Beyond Meat shareholders have launched legal action against the US plant-based meat producer, accusing the company of failing to disclose “material adverse facts” ahead of a major impairment charge that was revealed in November.

A shareholder class action lawsuit has been filed against Beyond Meat, with law firms Holzer & Holzer and Rosen Law Firm bringing parallel actions on behalf of investors.

The lawsuits centre on a $77.4 million non-cash impairment charge disclosed by the Nasdaq-listed alt-protein group on 10 November.

The claims allege that Beyond Meat issued false and misleading statements and/or failed to disclose material adverse facts regarding its business, operations and prospects.

The lawsuit alleges that the book value of certain long-lived assets exceeded their fair value, making it highly likely the company would be required to record a material impairment charge, and that this situation was likely to impair Beyond Meat’s ability to file its periodic reports with the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) on time.

Law firm Holzer & Holzer said the legal action covers shareholders who purchased Beyond Meat stock between 27 February 2025 and 11 November 2025.

In a statement issued on 26 January, the firm said investors who experienced significant losses during that period are being encouraged to explore their legal rights.

Beyond Meat had warned investors on 24 October of a pending “material” impairment charge but did not quantify the figure at the time.

Later in the month, the company delayed the release of its third-quarter results, saying it was still assessing and quantifying the size of the impairment.

Between those announcements, Beyond Meat’s share price declined further, extending 2025 losses from around 42% to 63%, despite a brief short-covering rally.

When the impairment was formally disclosed on 10 November, Beyond Meat said the $77.4 million charge related to certain “long-lived assets”.

The company cited several contributing factors, including the “suspension and substantial cessation” of operations in China, first revealed in February, “certain non-routine SG&A expenses” and “incremental arbitration-related legal expenses”.

In its October SEC filing, Beyond Meat said its recoverability test under accounting standard ASC 360 had “preliminarily indicated that the carrying amount of certain of its long-lived assets was not recoverable from the projected undiscounted future cash flows of the relevant asset group”.

While Beyond Meat’s shares had already been under sustained pressure following a series of adverse developments, the law firms have defined a specific period during which they allege shareholders were harmed by inadequate disclosure.

The deadline to ask the court to be appointed lead plaintiff in the case is 24 March 2026.