CIVI INVESTOR NOTICE: Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP Announces that Civitas Resources, Inc. Investors with Substantial Losses Have Opportunity to Lead Investor Class Action Lawsuit
SAN DIEGO, May 18, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP announces that purchasers or acquirers of Civitas Resources, Inc. (NYSE: CIVI) securities between February 27, 2024 and February 24, 2025, all dates inclusive (the 'Class Period'), have until July 1, 2025 to seek appointment as lead plaintiff of the Civitas Resources class action lawsuit. Captioned Lin v. Civitas Resources, Inc., No. 25-cv-03791 (D.N.J.), the Civitas Resources class action lawsuit charges Civitas Resources as well as certain of Civitas Resources' top executives with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
If you suffered substantial losses and wish to serve as lead plaintiff of the Civitas Resources class action lawsuit, please provide your information here:
https://www.rgrdlaw.com/cases-civitas-resources-inc-class-action-lawsuit-civi.html
You can also contact attorneys J.C. Sanchez or Jennifer N. Caringal of Robbins Geller by calling 800/449-4900 or via e-mail at [email protected].
CASE ALLEGATIONS: Civitas Resources is an exploration and production company that focuses on the acquisition, development, and production of crude oil and associated liquids-rich natural gas from its assets in the Denver-Julesburg ('DJ') Basin in Colorado and the Permian Basin in Texas and New Mexico. According to the complaint, throughout 2024, Civitas Resources maintained steady oil production and accelerated the number of Civitas Resources' turned-in-lines ('TILs') – i.e., newly drilled oil wells that have been designated as operational and added to the total number of wells in which Civitas Resources owns a working interest – between the DJ and Permian Basins.
The Civitas Resources class action lawsuit alleges that defendants throughout the Class Period made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Civitas Resources was highly likely to significantly reduce its oil production in 2025 as a result of, among other things, declines following the production peak at the DJ Basin in the fourth quarter of 2024 and a low TIL count at the end of 2024; (ii) increasing its oil production would require Civitas Resources to acquire additional acreage and development locations, thereby incurring significant debt and causing Civitas Resources to sell corporate assets to offset its acquisition costs; (iii) Civitas Resources' financial condition would require it to implement disruptive cost reduction measures including a significant workforce reduction; and (iv) accordingly, Civitas Resources' business and/or financial prospects, as well as its operational capabilities, were overstated.
The Civitas Resources class action lawsuit further alleges that on February 24, 2025, Civitas Resources announced its financial results for the fourth quarter and full year 2024, reporting revenue of $1.29 billion, missing consensus estimates by $3.44 million, and non-GAAP earnings per share of $1.78 for the quarter, missing consensus estimates by $0.21 per share. According to the complaint, also on February 24, 2025, Civitas Resources revealed several 2025 outlook highlights, including '[d]elivering oil production between 150 and 155 thousand barrels per day ('MBbl/d') on average,' – a year-over-year decline of approximately 4% –'[e]xpanding [its] Permian Basin position with a $300 million bolt-on transaction that adds 19,000 net acres and approximately 130 future development locations in the Midland Basin,' and '[e]xecuting on [a] new divestment target of $300 million' meant to offset the foregoing transaction. Civitas Resources explained that '[a]s compared to the fourth quarter of 2024, lower volumes are primarily driven by the DJ Basin, due to natural declines following peak production in the fourth quarter, a low TIL count exiting 2024 and in the first quarter of 2025,' as well as severe winter weather and unplanned third-party processing downtime in the first quarter, the Civitas Resources class action lawsuit alleges. Civitas Resources additionally announced a 10% reduction in its workforce across all levels and the termination of its Chief Operating Officer and Chief Transformation Officer, according to the complaint. On this news, the price of Civitas Resources stock fell more than 18%, according to the Civitas Resources class action lawsuit.
