The complaint filed alleges that, between May 12, 2025 and November 14, 2025, Defendants failed to disclose to investors that DeFi was facing delays in executing its DeFi arbitrage strategy, which at all relevant times was a key revenue driver for the Company; DeFi had understated the extent of competition it faced from other DAT companies and the extent to which that competition would negatively impact its ability to execute its DeFi arbitrage strategy; as a result of the foregoing issues, the Company was unlikely to meet its previously issued revenue guidance for the fiscal year 2025; accordingly, Defendants had downplayed the true scope and severity of the negative impact that the foregoing issues were having on DeFi Technologies’ business and financial results; and as a result, Defendants’ positive statements about the Company’s business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading and lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times.
The complaint alleges that, between May 12, 2025 and November 14, 2025, Defendants failed to disclose to investors that DeFi was facing delays in executing its DeFi arbitrage strategy, a key revenue driver for the company; DeFi had understated the extent of competition it faced from other DAT companies and the impact of that competition on its ability to execute the arbitrage strategy; as a result, the company was unlikely to meet its previously issued revenue guidance for 2025; Defendants downplayed the true scope and severity of the negative impact on DeFi Technologies’ business and financial results; and as a result, Defendants’ positive statements about the company’s business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading and lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times.
Leave a Reply