NEW YORK — Sept. 8, 2026 (STL.News) GPGI, Inc., formerly known as CompoSecure, Inc. (NYSE: GPGI; formerly NYSE: CMPO), is facing a federal securities class-action lawsuit alleging the company and certain executives and directors made materially false or misleading statements concerning the acquisition and financial prospects of Husky Technologies Limited.
The lawsuit, City of Warren Police and Fire Retirement System v. GPGI, Inc., No. 1:26-cv-05951, was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York and seeks to represent investors who purchased or otherwise acquired GPGI Class A common stock between Nov. 3, 2025, and May 6, 2026, inclusive.
Investors covered by the proposed class period have until Sept. 14, 2026, to seek appointment as lead plaintiff, according to notices issued by Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, which represents the plaintiff, and other law firms publicizing the litigation.
The lawsuit names GPGI, certain senior executives and directors, and Resolute Holdings Management, Inc. as defendants and alleges violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
The allegations have not been proven in court. Filing a securities class action does not establish that GPGI or any individual defendant violated federal securities laws, and no court has made a final determination on the merits of the allegations in the complaint.
Lawsuit Centers on Husky Technologies Acquisition
At the center of the dispute is GPGI’s acquisition of Husky Technologies Limited, a manufacturer and provider of plastic injection molding equipment, systems and services.
GPGI previously operated under the CompoSecure name and historically focused on financial technology and security products.
On Nov. 3, 2025 — the first day of the proposed class period — CompoSecure announced its planned acquisition of Husky.
The transaction represented a significant expansion beyond the company’s traditional operations. Husky manufactures equipment and systems used in producing plastic products, including packaging and products used in medical applications.
The acquisition was subsequently completed, and CompoSecure announced in January 2026 that it had rebranded as GPGI.
The securities complaint alleges that statements surrounding the Husky transaction gave investors a misleading impression regarding Husky’s value, financial performance, and prospects.
According to summaries of the complaint published by Robbins Geller and other securities litigation firms, plaintiffs allege that defendants materially overstated Husky’s value and that Husky was not on track to achieve certain revenue and adjusted EBITDA targets presented to shareholders.
The complaint further alleges that those financial targets lacked a reasonable basis in objective fact.
Perhaps more significantly, plaintiffs allege that a primary motivation behind the Husky acquisition was to generate millions of dollars in fees benefiting Resolute Holdings and certain defendants rather than creating long-term value for CompoSecure shareholders.
Those assertions are allegations in civil litigation and should not be interpreted as established facts or court findings.
February Report Raised Questions About Husky
Questions surrounding the Husky acquisition intensified in February.
According to litigation notices summarizing the complaint, Jehoshaphat Research published a report on Feb. 26, 2026, challenging aspects of GPGI’s representations regarding Husky and the financial assumptions underlying the acquisition.
The report reportedly questioned Husky’s financial presentation and valuation.
Short-seller and investment research reports can affect publicly traded securities, but the publication of such a report does not independently establish that its allegations are accurate.
More consequential for investors were the financial results GPGI subsequently reported.
GPGI Reports Husky’s 2025 Financial Performance
On March 12, 2026, GPGI announced fourth-quarter and full-year 2025 financial results.
According to information cited in the securities complaint, Husky generated approximately $520.8 million in fourth-quarter net sales, representing an increase of about 6.1% compared with the previous year.
Husky’s full-year 2025 net sales were approximately $1.5687 billion, up about 5%.
Revenue growth, however, came with weaker adjusted profitability.
Husky reported approximately $136.1 million in pro forma adjusted EBITDA for the fourth quarter, representing a decline of approximately 5.4% from the prior-year period.
Full-year pro forma adjusted EBITDA totaled approximately $373.4 million, a decline of roughly 3% compared with the previous year.
The company’s fourth-quarter pro forma adjusted EBITDA margin also declined substantially.
According to the complaint summary, Husky’s fourth-quarter margin fell from approximately 29.3% to 26.1%, a compression of about 318 basis points.
Following the March disclosure, GPGI shares declined approximately 16% over two trading sessions, according to Robbins Geller’s summary of the litigation.
The stock decline forms part of the plaintiffs’ claimed damages theory.
First-Quarter Results Add to Investor Concerns
The situation intensified again when GPGI reported first-quarter 2026 financial results on May 7.
According to the complaint, Husky reported pro forma adjusted net sales of approximately $290.8 million, representing a year-over-year decline of approximately 5.2%.
More significantly, Husky’s pro forma adjusted EBITDA fell to approximately $38 million, down approximately 40.2% year over year.
GPGI also reduced its 2026 financial guidance.
The company had previously projected pro forma adjusted net sales between approximately $2.183 billion and $2.228 billion.
It later lowered that outlook to approximately $1.95 billion to $2.10 billion.
GPGI also reduced its pro forma adjusted EBITDA forecast.
The previous forecast called for approximately $620 million to $650 million in pro forma adjusted EBITDA.
The revised forecast was approximately $550 million to $610 million.
Following those disclosures, GPGI shares declined nearly 26%, according to the complaint summary published by Robbins Geller.
The plaintiffs contend that the March and May disclosures revealed information that contradicted or undermined earlier representations made to investors during the proposed class period.
What the GPGI Lawsuit Alleges
At its core, the securities class action alleges that investors bought GPGI shares at artificially inflated prices because they lacked accurate information about Husky and the economics of its acquisition.
