Fermi Inc. Securities Litigation: Examining the Collapse of a Single-Tenant Funding Strategy

Overview: When Funding Concentration Meets Pre-Revenue Ambition

Investors in Fermi (FRMI) face a sobering lesson in concentration risk. A federal securities lawsuit filed January 5, 2026, in Manhattan’s Southern District court alleges that the company’s rosy funding narrative concealed a critical vulnerability: dependence on a single tenant to bankroll a multibillion-dollar nuclear-powered data center project.

The central allegation is straightforward. Between early October and mid-December 2025—a period spanning Fermi’s initial public offering and its first weeks of trading—the company allegedly painted a misleading picture of financial stability for Project Matador, its flagship energy campus in West Texas. When that picture crumbled on December 12 with news that a key tenant had walked away from a $150 million construction commitment, shareholders watched the stock plummet 34% in a single day. By early January, shares had sunk 59% from their $21 IPO price.

The lawsuit, styled Lupia v. Fermi Inc. et al., Case No. 1:26-cv-00050, raises questions that extend beyond one company’s misfortune. How much disclosure do investors deserve when a pre-revenue infrastructure venture hinges on commitments that can evaporate overnight? And what happens when the funding plan for an $11 billion project rests on the goodwill of tenants who haven’t signed leases yet?

To learn whether you may be eligible for a recovery under this class action, click here.

Unpacking Fermi’s Business Model and Capital Structure

Fermi positioned itself as something novel: an energy infrastructure real estate investment trust designed specifically for the artificial intelligence industry’s voracious appetite for computing power. Headquartered in Amarillo, the company outlined an ambitious vision to build multiple nuclear reactors and a constellation of grid-independent data centers, all tailored to handle AI workloads.

Project Matador represented the cornerstone of this strategy. Planned for development on Texas Tech University land, the campus aimed to deliver 11 gigawatts of behind-the-meter electricity—a configuration that bypasses traditional grid constraints. Over a 13-year build-out, Fermi envisioned 15 million square feet of data center space under an initial 20-year lease with multiple renewal options extending to 2038.

There was one catch: at the time of its October 2025 IPO, Fermi had no operating history and zero revenue. The company was selling a blueprint, not a business. That made the funding plan everything. IPO investors needed confidence that Fermi could finance construction, and that confidence rested on projections about tenant commitments that would supposedly supply capital upfront.

The offering raised approximately $784 million, a substantial sum. But for a project of Project Matador’s scale, it represented only a down payment. The registration statement acknowledged this reality, pointing to additional capital sources: tenant prepayments, project-level debt, and strategic equity. Critically, the offering documents assured investors that once Fermi secured leases, these sources would cover 100% of costs for long-lead-time infrastructure items—the expensive, hard-to-reverse expenditures that get locked in early.

The Capital Plan That Unraveled

Understanding what went wrong requires grasping how infrastructure development financing works, particularly in the niche world of energy-intensive data centers.

Traditional data center REITs often build speculatively or with substantial tenant pre-commitments. Fermi’s model leaned heavily on the latter. The company told investors it was in “advanced discussions” with potential anchor tenants spanning AI developers, GPU manufacturers, and sovereign AI providers. These weren’t casual conversations; the implication was that serious players with investment-grade credit were ready to write checks.

On November 10, Fermi announced what appeared to be validation of this strategy: a $150 million Advance in Aid of Construction Agreement (AICA) with an unnamed “First Tenant.” An AIAC is a financing mechanism where a tenant essentially funds infrastructure buildout in exchange for future rent credits or other considerations. Think of it as the tenant lending the landlord money for construction that benefits the tenant’s future operations.

Two days later, Fermi’s third-quarter 10-Q filing doubled down on this narrative. The company emphasized expectations for “investment-grade tenants” who would provide “upfront capital contributions.” The recently executed AIAC served as Exhibit A—proof that the funding model worked and that Project Matador had momentum.

But here’s where the risk concentration became acute. While Fermi spoke in plural about tenants and funding sources, the complaint alleges the company failed to disclose how much of the construction plan depended on this single tenant and this single $150 million commitment. If that tenant reconsidered, what would happen to the timeline? To liquidity? To the assurances that capital would be “sufficient” for 12 months?

What Investors Were Told vs. What They Weren’t

Securities law doesn’t require companies to guarantee success or eliminate all uncertainty. It does, however, demand that known material risks be disclosed clearly.

The registration statement issued September 30, 2025, painted a picture of diversified funding. It mentioned multiple capital sources. It discussed “advanced discussions” with various potential tenants. It stated that available capital would meet obligations for at least a year. These weren’t fraudulent statements on their face—but the complaint argues they became misleading through what was not said.

Specifically, plaintiffs allege Fermi failed to adequately disclose:

• The degree to which Project Matador’s construction depended on the First Tenant’s $150 million commitment
• The fragility of that commitment—namely, that it could be terminated before any money changed hands
• The limited progress in actually securing signed, long-term leases with the “advanced discussion” partners
• The material risk that if the First Tenant walked away, the company would face a significant funding gap

When Fermi’s November communications reinforced the AIAC narrative—highlighting it as evidence of tenant confidence and near-term funding—shareholders reasonably interpreted this as a solved problem. The filing positioned the $150 million as secured capital, not a tentative promise subject to termination.

The complaint further alleges that the positive tone around tenant demand was unsupported. Yes, Fermi was having conversations. But conversations don’t fund billion-dollar construction projects. Signed leases with binding financial commitments do. And according to the lawsuit, the gap between the two was far wider than disclosed.

