By Rand Manasse. Originally published in Law360 on November 5, 2026.
Download the Law360 article (PDF)
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California's Sept. 28 decision dismissing portions of a securities complaint against Enphase Energy provides yet another example of the challenges facing solar energy companies when financial performance falls short of expectations.
Together with recent litigation involving Nextracker and SolarEdge Technologies, the decision raises important questions about financial disclosures, management representations and corporate governance.
Financial assumptions can change quickly. Customer demand, financing availability, equipment costs, government incentives and project schedules can all affect anticipated revenue and profitability.
These are normal business risks. The question becomes more complicated when financial results differ substantially from expectations and investors allege that management's earlier representations were misleading.
The three companies operate in different segments of the solar industry, but their litigation raises related questions concerning financial disclosures, operational conditions and management's knowledge of changing business circumstances.
For attorneys, understanding the underlying business is essential to evaluating those questions.
Nextracker: Backlog Versus Revenue
Nextracker, now known as Nextpower, supplies solar tracking systems used primarily in utility-scale installations.
In Barker v. Nextracker Inc., investors alleged that the company and certain executives made misleading statements concerning business conditions, project backlogs and anticipated financial performance.[1]
The allegations involved the relationship between reported backlog and the timing of expected revenue.
On March 9, the Northern District of California granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the amended complaint. The plaintiffs declined to amend, and the claims were dismissed with prejudice on April 13.
The court concluded that the plaintiffs had not adequately alleged actionable misrepresentations or omissions. It did not independently determine whether Nextracker's forecasting practices or governance procedures were optimal.
A substantial backlog does not necessarily establish when revenue will be recognized. Utility-scale solar projects can experience delays involving financing, permitting, construction schedules and utility interconnection.
Those delays may affect equipment deliveries and revenue timing without necessarily eliminating the underlying customer commitment.
For attorneys, the relevant inquiry is whether management's statements were consistent with the information available when they were made. That requires understanding the contractual commitments, project schedules and operating assumptions underlying the reported backlog.
SolarEdge: Inventory and Customer Demand
SolarEdge Technologies is a major supplier of solar inverters, power optimizers and related energy management products.
Its business depends significantly on equipment sales through distributors and installers.
In In re: SolarEdge Technologies Inc. Securities Litigation, investors alleged that management made misleading statements concerning inventory levels and demand, particularly in European markets.[2]
The litigation resulted in a $55 million settlement, approved by the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on Aug. 26.
The settlement did not constitute an admission of wrongdoing, and the court made no finding that the defendants committed securities fraud. The allegations nevertheless highlight an important operating distinction.
Sales to distributors do not necessarily represent sales to end customers.
An inverter manufacturer may recognize revenue from distributor sales while equipment remains in inventory awaiting installation.
When residential solar demand declines, distributors may reduce new purchases while selling existing inventory. Consequently, the manufacturer's reported revenue and underlying end-customer demand may move in different directions.
From an operating perspective, management needs to understand distributor inventory, installer purchasing patterns and changes in customer demand. For attorneys evaluating financial representations, those same factors may help determine whether management's statements reflected the information available at the time.
Enphase: Competition, European Demand and Management Representations
Enphase Energy is another major participant in the solar inverter market, best known for its microinverter technology.
Although Enphase and SolarEdge compete in many of the same markets, their technologies and distribution relationships differ. Both companies are affected by residential solar demand, installer purchasing decisions and competition.
In HANSAINVEST Hanseatische Investment-GmbH v. Enphase Energy Inc., investors alleged that Enphase and certain executives made misleading statements concerning European demand, competition and business conditions.[3] The plaintiffs contended that management attributed declining European demand to broader economic conditions while failing to adequately disclose company-specific challenges, including competition and product-related issues.
On Sept. 28, the Northern District of California granted Enphase's motion to dismiss the amended complaint.
The court found that the allegations did not sufficiently establish that the challenged statements were false or misleading when made. Some allegations were dismissed without leave to amend, while others could be amended. The ruling therefore did not finally dispose of the entire action.
The decision is significant because it addresses the distinction between adverse business developments and actionable financial representations.
Management may attribute declining sales to interest rates, changing market conditions or reduced customer demand. However, attorneys evaluating such statements need to determine whether the company's internal information supported those explanations. The analysis may involve regional sales performance, market share, pricing, competition, product issues and management forecasts.
The existence of unfavorable business conditions does not automatically establish misconduct. The question is whether the company's statements fairly reflected the information available when they were made.
5 Questions Attorneys Should Ask
Although the three cases involve different business circumstances and legal outcomes, they raise common questions relevant to evaluating solar securities disputes.
1. What did management know, and when?
Disappointing financial performance does not establish that earlier management statements were misleading. The more important question is whether management possessed information materially inconsistent with its representations.
For Nextracker, that information might involve project schedules and anticipated equipment deliveries. For SolarEdge and Enphase, it might concern distributor inventory, regional demand, competitive pressures or changes in customer purchasing patterns.
Internal forecasts, sales reports, customer communications, and board presentations may help establish what information management possessed. The timing and significance of that information are critical.
