ASML Holding N.V.

On October 15, 2024, ASML released its third quarter 2024 financial results, revealing quarterly bookings of €2.63 billion, a decline of 53% quarter-over-quarter. The Company also announced it expected full year 2025 total net sales to be between €30 billion and €35 billion, with a gross margin between 51% and 53%, explaining that “[w]hile there continue to be strong developments and upside potential in [artificial intelligence], other [semiconductor] market segments are taking longer to recover” and that “[i]t now appears the recovery is more gradual than previously expected.”

On this news, ASML’s stock price fell $141.84, or 16.3%, to close at $730.43 per share on October 15, 2024, thereby injuring investors.

Then, on October 16, 2024, ASML held its earnings call, during which, the Company further revealed that ASML’s sales in China had declined, which would also negatively impact the Company’s gross margins.

On this news, ASML’s stock price fell $46.91, or 6.4%, to close at $683.52 per share on October 16, 2024, thereby injuring investors further.

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 that: (1) the issues being faced by suppliers, like ASML, in the semiconductor industry were much more severe than Defendants had indicated to investors; (2) the pace of recovery of sales in the semiconductor industry was much slower than Defendants had publicly acknowledged; (3) Defendants had created the false impression that they possessed reliable information pertaining to customer demand and anticipated growth, while also downplaying risk from macroeconomic and industry fluctuations, as well as stronger regulations restricting the export of semiconductor technology, including the products that ASML sells; and (4) as a result, Defendants’ positive statements about the Company’s business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times.