March 08, 2021 - An investor in shares of XL Fleet Corp. (NYSE: XL) filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York over alleged violations of Federal Securities Laws by XL Fleet Corp. in connection with certain allegedly false and misleading statements made between October 2, 2020 and March 2, 2021. Boston , MA based XL Fleet Corp. develops and deploys hybrid electric solutions for the commercial and municipal vehicle market in North America. On March 3, 2021, a report was published entitled XL Fleet Corp. (NYSE: XL): More SPAC Trash, alleging, among other things, that salespeople were pressured to inflate their sales pipelines materially in order to mislead XL’s board and investors and that customer reorder rates are in reality quite low due to poor performance and regulatory issues. Citing interviews with former employees, the report alleged that at least 18 of 33 customers XL featured were inactive. The report also claimed that XL Fleet Corp. has weak technology and that XL’s announcement of future class 7-8 upfits seems highly promotional because the task is too technologically complex for XL engineers to deliver on the promised timeline. Shares of XL Fleet Corp. (NYSE: XL) declined from $21.63 per share on February 10, 2021, to as low as $9.50 per share on March 5, 2021. According to the complaint the plaintiff alleges on behalf of purchasers of XL Fleet Corp. (NYSE: XL) common shares between October 2, 2020 and March 2, 2021, that the defendants violated Federal Securities Laws. More specifically, the plaintiff claims that between October 2, 2020 and March 2, 2021, the defendants failed to disclose to investors that XL Fleet’s salespeople were pressured to inflate their sales pipelines to boost the Company’s reported sales and backlog, that at least 18 of the 33 customers that XL featured were inactive and had not placed an order since 2019, that XL’s technology had been materially overstated and offered only 5% to 10% of fleet savings, that XL lacks the supply chain and engineers to roll out new products on the announced timelines, and that, as a result of the foregoing, Defendants’ positive statements about the Company’s business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.