#United States #Class Action #Dallas #Pomerantz LLP #Fluor Corporation

Pomerantz Law Firm Launches Class Action Against Fluor Corporation

Overview
On October 13, 2025, Pomerantz LLP, a leading law firm specializing in class action lawsuits, announced the filing of a significant class action against Fluor Corporation, a major engineering and construction firm, along with some of its senior executives. This lawsuit has been initiated in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division, under the docket number 25-cv-02496. The action represents all individuals and entities that purchased or acquired Fluor's securities from February 18, 2025, to July 31, 2025, seeking to reclaim damages attributed to alleged violations of federal securities laws.

Details of the Allegations
The plaintiffs are targeting Fluor and its officials over misleading statements regarding the company’s performance and fiscal outlook. Specifically, they claim that the company significantly misrepresented its business operations, leading to misleading expectations about financial stability and growth. During the class period, while Fluor executives were promoting the robustness of company operations and downplaying economic uncertainties, they associated poor operational results with rising costs in multiple key infrastructure projects. Notably, these projects included the Gordie Howe International Bridge and improvements to several major highways in Texas.

Documents suggest that Fluor's financial forecast, which initially projected adjusted EBITDA of $575 million to $675 million and adjusted earnings per share (EPS) ranging from $2.25 to $2.75, was based on overstated operational stability and underestimated risks. The defendants' continued assurance regarding these projections in May 2025, despite recognizing potential adverse effects from economic uncertainties, is central to the case.

In reality, increasing costs attributed to subcontractor design errors, unexpected price hikes, and scheduling delays were negatively impacting the company's financial results, a fact disclosed somewhat reluctantly during a conference call with investors following disappointing second-quarter results released on August 1, 2025. At that time, Fluor revealed that its non-GAAP EPS was $0.43, falling short of analyst estimates, and its revenue experienced a year-over-year decline.

Investor Impact and Stock Price Reaction
The fallout from these revelations proved significant as Fluor's stock plummeted by over 27% on the announcement day, reflecting investors' lack of confidence stemming from the earlier assurances provided by the company's leadership. This dramatic price drop serves to highlight the potential financial impacts on those who invested during the class period, reinforcing the necessity of the class action filing.

What This Means for Investors
Investors who believe they have incurred losses due to these alleged misrepresentations have until November 14, 2025, to seek court appointment as Lead Plaintiff in this class action. The law firm encourages affected individuals to promptly reach out for assistance, with necessary contact details provided. A copy of the complaint can be easily accessed via Pomerantz's website.

About Pomerantz LLP
Pomerantz is renowned for its commitment to protecting investors through securities law. Established by Abraham L. Pomerantz, a pioneer in the class action field, the firm has a rich history of accomplishing significant recoveries for clients impacted by securities fraud. With offices across major cities, including New York and London, Pomerantz remains at the forefront of legal advocacy focused on corporate accountability and investor rights.

Conclusion
As this lawsuit unfolds, all eyes will be on Fluor Corporation and the outcomes from this legal battle. The company, known for its extensive engineering services and major infrastructure projects globally, now faces increased scrutiny concerning its operational integrity and shareholder transparency. If the court rules in favor of the plaintiffs, this case could set a precedent and impact future securities litigation involving misrepresentation and corporate governance failures.