Notice: SCAC Restructuring

The Stanford Securities Class Action Clearinghouse (SCAC) is currently under construction and is temporarily unavailable as it undergoes updates and improvements. The Clearinghouse is expected to return as part of the Stanford Rock Center for Corporate Governance in Winter 2026.

During this period, updates and new filings will not be available.

For urgent inquiries, please contact rockprograms@law.stanford.edu.

Processing your request


please wait...

Case Page

 

Case Status:    ONGOING  
—On or around 07/23/2025 (Date of last review)
Current/Last Presiding Judge:  
Magistrate Judge Jolie A. Russo

Filing Date: November 29, 2023

According to the Complaint, Expensify, Inc. provides a cloud-based expense management software platform to individuals, small businesses, and corporations in the U.S. and internationally.

On October 15, 2021, Expensify filed a registration statement on Form S-1 with the SEC in connection with the IPO, which, after several amendments, was declared effective by the SEC on November 9, 2021. On or about November 11, 2021, pursuant to the Offering Documents, Expensify conducted its IPO, selling 9.73 million shares priced at $27.00 per share.

The Complaint alleges that the Offering Documents issued in connection with the IPO were negligently prepared and, as a result, contained untrue statements of material fact or omitted to state other facts necessary to make the statements made not misleading and was not prepared in accordance with the rules and regulations governing their preparation. Specifically, the Complaint alleges that the Offering Documents made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Expensify’s revenue growth was highly susceptible to structural and macroeconomic headwinds; (ii) as a result, the Company overstated the efficacy of its business model and the likelihood it would meet the long-term growth projections touted in the Offering Documents; (iii) accordingly, the Company’s post-IPO financial position and/or business prospects were overstated; and (iv) as a result, Defendants’ statements about the Company’s business, operations, and prospects were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times.

On March 11, 2023, the Court issued an Order appointing Lead Plaintiff and Counsel. Lead Plaintiff filed an amended Complaint on May 10. Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss the amended Complaint on July 9.

On March 24, 2025, the Court issued an Order granting in part and denying in part Defendants' Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiff was given leave to amend the Complaint.

Protected Content


Please Log In or Sign Up for a free account to access restricted features of the Clearinghouse website, including the Advanced Search form and the full case pages.

When you sign up, you will have the option to save your search queries performed on the Advanced Search form.