NuScale (SMR) touted its SMR strategy and spotlighted ENTRA1 as a path to commercialization. The complaint alleges investors weren’t given the full picture about ENTRA1’s experience or the risks behind that partnership. Now, affected shareholders are being notified of the claims.
Claim 55% Off TipRanks
New trading tool for SMR bulls/bearsInvestors in NuScale Power Corporation are suing the company over allegations that it misled the market about the experience and capabilities of its exclusive commercialization partner, ENTRA1 Energy, and the risks tied to that relationship. The complaint claims that when details about ENTRA1 and the financial impact of NuScale’s agreement with ENTRA1 emerged in November 2025, NuScale’s stock price fell sharply, allegedly harming shareholders who bought during the defined period.
The lawsuit covers purchasers of NuScale Class A common stock between May 13, 2025, and November 6, 2025, and centers on NuScale’s strategy to commercialize its small modular reactor technology through ENTRA1. According to the filing, a series of disclosures beginning on November 6, 2025, including a large payment to ENTRA1 and questions about ENTRA1’s track record, allegedly served as corrective events that coincided with significant declines in NuScale’s share price.
Investors who bought NuScale stock during the alleged period and suffered losses are invited to learn more about the case and consider whether they may be eligible for potential recovery.
Company Background
NuScale Power Corporation is a nuclear technology company that develops small modular nuclear reactors known as NuScale Power Modules, or NPMs. Each NPM is designed to generate 77 megawatts of electricity in a modular power plant configuration and is promoted as offering advantages over traditional large-scale nuclear plants, including scalability, simplified design, a smaller footprint, and potential economic benefits.
The company operates in a heavily regulated industry, where nuclear projects face complex technical standards and lengthy regulatory approval processes, including those of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. NuScale has not yet commercialized or sold any NPMs. While it has generated limited revenue from engineering and licensing services, it has incurred significant losses and remains unprofitable, making the successful commercialization of its NPMs central to its business model.
Prior to the class period, NuScale entered into a global commercialization partnership with ENTRA1 Energy, granting ENTRA1 exclusive rights to commercialize, distribute, and deploy NuScale’s SMR technology. Under this structure, NuScale would act as a technology provider, selling NPMs to ENTRA1, while ENTRA1 would develop, finance, and, in some cases, own and operate power plants using NuScale’s modules.
Core Allegations
The lawsuit focuses on NuScale’s decision to entrust commercialization of its NPMs and substantial capital to ENTRA1 and on how the company allegedly described ENTRA1’s capabilities to investors. The complaint alleges that NuScale and certain executives repeatedly portrayed ENTRA1 as an experienced, independent power plant development platform with a veteran team and distinctive capabilities, while allegedly omitting that ENTRA1 had never built, financed, or operated any significant project, particularly in nuclear power.
Plaintiff claims that NuScale’s public statements during the period misrepresented or failed to disclose material facts about ENTRA1’s qualifications, the true nature of its experience, and the risks that this posed to NuScale’s commercialization strategy and financial results. The overarching theory is that investors were led to believe NuScale’s SMR rollout was backed by a seasoned partner, when in reality the company had allegedly committed its strategy and hundreds of millions of dollars to an untested partner, creating undisclosed risks of failure, delays, and regulatory challenges.
The complaint asserts that when information regarding ENTRA1’s limited track record and the scale of NuScale’s financial commitments emerged in November 2025, the market reacted negatively and NuScale’s share price declined, allegedly causing losses to shareholders.
Investors interested in this case may wish to follow future court filings and updates to better understand how the allegations and defenses develop over time.
Management Statements
According to the complaint, NuScale’s senior management highlighted ENTRA1’s role and purported strengths in multiple earnings calls, SEC filings, and press releases during the class period. In May 2025, Chief Executive Officer John L. Hopkins described ENTRA1 as NuScale’s exclusive commercialization partner, leading discussions with potential customers, including U.S. hyperscalers focused on AI operations, and stated that potential customers were attracted to ENTRA1’s commercial model designed to provide financial flexibility and mitigate deployment risks.
NuScale’s May 2025 Form 10-Q incorporated a strategic alliance agreement citing ENTRA1’s experience in the development, management, and financing of global infrastructure projects, and company materials described ENTRA1 as an independent power plant development platform with exclusive global rights to commercialize NuScale’s SMRs. In August 2025, Hopkins stated that NuScale, “with our partnership with ENTRA1 to commercialize our SMR technology inside ENTRA1 Energy Plants,” was making strides toward deploying its technology, and Chief Financial Officer Robert Ramsey Hamady emphasized that ENTRA1 was NuScale’s customer and developer, framing NuScale as an OEM selling NPMs “inside” ENTRA1 plants.
On a second-quarter 2025 earnings call, Hamady described ENTRA1 as a developer of power plants that may own and operate those plants, noting that ENTRA1 sold power to end users and that having ENTRA1 as a developer was a key differentiator for NuScale’s business model. In a September 2025 press release tied to an agreement between ENTRA1 and the Tennessee Valley Authority, Hopkins was quoted as characterizing ENTRA1’s team as energy and finance veterans with experience delivering large-scale power infrastructure, and asserting that this experience was exactly what was required to commercialize and deploy NuScale’s modules.
