NEW YORK--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Apr 27, 2026--
Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP, a leading national securities law firm, is investigating potential claims against Snowflake Inc. (“Snowflake” or the “Company”) (NYSE: SNOW) and reminds investors of the April 27, 2026 deadline to seek the role of lead plaintiff in a federal securities class action that has been filed against the Company.
This press release features multimedia. View the full release here: https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20260427584273/en/
Faruqi & Faruqi is a leading national securities law firm with offices in New York, Pennsylvania, California and Georgia. The firm has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for investors since its founding in 1995. See www.faruqilaw.com.
As detailed below, the complaint alleges that the Company and its executives violated federal securities laws by making false and/or misleading statements and/or failing to disclose that: (1) product efficiency gains, Iceberg Tables and tiered storage pricing were expected to have a material negative impact on consumption and revenues, and (2) as a result, Defendants’ positive statements about consumption patterns, revenues, and demand for Snowflake products lacked a reasonable basis.
On February 28, 2024, Snowflake shocked investors when, after the market closed, the Company issued a press release and filed a report with the SEC on Form 8-K that disclosed its financial results for the quarter ended January 31, 2024 and full fiscal year 2024. On that same day, during a conference call with investors and analysts after the disclosure of Snowflake's financial results, Defendant Scarpelli stated that they were forecasting increased revenue headwinds associated with product efficiency gains, tiered storage pricing and the expectation that some of their customers will leverage Iceberg Tables for their storage. On that same day, Snowflake also issued a press release and filed a report with the SEC on Form 8-K that disclosed that effective February 27, 2024, Frank Slootman retired as Chief Executive Officer of Snowflake Inc.
On this news, the price of Snowflake's Class A common stock declined $41.72, or 18.14%, from a closing price of $230.00 per share on February 28, 2024, to close at $188.28 per share on February 29, 2024.
The court-appointed lead plaintiff is the investor with the largest financial interest in the relief sought by the class who is adequate and typical of class members who directs and oversees the litigation on behalf of the putative class. Any member of the putative class may move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member. Your ability to share in any recovery is not affected by the decision to serve as a lead plaintiff or not.
Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP also encourages anyone with information regarding Snowflake’s conduct to contact the firm, including whistleblowers, former employees, shareholders and others.
To learn more about the Snowflake class action, go to www.faruqilaw.com/SNOW or call Faruqi & Faruqi partner Josh Wilson directly at 877-247-4292 or 212-983-9330 (Ext. 1310).
Follow us for updates on LinkedIn, on X, or on Facebook.
Attorney Advertising. The law firm responsible for this advertisement is Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP ( www.faruqilaw.com ). Prior results do not guarantee or predict a similar outcome with respect to any future matter. We welcome the opportunity to discuss your particular case. All communications will be treated in a confidential manner.
SNOW CLASS ACTION DEADLINE TONIGHT: Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP Reminds Snowflake Investors of Securities Class Action Deadline on April 27, 2026
RICHMOND, Va. (AP) — Virginia Supreme Court justices on Monday questioned whether the state's Democratic-led legislature complied with constitutional requirements when it sent a congressional redistricting plan to voters, in a case that carries high stakes for the balance of power in the U.S. House.
The new districts, which could net Democrats four additional seats, won narrow voter approval last week. But a Republican legal challenge contends the General Assembly violated procedural rules by placing the constitutional amendment before voters to authorize the mid-decade redistricting. If the court agrees that lawmakers broke the rules, it could invalidate the amendment and render last week's statewide vote meaningless.
The Virginia court proceedings mark the latest twist in a national redistricting battle between Republicans and Democrats seeking an advantage in a November midterm election that will determine whether Republicans maintain their narrow majority in the U.S. House.
President Donald Trump kicked off a tit-for-tat round of gerrymandering last summer when he urged Texas Republicans to redraw districts to their favor in an attempt to win several additional House seats. That set off a chain reaction of similar moves in other states, leading to the voter approval last week of Virginia's new map.
Next up is Florida, where Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis has included congressional redistricting on the agenda for a special session of the GOP-controlled Legislature beginning Tuesday.
During Monday's arguments, the Virginia Supreme Court focused on whether the new congressional districts should be invalidated because of the process used by lawmakers. The justices issued no immediate ruling.
