power modules. The report further revealed that Nvidia engineers had “lost confidence” in Monolithic after it failed to address performance issues in its voltage regulator model and that Nvidia had decided to pivot to Monolithic’ s competitors as its “primary suppliers.” Corroborating these claims, the report noted that Monolithic’ s competitors had received “rush orders” in recent weeks for components related to Nvidia’s most-advanced Blackwell models. On this news, the price of Monolithic common stock declined $113.99 per share, or approximately 14.97%, from a close of $761.30 per share on November 8, 2024, to close at $647.31 per share on November 11, 2024.
The complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Monolithic’ s voltage regulator modules and power management integrated circuits were suffering from significant performance and quality control issues; (2) these defects had, in turn, negatively impacted the performance of certain products offered by Nvidia in which such products were used; (3) Monolithic had failed to adequately address and resolve known issues affecting the performance of the power management solutions Monolithic supplied to Nvidia; (4) Monolithic’ s relationship with Nvidia had been irreparably damaged due to the significant performance and quality control problems affecting the products it supplied to Nvidia and Monolithic’ s failure to adequately address such issues; and (5) as a result of the above, Monolithic was acutely exposed to material undisclosed risks of significant business, financial, and reputational harm.
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.