During NuScale’s November 6, 2025, earnings call, when analysts asked whether ENTRA1 had ever built, owned, or operated projects and about ENTRA1’s operational capabilities and history, Hopkins referred to “over 45 years” of experience associated with the Habboush Group. In the same discussion, Hamady indicated that ENTRA1 itself did not have the referenced project-building experience, clarifying that NuScale was referring to the experience of ENTRA1’s principals and further stating that ENTRA1 would coordinate projects and bring in partners rather than directly build power plants.
Corrective Disclosures
The complaint identifies a series of events in November 2025 as revealing information that allegedly corrected prior statements about ENTRA1 and NuScale’s commercialization strategy. After market close on November 6, 2025, NuScale reported that its general and administrative expenses for the third quarter had increased more than 3,000% to $519 million from $17 million in the prior-year quarter, largely due to a $495 million payment to ENTRA1 in connection with ENTRA1’s agreement with the Tennessee Valley Authority.
NuScale also reported that its quarterly net loss rose to $532 million from $46 million in the prior-year period, and on the corresponding conference call, Hopkins disclosed that the ENTRA1–TV A agreement contemplated as many as 72 NuScale Power Modules, implying milestone payments to ENTRA1 could exceed $3 billion over time. On that call, the analyst questioned whether ENTRA1 had ever built or operated anything and about ENTRA1’s operational capabilities, which led Hopkins and Hamady to reference the experience of the Habboush Group and ENTRA1’s principals and to clarify that ENTRA1 would coordinate projects and bring in execution partners rather than directly build plants.
Following this call, a research report from Guggenheim Securities, based on its own checks, described ENTRA1 as a three-year-old company that had never built, financed, or operated anything, noted only three employees and one investor, and suggested that ENTRA1 appeared to be an entity supporting the activities of a single individual, Wadie Habboush. Another report from Barclays highlighted that the third-quarter call was dominated by questions about the TVA/ENTRA1 agreement, the partnership milestone mechanics, ENTRA1’s credentials, Fluor’s planned exit, and NuScale’s capital needs, noting that ENTRA1’s background drew scrutiny because it was not well known and lacked a public record of completed projects.
On this news flow, NuScale’s Class A share price allegedly declined more than 12% over two trading days, from about $32 on November 6, 2025, to about $28 on November 10, 2025, on abnormally high volume, and continued falling in subsequent days, reaching about $17 by November 21, 2025. The complaint alleges that this sequence of disclosures removed prior inflation from the stock price that had been caused by the earlier statements about ENTRA1 and NuScale’s commercialization strategy.
Why This Matters to Investors
According to the complaint, NuScale’s business model depends heavily on successfully commercializing its NPM technology, and the company’s decision to rely on ENTRA1 as its exclusive commercialization partner made ENTRA1’s qualifications and experience highly material to investors. The core allegation is that NuScale attributed extensive project and infrastructure experience to ENTRA1, even though ENTRA1 itself had no record of building, financing, or operating significant projects, particularly in nuclear power, and that the company failed to disclose this gap and the associated risks.
The filing asserts that NuScale’s payment structure under its Partnership Milestones Agreement with ENTRA1, including a $495 million payment tied to the TVA agreement and the potential for more than $3 billion in milestone payments, materially affected NuScale’s expenses, losses, and capital position. When investors learned of both the scale of these payments and questions about ENTRA1’s track record, the complaint alleges that the stock price dropped, linking the alleged omissions and misstatements to investor losses incurred by those who traded during the class period.
For shareholders who purchased NuScale Class A stock between May 13, 2025, and November 6, 2025, the case is framed around whether they paid artificially inflated prices based on incomplete or misleading information about ENTRA1 and NuScale’s commercialization approach. Investors who traded during this timeframe may wish to evaluate their transactions and monitor the litigation to understand how any potential recovery might apply to their holdings.
Legal Claims
The complaint asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule 10b-5 against NuScale, certain executives, and Fluor Corporation. Plaintiff alleges that defendants made materially false or misleading statements, or omitted material facts, about ENTRA1’s qualifications, NuScale’s commercialization strategy, and related risks, and that they did so knowingly or with reckless disregard for the truth.
The filing also contends that NuScale’s periodic SEC reports did not adequately disclose known trends, uncertainties, and risk factors associated with ENTRA1 as required by Items 303 and 105 of Regulation S-K, given ENTRA1’s lack of a significant project track record and its central role in NuScale’s SMR rollout. Under the control person claim, the complaint alleges that the individual defendants and Fluor had the power to control NuScale’s public statements and are therefore liable for any underlying violations of the federal securities laws.
Investors who believe they were affected by the alleged misstatements or omissions may want to review the claims described in the complaint and consider seeking additional information about their potential 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.