The Law Offices of Frank R. Cruz announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of investors who purchased Everus Construction Group, Inc. (“Everus” or the “Company”) (NYSE: ECG) common stock between October 31, 2024 and February 11, 2025, inclusive (the “Class Period”), including investors who held MDU Resources Group, Inc. (“MDU Resources”) common stock as of October 21, 2024 and acquired Everus common stock issued in connection with the spinoff of Everus Construction (defined below) on or about October 31, 2024 (the “Spinoff”). Everus investors have until June 3, 2025 to file a lead plaintiff motion.

What Happened?

Everus is the parent company of Everus Construction, Inc. (“Everus Construction”).

On February 11, 2025, after the market closed, Everus released its fourth quarter and full year 2024 financial results, revealing that “[g]iven the current mix of [the Company’s] backlog,” its “backlog conversion” would be “extended relative to [the] historical pattern over the coming quarters.” The Company explained its average project size had been getting “larger, more complex and longer.” The Company further revealed that, as a result of this shift in backlog composition, “heading into 2025” the Company “expect[s] revenue in the range of $3.0 billion to $3.1 billion and EBITDA in the range of $210 million to $225 million for the year.”

On this news, Everus’s stock price fell $18.88, or 27.6%, over two consecutive trading days to close at $49.54 on February 13, 2025, on unusually heavy trading volume.

What Is The Lawsuit About?

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 Company’s backlog conversion cycle had become elongated due to larger, more complex projects; (2) as a result, the Company’s revenue recognition would be delayed; and (3) as a result of the foregoing, Defendants’ positive statements about the Company’s business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.