Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP has announced that investors who bought NuScale Power Corporation (NYSE: SMR) Class A common stock between May 13, 2025 and November 6, 2025 (the “Class Period”) have until April 20, 2026 to apply for appointment as lead plaintiff in a securities class action. The case, titled Truedson v. NuScale Power Corporation, No. 26-cv-00328 (D. Or.), alleges violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against NuScale, certain senior executives, and Fluor Corporation.
Investors who experienced significant losses and wish to pursue the role of lead plaintiff may submit their information through the firm’s website or contact attorney J.C. Sanchez at 800-449-4900 or via email at info@rgrdlaw.com .
Investors who experienced significant losses and wish to pursue the role of lead plaintiff may submit their information through the firm’s website or contact attorney J.C. Sanchez at 800-449-4900 or via email at info@rgrdlaw.com .
Allegations in the Case
NuScale’s primary technology, the NuScale Power Module (NPM), is a small modular nuclear reactor intended for use in larger energy facilities. Before the Class Period began, NuScale formed a worldwide commercialization partnership with ENTRA1 Energy LLC, presenting the alliance as a key step toward moving its NPM technology from development to commercial deployment. Confidence in this strategy appeared to grow when, on September 2, 2025, ENTRA1 and the Tennessee Valley Authority announced an agreement to develop facilities capable of delivering up to six gigawatts of nuclear power.
The lawsuit, however, contends that throughout the Class Period, defendants made misleading statements or omitted material information. Specifically, the complaint alleges that:
The lawsuit, however, contends that throughout the Class Period, defendants made misleading statements or omitted material information. Specifically, the complaint alleges that:
- ENTRA1 had no track record of building, financing, or operating major projects, particularly in the highly specialized nuclear energy sector.
- NuScale committed substantial capital and entrusted commercialization, distribution, and deployment of its NPM technology to a partner lacking meaningful experience in nuclear facility ownership or operations.
- The qualifications cited by defendants largely related to individuals associated with the Habboush Group—an entity separate from ENTRA1 and without notable nuclear energy expertise.
- These factors exposed NuScale’s commercialization strategy to significant, undisclosed risks, including potential delays, regulatory hurdles, and project failures.
The complaint further alleges that on November 6, 2025, NuScale disclosed that its general and administrative expenses had surged to $519 million in the third fiscal quarter, compared to $17 million during the same period the prior year. The increase was reportedly driven in large part by a $495 million payment to ENTRA1 connected to the TVA agreement. Consequently, NuScale’s quarterly net loss expanded to $532 million, up from $46 million year-over-year.
During the related earnings call, analysts questioned whether ENTRA1 possessed adequate experience to manage and operate the nuclear facilities outlined in the TVA arrangement. NuScale’s CEO, John L. Hopkins, also stated that the agreement contemplated up to 72 NPM units, suggesting milestone payments to ENTRA1 could exceed $3 billion. Following these disclosures, NuScale’s Class A share price fell more than 12% over two trading days.
During the related earnings call, analysts questioned whether ENTRA1 possessed adequate experience to manage and operate the nuclear facilities outlined in the TVA arrangement. NuScale’s CEO, John L. Hopkins, also stated that the agreement contemplated up to 72 NPM units, suggesting milestone payments to ENTRA1 could exceed $3 billion. Following these disclosures, NuScale’s Class A share price fell more than 12% over two trading days.
Lead Plaintiff Information
Under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995, investors who purchased NuScale Class A common stock during the Class Period may petition the court to serve as lead plaintiff. Typically, the court appoints the investor with the largest financial stake who also satisfies requirements of adequacy and typicality. The lead plaintiff represents the interests of all class members and selects legal counsel for the case. Importantly, participation in any future recovery does not depend on serving as lead plaintiff.
]]>
