Cases
Enovix Corporation
Securities Class Action
Overview
Overview
- Date:
- 1/10/2023
- Company Name:
- Enovix Corporation
- Stock Symbol:
- ENVX
- Class Period:
- FROM 2/22/2021 TO 1/3/2023
- Status:
- Filed
- Filing Date:
- 1/6/2023
- Court:
- U.S. District Court: Northern California
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., a nationally recognized stockholder rights law firm, announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed against Enovix Corporation (“Enovix” or the “Company”) (NASDAQ: ENVX) in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on behalf of all persons and entities who purchased or otherwise acquired Enovix securities between February 22, 2021, and January 3, 2023, both dates inclusive (the “Class Period”). Investors have until March 7, 2023 to apply to the Court to be appointed as lead plaintiff in the lawsuit.
Enovix purports to design, develop, and manufacture silicon-anode lithium-ion batteries using proprietary 3D cell architecture, which the Company claims allow its batteries to achieve higher energy density. Enovix hopes to customize and deliver its batteries to other companies which can then incorporate them into their consumer electronics, such as wearable smartwatches, VR headsets, laptop computers, mobile phones, and electric vehicles. Since launching in 2007, the Company has focused on developing and commercializing its batteries. It did not generate any revenue from its products until the second quarter of 2022.
On February 22, 2021, Enovix announced plans to become a publicly traded company. At that time, Enovix set an “ambitious goal” to both develop its own U.S.-based manufacturing line and to begin delivering products to customers (thereby recognizing its first product revenue) by the second quarter of 2022.
Five months after this announcement, on July 15, 2021, Enovix became a publicly traded company. Rather than go public through a traditional initial public offering (“IPO”), Enovix used a novel method that sidesteps the normal regulatory framework and shareholder protections of the traditional IPO. Enovix merged with a special purpose acquisition company (“SPAC”), a public shell corporation with no business of its own other than to acquire a private company. On July 14, 2021, Enovix was officially acquired by RSVAC, which then changed its name to Enovix Corporation. As a result of this “de-SPAC” transaction, RSVAC’s publicly-traded shares became shares of Enovix when trading opened on the Nasdaq Global Select Market (“Nasdaq”) the following day.
RSVAC’s Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, Defendant Rodgers, stayed on as a member of Enovix’s board of directors following the de-SPAC transaction.
Enovix raised $405 million from investors through its de-SPAC merger with RSVAC. In a July 14, 2021 press release, the Company announced that the gross cash proceeds raised through the transaction would “allow Enovix to build out its first two production facilities to support demand from blue chip customers in the global mobile computing market while continuing to develop cells for Electric Vehicles (EVs).”
Throughout the Class Period, starting with statements made at the time of the deSPAC, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about Enovix’s revenues and ability to manufacture its proprietary battery technology.
For Enovix, developing advanced battery technology was not enough. The Company would also have to create a process to manufacture its batteries at a large enough scale to satisfy the needs of its customers. Otherwise, it could not monetize its proprietary technology. To borrow the Company’s own words, it hoped to “evolve from a company focused predominantly on R&D to a company capable of volume production and commercialization.”
Enovix’s CEO, Defendant Harrold Rust, stressed the importance of manufacturing in statements made when the Company went public. In a July 14, 2021 press release, Rust stated that Enovix was “focused on producing the first advanced silicon-anode lithium-ion battery for mass-market applications from our U.S. manufacturing facility.” Defendant Rodgers added: “We believe that Enovix will be the first to deliver at scale due to its proprietary 3D cell architecture, world-class team and automated manufacturing. With five design wins with major technology leaders, Enovix is years ahead of other battery companies. Even better, it has a plan to maintain that lead.”
Just months before the merger, Enovix had received key equipment to establish its first manufacturing line at its “Fab-1” facility in Fremont, California. Although Enovix had previously produced and delivered sample batteries using its pilot production line, the pilot line produced only 20 batteries per day. Building a full-scale production facility was therefore a key step to producing batteries at a commercial level. Because of the global COVID-19 pandemic, the Company resorted to chartering a Ukrainian Antonov An-124, one of the largest cargo planes on the planet, to ensure that its equipment reached Fab-1 on schedule. Enovix thereby narrowly avoided a three-month delay in the buildout of its Fab-1 facility, a delay that would have prevented the Company from having a single manufacturing line in place by the time it went public in July
2021.
