NuScale Power Corporation [SMR] Securities Class Action Lawsuit Update

• Case Name: Truedson v. NuScale Power Corporation et al.
• Case No.: 3:26-cv-00328-JR
• Jurisdiction: U.S. District Court, District of Oregon, Portland Division
• Filed on: February 18, 2026
• Class Period: May 13, 2025-November 6, 2025

Introduction

NuScale Power Corporation said it was on the brink of commercializing small modular nuclear reactors. Investors allege that story left out a critical detail. A federal securities class action has been filed against NuScale Power Corporation (NYSE: SMR), certain senior executives, and its controlling shareholder Fluor Corporation, alleging that the company misled investors about the experience and capabilities of its exclusive commercialization partner, ENTRA1 Energy LLC.

According to the complaint, NuScale portrayed ENTRA1 as a seasoned, global power-plant developer capable of financing, building, and operating nuclear facilities—while allegedly concealing that ENTRA1 had never built, financed, or operated any significant project at all.

The truth, investors allege, emerged in late 2025 after NuScale disclosed massive payments to ENTRA1 tied to a Tennessee Valley Authority agreement, triggering analyst scrutiny, sharp stock declines, and allegations that NuScale’s core commercialization strategy was built on a fundamentally undisclosed risk.

“Most SMR shareholders never file or join the class action, which means they miss out on potential recovery funds,” said Attorney Joseph Levi.

Backdrop and Business Context

NuScale is a nuclear technology company focused on developing small modular reactors known as NuScale Power Modules, or NPMs. Each module is designed to generate electricity as part of a broader nuclear power plant, with NuScale emphasizing scalability, safety, and a smaller physical footprint compared to traditional nuclear facilities.

Despite being founded in 2007, NuScale has not yet commercialized or sold an NPM. The company has generated limited revenue from engineering and licensing activities, but it remains unprofitable and has incurred substantial losses since inception. As a result, the successful deployment of its NPM technology is central to its business viability and valuation.

To bridge the gap between development and deployment, NuScale entered into an exclusive global commercialization partnership with ENTRA1 Energy LLC. Under this arrangement, ENTRA1 was presented as the entity responsible for financing, developing, owning, and operating power plants that would use NuScale’s reactors.

Investors were told this partnership would take NuScale’s technology from concept to reality.

Promises Made vs. Reality

Throughout the class period, NuScale repeatedly described ENTRA1 in expansive terms. Company filings, press releases, and earnings calls referred to ENTRA1 as an “independent global energy production platform,” a “one-stop-shop,” and a “single hub” for financing, development, execution, and management of nuclear power plants.

NuScale executives emphasized ENTRA1’s purported experience. In public statements, management highlighted ENTRA1’s “team of energy and finance veterans” and claimed that its experience was “exactly what is required” to commercialize and deploy NuScale’s reactors.

According to the complaint, those representations omitted a critical reality. ENTRA1 allegedly had never built, financed, or operated any significant project—nuclear or otherwise. Instead, ENTRA1 was described as an entity organized primarily around a single individual, its principal, Wadie Habboush. Any experience cited publicly, investors allege, actually belonged to the separate Habboush Group, not ENTRA1 itself.

By allegedly attributing the experience of a different entity to ENTRA1, the complaint claims NuScale concealed material risks tied to its entire commercialization strategy.

Timeline of Alleged Misconduct and Disclosures

The alleged misconduct spans much of 2025.

In May 2025, NuScale reported quarterly results and highlighted ENTRA1’s role in customer discussions, including with utilities, data centers, and government entities. That same month, NuScale filed a Form 10-Q and a press release reinforcing ENTRA1’s purported global infrastructure experience.

In August 2025, NuScale again emphasized its partnership with ENTRA1, describing it as a differentiator that de-risked projects and enabled customized ownership and operating structures.

The narrative shifted in September 2025 when ENTRA1 and the Tennessee Valley Authority announced an agreement to develop up to six gigawatts of nuclear power using NuScale’s technology. NuScale disclosed a Partnership Milestones Agreement requiring the company to make contribution payments of $35 million to $55 million per reactor, potentially totaling billions of dollars.

The inflection point came after market close on November 6, 2025. NuScale revealed that its general and administrative expenses had surged more than 3,000% year-over-year, driven largely by a $495 million payment to ENTRA1. The company reported a quarterly net loss of $532 million.

During the earnings call, analysts began pressing management about ENTRA1’s actual experience. Subsequent analyst reports questioned whether ENTRA1 had ever built or operated any projects, directly contradicting earlier impressions.

