Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. Urges Fortinet, Fluor, and Fiserv Investors to Contact the Firm Regarding their Rights
1. Class actions initiated against Fiserv, Fortinet, and Fluor for misleading statements.
2. Fiserv's guidance revisions and project delays raised investor concerns.
3. Fortinet's stock fell over 22% due to misrepresentations on upgrades.
4. Investor lawsuits have lead plaintiff deadlines approaching in late 2025.
5. Potential financial impacts assessed as management faces legal scrutiny.
The class action lawsuits and stock price drop indicate significant distrust. Historically, companies facing similar lawsuits experience declines in market confidence and stock valuation.
How important is it?
The lawsuits and guidance issues directly affect investor confidence and stock value. Negative legal outcomes can lead to additional financial distress.
Why Short Term?
Immediate effects expected as news of lawsuits instigates market reaction; longer-term developments depend on lawsuit outcomes.
NEW YORK, Nov. 12, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., a nationally recognized shareholder rights law firm, reminds investors that class actions have been commenced on behalf of stockholders of Fortinet, Inc. (NASDAQ:FTNT), Fluor Corporation (NYSE:FLR), and Fiserv, Inc. (NYSE:FI). Stockholders have until the deadlines below to petition the court to serve as lead plaintiff. Additional information about each case can be found at the link provided.
The Fortinet class action lawsuit alleges that: (i) defendants knew that the refresh cycle would never be as lucrative as they represented, nor could it, because it consisted of old products that were a "small percentage" of Fortinet's business; (ii) defendants misrepresented and concealed that they did not have a clear picture of the true number of FortiGate firewalls that could be upgraded; and (iii) while telling investors that the refresh would gain momentum over the course of two years, Fortinet misrepresented and concealed that it had aggressively pushed through roughly half of the refresh in a period of months, by the end of the second quarter of 2025.
The Fortinet class action lawsuit further alleges that on August 6, 2025, Fortinet revealed during its earnings call that Fortinet was already "approximately 40% to 50% of the way through the 2026 upgrade cycle at the end of the second quarter [of 2025]." The complaint also alleges that defendants: (i) admitted that "it's hard[] for us to predict" the total number of FortiGates requiring an upgrade; (ii) suggested customers had "excess [firewall] capacity from [purchasing firewalls in] prior years" and therefore did not need to upgrade; and (iii) revealed that the refresh could not have had "much business impact" as it consisted of only a "small percentage" of Fortinet's business because the products were "12 to 15 years" old and had been sold at a time when Fortinet's business was 5-10 times smaller, meaning that the total number of FortiGates eligible for an upgrade was inherently limited.
On this news, the price of Fortinet common stock fell more than 22%, according to the complaint.
The Complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding Fluor's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) costs associated with the Gordie Howe, I-635/LBJ, and I-35 projects were growing because of, inter alia, subcontractor design errors, price increases, and scheduling delays; (ii) 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 the Company's business and financial results; (iv) accordingly, Fluor's financial guidance for FY 2025 was unreliable and/or unrealistic, the effectiveness of the Company's risk mitigation strategy was overstated, and the impact of economic uncertainty on the Company's business and financial results was understated; and (v) as a result, Defendants' public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.
The Class Action alleges that, during the Class Period, Defendants made misleading statements and omissions regarding the Company's initiatives and projects. In July 2025, Fiserv revised its 2025 guidance. Fiserv told the market that its guidance changes were based on a review, termed a "re-underwrit[ing]," of the Company's new initiatives and products. The Company told investors that although certain of those initiatives and projects were delayed, they were fundamentally sound.
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. is a nationally recognized law firm with offices in New York, South Carolina, and California. The firm represents individual and institutional investors in securities, derivative, and commercial litigation as well as individuals in consumer protection and data privacy litigation. The firm has a nationwide practice and routinely handles cases in both federal and state courts. For more information about the firm, please visit www.bespc.com. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes.
Follow us for updates on LinkedIn, X, and Facebook, and keep up with other news by following Brandon Walker, Esq. on LinkedIn and X.
