Back

Zymergen Inc.

Case Details

Class Period: April 20, 2021 - August 4, 2021
Date Filed: August 08, 2021
Case Number: 3:21cv06028
Jurisdiction: California Northern District Court
icon-casetype Case Type: Securities Case
Days Left to
Seek Plaintiff:
8

Case Summary

In April 2021, Zymergen completed its IPO, selling approximately 18.5 million shares of common stock at $31 per share. On August 3, 2021, after the market closed, Zymergen issued a business update stating that it “recently became aware of issues with its commercial product pipeline that will impact the Company’s delivery timeline and revenue projections.” Specifically, “several key target customers encountered technical issues in implementing Hyaline into their manufacturing processes,” and Zymergen also found that its total addressable market appears to be smaller than previously expected. As a result, Zymergen “no longer expects product revenue in 2021, and expects product revenue to be immaterial in 2022.” The Company also announced that its CEO was stepping down, effective immediately. On this news, the Company’s stock price fell $26.58 per share, or 76%, to close at $8.25 per share on August 4, 2021, representing a nearly 73% decline from the IPO price. The Registration Statement was materially false and misleading and omitted to state material adverse facts. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to investors: (1) that, during the qualification process for Hyaline, key customers had encountered technical issues, including product shrinkage and incompatibility with customers’ processes; (2) that, though the qualification process was critical to achieving market acceptance for Hyaline and generating revenue, Zymergen lacked visibility into the qualification process; (3) that, as a result, the Company overestimated demand for its products; (4) that, as a result of the foregoing, the Company’s product delivery timeline was reasonably likely to be delayed, which in turn would delay revenue generation; and (5) that, as a result of the foregoing, Defendants’ positive statements about the Company’s business, operations, and prospects, were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

Documents
Complaint