THE LEAD PLAINTIFF PROCESS: The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 permits any investor who purchased or acquired Civitas Resources securities during the Class Period to seek appointment as lead plaintiff in the Civitas Resources class action lawsuit. A lead plaintiff is generally the movant with the greatest financial interest in the relief sought by the putative class who is also typical and adequate of the putative class. A lead plaintiff acts on behalf of all other class members in directing the Civitas Resources class action lawsuit. The lead plaintiff can select a law firm of its choice to litigate the Civitas Resources class action lawsuit. An investor's ability to share in any potential future recovery is not dependent upon serving as lead plaintiff of the Civitas Resources class action lawsuit.
ABOUT ROBBINS GELLER: Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP is one of the world's leading law firms representing investors in securities fraud and shareholder litigation. Our Firm has been ranked #1 in the ISS Securities Class Action Services rankings for four out of the last five years for securing the most monetary relief for investors. In 2024, we recovered over $2.5 billion for investors in securities-related class action cases – more than the next five law firms combined, according to ISS. With 200 lawyers in 10 offices, Robbins Geller is one of the largest plaintiffs' firms in the world, and the Firm's attorneys have obtained many of the largest securities class action recoveries in history, including the largest ever – $7.2 billion – in In re Enron Corp. Sec. Litig. Please visit the following page for more information:
https://www.rgrdlaw.com/services-litigation-securities-fraud.html
Past results do not guarantee future outcomes.
Services may be performed by attorneys in any of our offices.
Contact:
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP
J.C. Sanchez, Jennifer N. Caringal
655 W. Broadway, Suite 1900, San Diego, CA 92101
800-449-4900
[email protected]
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Who gets to pick the new name for the American Bank Center?
(This story was updated to add new information and because an earlier version included an inaccuracy.) Correction: A previous version of this story misstated the timeline by which the city of Corpus Christi and OVG need to come to an agreement over the naming rights for the American Bank Center. Whose name will be emblazoned on what is now the American Bank Center has started a renewed round of debate — but one that remains centered on whether the name the building ultimately bears is Thomas J. Henry Law. In news releases issued June 4 and June 5, the high-profile personal injury attorney suggested that his offer for the naming rights — $1.25 million annually for 10 years — made the most sense. Henry has made his interest in the naming rights of the American Bank Center publicly known for more than a year, as well as his proposed bid — in one news release describing the process as 'mired in needless delay and political interference.' 'There is no other company that has offered—nor is willing or able to offer—a deal of comparable value to the taxpayers,' the news release states. 'Every month this process is delayed is another month of lost revenue for the hardworking families of Corpus Christi.' Henry also suggested in the news release that there were 'growing concerns of political bias obstructing a significant public-private opportunity.' In a message to the Caller-Times, Mayor Paulette Guajardo wrote that the city is 'committed to a fair naming process,' describing the American Bank Center as 'a cornerstone of the city's cultural and economic vibrancy.' The contract between the city and OVG, the American Bank Center's management company, calls for OVG to manage the naming rights process with a final decision 'based on feedback and collaboration between OVG, City Council, and City staff,' she wrote. 'Next week, we expect that feedback to be given,' Guajardo wrote in the June 5 message. 