![Monday.com Ltd. [MNDY] Securities Class Action Lawsuit Update](https://media.suewallst.com/cms-dev/MNDY_3d688a082a.png)
Monday.com (MNDY) is involved in a class action concerning its growth outlook, following updates to guidance and the withdrawal of long-term revenue targets that affected investor expectations.
Learn about securities lawsuits tied to your portfolio and recover money!
monday.com Ltd. told investors it was building the future of work through AI, enterprise expansion, and a rapidly scaling platform. The numbers sounded precise. The confidence sounded earned. A $1.8 billion revenue target by 2027 became the anchor. Investors now allege that anchor was drifting.
According to a newly filed securities class action in the Southern District of New York, investors who purchased shares between September 17, 2025 and February 6, 2026 claim they were misled about the durability of monday.com’s growth trajectory, particularly as enterprise sales cycles lengthened and expansion slowed.
The unraveling came in stages. Softer guidance. A shift in tone. Then a full retreat from long-term targets. The stock followed.
“Most MNDY shareholders never file or join the class action, which means they miss out on potential recovery funds,” said Attorney Joseph Levi.
Monday.com operates a cloud-based Work Operating System designed to help organizations build custom workflows across functions such as project management, CRM, software development, and service operations. Its platform is modular, extensible, and increasingly marketed as AI-enhanced.
The company’s growth story rested on three pillars. Multi-product expansion. Enterprise adoption. AI-driven productivity gains. By late 2025, management emphasized a transition upmarket. Larger customers. Bigger contracts. More predictable revenue through annual subscriptions. At its Investor Day, executives framed the business as entering a new phase of durable, scalable growth, supported by rising net dollar retention and expanding product adoption.
And then there was the number. $1.8 billion in revenue by 2027. Repeated. Defended. Positioned as a base case, not a stretch goal.
Management’s public statements during the Class Period painted a company accelerating into its next chapter. AI adoption was described as “off the charts.” Enterprise momentum was framed as strengthening. Growth drivers were presented as stable and compounding. Executives told investors they were “confident” in achieving $1.8 billion in revenue by 2027, citing multi-product expansion, enterprise adoption, and AI monetization as key drivers.
But investors allege that internally, the picture was already changing. According to the complaint, monday.com was experiencing decelerating customer growth, weaker expansion within existing accounts, and longer enterprise sales cycles. These dynamics, plaintiffs claim, made the 2027 target increasingly unlikely, even as executives continued to publicly reaffirm it.
The tension is familiar in securities litigation. A forward-looking narrative. A present-tense slowdown. And a widening gap between the two.
The sequence matters. It always does.
September 17, 2025. Investor Day. Management introduces and strongly endorses the $1.8 billion 2027 revenue target, emphasizing AI traction and enterprise growth.
November 10, 2025. The company reports Q3 results that beat expectations on revenue, but issues softer forward guidance tied to changes in performance marketing strategy. The stock drops from $189.59 to $166.21 in a single day. Management maintains confidence. The 2027 target remains intact. The narrative holds.
February 9, 2026. The tone shifts. The company reports Q4 and full-year results. Alongside them, a reset. Weaker 2026 guidance. A strategic pivot in communication. And the key moment: the company withdraws its previously stated $1.8 billion 2027 target and shifts its focus to nearer-term execution, while management points to the evolving AI landscape and choppy no-touch demand conditions.
The stock reacts immediately, falling from $98.00 to $77.63, a decline of roughly 21%.
The complaint ties investor losses directly to these corrective disclosures.
First, the November 2025 guidance adjustment triggered a sharp selloff, signaling early cracks in the growth story. Then, the February 2026 disclosure delivered the larger blow, as investors processed both the weaker outlook and the abandonment of long-term targets.
Analysts responded quickly. Capital One cut its price target by 47%, noting that the $1.8 billion 2027 target was “now off the table.” Wolfe Research described the quarter as “mixed,” citing persistent headwinds and withdrawn long-term guidance. Baird downgraded the stock to neutral, pointing to the removal of 2027 targets and margin resets as negative surprises.