December’s Funding Gap and Market Consequences

December 12, 2025, brought the reckoning. Before markets opened, Fermi issued a press release announcing that the First Tenant had terminated the $150 million AIAC the previous day.

The details were stark. An exclusivity period tied to a letter of intent had expired on December 9. No funds had been drawn under the AIAC—meaning Fermi had received precisely zero dollars of the supposed $150 million commitment. Lease negotiations would continue, but under the original, non-binding letter of intent. Management attempted to sound optimistic, expressing “confidence” in meeting power delivery schedules given “perceived demand” for AI infrastructure.

The market didn’t buy it. Fermi’s stock fell from $15.25 to $10.09, a $5.16 decline representing a 33.8% loss in a single session. Volume surged—evidence that investors were rushing to reassess positions. The $10.09 close marked a 52% drop from the $21 IPO price just weeks earlier.

Worse was yet to come. By early January 2026, when the lawsuit was filed, shares had touched $8.59—a 59% decline from the offering price. Investors who bought at the IPO had lost more than half their investment in roughly two months.

Why such a severe reaction? Because the termination exposed the fundamental fragility of Fermi’s funding thesis. The company had raised capital by assuring investors that tenant commitments would bridge the gap between IPO proceeds and full project financing. When the first major tenant commitment evaporated—without delivering a single dollar—it suggested the entire premise might be built on quicksand. If the First Tenant wasn’t confident enough to proceed, why would other tenants feel differently? And if tenant capital wasn’t actually forthcoming, how would Fermi fund construction without massive dilution or debt that could overwhelm a pre-revenue balance sheet?

Legal Framework: When Do Omissions Become Actionable?

The lawsuit asserts violations of both the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, invoking multiple provisions that apply different standards.

Section 11 of the Securities Act creates liability for material misstatements or omissions in registration statements. This is significant because Section 11 applies strict liability to certain defendants—no need to prove intent to deceive, just that the registration statement contained false or misleading information when it became effective. For IPO purchasers, this offers a powerful remedy because it recognizes that initial offering documents are the primary source of information for investors making buy decisions.

Section 15 of the Securities Act extends liability to control persons—typically officers, directors, and major shareholders who had authority over the misleading disclosures. This allows plaintiffs to reach individuals beyond the corporate entity.

Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 establish the classic securities fraud standard: a material misstatement or omission, made with scienter (intentional or reckless misconduct), that investors relied upon to their detriment. This claim covers not just the IPO but subsequent trading during the class period, encompassing Fermi’s November updates and any other public statements through December 11.

Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act, like Section 15, targets control persons—individuals who had power to influence or control corporate communications.

The materiality analysis is central. A fact is material if a reasonable investor would consider it important in making an investment decision. Plaintiffs argue that the First Tenant’s ability to terminate the $150 million commitment—and the company’s dependence on that commitment—were unquestionably material. If investors had known the funding was contingent and fragile, they might have demanded a lower IPO price or avoided the offering entirely.

The scienter requirement for Exchange Act claims is more demanding. Plaintiffs must show that defendants either knew the statements were false or acted with such recklessness that they essentially ignored obvious warning signs. Here, the complaint suggests that management necessarily understood how critical the First Tenant commitment was to near-term liquidity, yet chose to emphasize diversified funding and “advanced discussions” that created a misleading impression of financial stability.

Procedural Timeline and Investor Options

Securities class actions follow a defined procedural path, and understanding the timeline helps investors evaluate their options.

The case was filed January 5, 2026. Under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act (PSLRA), the court must appoint a “lead plaintiff”—typically the investor with the largest financial stake who can adequately represent the class. Potential lead plaintiffs must submit applications by March 6, 2026. The court will then select the lead plaintiff, who in turn selects lead counsel to prosecute the case.

After lead plaintiff appointment, the litigation moves through several stages:

1. Motion to Dismiss: Defendants will likely file a motion arguing that the complaint fails to state a valid claim—for example, that the alleged omissions weren’t material or that plaintiffs haven’t adequately alleged scienter. This is a critical juncture; many securities cases are dismissed at this stage if allegations are too thin.
2. Discovery: If the case survives dismissal, both sides engage in extensive document collection and depositions. Plaintiffs will seek internal Fermi communications about tenant discussions, financial projections, and risk assessments. Discovery often takes 12-18 months.
3. Class Certification: The court must formally certify that the case can proceed as a class action, determining whether common questions of law and fact predominate and whether the class representatives adequately protect absent class members.
4. Summary Judgment, Trial, or Settlement: Most securities class actions settle before trial. If the case doesn’t settle, it proceeds to summary judgment motions or trial.

The lawsuit seeks to represent purchasers of Fermi Inc. (FRMI): (a) common stock pursuant and/or traceable to the registration statement or prospectus issued in connection with Fermi’s October 2025 initial public offering (“IPO”); and/or (b) purchases of Fermi’s securities between October 1, 2025 and December 11, 2025, inclusive (“Class Period”).

Investors who purchased FRMI securities in connection with the Company’s IPO and/or during the Class Period may be eligible to join the Fermi Inc. (FRMI) class action lawsuit.

To learn more about your options, click here.

About Levi & Korsinsky, LLP

Levi & Korsinsky is dedicated to fighting for aggrieved shareholders and consumers, obtaining redress from major corporations and their officers, directors, and executives. Our attorneys have decades of experience representing investors and consumers and have set ground-breaking legal precedents in high-stakes securities and class action lawsuits nationwide. To learn more, please visit zlk.com.

---

Legal Disclaimer: This article is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice or a solicitation. Investors should consult qualified legal counsel for guidance specific to their circumstances. No attorney-client relationship is created by reading this content, and no particular outcome is guaranteed in this or any litigation.