Hagens Berman announces that the firm has filed a new class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California asserting claims for violations of the federal securities laws by Super Micro and certain of its senior executives, alleging that Defendants concealed a massive illegal scheme to sell billions of dollars’ worth of advanced AI servers—powered by Nvidia chips subject to U.S. export restrictions—to the People's Republic of China through a Southeast Asian shell entity.

The new class action lawsuit, captioned Chung v. Super Micro Computer, Inc., et al., No. 5:26-cv-04394 (N.D. Cal.) (“Chung”), is brought on behalf of investors who purchased or otherwise acquired Super Micro common stock between February 2, 2024 and March 19, 2026, inclusive (the “Class Period”). The new Chung class action does not alter the previous deadline to seek appointment as Lead Plaintiff. Under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995, investors who acquired Super Micro common stock during the Class Period may, no later than May 26, 2026, seek to be appointed as Lead Plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do nothing and remain a member of the proposed Class.

A copy of the complaint is available on Hagens Berman’s website by clicking here.

Chung is related to previously filed securities class actions against Super Micro captioned Bhuva v. Super Micro Computer, Inc., No. 3:26-cv-02606 (N.D. Cal.) (“Bhuva”) which asserts a class period of April 30, 2024 through March 19, 2026 inclusive and City of Hialeah Employees’ Retirement System v. Super Micro Computer, Inc., No. 3:26-cv-3018 (N.D. Cal.) (“Haileah”) which asserts a class period of February 2, 2024 through March 19, 2026 inclusive (the “Related Actions”).

The Alleged Securities Fraud

The action alleges that Super Micro and certain of its senior officers violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by making false and misleading statements and concealing an illegal scheme to sell billions of dollars’ worth of Super Micro servers—embedded with Nvidia AI chips—to China through a Southeast Asian passthrough entity in violation of U.S. export control laws.

According to the complaint, Defendants carried out a two-phase campaign of deception: first, by making public assurances of compliance with U.S. export restrictions, and second—after the Company missed SEC filing deadlines, the Company’s auditor Ernst & Young resigned and the Company opened an internal Special Committee investigation into Super Micro’s compliance with export controls —by providing only partial corrective information but concealing the underlying export fraud.

The complaint alleges that the full scope of the scheme was not revealed until March 19, 2026, when a federal court unsealed a Department of Justice Grand Jury Indictment charging Super Micro's co-founder and Senior Vice President Yih-Shyan “Wally” Liaw and others with conspiring to divert high-performance servers to China—a conspiracy that generated at least approximately $2.5 billion in sales and involved the staging of “dummy” servers, fabrication of data center lease agreements, and active obstruction of the Company’s own internal compliance audits. This news drove the price of Super Micro shares down $10.26 (-33%) the next day.

Broader Damage Theory: Additional Alleged Corrective Disclosure Events

Unlike the related actions filed to date, the complaint identifies two earlier partial corrective disclosures that caused substantial additional stock price declines and that strengthen the case for recovery.

First, on August 28, 2024, Super Micro announced that it would not timely file its annual report on Form 10-K, a delay that the Company would later confirm was due to an internal Special Committee probe concerning, among other things, whether Super Micro complied with relevant U.S. export laws and regulations. In response to this disclosure, the price of Super Micro common stock declined 19%.

Second, on October 30, 2024, Super Micro disclosed that Ernst & Young had resigned as the Company's registered public accounting firm after determining it could no longer rely on representations from management or the Audit Committee. The Company would later admit that EY's resignation was due in part to its concern over at least eleven specific export transactions and that the Special Committee's inquiry expressly concerned whether Super Micro complied with relevant U.S. export laws and regulations. In response, Super Micro's stock fell 32.6%.

The complaint alleges that the Indictment, unsealed on March 19, 2026, added critical context to both disclosures by revealing that, at or around the same time EY resigned in October 2024, Defendants Liaw and another Super Micro senior employee were actively undermining the Company's own October 2024 compliance audit of Company-1—including by preventing auditors from entering Company-1's purported data center facilities, arranging for a “friendly” auditor to conduct the review, and fabricating lease agreements to create the false appearance that Company-1 had sufficient data center capacity to justify its server purchases. Because neither the August 28, nor October 30, 2024 disclosures revealed the underlying illegal diversion of servers to China, the complaint alleges that Super Micro’s stock continued to trade at artificially inflated prices until the full scope of the fraud was revealed by the Indictment.

Hagens Berman urges investors who suffered substantial losses on purchases of Super Micro common stock during the Class Period and who wish to serve as Lead Plaintiff of the Super Micro litigation to contact Hagens Berman now.

If you’d like more information and answers to frequently asked questions about the Super Micro case and the firm’s investigation, read more.

About Hagens Berman

Hagens Berman is a global plaintiffs’ rights complex litigation law firm focusing on corporate accountability through class-action law. The firm is home to a robust securities litigation practice and represents investors as well as whistleblowers, workers, consumers and others in cases achieving real results for those harmed by corporate negligence and fraud. More about the firm and its successes can be found at hbsslaw.com. Follow the firm for updates and news at @ClassActionLaw.

Attorney advertising.
Past results do not guarantee future outcomes.
Services may be performed by attorneys in any of our offices.

View source version on businesswire.com: https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20260512361245/en/

Defendants concealed a massive illegal scheme to sell billions of dollars’ worth of advanced AI servers—powered by Nvidia chips subject to U.S. export restrictions—to the People's Republic of China through a Southeast Asian shell entity.