According to the Complaint, Shift4 provides software and payment processing solutions in the United States. The Company provides, among other products and services, integrated and mobile point-of-sale (“POS”) solutions.

The Complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company’s business, operations, and compliance policies. Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Shift4 had inadequate disclosure controls and procedures and internal control over financial reporting; (ii) as a result, Shift4 failed to properly account for customer acquisition costs, thereby artificially inflating its net cash provided by operating activities; (iii) accordingly, Shift4 would likely be forced to restate one or more of its previously issued financial statements; (iv) Shift4 employed accounting maneuvers in connection with, among other things, its mass strategic buyout program and sponsor bank merchant settlement account, that were designed to present an inaccurate picture of, inter alia, the Company’s performance, its underlying business quality, and its earnings power; (v) all the foregoing, once revealed, was likely to negatively impact Shift4’s reputation and business; and (vi) as a result, the Company’s public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

On November 3, 2023, 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 23-CV-03206.

Lead Plaintiff filed an amended Complaint on January 5, 2024. Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss the amended Complaint on February 19. On August 14, the Court issued an Order granting Defendants' Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiff was given leave to amend the Complaint.

Lead Plaintiff filed a second amended Complaint on September 3, 2024. Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss the second amended Complaint on October 1. On January 22, 2025, the Court issued an Order granting Defendants' Motion to Dismiss. The case was dismissed with prejudice.