Fluor Corp ($FLR) Infrastructure Cost Overruns and Schedule Failures Case

Court: N.D. Texas

Case: 3:25-cv-02496

• FLR investors filed a claim against Fluor Corporation for concealing mounting infrastructure project costs and issuing false 2025 financial guidance despite known delays, cost escalations, and customer cutbacks.
• After missing Q2 expectations and slashing full-year guidance, FLR fell 27% from July 31, 2025, to August 1, 2025.
• FLR investors can join this case to be notified about potential recovery.

Case Details:

From February to July 2025, Fluor told investors it was on solid footing for growth and had strong financial controls in place for its major infrastructure projects. Company leadership stood by their full-year financial forecast — expecting between $575 million and $675 million in earnings (EBITDA) and $2.25 to $2.75 per share in profit (EPS). They also highlighted strong relationships with clients and said they were managing risks well, even in a tough economy.

But behind the scenes, Fluor was dealing with serious problems on three of its biggest infrastructure projects — the Gordie Howe Bridge, I-635/LBJ, and I-35. These projects were hit by design mistakes, soaring costs, construction delays, and in one case, a subcontractor default. On top of that, Fluor’s clients were starting to cut back on spending and delay new project approvals because of broader economic concerns — putting real pressure on the company’s financial outlook.

Still, Fluor repeated its upbeat forecast in May 2025, giving investors a false sense of confidence. It wasn’t until August 1, 2025, that the truth came out: profits missed expectations by 13 cents per share, revenue was down nearly 6% year-over-year, and the company slashed its guidance. Fluor cut its full-year earnings estimate to $475–$525 million in EBITDA and $1.95–$2.15 in EPS, blaming delays, rising costs, and client pullbacks.

FLR stock plummeted 27.0%.

Based on these events, FLR investors filed a claim against Fluor Corp, alleging the company:

• It misrepresented the status and cost trajectory of key infrastructure projects.
• It provided false and misleading financial guidance despite known disruptions.
• It concealed the impact of economic uncertainty on client spending and project awards.

Investors argue Fluor misled the market about its project execution and financial outlook, causing substantial losses when the true risks materialized.