Globant S.A. (GLOB) told investors that Latin America offered strong demand and significant expansion opportunities, including a $1 billion strategic pivot to the region. But according to the complaint, the company was facing a very different reality behind the scenes: declining demand, client defections, project cancellations, and wage freezes in Mexico and Argentina that allegedly harmed employees and operations.
Meet Samuel – Your Personal Investing Prophet
- Start a conversation with TipRanks’ trusted, data-backed investment intelligence
- Ask Samuel about stocks, your portfolio, or the market and get instant, personalized insights in seconds
A pension fund is now suing Globant and three of its top executives, alleging they painted a misleading picture of the company’s Latin American growth strategy while concealing worsening business conditions in the region.
Globant, a Luxembourg-incorporated technology services company traded on the New York Stock Exchange, is the subject of a federal securities lawsuit filed April 24, 2026, in the Southern District of New York. The lawsuit alleges that Globant and three executives made materially false and misleading statements about the company’s Latin American expansion strategy between February 15, 2024, and August 14, 2025. Over that period, the complaint alleges, Globant’s stock fell from above $210 per share to below $67 per share across three alleged corrective disclosures.
The first alleged corrective disclosure occurred on February 21, 2025, when Globant shares dropped nearly 28%, or about $58 per share, after the company reported disappointing results in Latin America. A second decline of more than 23%, or roughly $31 per share, followed on May 16, 2025, after Globant disclosed a 9% year-over-year drop in Latin American revenue. Then, following a third alleged corrective disclosure on August 15, 2025, shares declined approximately 15%, or nearly $12 per share, after the company disclosed significant restructuring charges and addressed deteriorating conditions in Brazil and Mexico throughout 2024 and into 2025.
Investors who purchased Globant common stock during the class period spanning February 15, 2024, through August 14, 2025 may have legal rights. Affected investors are encouraged to learn more about their eligibility.
About Globant: A Latin American Tech Services Firm Built on U.S. Revenue
According to the complaint, Globant is an international technology services company that provides digital consulting, software development, and IT outsourcing to multinational corporations across multiple industries. The company was founded in Argentina and maintains a workforce largely based in Latin America, with approximately 69% of its employees located in the region as of the class period.
Globant historically derived most of its revenue from the United States, which gave it a competitive cost advantage due to its relatively lower-cost Latin American workforce. In mid-2023, however, the company announced a strategic pivot, committing $1 billion to grow its Latin American client business. This included a December 2023 acquisition of Iteris, a Brazilian digital consulting firm with more than 600 employees. Throughout the class period, Brazil and Mexico were described by company leadership as the two largest economies in the region and the drivers of 38% of Globant’s Latin American revenues.
What the Lawsuit Claims: A Strategy That Was Allegedly Already Faltering
The complaint’s central allegation is that while Globant executives were publicly promoting the strength and growth trajectory of the company’s Latin American operations, the business was actually experiencing declining demand, client defections, and project cancellations in the region. The lawsuit claims Globant froze wages for employees in Mexico and Argentina in late 2023, a meaningful cut in purchasing power given those countries’ high inflation rates, but did not disclose these freezes to investors while simultaneously describing its Latin American workforce as thriving.
The complaint also alleges that Globant’s acquisition of Iteris was troubled from the start: former Iteris clients allegedly departed because of Globant’s higher hourly rates, and the integration of Iteris employees was described as a failure. In Argentina, a trade union reportedly petitioned Globant’s CEO for urgent wage increases and received no response. The complaint alleges the company blocked unionization efforts and terminated an employee in October 2024 for organizing a private discussion group about compensation.
This lawsuit centers on whether executives knew about these internal problems while continuing to characterize the Latin American expansion as successful, growing, and strategically sound. Investors and market participants following the case closely can find ongoing updates through financial and legal reporting channels.
