SAN DIEGO–(BUSINESS WIRE)–#AIstock–The law firm of Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP announces that purchasers or acquirers of, Inc. (NYSE: AI): (a) Class A common stock pursuant and/or traceable to the offering documents issued in connection with’s initial public offering conducted on or about December 9, 2020 (the “IPO”); and/or (b) securities between December 9, 2020 and February 15, 2022, both dates inclusive (the “Class Period”) have until May 3, 2022 to seek appointment as lead plaintiff. Commenced on March 4, 2022, the class action lawsuit – captioned The Reckstin Family Trust v., Inc., No. 22-cv-01413 (N.D. Cal.) – charges, as well as certain of its top executive officers and directors with violations of the Securities Act of 1933 and/or Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

If you suffered significant losses and wish to serve as lead plaintiff of the class action lawsuit, please provide your information by clicking here. You can also contact attorney J.C. Sanchez of Robbins Geller by calling 800/449-4900 or via e-mail at Lead plaintiff motions for the class action lawsuit must be filed with the court no later than May 3, 2022.

CASE ALLEGATIONS: operates as an enterprise artificial intelligence (“AI”) software company. purports to have strategic partnerships with Baker Hughes related to oil and gas markets; FIS related to financial services markets; Raytheon; and AWS, Intel, and Microsoft. Pursuant to the IPO’s offering documents, issued 15.5 million shares of its Class A common stock to the public at the IPO price of $42.00 per share for approximate proceeds to of $610 million after applicable underwriting discounts and commissions.

The class action lawsuit alleges that the IPO’s offering documents were negligently prepared and, as a result, contained untrue statements of material fact or omitted to state other facts necessary to make the statements made not misleading and were not prepared in accordance with the rules and regulations governing their preparation. The lawsuit further alleges that the IPO’s offering documents and defendants throughout the Class Period made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i)’s partnership with Baker Hughes was deteriorating; (ii) was employing a flawed accounting methodology to conceal the deterioration of its Baker Hughes partnership; (iii) faced challenges in product adoption and significant salesforce turnover; (iv) overstated, among other things, the extent of its investment in technology, description of its customers, its total addressable market (“TAM”), the pace of its market growth, and the scale of alliances with its major business partners; and (v) as a result,’s public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

On February 16, 2022, Spruce Point Capital Management issued a report and strong sell research opinion regarding Specifically, Spruce Point alleged that it had uncovered, among other things, “[e]vidence of a severely challenged partnership with Baker Hughes, a related-party and’s largest customer”; “[s]igns of problematic financial reporting and accounting regarding the Baker Hughes joint venture and a revolving door in’s Chief Financial Officer position”; that “[c]hallenges in product adoption and significant salesforce turnover make it unlikely that will meet aggressive analyst estimates”; “[e]vidence of exaggerated or irreconcilable claims made by,” including “numerous discrepancies” regarding “the value of and cumulative investment made by in its technology, description of its customers, its [TAM], the pace of its market growth and the scale of alliances with companies such as Microsoft, Hewlett Packard Enterprises, Google Cloud, Intel and Amazon Web Services”; and “[w]orrisome corporate governance practices and insider enrichment.” As a result, Spruce Point “conservatively estimate[d] 40% – 50% downside risk to’s share price.” Following publication of the Spruce Point report,’s stock price fell by nearly 4%.

As of the time the class action lawsuit was filed, the price of Class A common stock continues to trade below the $42.00 per share IPO price, damaging investors.

THE LEAD PLAINTIFF PROCESS: The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 permits any investor who purchased Class A common stock pursuant and/or traceable to the offering documents issued in connection with the IPO and/or securities during the Class Period to seek appointment as lead plaintiff in the class action lawsuit. A lead plaintiff is generally the movant with the greatest financial interest in the relief sought by the putative class who is also typical and adequate of the putative class. A lead plaintiff acts on behalf of all other class members in directing the class action lawsuit. The lead plaintiff can select a law firm of its choice to litigate the class action lawsuit. An investor’s ability to share in any potential future recovery of the class action lawsuit is not dependent upon serving as lead plaintiff.

ABOUT ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP: Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP is one of the world’s leading complex class action firms representing plaintiffs in securities fraud cases. The Firm is ranked #1 on the 2021 ISS Securities Class Action Services Top 50 Report for recovering nearly $2 billion for investors last year alone – more than triple the amount recovered by any other plaintiffs’ firm. With 200 lawyers in 9 offices, Robbins Geller’s attorneys have obtained many of the largest securities class action recoveries in history, including the largest securities class action recovery ever – $7.2 billion – in In re Enron Corp. Sec. Litig. Please visit for more information.

Attorney advertising.

Past results do not guarantee future outcomes.

Services may be performed by attorneys in any of our offices.


Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP

655 W. Broadway, San Diego, CA 92101

J.C. Sanchez, 800-449-4900