In November 2021, Enovix announced to its investors that it had begun developing a second automated production line at its Fab-1 facility. This was a significant development for Enovix. The second line, it told investors, would be a “workhorse” focusing on batteries for mobile electronics, such as laptops and smartphones, thereby supporting Enovix’s “ramp” to achieve meaningful scale and revenue in the consumer electronics market starting in 2023.
Enovix assured its investors in a March 2022 letter that moving from the R&D to the production phase would “distinguish us from other advanced battery companies that have claimed technology breakthroughs but remain years away from commercialization.” Revenue was just on the horizon, according to Defendants, and thanks to its use of sample batteries to drum up customer interest, the Company already had a $1.5 billion “revenue funnel” that it could tap into as soon as it could produce at scale.
To that end, Enovix also began to develop plans for a second production facility, Fab-2. Defendants told investors that Fab-2 would take lessons from Fab-1 and use different equipment, purportedly to occupy a smaller footprint and save the Company from having to rent a larger, more expensive space, while also delivering products more efficiently. However, Fab-2’s buildout was still years away. Near-term revenue – expected to be $6-12 million in 2022 and to “ramp” up in 2023 – would be driven by Fab-1.
On August 10, 2022, Enovix announced that it had met its February 2021 goal of recognizing its first product revenue by Q2 2022. The Company had brought in $5.1 million in revenue in the quarter. As the Company acknowledged, however, barely any of that revenue came from delivering products to customers. $5 million of the $5.1 million in revenue was attributable to completing the initial phases of a product development program with a single customer and qualified as “service revenue.”
At the same time Enovix announced that it had achieved revenue for the first time, Defendants also acknowledged that they would need to “increase our manufacturing yield metrics.” Accordingly, to “prioritize Fab-1 improvements in the third quarter” of 2022, Defendants announced that they would be “taking the line down for portions of the quarter to improve individual process modules and install planned battery conveyance.” Defendants stated that their “goal” was to “do the needed work in Q3 to position us for the start of our production ramp to close the year.” Defendant Rust told investors that Fab-1 would be “the workhorse of our output next year” and to expect the revenue “ramp” to begin in Q4 2022, after the “improvements” had been made to Fab-1.
In reality, and as Defendant Rodgers would later concede, Fab-1 did not need to be “improved” as much as it needed to be fixed. Fab-1’s supposedly “automated” manufacturing lines were beset by problems that required significant manual intervention to produce batteries. In addition, machines that were meant to yield 550 batteries per hour could only complete around 100.
Defendants obscured these issues from Enovix’s shareholders. While boasting that Enovix had built a “functioning factory” that would produce “millions of units” for customers in 2023, Defendants explained away the necessary production line shut-downs as being merely a way to “install planned battery conveyance” and “improve individual process modules” to optimize the lines for the expected ramp-up in production. They did not inform investors that the lines were not running anywhere close to their intended levels and could not produce at scale absent dramatic changes.
On November 1, 2022, Enovix announced its financial results for the third quarter of 2022. Enovix revealed that in the quarter, it realized just $8,000 in revenue. Moreover, it revealed that it would be “dialing back” its work on improving the Gen1 lines in favor of shifting its focus to its future Gen2 lines because the supposed improvements were not having the desired results on output. Consequently, Enovix “anticipate[d] achieving lower overall output from Fab-1 in 2023.” In fact, Enovix revealed, it anticipated producing fewer than one million batteries in 2023.
On this news, Enovix fell from a close of $18.87 per share on October 31, 2022, to $10.53 per share by the close of trading on November 2, 2022, a 44% decline.
On November 7, 2023, Enovix announced that Defendant Rodgers would assume the role of Executive Chairman. In a statement released that day, Defendant Rodgers criticized his own company for a “lack of clear and transparent investor communications” and conceded: “We have poorly communicated on the status of Fab-1.”
Defendant Rust subsequently departed as Chief Executive Officer on December 29, 2022.
On January 3, 2023, Defendant Rodgers held a special presentation for investors via conference call. On the call, Rodgers revealed that the Company’s second production facility and Gen2 lines would be delayed by several additional months because of the equipment failures experienced in the Fab-1 lines.
On this news, Enovix’s share price dropped 41% from a close of $12.12 per share on January 3, 2022 to a close of $7.15 on January 4, 2022.
As a result of Defendants’ wrongful acts and omissions, and the precipitous decline in the market value of the Company’s securities, Plaintiff and other Class Members have suffered significant losses and damages.
