Bloom Energy is facing a securities class action lawsuit following allegations that the clean energy company misled investors about its reliance on Chinese-sourced scandium, a material used in its solid oxide fuel cell systems.
The lawsuit, Nevins v. Bloom Energy Corporation, was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on July 30, 2026. It seeks to represent investors who purchased or acquired Bloom Energy securities between February 27, 2025 and July 8, 2026.
Investors seeking appointment as lead plaintiff have until September 28, 2026 to submit an application, according to law firm Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP.
At the centre of the case are claims concerning Bloom Energy’s supply of scandium, a rare metal used in the ceramic electrolyte found within the company’s solid oxide fuel cells.
The complaint alleges that Bloom Energy and certain senior executives made misleading statements or failed to disclose the extent to which the company relied on scandium originating from China.
It claims that Bloom Energy obtained scandium through intermediaries whose supplies could ultimately be traced back to China, despite statements concerning the company’s supply chain and its exposure to Chinese sources.
The allegations followed the publication of a report by Hunterbrook Media on July 8. The report questioned Bloom Energy’s previous statements about its scandium supply chain and claimed to have identified several routes through which Chinese-linked material reached the company.
Hunterbrook said its findings were based on sources including trade data, corporate filings and communications with suppliers. The organisation also disclosed a financial interest that could benefit from a fall in Bloom Energy’s share price.
Bloom Energy’s shares fell 5.7% on July 8, closing at $254.29, according to subsequent court filings and market reports.
Bloom Energy Rejects the Claims
Bloom Energy has strongly disputed the conclusions of the Hunterbrook report.
In a regulatory filing made the following day, the company said it rejected the claims regarding its scandium supply and maintained that it has sufficient access to scandium oxide to meet both current demand and its existing backlog.
Bloom also said it does not depend on China for its scandium oxide supply or to support anticipated future growth. It separately rejected allegations relating to its financial reporting and accounting, directing investors to its audited financial statements and regulatory filings.
The company’s response is significant because the class action relies in part on allegations arising from the short-seller report. Those allegations have not been proven in court, and the filing of a class action does not establish wrongdoing by Bloom Energy or its executives.
Investor Deadline Approaches
Under the U.S. Private Securities Litigation Reform Act, investors who acquired Bloom Energy securities during the stated class period can apply to become lead plaintiff.
The lead plaintiff typically represents the interests of the wider proposed class and can play a role in directing the litigation and selecting legal counsel. Investors do not, however, need to become lead plaintiff in order to potentially participate in any future recovery if the case ultimately succeeds.
The September 28 deadline relates specifically to applications for lead plaintiff status.
The case adds another layer of scrutiny around Bloom Energy at a time when demand for alternative sources of electricity is increasing, particularly as data centre operators seek additional power capacity.
Bloom Energy develops on-site power generation systems using solid oxide fuel cell technology and has attracted growing attention as technology companies and infrastructure providers look for ways to meet rising energy requirements.
For investors, the legal dispute is now likely to keep attention focused on the company’s supply chain disclosures and its ability to support future production as the case progresses.
Bloom Energy has denied the central claims concerning its dependence on Chinese scandium, while the allegations made in the class action remain subject to determination through the legal process.
