iRobot Corporation

Case Overview
35 Days Left to Seek Lead Plaintiff
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: | Lead Plaintiff Deadline: 09/05/2025 |
Status: | Status: Investigating |
Company Name: | Company Name: iRobot Corporation |
Court: | Court: Southern District of New York |
Case Number: | Case Number: 1:25cv05563 |
Class Period: | Class Period: 01/29/2024 - 03/11/2025 |
Ticker: | Ticker: IRBT |
Related Attorneys: | Lead Attorneys: Thomas W. Elrod |
Related Practices: | Related Practices: Securities |
The law firm of Kirby McInerney LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of those who acquired iRobot Corporation (“iRobot” or the “Company”) (NASDAQ:IRBT) securities during the period of January 29, 2024 through March 11, 2025, inclusive (“the Class Period”). Investors have until September 5, 2025 to apply to the Court to be appointed as lead plaintiff in the lawsuit.
On March 12, 2025, iRobot issued a press release reporting its fourth quarter and full year 2024 financial results. For the quarter, iRobot reported a loss of $2.06 per share on revenue of $172 million, representing a 44% year-over-year decline. iRobot also cautioned investors that "there can be no assurance that [iRobot's] new product launches will be successful due to potential factors, including, but not limited to consumer demand, competition, macroeconomic conditions, and tariff policies." Accordingly, "given these uncertainties and the implication they may have on the Company's financials, there is substantial doubt about the Company's ability to continue as a going concern for a period of at least 12 months from the date of the issuance of its consolidated 2024 financial statements." In addition, the press release stated that, in light of the foregoing developments, iRobot was cancelling its fourth-quarter and full-year 2024 results conference call and webcast, and that the Company would not be providing a 2025 outlook. Market analysts were quick to comment on iRobot's announcement. For example, on March 12, 2025, an analyst from Seeking Alpha downgraded iRobot to a sell rating from a hold rating "due to [a] bleak outlook," stating that "iRobot's business prospects have deteriorated significantly since the Amazon acquisition fell through, leading to massive layoffs and growing losses," "Q4 earnings were disastrous, missing guidance and showing worsening gross margins due to excess inventory and lower sales volumes," "iRobot's future is uncertain, with substantial doubts about its viability within the next 12 months, despite ongoing discussions with its primary lender," and that the Company's "survival hinges on new Roombas being a hit, which seems unlikely." That same day, in an article entitled "Why iRobot Stock Is Crashing Today," The Motley Fool stated, in relevant part, that "iRobot's costly restructuring efforts -- including a 50% workforce reduction -- have yet to yield stability." On this news, iRobot's stock price fell $3.255 per share, or 51.58%, over the following two trading sessions, to close at $3.055 per share on March 13, 2025.
After the end of the Class Period, in May 2025, iRobot experienced a short squeeze-i.e., a rapid increase in the price of a stock owing primarily to an excess of short selling of a stock rather than underlying fundamentals-after it was announced that U.S. tariffs on European Union imports would be delayed until July 2025. However, notwithstanding the increase in the Company's stock price, market analysts noted that iRobot's underlying fundamentals remained highly concerning. For example, on May 29, 2025, Seeking Alpha stated that iRobot's "technical indicators have turned bullish short-term, but the company's cash burn and deteriorating financials outweigh these positives" and "Q1 [2025] results revealed falling revenue, worsening losses, shrinking cash reserves, and declining gross margins, signaling severe operational stress."
The complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) iRobot overstated the extent to which the Restructuring Plan would help the Company maintain stability after the termination of the Amazon Acquisition; (ii) as a result, it was unlikely that iRobot would be able to profitably operate as a standalone company; (iii) accordingly, there was substantial doubt about the Company's ability to continue as a going concern; and (iv) as a result, Defendants' public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.
On March 12, 2025, iRobot issued a press release reporting its fourth quarter and full year 2024 financial results. For the quarter, iRobot reported a loss of $2.06 per share on revenue of $172 million, representing a 44% year-over-year decline. iRobot also cautioned investors that "there can be no assurance that [iRobot's] new product launches will be successful due to potential factors, including, but not limited to consumer demand, competition, macroeconomic conditions, and tariff policies." Accordingly, "given these uncertainties and the implication they may have on the Company's financials, there is substantial doubt about the Company's ability to continue as a going concern for a period of at least 12 months from the date of the issuance of its consolidated 2024 financial statements." In addition, the press release stated that, in light of the foregoing developments, iRobot was cancelling its fourth-quarter and full-year 2024 results conference call and webcast, and that the Company would not be providing a 2025 outlook. Market analysts were quick to comment on iRobot's announcement. For example, on March 12, 2025, an analyst from Seeking Alpha downgraded iRobot to a sell rating from a hold rating "due to [a] bleak outlook," stating that "iRobot's business prospects have deteriorated significantly since the Amazon acquisition fell through, leading to massive layoffs and growing losses," "Q4 earnings were disastrous, missing guidance and showing worsening gross margins due to excess inventory and lower sales volumes," "iRobot's future is uncertain, with substantial doubts about its viability within the next 12 months, despite ongoing discussions with its primary lender," and that the Company's "survival hinges on new Roombas being a hit, which seems unlikely." That same day, in an article entitled "Why iRobot Stock Is Crashing Today," The Motley Fool stated, in relevant part, that "iRobot's costly restructuring efforts -- including a 50% workforce reduction -- have yet to yield stability." On this news, iRobot's stock price fell $3.255 per share, or 51.58%, over the following two trading sessions, to close at $3.055 per share on March 13, 2025.
After the end of the Class Period, in May 2025, iRobot experienced a short squeeze-i.e., a rapid increase in the price of a stock owing primarily to an excess of short selling of a stock rather than underlying fundamentals-after it was announced that U.S. tariffs on European Union imports would be delayed until July 2025. However, notwithstanding the increase in the Company's stock price, market analysts noted that iRobot's underlying fundamentals remained highly concerning. For example, on May 29, 2025, Seeking Alpha stated that iRobot's "technical indicators have turned bullish short-term, but the company's cash burn and deteriorating financials outweigh these positives" and "Q1 [2025] results revealed falling revenue, worsening losses, shrinking cash reserves, and declining gross margins, signaling severe operational stress."
The complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) iRobot overstated the extent to which the Restructuring Plan would help the Company maintain stability after the termination of the Amazon Acquisition; (ii) as a result, it was unlikely that iRobot would be able to profitably operate as a standalone company; (iii) accordingly, there was substantial doubt about the Company's ability to continue as a going concern; and (iv) as a result, Defendants' public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.