A securities class action has been filed against Icahn Enterprises L.P. (IEP) on behalf of persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired Icahn Enterprises securities between August 2, 2018 through May 9, 2023. This case has been filed in the USDC – S.D.FL.
On May 2, 2023, Hindenburg Research published a report alleging, among other things, that Icahn Enterprises’ “last reported indicative year-end [net asset value] of $5.6 billion is inflated by at least 22%.” The report also claimed that the Company operates a “ponzi-like economic structure” and “has been using money taken in from new investors to pay out dividends to old investors.”
On this news, Icahn Enterprises’ share price fell $10.06 per share, or 20%, to close at $40.36 per share on May 2, 2023.
Then, on May 10, 2023, before the market opened, Icahn Enterprises filed its Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q with the SEC for the period ended March 31, 2023. Therein, the Company stated that the U.S. Attorney’s office for the Southern District of New York contacted Icahn Enterprises on May 3, 2023 seeking production of information relating to the Company, certain of its affiliates’ “corporate governance, capitalization, securities offerings, dividends, valuation, marketing materials, due diligence and other materials.” The Company claimed it is “cooperating with the request” and is “providing documents in response to the voluntary request for information.”
On this news, Icahn Enterprises’ share price fell $5.75 per share, or 15.1%, to close at $32.22 per share on May 10, 2023.
The complaint filed in this class action 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 Icahn Enterprises was inflating its net asset value; (2) that the Company was using money taken in from new investors to pay out dividends to old investors; (3) that, as a result, the Company would become the subject of criminal and/or regulatory scrutiny; and (4) that as a result of the foregoing, Defendant’s positive statements about the Company’s business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.