Investor Harm and Market Reaction

Following the November 2025 disclosures and analyst scrutiny, NuScale’s stock fell sharply.

Over a two-day trading period, NuScale shares declined more than 12%, falling from approximately $32 per share to around $28 on heavy trading volume. The decline did not stop there. By November 21, 2025, NuScale’s stock had dropped to roughly $17 per share—more than 70% below its class-period high.

The complaint alleges that these declines reflect the market’s reaction to corrective disclosures revealing the true nature of ENTRA1’s experience, the scale of NuScale’s financial commitments, and the risks embedded in its commercialization strategy.

Litigation and Procedural Posture

The lawsuit is pending in the United States District Court for the District of Oregon. The case is styled Truedson v. NuScale Power Corporation, et al., Case No. 3:26-cv-00328-JR.

The complaint asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5. Defendants include NuScale Power Corporation, CEO John L. Hopkins, CFO Robert Ramsey Hamady, and Fluor Corporation as a controlling shareholder.

Investors allege that defendants knowingly or recklessly made materially false and misleading statements, failed to disclose required risk factors under SEC regulations, and benefitted from stock sales while the market price was allegedly inflated. The action is at an early stage, with plaintiffs seeking class certification, damages, and other relief.

Shareholder Sentiment

Following NuScale’s November 6, 2025 disclosures, retail-investor conversation turned toward the implications of the ENTRA1-related payment and the broader risks tied to the company’s commercialization strategy. On retail-investor platforms such as Stocktwits, discussion activity increased sharply after the earnings release, with users debating whether the $495 million milestone payment reflected a necessary step in commercialization or an indication of elevated counterparty and execution risk.

Similarly, discussion threads on Reddit’s r/stocks and r/investing communities reflected heightened scrutiny of ENTRA1, with users questioning the partner’s limited track record and the structure of the milestone payments disclosed by the company. Public commentary on X (formerly Twitter) also reflected a shift toward a more cautious tone, with market participants highlighting the magnitude of the milestone payment and debating whether the ENTRA1 partnership introduced additional uncertainty into NuScale’s commercialization timeline.

Across platforms, the discussion consistently centered on execution risk, disclosure transparency, and the role of ENTRA1 in NuScale’s long-term deployment strategy, aligning with the issues raised in the complaint regarding the partner’s capabilities and the structure of the underlying agreement.

Analyst Commentary

Analyst sentiment toward NuScale shifted materially following the company’s November 6, 2025 disclosures, as the scale of the ENTRA1-related payments and resulting financial impact prompted increased scrutiny of the company’s commercialization strategy.

NuScale’s third-quarter results disclosed that the company recognized a $495.0 million milestone contribution to ENTRA1, which drove a sharp increase in general and administrative expenses and became a central focus of outside commentary.

During the company’s November 6 earnings call, analysts pressed management on the ENTRA1 arrangement, including the milestone-payment structure and the company’s rationale for the agreement.

Subsequent industry and financial coverage highlighted concerns about ENTRA1’s capabilities and the risks embedded in NuScale’s commercialization model. Additional public criticism followed. On November 14, 2025, Iceberg Research published a report questioning NuScale’s relationship with ENTRA1, including whether the arrangement was negotiated at arm’s length and whether ENTRA1 had the experience necessary to support such a large commercialization program.

SEC Filings & Risk Factors

The complaint places significant emphasis on NuScale’s SEC filings, alleging violations of disclosure obligations under Items 303 and 105 of Regulation S-K.

According to plaintiffs, NuScale’s filings failed to disclose known uncertainties and material risks arising from ENTRA1’s lack of experience. These omissions allegedly deprived investors of information necessary to evaluate the feasibility of NuScale’s commercialization plans, the likelihood of regulatory delays, and the potential financial impact of the partnership.

The lawsuit contends that accurate disclosure of ENTRA1’s true qualifications would have materially altered the total mix of information available to investors.

Conclusion: Implications for Investors

The NuScale lawsuit highlights a familiar tension in emerging-technology companies: the gap between promise and execution. For investors, the case underscores the importance of scrutinizing not just a company’s technology, but the experience and incentives of the partners tasked with bringing that technology to market.

Whether the allegations are ultimately proven remains for the court to decide. But the claims raise broader questions about disclosure, due diligence, and how risk is communicated in capital-intensive sectors like nuclear energy. For SMR investors, the story is no longer just about innovation. It is about trust.

How to Join the NuScale Power Corporation (SMR) Class Action

• Confirm you purchased SMR shares during the relevant class period
• Review eligibility details regarding the lawsuit
• Click here to check eligibility

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.