What Executives Allegedly Said: Confidence in a Region Under Pressure
The complaint cites multiple earnings calls and filings in which named defendants described the Latin American business in strongly positive terms. During the February 15, 2024, Q4 2023 earnings call, the defendant and CEO Martin Migoya described Latin America as a region where the company was “eager to take up” demand, highlighting near-doubled headcount in Brazil and robust pipeline expectations. CFO Juan Ignacio Urthiague described Brazil and Mexico as “very, very large markets” and stated that the company was “very confident about our ability to grow in Latin America.”
On May 16, 2024, during the Q1 2024 earnings call, Migoya described Globant as “the employer of choice” in Latin America and said the company was “outpacing other players in the industry.” On the same call, Urthiague stated regarding Argentine employee costs that “salary ha[d] a very good impact” on the situation and that the company was “not expecting big changes on that front.” COO Patricia Pomies, on the August 15, 2024, Q2 2024 call, described Latin American demand as “still very, very high” and said Globant was “very strong in LatAm.” These statements are alleged to have been false and misleading at the time they were made.
Investors who purchased Regencell securities during the class period and suffered losses may wish to learn more about their eligibility to participate in this action.
How the Alleged Truth Emerged: Three Disclosures Over Six Months
The complaint identifies three dates on which it alleges the market learned about the real state of Globant’s Latin American operations. The first came on February 20 and 21, 2025, when Globant missed its Q4 2024 guidance and reported a 1.3% decline in Latin American revenue. On the earnings call, Migoya attributed difficulties in Latin America in 2024 to “political turmoil” in Brazil and Colombia, while Urthiague referred to “political noise.” Following this disclosure, the stock fell approximately 28%, from $210.17 to $151.72 per share.
On May 15 and 16, 2025, Globant disclosed that Latin American revenue had declined 9% year-over-year, citing “notable contractions in Mexico and Brazil.” Company leadership acknowledged that “Mexico is suffering. Brazil is suffering.” The stock declined more than 23% on those disclosures, from $132.84 to $101.47. The final and most complete disclosure, according to the complaint, came on August 14 and 15, 2025, when Globant disclosed a reduction of approximately 1,000 employees and a $47.6 million restructuring charge, and for the first time acknowledged that Latin American headcount had been “going down for a number of quarters” and that Brazil and Mexico had experienced “deterioration” throughout 2024 and into 2025. The stock dropped nearly 15%, from $78.12 to $66.46 per share.
Why This Case May Matter to Shareholders
The lawsuit alleges that investors who purchased Globant stock during the class period paid artificially inflated prices because of the alleged misrepresentations about the health of the company’s Latin American expansion. The complaint contends that the true state of Globant’s operations — including wage freezes, operational deterioration, integration failures, and declining client demand — was concealed from the market throughout 2024, even as executives made optimistic public statements about growth and expansion.
As the alleged truth emerged in stages across three corrective events in early to mid-2025, the complaint asserts that shareholders suffered cumulative losses that would not have occurred had material information been disclosed in a timely and accurate manner. Any investor who bought Globant shares between February 15, 2024, and August 14, 2025, could potentially be a member of the proposed class.
The Legal Framework: What Plaintiff Claims Was Violated
The lawsuit asserts two causes of action under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The first is a claim under Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and SEC Rule 10b-5, which prohibits making false or misleading statements of material fact in connection with the purchase or sale of securities. The complaint alleges that Globant and the three named individual defendants knowingly or recklessly made or caused to be made materially misleading statements and omissions about the company’s Latin American operations, workforce, and financial results.
The second claim is under Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act, which extends liability to individuals who exercise control over a company that commits a primary violation. The complaint names Migoya, Urthiague, and Pomies as controlling persons of Globant, alleging they were aware of and participated in the conduct alleged to constitute the primary violation.
Investors who believe they may have suffered losses during the class period should consult with a qualified securities attorney to evaluate their legal rights and options.
About Levi & Korsinsky, LLP
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP is a nationally recognized securities litigation firm representing investors in complex shareholder actions. The firm has extensive expertise and a team of over 70 employees to serve our clients. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes.
Disclaimer: This article is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. No attorney-client relationship is created by reading this article. Past results do not guarantee similar outcomes.