The pattern is consistent. When long-term visibility disappears, valuation compresses. Fast.
The case, filed as Potter v. monday.com Ltd., Case No. 1:26-cv-01956 in the Southern District of New York, asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5. The defendants include the company and senior executives, including Co-CEOs Roy Mann and Eran Zinman, CFO Eliran Glazer, and CRO Casey George. Plaintiff Ben Potter seeks to represent investors who purchased shares during the Class Period and alleges that defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding revenue growth, enterprise momentum, and AI-driven expansion.
Scienter allegations center on executives’ access to internal data reflecting slowing growth trends, even as they publicly reaffirmed long-term targets. Loss causation is tied to the November 2025 and February 2026 disclosures, which allegedly revealed the gap between public statements and underlying business conditions.
The case is in its early stages. Discovery will test the narrative.
Retail sentiment appeared positive before the February 2026 reset, reflecting enthusiasm around monday.com’s AI positioning, enterprise expansion, and multi-product strategy. After the company withdrew its 2027 target and issued softer 2026 guidance, sentiment turned more cautious as investors debated whether the selloff reflected a temporary reset or a more meaningful change in the growth story. Some retail commentary treated the move as a potential buying opportunity, while other reactions focused on reduced visibility and a loss of confidence in management’s longer-term outlook.
Analysts broadly recalibrated their view of monday.com after the February 2026 reset. Price targets were cut, and some firms became more cautious after the company issued weaker-than-expected 2026 guidance and withdrew its 2027 target.
Commentary focused on persistent no-touch demand weakness, softer near-term visibility, margin pressure, and the market impact of removing a long-term target that had been central to the company’s growth narrative. While several firms continued to note strength in upmarket execution and product adoption, the overall tone shifted from confidence in acceleration to a more measured view centered on execution and visibility.
The complaint draws heavily on the company’s SEC filings, earnings calls, and Investor Day materials, arguing that these disclosures emphasized growth drivers while omitting or downplaying emerging risks.
Risk factors typically address macroeconomic conditions, competitive pressures, and execution challenges. But plaintiffs allege that monday.com failed to adequately disclose the extent of slowing customer growth, weaker expansion trends, and lengthening sales cycles during the Class Period.
The complaint also challenges the protection ordinarily associated with forward-looking statements, alleging that defendants lacked a reasonable basis for their projections and did not provide sufficiently meaningful cautionary language.
This is where many securities cases turn. Not on whether projections were wrong, but whether they were responsibly made.
This case is about more than a missed target. It is about the space between narrative and execution. Between what companies say about the future and what their data shows in the present.
For investors, the signals were there. Softer guidance. Timing effects. Shifting sales dynamics. Each one small. Together, directional. AI remains a powerful story. But stories do not immunize companies from scrutiny. Especially when they come with precise numbers attached.
Now, investors are asking whether those numbers were ever achievable.
Disclaimer: This shareholder alert is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified attorney for personalized guidance. No specific outcomes are guaranteed.
![ODDITY Tech Ltd. [ODD] Securities Class Action Lawsuit Update](https://media.suewallst.com/cms-dev/ODD_2c26a8b9f9.png)
ODDITY Tech Ltd. (ODD) faces a class action alleging it concealed rising customer acquisition costs caused by advertising algorithm changes. The lawsuit claims the company misled investors about the strength of its digital model, leading to significant losses after a sharp stock decline.
![Eos Energy Enterprises [EOSE] Securities Class Action Lawsuit Update](https://media.suewallst.com/cms-dev/EOSE_480699100e.png)
Eos Energy (EOSE) faces a class action alleging it misled investors about its automated battery production and ability to meet revenue targets, with operational failures leading to a nearly 40% stock drop.
![Driven Brands [DRVN] Securities Class Action Lawsuit Update](https://media.suewallst.com/cms-dev/DRVN_858e647a5f.png)
Driven Brands (DRVN) is involved in a class action concerning its financial reporting, following disclosures that prior statements required restatement due to accounting errors and internal control issues.