The complaint alleges that defendants made false or misleading statements or failed to disclose material adverse information concerning GPGI’s business, operations, and prospects.
Specifically, the lawsuit alleges that:
- GPGI and other defendants materially overstated the value of Husky Technologies;
- Husky was not on track to achieve revenue and adjusted EBITDA targets provided to shareholders;
- those targets allegedly lacked a reasonable basis in objective fact;
- the Husky acquisition was allegedly motivated in significant part by fees that would benefit Resolute Holdings and certain defendants rather than by the creation of long-term shareholder value; and
- statements regarding the combined company’s business, prospects and expected financial results were consequently materially false or misleading or lacked a reasonable basis.
Again, these are allegations presented by the plaintiff. Defendants will have an opportunity to challenge the allegations, seek dismissal of claims, present defenses and contest damages as the litigation progresses.
Who Is Covered by the Proposed Class?
The proposed class generally includes investors who purchased or otherwise acquired GPGI Class A common stock between Nov. 3, 2025, and May 6, 2026, inclusive, subject to exclusions and other requirements the court may ultimately determine.
Investors do not necessarily have to become lead plaintiff to remain potential class members or participate in a future recovery if a class is ultimately certified and money is recovered.
The lead-plaintiff process is different.
Under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995, eligible investors may ask the federal court to appoint them as lead plaintiff.
The lead plaintiff generally represents the interests of the proposed investor class and helps oversee the litigation.
Courts typically consider factors including the applicant’s financial interest in the litigation and whether the proposed lead plaintiff satisfies applicable adequacy and typicality requirements.
The court — not the law firms issuing investor notices — ultimately determines who will serve as lead plaintiff.
According to Robbins Geller and multiple other notices concerning the case, the deadline for investors to seek lead-plaintiff status is Sept. 14, 2026.
Investors are not required to seek appointment as lead plaintiff simply to potentially benefit from a future settlement or judgment.
Multiple Law Firms Are Contacting GPGI Investors
As often happens after a securities class action is filed, numerous plaintiffs’ securities law firms have issued notices about GPGI and are seeking to contact investors who suffered losses.
Among the firms that have publicly announced the lawsuit, solicited affected investors or provided information concerning potential investor rights are:
- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, which represents the plaintiff in the filed action;
- DJS Law Group;
- Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check LLP;
- Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP;
- Robbins LLP;
- Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP; and
- Block & Leviton LLP.
The appearance of multiple law firms does not mean multiple separate class actions will necessarily proceed independently.
In federal securities litigation, several firms often publish notices after a complaint is filed while investors consider whether to seek lead-plaintiff status.
The court ultimately determines the case’s leadership structure.
Investors considering retaining an attorney should independently evaluate the firm, its experience, fee arrangements and any other relevant factors.
Lead-Plaintiff Deadline Requires Attention
Investors should also distinguish the lead-plaintiff deadline from a deadline to participate in a potential recovery.
The Sept. 14 deadline relates to seeking appointment as lead plaintiff in the litigation.
An investor’s decision not to seek that role generally does not, by itself, prevent the investor from potentially participating in a future recovery as an eligible class member if the case succeeds and a class is certified.
No recovery is guaranteed.
The lawsuit could be dismissed, resolved in favor of defendants, settled, narrowed, or otherwise changed as it proceeds through federal court.
The class period could also potentially be modified during litigation.
What Happens Next?
The case is pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York under case number 1:26-cv-05951.
Kessler Topaz’s litigation page identifies U.S. District Judge Edgardo Ramos as the assigned judge.
The immediate procedural focus is expected to include competing lead-plaintiff motions if multiple investors seek appointment.
After the court appoints a lead plaintiff and approves lead counsel, plaintiffs may file an amended complaint.
Defendants could then seek dismissal of some or all of the claims.
Securities fraud cases frequently involve extensive disputes over whether statements were materially false or misleading, whether defendants acted with the state of mind required under federal securities law, whether alleged disclosures caused investor losses, and how damages should be calculated.
Consequently, the filing of the complaint represents an early stage of the litigation rather than a determination of liability.
GPGI Investors Face an Approaching Deadline
For investors, the immediate date to watch is Sept. 14, 2026.
Investors who purchased or acquired GPGI Class A common stock between Nov. 3, 2025 and May 6, 2026 and suffered losses may wish to review the complaint and independently evaluate whether they qualify for the proposed class or want to seek appointment as lead plaintiff.
Investors should also recognize the distinction between allegations made in a civil complaint and findings made by a court.
At this stage, the complaint alleges that GPGI and other defendants violated federal securities laws in connection with representations surrounding Husky Technologies and the combined company’s expected financial performance.
Those allegations remain subject to litigation.
You can also view this article at USPress.News.
Sources
Information for this report was obtained from the federal securities class-action notices and case information published by Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check LLP, DJS Law Group, and other securities litigation firms concerning City of Warren Police and Fire Retirement System v. GPGI, Inc., No. 1:26-cv-05951, pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.
Legal and Investor Notice: This article is provided for news and informational purposes only and does not constitute legal, financial, or investment advice. Allegations contained in a civil complaint are allegations only. They have not been proven, and the defendants are entitled to contest the claims. The filing of a lawsuit does not constitute a finding of liability or wrongdoing. Investors should consult qualified legal or financial professionals regarding their individual circumstances.
