According to the Complaint, Nikola Corporation purports to operate as an integrated zero emissions transportation systems provider which designs and manufactures battery-electric and hydrogen-electric vehicles, electric vehicle drivetrains, vehicle components, energy storage systems, and hydrogen fueling station infrastructure.

The Complaint alleges that Defendants throughout the Class Period made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) VectoIQ did not engage in proper due diligence regarding its merger with Nikola; (2) Nikola overstated its “in-house” design, manufacturing, and testing capabilities; (3) Nikola overstated its hydrogen production capabilities; (4) as a result, Nikola overstated its ability to lower the cost of hydrogen fuel; (5) Nikola's founder and Executive Chairman tweeted a misleading “test” video of the Company’s Nikola Two truck; (6) the work experience and background of key Nikola employees had been overstated and obfuscated; (7) Nikola did not have five Tre trucks completed; and (8) as a result, Defendants’ public statements were materially false and/or misleading at all relevant times.

On December 15, 2020, the Court issued an Order consolidating cases and appointing Lead Plaintiff and Counsel. All future docketing was ordered to be done in the lead case 20-CV-1797. On December 30, several Movants petitioned the Court of Appeals to vacate the District Court's appointment of Lead Plaintiff.

On July 23, 2021, the Court of Appeals granted in part the appeal and ordered the District Court to vacate its Order appointing Lead Plaintiff. On November 18, the Court issued an Order appointing Lead Plaintiffs and approving their choice of Counsel.

Lead Plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended Complaint on January 24, 2022. Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss the consolidated amended Complaint on April 8. On February 2, 2023, the Court issued an Order granting Defendants' Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiffs were given leave to amend the Complaint.

On April 3, 2023, Lead Plaintiffs filed a second consolidated amended Complaint. Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss the second consolidated amended Complaint on May 15. On December 8, the Court issued an Order granting in part and denying in part Defendants' Motion to Dismiss.