2. Were financial projections supported by actual business conditions?
Financial forecasts depend on assumptions about future operating performance. Those assumptions differ across solar business models.
For utility-scale equipment suppliers, project schedules and contractual commitments may determine anticipated revenue. For inverter manufacturers, distributor inventory, installer demand and regional sales trends may be more significant.
Attorneys should examine whether management incorporated relevant operating information into its projections. Historical performance, inventory turnover, customer commitments and changes in market conditions may help determine whether the assumptions were reasonable.
The issue is not simply whether a forecast ultimately proved accurate. It is whether the forecast was supported by information reasonably available when it was developed.
3. Were financial losses caused by alleged misconduct or market conditions?
Solar companies operate in an industry affected by interest rates, financing availability, government incentives, tariffs and equipment costs. These factors can affect profitability and enterprise value independently of management conduct.
In litigation involving damages, attorneys must distinguish losses attributable to alleged misconduct from those resulting from broader industry developments.
A decline in residential solar demand may affect multiple inverter manufacturers, while utility-scale project delays may have different consequences for equipment suppliers.
An appropriate financial analysis should consider these differences rather than assume that all losses resulted from the alleged conduct.
4. Did management and the board have adequate information?
Corporate governance becomes relevant when litigation raises questions concerning financial reporting and management oversight.
Boards are responsible for overseeing management, not guaranteeing business results. Nevertheless, effective oversight requires directors to understand the assumptions supporting significant financial projections.
For Nextracker, that may involve backlog conversion and project schedules. For SolarEdge and Enphase, it may involve inventory levels, customer demand and changing market conditions.
Were directors informed of significant changes in business conditions? Did management identify deviations from forecasts? Were the financial consequences explained?
These questions are relevant to governance practices, although weaknesses in oversight do not automatically establish legal liability.
5. What expertise is necessary to evaluate the disputed facts?
Solar securities litigation may involve financial reporting, operating practices, contractual obligations and economic damages. The necessary expertise depends on the disputed issues.
A case involving project backlogs may require knowledge of utility-scale development and equipment delivery practices. A dispute involving inverter manufacturers may require an understanding of distribution channels, inventory management, installer purchasing behavior and residential solar demand. Other issues may require accounting, economic, engineering or technical expertise.
The important consideration is that the analysis reflects the actual business environment in which the disputed conduct occurred.
The Corporate Governance Connection
The three cases also raise broader governance considerations.
Directors regularly review financial projections, business pipelines, inventory reports and management forecasts. However, those reports are only useful when directors understand the assumptions supporting them.
A board reviewing a substantial backlog should understand what portion represents firm commitments and what factors could delay revenue recognition, while a board overseeing an equipment manufacturer should understand the relationship between distributor shipments, inventory and end-customer demand.
One of the most important elements of effective governance is the quality of information reaching the board. Directors cannot evaluate risks they do not understand, and they also cannot effectively challenge management assumptions without receiving the information necessary to do so.
This does not require directors to become involved in daily operations. It requires reporting systems that identify significant changes in business conditions and explain their potential financial consequences.
None of these cases establishes that the companies' directors breached their legal responsibilities. They do, however, illustrate why informed oversight of financial assumptions and operating risks matters.
Conclusion
The securities litigation involving Nextracker, SolarEdge and Enphase illustrates the challenges of evaluating financial representations in the solar industry.
For Nextracker, the relevant operating considerations include project schedules and backlog conversion. For SolarEdge and Enphase, distributor inventory, customer demand, competition and changing market conditions are particularly important.
The cases have different procedural outcomes, and allegations should not be confused with findings of misconduct. Nevertheless, they raise a common issue: Financial projections cannot be fully understood without examining the operating information and assumptions supporting them.
For attorneys, that examination may be essential to evaluating disputed representations and determining whether management's statements were consistent with the information available at the time. For corporate directors, it reinforces the importance of informed oversight and meaningful management reporting.
The issue is not simply whether financial projections proved accurate; it is whether the information and assumptions supporting those projections were reasonable when the representations were made. That distinction is central to understanding the relationship between business risk, financial disclosures and corporate accountability.
Rand Mark Manasse is the managing partner at Green Lane Partners LLC.
The opinions expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of their employer, its clients, or Portfolio Media Inc., or any of its or their respective affiliates. This article is for general information purposes and is not intended to be and should not be taken as legal advice.
[1] Barker v. Nextracker Inc., No. 5:24-cv-09467-PCP (N.D. Cal.). Motion to dismiss granted March 9, 2026; claims dismissed with prejudice April 13, 2026.
[2] In re: SolarEdge Technologies, Inc. Securities Litigation, No. 1:23-cv-09748-GHW (S.D.N.Y.). Final approval of $55 million settlement, August 26, 2026.
[3] HANSAINVEST Hanseatische Investment-GmbH v. Enphase Energy, Inc., No. 4:24-cv-09038-JST (N.D. Cal.). September 28, 2026, order granting motion to dismiss with partial leave to amend.
Leave a Reply