If you purchased or otherwise acquired Enovix shares and suffered a loss, are a long-term stockholder, have information, would like to learn more about these claims, or have any questions concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with respect to these matters, please contact Brandon Walker or Melissa Fortunato by email at investigations@bespc.com, telephone at (212) 355-4648, or by filling out the form below. There is no cost or obligation to you.
Enovix purports to design, develop, and manufacture silicon-anode lithium-ion batteries using proprietary 3D cell architecture, which the Company claims allow its batteries to achieve higher energy density. Enovix hopes to customize and deliver its batteries to other companies which can then incorporate them into their consumer electronics, such as wearable smartwatches, VR headsets, laptop computers, mobile phones, and electric vehicles. Since launching in 2007, the Company has focused on developing and commercializing its batteries. It did not generate any revenue from its products until the second quarter of 2022.
On February 22, 2021, Enovix announced plans to become a publicly traded company. At that time, Enovix set an “ambitious goal” to both develop its own U.S.-based manufacturing line and to begin delivering products to customers (thereby recognizing its first product revenue) by the second quarter of 2022.
Five months after this announcement, on July 15, 2021, Enovix became a publicly traded company. Rather than go public through a traditional initial public offering (“IPO”), Enovix used a novel method that sidesteps the normal regulatory framework and shareholder protections of the traditional IPO. Enovix merged with a special purpose acquisition company (“SPAC”), a public shell corporation with no business of its own other than to acquire a private company. On July 14, 2021, Enovix was officially acquired by RSVAC, which then changed its name to Enovix Corporation. As a result of this “de-SPAC” transaction, RSVAC’s publicly-traded shares became shares of Enovix when trading opened on the Nasdaq Global Select Market (“Nasdaq”) the following day.
RSVAC’s Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, Defendant Rodgers, stayed on as a member of Enovix’s board of directors following the de-SPAC transaction.
Enovix raised $405 million from investors through its de-SPAC merger with RSVAC. In a July 14, 2021 press release, the Company announced that the gross cash proceeds raised through the transaction would “allow Enovix to build out its first two production facilities to support demand from blue chip customers in the global mobile computing market while continuing to develop cells for Electric Vehicles (EVs).”
Throughout the Class Period, starting with statements made at the time of the deSPAC, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about Enovix’s revenues and ability to manufacture its proprietary battery technology.
For Enovix, developing advanced battery technology was not enough. The Company would also have to create a process to manufacture its batteries at a large enough scale to satisfy the needs of its customers. Otherwise, it could not monetize its proprietary technology. To borrow the Company’s own words, it hoped to “evolve from a company focused predominantly on R&D to a company capable of volume production and commercialization.”
Enovix’s CEO, Defendant Harrold Rust, stressed the importance of manufacturing in statements made when the Company went public. In a July 14, 2021 press release, Rust stated that Enovix was “focused on producing the first advanced silicon-anode lithium-ion battery for mass-market applications from our U.S. manufacturing facility.” Defendant Rodgers added: “We believe that Enovix will be the first to deliver at scale due to its proprietary 3D cell architecture, world-class team and automated manufacturing. With five design wins with major technology leaders, Enovix is years ahead of other battery companies. Even better, it has a plan to maintain that lead.”
Just months before the merger, Enovix had received key equipment to establish its first manufacturing line at its “Fab-1” facility in Fremont, California. Although Enovix had previously produced and delivered sample batteries using its pilot production line, the pilot line produced only 20 batteries per day. Building a full-scale production facility was therefore a key step to producing batteries at a commercial level. Because of the global COVID-19 pandemic, the Company resorted to chartering a Ukrainian Antonov An-124, one of the largest cargo planes on the planet, to ensure that its equipment reached Fab-1 on schedule. Enovix thereby narrowly avoided a three-month delay in the buildout of its Fab-1 facility, a delay that would have prevented the Company from having a single manufacturing line in place by the time it went public in July
2021.
In November 2021, Enovix announced to its investors that it had begun developing a second automated production line at its Fab-1 facility. This was a significant development for Enovix. The second line, it told investors, would be a “workhorse” focusing on batteries for mobile electronics, such as laptops and smartphones, thereby supporting Enovix’s “ramp” to achieve meaningful scale and revenue in the consumer electronics market starting in 2023.
