Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP Reminds Investors of Looming Deadline in the Class Action Lawsuit Against Malibu Boats, Inc. (MBUU)

Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP (“GPM”) reminds investors of the upcoming June 28, 2024 deadline to file a lead plaintiff motion in the class action filed on behalf of investors who purchased or otherwise acquired Malibu Boats, Inc. (“Malibu Boats” or the “Company”) (NASDAQ: MBUU) securities between November 4, 2022 and April 11, 2024, inclusive (the “Class Period”).

If you suffered a loss on your Malibu Boats investments or would like to inquire about potentially pursuing claims to recover your loss under the federal securities laws, you can submit your contact information at www.glancylaw.com/cases/Malibu-Boats-Inc/. You can also contact Charles H. Linehan, of GPM at 310-201-9150, Toll-Free at 888-773-9224, or via email at [e-mail] to learn more about your rights.

On February 20, 2024, before the market opened, Malibu Boats announced the Company’s Chief Executive Officer (“CEO”) had “mutually agreed” to cease to serve as CEO.

On this news, the Company’s stock price fell $4.33 or 9.1%, to close at $43.15 per share on February 20, 2024, on unusually heavy trading volume.

Then, on April 11, 2024, after the market closed, Malibu Boats revealed that Tommy’s Boats (“Tommy’s”) had filed a complaint against the Company. After the Company disclosed news of the lawsuit, various media outlets publicized the Complaint, which alleged the Company “engaged in an elaborate scheme” to “pump nearly $100 million” worth of inventory into Tommy dealerships since late 2022 to “artificially inflate Malibu’s sales performance.” According to the Complaint, Malibu Boats forced the Company’s highest priced, highest margin, slow moving “Malibu” branded inventory (as opposed to the lower-margin, but faster moving “Axis” brand) onto Tommy’s dealerships. Malibu Boats recognizes a sale when the dealer takes delivery of the boat, regardless of whether it has been sold to the end user. As a result, this scheme enabled the Company to represent that it experienced strong wholesale demand and sales, even as sales to the end user declined. The Complaint revealed that, approximately one week prior to the Company announcing the separation with Defendant Springer, certain “Malibu stakeholders” admitted to the principal of Tommy’s dealerships that Malibu was in fact “intentionally pumping Tommy’s full of inventory.” The Complaint further alleged the Company withheld payment of incentives from Tommy’s for nearly two years before suddenly cutting ties with Tommy’s.