'OVG has a process committed to a transparent and thorough evaluation considering all proposals fairly. Any assertions otherwise are patently false and designed to receive media attention.' The dispute over the naming rights for the landmark building has taken on multiple fronts, to include the process in which a decision is reached and who makes the decision. OVG representatives did not immediately respond to a message sent by the Caller-Times, but city officials confirmed that Henry's is one of two proposals for the naming rights. Information was not immediately available about the second company or its proposal amount. American Bank has sponsored the taxpayer-owned entertainment venue on Shoreline Boulevard for about 20 years but announced in April 2024 its intent to end the partnership. It was initially thought the center would shed its American Bank name in September 2024. There have been several extensions since then, City Manager Peter Zanoni told the Caller-Times. In a memo, he wrote that staff was in process of scheduling meetings between City Council members and OVG representatives. They are intended 'to ensure OVG is available to answer questions from City Council Members interested in this topic' and to allow city officials 'to ask more detailed questions about their naming rights process, recommendations, alternatives, and next steps,' Zanoni wrote in the memo. 'Feedback from Council Members is a crucial part of OVG's decision-making process for the naming rights.' He told the Caller-Times that OVG engaged with about 100 entities over the past two years as part of its naming rights process, with less than a dozen considered to be serious contenders. May 31 was the last call for proposals, Zanoni said, adding that the city and OVG need to come to an agreement in the near future. Options described by Zanoni include: selecting a naming rights partner, starting the naming rights process over again, requesting an additional extension with American Bank, forgoing a name entirely or picking a general name for the venue that is not associated with a naming rights partner. The current contract with American Bank expires at the end of August, he added, at which point there will be a 30-day timeline in which signage must be removed. While some council members have voiced support for Henry's offer — City Councilman Eric Cantu issued a news release fully backing the attorney and 'a transformational deal for a city asset that needs it' — others have questioned what they consider to be a push for a potentially hurried process. 'It would seem to me that whatever is the best solution today will also be the best solution next week and next month,' said City Councilman Mark Scott. 'So I'm fascinated by what I perceive to be as pressure to rush to a decision.' Henry's bid far outweighs the other proposal, Cantu said, asserting that politics are obstructing moving forward with the process. In his news release, he pointed out that the 'city of Corpus Christi is facing a serious budget shortfall.' The deficit was last estimated to be about $7 million. 'It's just sad — this man has money from his business and wants to invest in Corpus Christi,' Cantu told the Caller-Times. 'We should be happy that he wants to invest in Corpus Christi and give us that much money to put his name on a building.' Henry's news release named Guajardo, Scott and City Councilman Roland Barrera as continuing 'to stand in the way of progress.' Barrera asserted that Henry is 'utilizing the press to try to manipulate the narrative and manipulate negotiations,' in part referencing statements in Henry's news release accusing council members of 'interference.' 'I just don't know how you negotiate in good faith with a partner that's actually painting themselves as the victim and (making) statements like that,' he said. 'It's just a nonstarter for me.' The exact balance of the roles that OVG and the City Council play in determining the naming rights wasn't immediately clear June 5; however, the management company wrote in an email to the Caller-Times last year that it was 'leading the selection process for the naming rights partner, and the decision will be made in collaboration with the City of Corpus Christi.' Cantu wants the discussion about the naming rights to be held publicly in the June 10 council meeting, and has criticized the contract with OVG, asserting the decision should be solely the council's. Scott said he was seeking to be 'fully informed and make sure the council's fully informed of all the relative data points that lead to a decision.' 'It's not obstruction,' he said. 'I think it's just making sure that we make the right decision with the right information.' More: American Bank is parting ways with American Bank Center This article originally appeared on Corpus Christi Caller Times: Who gets to pick the new name for the American Bank Center?
