Investors who purchased or acquired Bloom Energy Corporation (NYSE: BE) securities between February 27, 2025, and July 8, 2026, have until September 28, 2026, to seek appointment as lead plaintiff in the ongoing securities class action lawsuit. Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP issued a reminder on September 18, 2026, and again on September 21, 2026. Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP highlighted the date on September 17, 2026, and reminded investors of their rights on September 18, 2026. Glancy Prongay Wolke & Rotter LLP also issued a reminder on September 21, 2026.

The case, captioned Nevins v. Bloom Energy Corporation (No. 26-cv-07944) in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, alleges that Bloom Energy and certain executives misled the market about its reliance on Chinese scandium for solid oxide fuel cells. The complaint follows a July 8, 2026, report by Hunterbrook Media titled "Bloom’s Big Lie," which cited trade data and satellite imagery to claim dependence on Chinese sources. Bloom Energy’s stock fell $15.28, or 5.7%, to close at $254.29 per share on unusually heavy volume following the report.

Case Allegations and Background

The action contends that defendants failed to disclose that Bloom Energy obtained scandium through intermediaries who sourced the metal from China. The complaint alleges that these omissions made positive statements about the company’s business and operations materially misleading. Specifically, the filing challenges disclosures stating that Bloom’s "supply chain is not dependent on China" and "does not have significant exposure to China."

Supply Chain Rerouting Allegations

The complaint details allegations that Bloom Energy rerouted its supply chain to mitigate U.S. tariff policies. A Chinese sensor supplier reportedly told the Shenzhen Stock Exchange in November 2025 that Bloom had begun changing its supply-chain process. This involved directing shipments not to the United States but to "other overseas suppliers," such as Kaori Heat Treatment in Taiwan and MTAR Technologies in India, who completed assembly before shipping to the U.S.

As pleaded, scandium reached Bloom’s U.S. operations along four China-linked routes:

• Scandium oxide shipped directly to the Newark, Delaware plant on at least four occasions between August 2023 and May 2024.
• Scandium-bearing ceramics and powders moving through intermediaries in Thailand, Japan, and South Korea.

Operational Sourcing Data

The complaint cites specific trade volumes to support allegations of understated dependence on Chinese material:

• More than 154 metric tons of ceramic electrolyte membranes shipped to Bloom from a Thailand-based subsidiary of a Chinese group between July 2024 and November 2025.
• Nearly 300 drums of "scandia" or "scandia-stabilized" powder received from a Japanese supplier whose corporate network includes a Chinese zirconium-compounds trading subsidiary.
• 127 billion won ($83 million) in 2025 purchases by a South Korean electrolyte materials supplier from its Chinese parent’s Hong Kong unit.
• More than 70% of Bloom’s temperature sensor purchases attributed to a single Chinese manufacturer over a roughly two-decade relationship.
• Approximately 50 billion won in expected Korean ceramic substrate production capacity tied to expanding Bloom orders.

Disclosure Gaps Alleged

The complaint challenges several alleged disclosure gaps in Bloom Energy’s periodic reports:

• Filings affirmatively stated the supply chain was "not dependent on China" rather than disclosing alleged indirect sourcing through intermediaries.
• Alleged sourcing of scandium-bearing ceramics and powders through Thailand, Japan, and South Korea was allegedly not sufficiently disclosed in risk factor language.
• Tariff and export-control risk was framed around "other countries where we do source materials," allegedly understating exposure to Beijing’s rare earth export controls.
• The stated adverse gross margin impact of approximately one percent for fiscal year 2025, against 29% margin guidance, allegedly reflected an incomplete picture of tariff exposure.
• Tier 2 and tier 3 framing allegedly did not address a supplier that described itself in a November 2025 Shenzhen Stock Exchange filing as accounting for more than 70% of Bloom’s purchases of a key sensor component.

Investor Action and Legal Representation

Under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995, any investor who purchased or acquired Bloom Energy securities during the Class Period may seek appointment as lead plaintiff. The lead plaintiff is generally the movant with the greatest financial interest in the relief sought who is also typical and adequate of the putative class. An investor’s ability to share in any potential future recovery is not dependent upon serving as lead plaintiff.

Multiple law firms are representing the class, including Kirby McInerney LLP, Bernstein Liebhard LLP, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, Schall, Brown & Schwartz LLP, Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP, DJS Law Group, Levi & Korsinsky LLP, The Rosen Law Firm, Glancy Prongay Wolke & Rotter LLP, Pomerantz LLP, Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP, The Law Offices of Frank R. Cruz, and Robbins LLP.

Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP highlighted its ranking as No. 1 on the most recent ISS Securities Class Action Services Top 50 Report, recovering more than $916 million for investors in 2025. This marks the firm's fourth No. 1 ranking in the past five years. Over those five years, Robbins Geller recovered $8.4 billion for investors, citing landmark cases including the $7.2 billion recovery in In re Enron Corp. Sec. Litig.

Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP noted recoveries exceeding $10 billion over more than 50 years, including a $2.425 billion recovery for Bank of America shareholders and an $800 million recovery in ATRS v. Allianz Global Investors. The firm also cited a $475 million settlement in In re Merrill Lynch. Kaplan Fox emphasized its recognition from Chambers and Partners, Benchmark Litigation, Super Lawyers, and Lawdragon.

Levi & Korsinsky emphasized that eligibility is based on purchase date and documented losses, not on whether shares are still held. The Rosen Law Firm encouraged investors with losses in excess of $100,000 to secure counsel, noting its ranking as No. 1 by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities class action settlements in 2017. Glancy Prongay Wolke & Rotter LLP reminded investors of the September 28, 2026, deadline to file a lead plaintiff motion.

Robbins LLP stated it represents investors on a contingency fee basis and has helped restore more than $1 billion in value to shareholders. Founding Partner Brian J. Robbins emphasized the firm's focus on corporate governance and shareholder transparency.

Investors interested in the case may contact:

• Levi & Korsinsky LLP (SueWallSt): Joseph E. Levi at jlevi@levikorsinsky.com or (212) 363-7500; or (888) SueWallSt.
• The Rosen Law Firm: Phillip Kim at case@rosenlegal.com or (866) 767-3653; Laurence Rosen at (212) 686-1060.
• Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP: Ken Dolitsky or Michael Albert at (800) 851-7783 or info@rgrdlaw.com .
• Schall, Brown & Schwartz LLP: Brian Schall or David Schwartz at 310-301-3335 or info@schallfirm.com .
• Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP: Pamela A. Mayer at pmayer@kaplanfox.com or (646) 315-9003; Laurence D. King at lking@kaplanfox.com or (415) 772-4704.
• Kirby McInerney LLP: Lauren Molinaro at investigations@kmllp.com or (212) 699-1171.
• Bernstein Liebhard LLP: Peter Allocco at pallocco@bernlieb.com or (212) 951-2030.
• Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C.: Brandon Walker or Melissa Fortunato at investigations@bespc.com or (212) 355-4648.
• Glancy Prongay Wolke & Rotter LLP: Charles Linehan at shareholders@glancylaw.com or (310) 201-9150; Toll-Free: (888) 773-9224.
• Pomerantz LLP: Danielle Peyton at newaction@pomlaw.com or 646-581-9980 ext. 7980.
• Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP: James (Josh) Wilson at 877-247-4292 or 212-983-9330 (Ext. 1310).
• The Law Offices of Frank R. Cruz: info@frankcruzlaw.com or 310-914-5007.
• Robbins LLP: Aaron Dumas, Jr. via email or (800) 350-6003.

Bloom Energy Corp (NYSE: BE) shares rose 3.69% to $279.99 on Thursday, driven by a broader rebound in risk assets amid falling crude oil prices and retreating bond yields.

The rally followed two rough trading sessions for Wall Street. Investors returned to growth names as macro pressures eased after the Federal Reserve implemented its first rate hike in roughly three years. The move brought the federal funds rate to a fresh 3.75%-4% range, with Fed Chair Kevin Warsh and all voting FOMC members agreeing to the quarter-point increase.

Macro Tailwinds Support Valuation

WTI crude slipped 1.6% to $100.81 per barrel, while Brent fell 2.5% to $103.23, marking its lowest level in a week. These declines helped ease inflation concerns, reducing pressure on the Federal Reserve and encouraging capital flows into riskier assets.

Falling Treasury yields offered a more direct benefit to Bloom Energy. As a capital-intensive business still in its scaling phase, Bloom’s valuation relies heavily on future profits. Lower yields increase the present value of those future earnings. Additionally, reduced yields lower the cost of financing for ongoing expansion through debt or equity, creating a favorable macro backdrop for the company.

Sector Read-Throughs Boost Sentiment

Enthusiasm in the data center power sector was further fueled by developments among peers. Generac Holdings Inc (NYSE: GNRC) announced an arrangement linked to Amazon’s data center expansion. This grants Amazon’s investment arm the right to purchase up to roughly 1.7 million shares at just above $200 each. If fully exercised, this option could result in an $8 billion stake.

Vicor Corp (NASDAQ: VICR) also contributed to the sector rally by revealing a non-exclusive licensing deal for its Vertical Power Delivery technology. The hardware is designed to efficiently route power into demanding AI and networking chips.

Neither deal involves Bloom Energy directly. However, they serve as read-throughs for the broader market. The multibillion-dollar backup power agreement with Amazon and the AI chip power licensing deal point to surging hyperscaler demand for on-site power infrastructure. Investors view this trend as validating for fuel cell providers like Bloom Energy.

What the Numbers Show

The divergence between the Federal Reserve’s tightening cycle and the immediate market reaction highlights investor confidence in future yield reductions. While the central bank raised rates to a 3.75%-4% range, the simultaneous drop in bond yields below 5% suggests markets are pricing in a potential pause or reversal, directly benefiting high-duration assets like Bloom Energy.