Bloom Energy class action adds Acting CFO Kurzymski as defendant
Investors in Bloom Energy Corporation (NYSE: BE) have until Monday, September 28, 2026, to seek appointment as lead plaintiff in the ongoing securities class action lawsuit. The case, captioned Nevins v. Bloom Energy Corporation, No. 26-cv-07944 (N.D. Cal.), charges the company and certain top executives with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The complaint specifically names Maciej Kurzymski, who served as the company’s Acting Principal Financial Officer from May 2, 2025, until April 12, 2026.
*this image is generated using AI for illustrative purposes only.
Investors in Bloom Energy Corporation (NYSE: BE) have until Monday, September 28, 2026, to seek appointment as lead plaintiff in the ongoing securities class action lawsuit. The case, captioned Nevins v. Bloom Energy Corporation, No. 26-cv-07944 (N.D. Cal.), charges the company and certain top executives with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
The complaint specifically names Maciej Kurzymski, who served as the company’s Acting Principal Financial Officer from May 2, 2025, until April 12, 2026. The lawsuit alleges that Kurzymski held authority over the contents of SEC reports and financial disclosures during his tenure, which spanned three of the challenged periodic filings. These include quarterly reports for periods ended June 30, 2025, and September 30, 2025, and the annual report for fiscal year 2025 filed on February 5, 2026. CEO KR Sridhar is also named as an individual defendant.
The class period runs from February 27, 2025, through July 8, 2026, inclusive. According to Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, which is actively involved in the case, investors who purchased or acquired Bloom Energy securities during this window can apply to serve as lead plaintiff. This role allows shareholders to direct litigation strategy and select counsel, though an investor’s ability to share in any potential future recovery is not dependent upon serving in this capacity.
Market Reaction and Allegations
On July 8, 2026, at approximately 1:00 p.m. EST, Hunterbrook Media published a report titled "Bloom’s Big Lie," alleging that Bloom Energy was reliant on Chinese scandium according to global trade data, Chinese corporate filings, satellite imagery, and messages with suppliers. On this news, BE shares fell $15.28, or 5.7%, to close at $254.29 per share on unusually heavy trading volume.
The lawsuit contends that during the Class Period, the market priced BE shares on the understanding that the company had no meaningful China supply chain exposure. The complaint alleges this understanding was the product of allegedly false and misleading statements and omissions. Specifically, SEC filings during the period stated the company’s “supply chain does not have significant exposure to China,” language the action challenges as misleading.
Chronology of Alleged Misstatements
The lawsuit details a sequence of alleged assurances regarding supply chain exposure that were not corrected as circumstances changed. Management’s statements contrasted sharply with later disclosures and investigative findings.
| Date | Alleged Statement or Event |
|---|---|
| Feb 27, 2025 | Q4 earnings call/10-K: Management stated company was "not dependent on China" and supply chain had "no significant exposure." |
| Apr 30, 2025 | Q1 call: Management stated "there is no China supply chain for us" and "we are not dependent on China for scandium." |
| Jul 31, 2025 | Q2 Form 10-Q: Disclosed margin impact but repeated non-dependence claim. |
| Sep 12, 2025 | Semafor interview: CEO stated company would not depend on Chinese supply chain since 2004. |
| Oct 28, 2025 | SEC filings acknowledged China supplies 70% of certain rare earth metals but claimed no significant exposure. |
| Feb 5, 2026 | FY25 10-K: Reiterated no significant exposure, noting China supplies tier 2/3 components. |
| Jun 10, 2026 | Video interview: Management said China was "a country we avoided" since 2005. |
| Jul 7, 2026 | Company blog post: COO discussed supply chain resiliency and multiple sourcing. |
| Jul 8, 2026 | Hunterbrook Media report alleged four China-linked supply routes. |
Supply Chain Allegations and Trade Policy Risks
The lawsuit identifies specific supply chain routes that allegedly bypassed direct disclosure. A representative from Hunan Oriental Scandium was quoted describing itself as "BE’s largest supplier of scandium." Hunterbrook Media traced four separate China-linked routes into Bloom’s supply chain.
| Supply Route | Description | Origin | Destination |
|---|---|---|---|
| Direct Shipment | Scandium oxide shipped directly | China | Bloom’s Delaware plant |
| Intermediary Route 1 | Scandium-bearing ceramics | China | Thailand |
| Intermediary Route 2 | Scandium-bearing powders | China | Japan |
| Intermediary Route 3 | Scandium-bearing materials | China | South Korea |
New details from the complaint highlight the scale and complexity of these alleged exposures. Beijing tightened export controls on rare earths in 2025, elevating the materiality of any China-linked sourcing. Despite this, SEC filings acknowledged China supplies roughly 70% of rare earth metals used in tier 2 and tier 3 sub-assemblies while stating the supply chain was “not dependent on China.”
Further allegations include:
- A Chinese sensor supplier disclosed in November 2025 that it had been directed to route Bloom-bound product through overseas suppliers to mitigate U.S. tariff impact.
- Korean filings show an intermediate supplier purchased 127 billion won ($83 million) from its Chinese parent in 2025.
- Over 154 metric tons of ceramic electrolyte membranes moved through a Thailand-based subsidiary of a Chinese group between July 2024 and November 2025.