Because the state’s redistricting commission was established by a voter-approved constitutional amendment, lawmakers had to propose an amendment to redraw the districts. That required approval of a resolution in two separate legislative sessions, with a state election sandwiched in between, to place the amendment on the ballot.
The legislature's first vote occurred last October — while early voting was underway but before it concluded on the day of the general election. Judicial questioning focused on whether that was too late, because early voting already had begun.
Attorney Matthew Seligman, who defended the legislature, argued that the “election” should be defined narrowly to mean the Tuesday of the general election. In that case, the legislature's first vote on the redistricting amendment occurred before the election and was constitutional, he told judges.
But an attorney arguing for the plaintiffs, Thomas McCarthy, said “election” means the entire period during which people can cast ballots, which lasts several weeks in Virginia. If that's the case, then the legislature's initial endorsement of the redistricting amendment came too late to comply with the state constitution, he said.
The purpose of Virginia's two-step amendment process, with an intervening election, is so voters can know whether legislative candidates support or oppose a proposed constitutional amendment, McCarthy said.
He pointed to the case of Democratic voter Camilla Simon, one of the plaintiffs in the lawsuit alongside Republican state lawmakers, who cast an early vote last fall for Democratic Del. Rodney Willett. After she voted, Willett sponsored the Democratic redistricting amendment, and Simon wished she could have undone her vote, McCarthy said.
“None of these voters had any idea this was coming, and that’s not how this process is supposed to work,” McCarthy told the justices.
Those defending the Democratic redistricting plan also contend that the voters' will should be respected.
The people voted to ratify the constitutional amendment, “and the challengers are asking to overturn that democratic result,” Seligman told reporters after the arguments.
So far, the two major parties have battled to a near draw in the states that have redrawn their congressional maps for this year's midterms.
Republicans think they could win up to nine more seats under revised districts in Texas, Missouri, North Carolina and Ohio. Democrats think they could win as many as 10 additional seats under new districts in California, Utah and Virginia. But legal challenges remain in both Virginia and Missouri.
Virginia currently is represented in the U.S. House by six Democrats and five Republicans who were elected from districts imposed by a court after a bipartisan redistricting commission failed to agree on a map after the 2020 census. The new districts, which narrowly won voter approval last Tuesday, could give Democrats an improved chance to win 10 districts.
Some candidates already have begun campaigning based on the new districts in advance of the state's Aug. 4 primary election.
In January, a judge in rural Tazewell County, in southwestern Virginia, ruled that lawmakers failed to follow their own rules for adding the redistricting amendment to a special session last fall. Circuit Judge Jack Hurley Jr. also ruled that lawmakers failed to initially approve the amendment before the public began voting in last year’s general election and that the state had failed to publish the amendment three months before the election, as required by law. As a result, he said, the amendment is invalid and void.
The Virginia Supreme Court placed Hurley's order on hold and allowed the redistricting vote to proceed before hearing arguments on the case.
During Monday's arguments, justices also raised questions about the ability of lawmakers to expand the agenda for their special session and whether the three-month public notice requirement was important enough to thwart a voter-approved amendment.
Republicans have filed at least two additional legal challenges, which also are winding their way through the courts.
Lieb reported from Jefferson City, Missouri. Associated Press writers Allen G. Breed in Richmond and Nicholas Riccardi in Denver contributed to this report.
Attorney Matthew Seligman, representing Democratic state legislators, speaks with the media following a hearing on new congressional maps before the state Supreme Court in Richmond, Va., on Monday, April 27, 2026. (AP Photo/Allen G. Breed)
State Senate Minority Leader Ryan McDougle, center, speaks with the media following a hearing on new congressional maps before the state Supreme Court in Richmond, Va., on Monday, April 27, 2026. (AP Photo/Allen G. Breed)
Attorney Matthew Seligman, representing Democratic state legislators, speaks with the media following a hearing on new congressional maps before the state Supreme Court in Richmond, Va., on Monday, April 27, 2026. (AP Photo/Allen G. Breed)
A poster on the Virginia redistricting referendum is seen during voting at Mason Square, Tuesday, April 21, 2026, in Alexandria, Va. (AP Photo/Julia Demaree Nikhinson)
Signs are seen outside Fairfax Government Center during the Virginia redistricting referendum, Tuesday, April 21, 2026, in Fairfax, Va. (AP Photo/Julia Demaree Nikhinson)