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Sen. Ted Cruz proposes withholding broadband funding from states that regulate AI
The Brief Senator Ted Cruz proposed that states attempting to regulate AI should lose federal broadband funding. This proposal is an addition to a House-passed bill aiming for a 10-year ban on state AI regulation. Critics argue Cruz's plan is "undemocratic and cruel," forcing states to choose between broadband access and AI consumer protection. WASHINGTON - U.S. Senator Ted Cruz (R-Texas) proposed on Thursday an alternative punishment for planned legislation that would set a 10-year ban on state regulation of Artificial Intelligence model learning. Under Cruz's budget reconciliation proposal, an attempt to regulate AI would be prohibited from collecting federal funding provided by the Broadband Equity, Access, and Deployment (BEAD) program. The Proposal The U.S. House of Representatives passed their version of House Resolution 1, the "One Big Beautiful Bill Act," on May 22. In part, the budget bill would ban state regulation on AI for 10 years. As chairman of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, Cruz authored a budget reconciliation that he says is intended to "fulfill President Trump's agenda." In a summary of the proposal, he refers to state regulation as "strangling AI deployment," comparing it to EU precautions against tech development. Cruz's proposal adds $500 million to the BEAD program, which has already administered $42.45 billion to the states in order to expand high-speed internet access across the country. It also prevents states from receiving any of that funding if they attempt to regulate AI. Dig deeper Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Georgia) has recently spoken out against HR 1, saying the anti-regulatory section alone will cost Congress her vote. Greene explained that she discovered the controversial provision, located on pages 278-279 of the bill, only after the House had already passed the legislation. Once the bill returns to the House following Senate deliberations, Greene says she will change sides based on the matter of AI. What they're saying Advocacy group Public Citizen released a commentary on Cruz's proposal, referring to it as a "display of corporate appeasement." In the article, J.B. Branch, a Big Tech accountability advocate, included the following statement: "This is a senatorial temper tantrum masquerading as policy. Americans have loudly rejected Senator Cruz's dangerous proposal to give tech giants a decade of immunity from state regulation. State legislatures, attorneys general, and citizens across all 50 states have demanded that Congress step away from overhauling consumer protections put in place in the absence of federal leadership. But instead of listening to the American people, Senate Republicans threw a fit and tied vital digital funding to corporate impunity. "With this move, Republicans are telling millions of Americans: 'You can have broadband but only if your state gives up the right to protect you from AI abuses.' It's undemocratic and cruel. Republicans would rather give Big Tech a 10-year hall pass to experiment on the American people unchecked, rather than give underserved rural and urban communities the ability to compete in the digital economy. Congress must reject this corporate giveaway and refocus their energy on representing the public interest." In her statements criticizing the anti-regulation portion of HR 1, Greene expressed concerns about developing rapidly evolving tech without checks and balances. "No one can predict what AI will be in one year, let alone 10," Greene said. "But I can tell you this: I'm pro-humanity, not pro-transhumanity. And I will be voting NO on any bill that strips states of their right to protect American jobs and families." What's next HR 1 is expected to continue undergoing changes in the Senate before returning to the House for another vote. Cruz's proposal has yet to be officially added to the legislation. The Source Information in this article comes from public U.S. Congress filings, Public Citizen, and previous FOX 4 coverage.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Cowboys' Pickens vs. Bland dilemma not about cap
Cowboys' Pickens vs. Bland dilemma not about cap originally appeared on Athlon Sports. We'll be a good sport and play the either-or game: George Pickens is the answer. Why? Because of the draft capital the Dallas Cowboys spent to acquire his services. If he walks after this season, then Dallas essentially wasted 75% of the 3rd round rookie contract they gave up — three years of cheap labor, gone. You don't make that trade unless you plan to keep the player. Advertisement So keep the player. But wait. Let's slow down. That's the answer ... but what is the question? It's an online debate about whether the Cowboys can afford to keep both Bland and Pickens as future stars paid within the parameters of the salary cap. And here's the truth: this whole 'Pickens or Bland' debate is built on a flawed premise. You don't have to choose. Not if you manage the cap like a team with a plan. Why? Because "Cap Hell'' is a myth. It's a talking point, not a truth. The salary cap is real tomorrow but fake today. It's not a hard team-building wall — it's an accounting strategy. It can be stretched, manipulated, forecasted with precision, and restructured. Advertisement As our Mike Fisher has been pointing out for years, "It's the same as your household budget. Cash, check, credit card ... generally, you can find ways to afford what you need.'' Yes, the Cowboys will have big numbers on the books come 2026: • Tyler Smith extension looming • Micah Parsons and Osa in Year 1 of their new deals • Dak Prescott and CeeDee Lamb in Year 2 of theirs That's the cost of retaining great players. But that's the bed Dallas made — and they'll have to lay in it. Just don't let them tell you one has to go, because at that point... they're reclining in a bed of lies. Related: Inside The Cowboys' Micah Parsons 'Cap Hell' Myth Related: Cowboys Get Major News On New Cap Announcement This story was originally reported by Athlon Sports on Jun 7, 2025, where it first appeared.