Enovix assured its investors in a March 2022 letter that moving from the R&D to the production phase would “distinguish us from other advanced battery companies that have claimed technology breakthroughs but remain years away from commercialization.” Revenue was just on the horizon, according to Defendants, and thanks to its use of sample batteries to drum up customer interest, the Company already had a $1.5 billion “revenue funnel” that it could tap into as soon as it could produce at scale.
To that end, Enovix also began to develop plans for a second production facility, Fab-2. Defendants told investors that Fab-2 would take lessons from Fab-1 and use different equipment, purportedly to occupy a smaller footprint and save the Company from having to rent a larger, more expensive space, while also delivering products more efficiently. However, Fab-2’s buildout was still years away. Near-term revenue – expected to be $6-12 million in 2022 and to “ramp” up in 2023 – would be driven by Fab-1.
On August 10, 2022, Enovix announced that it had met its February 2021 goal of recognizing its first product revenue by Q2 2022. The Company had brought in $5.1 million in revenue in the quarter. As the Company acknowledged, however, barely any of that revenue came from delivering products to customers. $5 million of the $5.1 million in revenue was attributable to completing the initial phases of a product development program with a single customer and qualified as “service revenue.”
At the same time Enovix announced that it had achieved revenue for the first time, Defendants also acknowledged that they would need to “increase our manufacturing yield metrics.” Accordingly, to “prioritize Fab-1 improvements in the third quarter” of 2022, Defendants announced that they would be “taking the line down for portions of the quarter to improve individual process modules and install planned battery conveyance.” Defendants stated that their “goal” was to “do the needed work in Q3 to position us for the start of our production ramp to close the year.” Defendant Rust told investors that Fab-1 would be “the workhorse of our output next year” and to expect the revenue “ramp” to begin in Q4 2022, after the “improvements” had been made to Fab-1.
In reality, and as Defendant Rodgers would later concede, Fab-1 did not need to be “improved” as much as it needed to be fixed. Fab-1’s supposedly “automated” manufacturing lines were beset by problems that required significant manual intervention to produce batteries. In addition, machines that were meant to yield 550 batteries per hour could only complete around 100.
Defendants obscured these issues from Enovix’s shareholders. While boasting that Enovix had built a “functioning factory” that would produce “millions of units” for customers in 2023, Defendants explained away the necessary production line shut-downs as being merely a way to “install planned battery conveyance” and “improve individual process modules” to optimize the lines for the expected ramp-up in production. They did not inform investors that the lines were not running anywhere close to their intended levels and could not produce at scale absent dramatic changes.
On November 1, 2022, Enovix announced its financial results for the third quarter of 2022. Enovix revealed that in the quarter, it realized just $8,000 in revenue. Moreover, it revealed that it would be “dialing back” its work on improving the Gen1 lines in favor of shifting its focus to its future Gen2 lines because the supposed improvements were not having the desired results on output. Consequently, Enovix “anticipate[d] achieving lower overall output from Fab-1 in 2023.” In fact, Enovix revealed, it anticipated producing fewer than one million batteries in 2023.
On this news, Enovix fell from a close of $18.87 per share on October 31, 2022, to $10.53 per share by the close of trading on November 2, 2022, a 44% decline.
On November 7, 2023, Enovix announced that Defendant Rodgers would assume the role of Executive Chairman. In a statement released that day, Defendant Rodgers criticized his own company for a “lack of clear and transparent investor communications” and conceded: “We have poorly communicated on the status of Fab-1.”
Defendant Rust subsequently departed as Chief Executive Officer on December 29, 2022.
On January 3, 2023, Defendant Rodgers held a special presentation for investors via conference call. On the call, Rodgers revealed that the Company’s second production facility and Gen2 lines would be delayed by several additional months because of the equipment failures experienced in the Fab-1 lines.
On this news, Enovix’s share price dropped 41% from a close of $12.12 per share on January 3, 2022 to a close of $7.15 on January 4, 2022.
As a result of Defendants’ wrongful acts and omissions, and the precipitous decline in the market value of the Company’s securities, Plaintiff and other Class Members have suffered significant losses and damages.
If you purchased or otherwise acquired Enovix shares and suffered a loss, are a long-term stockholder, have information, would like to learn more about these claims, or have any questions concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with respect to these matters, please contact Brandon Walker or Melissa Fortunato by email at investigations@bespc.com, telephone at (212) 355-4648, or by filling out the form below. There is no cost or obligation to you.