Filings disclosed an expected adverse gross margin impact of approximately one percent for fiscal 2025 from tariffs, against 29% margin guidance. The complaint alleges the company failed to disclose that scandium was obtained through intermediaries sourcing the metal from China, making the stated impact estimates potentially unreliable.
Legal Representation
Multiple law firms are actively involved in representing investors in this case. Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, which ranked #1 on the most recent ISS Securities Class Action Services Top 50 Report, recovered more than $916 million for investors in 2025. Schall, Brown & Schwartz LLP (SBS) has also issued reminders to investors regarding the case. Levi & Korsinsky, LLP has joined the effort, noting that the case presents important questions about supply chain disclosure obligations in the clean energy sector. Levi & Korsinsky highlights its ranking in the ISS Top 50 for seven consecutive years.
The Rosen Law Firm, P.A., has also encouraged investors to secure counsel before the deadline, highlighting its track record in securities class actions. Rosen Law Firm notes that many firms issuing notices do not actually handle securities class actions but are merely middlemen that refer clients or partner with law firms that actually litigate the cases. The firm highlights its ranking No. 1 by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities class action settlements in 2017 and its position in the top 4 each year since 2013. Additionally, the firm notes it achieved the largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese company, secured over $438 million for investors in 2019, and had founding partner Laurence Rosen named a Titan of Plaintiffs’ Bar by law360 in 2020.
Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP has also announced its involvement, encouraging investors to contact the firm before the lead plaintiff deadline. Founded in 1956, Kaplan Fox is a nationally recognized firm with offices in New York, Oakland, Los Angeles, Chicago, and New Jersey. The firm has recovered more than $10 billion for clients and classes it has represented, including a $2.425 billion recovery for Bank of America shareholders and an $800 million recovery for the Arkansas Teacher Retirement System. Kaplan Fox highlights its recognition from Chambers and Partners, Benchmark Litigation, Super Lawyers, and Lawdragon. The firm also notes a $475 million settlement in In re Merrill Lynch.
The Gross Law Firm has also issued a notice to shareholders, reminding them of the upcoming deadline. The firm describes itself as nationally recognized and committed to protecting investor rights against deceit and fraud. It emphasizes that there is no cost or obligation to participate in the case and offers portfolio monitoring software for enrolled shareholders.
Robbins LLP has also reminded investors of their rights in the case. The firm states it represents investors on a contingency fee basis, meaning investors never pay attorneys’ fees or litigation expenses. If there is a recovery, defendants pay fees and expenses. Robbins LLP highlights that it has helped restore more than $1 billion in value to shareholders.
Pomerantz LLP has joined the list of firms representing investors. With offices in New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, London, Paris, and Tel Aviv, Pomerantz is acknowledged as one of the premier firms in corporate, securities, and antitrust class litigation. Founded by Abraham L. Pomerantz, the firm has recovered numerous multimillion-dollar damages awards on behalf of class members.
Kirby McInerney LLP has also issued a reminder to investors. The New York-based plaintiffs’ law firm concentrates in securities, antitrust, whistleblower, and consumer litigation. Investors who purchased Bloom Energy securities can contact Lauren Molinaro of Kirby McInerney LLP to discuss their rights or interests in the lawsuit at no cost. The firm notes that courts regularly appoint individual investors as lead plaintiffs, not only institutions.
Other firms involved include Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP, Bernstein Liebhard LLP, Kirby McInerney LLP, Robbins LLP, DJS Law Group, Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC, Law Offices of Frank R. Cruz, and Law Offices of Howard G. Smith.
Investors can contact attorneys Ken Dolitsky or Michael Albert of Robbins Geller at 800/851-7783 or via email at info@rgrdlaw.com . Brian Schall or David Schwartz of Schall, Brown & Schwartz LLP can be reached at 310-301-3335. Joseph E. Levi of Levi & Korsinsky can be contacted at (212) 363-7500 or jlevi@levikorsinsky.com . Phillip Kim of The Rosen Law Firm can be reached at 866-767-3653 or case@rosenlegal.com . Investors may also contact Pamela A. Mayer or Laurence D. King of Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP at (646) 315-9003 or pmayer@kaplanfox.com and lking@kaplanfox.com respectively. Shareholders interested in working with The Gross Law Firm can contact them at (646) 453-8903 or dg@securitiesclasslaw.com . Investors seeking additional information may also contact attorney Aaron Dumas, Jr. of Robbins LLP at (800) 350-6003 or adumas@robbinsllp.com . Danielle Peyton of Pomerantz LLP can be reached at 646-581-9980 ext. 7980 or dpeyton@pomlaw.com . Lauren Molinaro of Kirby McInerney LLP can be contacted at 212-699-1171 or investigations@kmllp.com .
How might the outcome of this litigation influence SEC disclosure requirements for clean energy companies regarding indirect or tier-2/3 supply chain dependencies?
Could the allegations of complex intermediary routing for scandium trigger broader regulatory scrutiny or new export control enforcement actions against U.S. firms sourcing rare earths?
What impact could a significant settlement or adverse ruling have on Bloom Energy's ability to secure future financing or maintain its current valuation multiples?
16
Access Market Heat-map & Insights 
Create, Save & Share your Screener 
Use 200+ Screening Filters 
