공시 • Jul 29
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit on Behalf of Lockheed Martin Corporation Investors
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP announced that it has filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, captioned Khan v. Lockheed Martin Corporation, et al., Case No. 1:25-cv-06197, on behalf of persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired Lockheed Martin Corporation securities between January 23, 2024 and July 21, 2025, inclusive (the "Class Period"). Plaintiff pursues claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act"). Investors are hereby notified that they have 60 days from the date of this notice to move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff in this action. The complaint filed in this class action alleges that throughout the Class Period, Court 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, Court failed to disclose to investors: (1) that Lockheed Martin lacked effective internal controls regarding its materially risk adjusted contracts including the reporting of its risk adjusted profit. The Company explained "as a result of performance trends" and "in contemplation of near-term program milestones," it had "performed a comprehensive review of the program requirements, technical complexities, schedule, and risks" based on which it recognized $555 million of losses in its Aeronautics program. The Company further reported additional losses of approximately $1.3 billion in its Missiles and Fire Control business due to, among other things, the " future requirements of the program, discussions with the customer and suppliers." As a result, the Company reported sharply lower net earnings of $342 million, or $1.46 per share, including $1.6 billion of program losses and $169 million of other charges. On this news, the Company's share price fell $49.79 or 10.8%, to close at $410.74 on July 22, 2025, on July 22, 2025, before the market opened, Lockheed Martin disclosed it was forced to record an additional $1.6 billion in pre-tax losses on classified programs, including $950 million in losses related to its Aeronautics Classified program due to "design, integration, and test challenges, as well as other performance issues." The Company also recorded $570 million in losses on its Canadian Maritime Helicopter Program due in part to providing "add additional mission capabilities, enhanced logistical support, fleet life extension, and revised expectations regarding flight hours." The Company further recorded a $95 million charge related to its Turkish Utility Helicopter Program due to the " current status of the program." As a result, the company reported sharply lower net earnings of $342 million, or $1.46 per share, including $2.46 per share, including $169 million of other charges. On this news, the Company’s share price fell $49.79 or 10.8%, to close at $410.74 on July 22, 2025, on unusually heavy trading volume. 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 Lockheed Martin lacked effective internal controls regarding its purportedly risk adjusted contracts including the reporting of its risk adjusted profit booking rate; (2) that Lockheed Martin lacked effective procedures to perform reasonably accurate comprehensive reviews of program requirements, technical complexities, schedule, and risks; (3) that Lockheed Martin overstated its ability to deliver on its contract commitments in terms of cost, quality and schedule; (4) that, as a result, the Company was reasonably likely to report significant losses; and (5) 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.