A securities class action has been filed against Bloom Energy Corporation (BE) on behalf of persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired Bloom Energy securities between February 27, 2025 through July 8, 2026. This case has been filed in the USDC – NDCA.
Bloom Energy Corporation develops and manufactures solid oxide fuel cell systems that generate electricity for commercial and industrial customers. The Company’s common stock is publicly traded, and during the relevant period Bloom Energy issued statements concerning its supply chain, raw material sourcing, and business operations. Recent reports have raised questions regarding whether investors were provided complete and accurate information concerning the Company’s dependence on foreign sources for critical materials.
On July 8, 2026, at approximately 1:00 p.m. EST, Hunterbrook Media published a report alleging, among other things, that “Bloom is, in fact, reliant on Chinese scandium, according to global trade data, Chinese corporate filings, satellite imagery, and Hunterbrook’s messages with Bloom’s suppliers in China.”1 The report states “Hunterbrook traced four separate China-linked routes into Bloom’s supply chain — scandium oxide shipped directly to its Delaware plant, plus scandium-bearing ceramics and powders flowing through intermediaries in Thailand, Japan, and South Korea.”
On this news, Bloom’s stock price fell $15.28, or 5.7%, to close at $254.29 per share on July 8, 2026, on unusually heavy trading volume.
The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company’s business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to investors: (1) that Bloom Energy obtained scandium through intermediaries who sourced the metal from China; (2) that, as a result, the Company understated the extent to which it relied on scandium from China; and (3) that, as a result of the foregoing, Defendants’ positive statements about the Company’s business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.