The individual or institution below (“Plaintiff”) has reviewed and agrees to the Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. (“BESPC”) retainer agreement and authorizes BESPC to prosecute an action on Plaintiff’s behalf under the federal securities laws or applicable state laws to recover damages on behalf of investors in Enovix Corporation. BESPC will prosecute the action on a full contingency basis and will forward all costs and expenses.
Case Updates
Retainer Agreement
This will confirm that you have retained Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. (“BESPC”) to represent you in connection with potential litigation against Enovix Corporation (the “Company”) and its directors and officers. BESPC has conducted an investigation and believes that there is a valid basis to assert claims against the Company and its directors and/or officers for violation of federal or state securities laws.
In making this agreement, BESPC is relying upon your representation that you purchased the Company’s shares during the period from 2/22/2021 to 1/3/2023 (the “Relevant Period”). Please provide us with documentation of your trading history in the Company’s stock by emailing a relevant copies of your brokerage statements to investigations@bespc.com. If you have any questions or need assistance, please call us at (212) 308-5858.
The terms under which we will represent you and your responsibilities as a potential representative plaintiff are set forth below.
You will have an obligation to remain knowledgeable about the litigation and participate in decisions concerning the progress of the litigation. If BESPC is appointed as lead counsel or in a similar capacity in the action, we will provide you with copies of all pleadings in the litigation for your review and approval, circumstances permitting, before they are filed with the court. BESPC will also promptly advise you of any significant developments in the litigation.
As a representative plaintiff, you cannot have any interest antagonistic to or in conflict with other Class members or the Company, as applicable, concerning the claims we are pursuing or any relationships with any of the named defendants that would in any way impair your ability or incentive to obtain the best possible result. You agree that neither you nor any of your affiliates or agents will trade stocks while in the possession of any material non-public information you may receive in connection with the litigation. In addition, as a representative plaintiff, you may be required to continue holding Company shares. Please contact us before buying or selling Company shares.
BESPC may associate with other counsel to assist in the prosecution of this litigation. Any recovery of fees and costs will be shared with such counsel, determined on a percentage basis or based upon the time spent on the matter, as approved by the court if applicable. The division of work and or fees among co-counsel will not affect the amount of fees received upon a successful completion of the litigation. From time to time, BESPC may utilize contract attorneys to supplement the work of its own employed attorneys. BESPC will supervise the work of all contract attorneys and adopt their work product as its own. You authorize BESPC, as we deem appropriate, to associate with other counsel and to hire experts and consultants to assist in the handling of your claims.
It is possible that you will not be appointed as a lead plaintiff or class representative in the action. However, we may wish to represent you in other litigation related to the wrongful acts giving rise to this case. In such event, we will contact you to discuss the scope of such representation and obtain your approval before moving forward. You also agree that we may contact you with respect to other potential matters on your behalf.
You understand that in the event we secure a recovery for a Class in a class action, you will only be entitled to your proportional share of such recovery as a Class member. You understand that you will not receive any special treatment or receive a greater share of any class-wide recovery based on your service as a named plaintiff or class representative. However, we may ask the Court to approve an additional award to you to compensate you for the time and effort you expend on this matter. Any such award is solely within the discretion of the Court.
BESPC will consult with you regarding any settlement negotiations and seek to obtain your approval for any proposed resolution of this litigation before entering into a final settlement agreement with defendants.
You expressly acknowledge that we have not made any representation to you, express or implied, concerning the outcome of any litigation or other matter in which we represent you.
If you are not chosen as a representative plaintiff and we do not choose to pursue other related litigation on your behalf, we will provide you with notification and this Agreement shall terminate. Otherwise, this Agreement shall remain in effect until the conclusion of the relevant litigation. However, you may terminate this Agreement at any time.
Upon termination, BESPC’s files and papers compiled in connection with its investigation and prosecution of this matter constitute the work product and property of BESPC over which it has complete control with respect to its use and/or disclosure.
This agreement sets forth the entire agreement between the parties and supersedes all other oral or written communications.
Please feel free to contact us at any time should you have any questions or comments in this regard.
In making this agreement, BESPC is relying upon your representation that you purchased the Company’s shares during the period from 2/22/2021 to 1/3/2023 (the “Relevant Period”). Please provide us with documentation of your trading history in the Company’s stock by emailing a relevant copies of your brokerage statements to investigations@bespc.com. If you have any questions or need assistance, please call us at (212) 308-5858.
