A securities class action has been filed against Spirit AeroSystems Holdings, Inc. (SPR) on behalf of persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired Spirit AeroSystems securities between April 8, 2020 through April 13, 2023. This case has been filed in the USDC – S.D.N.Y.
On April 13, 2023, after the market closed, Boeing announced that it would halt deliveries of its 737 MAX aircraft due to a supplier quality problem. According to an article by Barron’s, Boeing issued a statement stating that “the issue will likely affect a significant number of undelivered 737 MAX airplanes.”
The same day, Bloomberg identified Spirit as the supplier of the faulty part. Several media outlets reported the details of the quality problem. An article by Reuters reported that “[t]he problem involves the installation of two fittings that join the aft fuselage made by Spirit to the vertical tail, which were not attached correctly to the structure of the fuselage before it was sent to Boeing.” Reuters also reported that “Spirit said it is working to develop an inspection and repair for the affected fuselages” and that “the problem is believed to date back to 2019.”
On this news, Spirit’s stock price fell $7.38, or 20.7%, to close at $28.22 per share on April 14, 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 Spirit lacked effective production quality controls; (2) that, as a result, Spirit incorrectly installed fittings designed to join the aft fuselage to the vertical tail for some Boeing 737 Max airplanes that Spirit sent to Boeing; (3) that, as a result, Spirit would have to develop an inspection and repair procedure for the affected fuselages; (4) that the foregoing would negatively impact Spirit’s financial results; and (5) 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.