The terms under which we will represent you and your responsibilities as a potential representative plaintiff are set forth below.
Your Responsibilities as a Representative Plaintiff
As a representative plaintiff, you will have a duty to represent the interests of similarly situated shareholders, i.e., the “Class,” and to participate in the prosecution of this litigation. You may also be asked to provide documents concerning your trading in Company stock and may be asked to sit for a deposition. Accordingly, you should preserve all documents that relate to this case until it has concluded or we inform you otherwise. Relevant documents include any information you have about the Company or your trading in Company stock, no matter how it is recorded or who is keeping it for you. If you have any questions about whether information should be retained, please contact us.You will have an obligation to remain knowledgeable about the litigation and participate in decisions concerning the progress of the litigation. If BESPC is appointed as lead counsel or in a similar capacity in the action, we will provide you with copies of all pleadings in the litigation for your review and approval, circumstances permitting, before they are filed with the court. BESPC will also promptly advise you of any significant developments in the litigation.
As a representative plaintiff, you cannot have any interest antagonistic to or in conflict with other Class members or the Company, as applicable, concerning the claims we are pursuing or any relationships with any of the named defendants that would in any way impair your ability or incentive to obtain the best possible result. You agree that neither you nor any of your affiliates or agents will trade stocks while in the possession of any material non-public information you may receive in connection with the litigation. In addition, as a representative plaintiff, you may be required to continue holding Company shares. Please contact us before buying or selling Company shares.
Contingency Fee and Advancement of Expenses
BESPC will prosecute this litigation on a contingency basis. You will not be responsible for paying any legal fees, costs, or out-of-pocket expenses arising out of or related to the prosecution of this litigation, regardless of the outcome of the matter. If there is a monetary recovery in this action, BESPC will, at the conclusion of the litigation or any segment thereof, apply to the court for approval of an award of attorneys’ fees and reimbursement of expenses. BESPC may also seek a fee if we obtain substantial non-monetary relief for the Class or the Company. The court will then award fees and disbursements (if any) from the proceeds of any judgment or settlement obtained in this litigation, based on factors considered relevant by the court. Such fees, costs, and disbursements will be paid from the entire settlement amount and not only from your share of the settlement amount.
Association with Counsel
BESPC may associate with other counsel to assist in the prosecution of this litigation. Any recovery of fees and costs will be shared with such counsel, determined on a percentage basis or based upon the time spent on the matter, as approved by the court if applicable. The division of work and or fees among co-counsel will not affect the amount of fees received upon a successful completion of the litigation. From time to time, BESPC may utilize contract attorneys to supplement the work of its own employed attorneys. BESPC will supervise the work of all contract attorneys and adopt their work product as its own. You authorize BESPC, as we deem appropriate, to associate with other counsel and to hire experts and consultants to assist in the handling of your claims.
Other Actions
It is possible that you will not be appointed as a lead plaintiff or class representative in the action. However, we may wish to represent you in other litigation related to the wrongful acts giving rise to this case. In such event, we will contact you to discuss the scope of such representation and obtain your approval before moving forward. You also agree that we may contact you with respect to other potential matters on your behalf.
No Special Treatment
You understand that in the event we secure a recovery for a Class in a class action, you will only be entitled to your proportional share of such recovery as a Class member. You understand that you will not receive any special treatment or receive a greater share of any class-wide recovery based on your service as a named plaintiff or class representative. However, we may ask the Court to approve an additional award to you to compensate you for the time and effort you expend on this matter. Any such award is solely within the discretion of the Court.
Settlement
BESPC will consult with you regarding any settlement negotiations and seek to obtain your approval for any proposed resolution of this litigation before entering into a final settlement agreement with defendants.
No Guarantee of Success
You expressly acknowledge that we have not made any representation to you, express or implied, concerning the outcome of any litigation or other matter in which we represent you.
Termination of This Agreement
If you are not chosen as a representative plaintiff and we do not choose to pursue other related litigation on your behalf, we will provide you with notification and this Agreement shall terminate. Otherwise, this Agreement shall remain in effect until the conclusion of the relevant litigation. However, you may terminate this Agreement at any time. Upon termination, BESPC’s files and papers compiled in connection with its investigation and prosecution of this matter constitute the work product and property of BESPC over which it has complete control with respect to its use and/or disclosure.
This agreement sets forth the entire agreement between the parties and supersedes all other oral or written communications.
Please feel free to contact us at any time should you have any questions or comments in this regard.