The Law Offices of Frank R. Cruz announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of shareholders who purchased or otherwise acquired Calix, Inc. (“Calix” or the “Company”) (NYSE:  CALX) securities between January 28, 2026 and April 21, 2026, inclusive (the “Class Period”). Calix investors have until July 27, 2026 to file a lead plaintiff motion.

What Happened?

On April 21, 2026, after the market closed, Calix reported results for the first quarter of 2026 earnings, including that “[n]on-GAAP gross margin was 57.2%, a decrease of 80 basis points sequentially.” Further, the Company reported gross margin guidance for the second quarter of 2026 is “55.8% (at the midpoint) is down 140 basis points from the previous quarter. This decline is primarily due the increase in memory component costs.”

In the accompanying earnings call held on the same date, the Company’s Chief Financial Officer, Cory Sindelar, stated “advanced purchasing had allowed us to avoid higher memory component costs during the first quarter. However, that advanced supply has run its course, and we now face market prices.”  Sindelar further revealed “reflecting the effects of higher memory component costs,”  “[f]or the year, we expect our non-GAAP gross margin to decline between 50 and 150 basis points.”

On this news, Calix’s stock price fell $6.93, or 13.98% to close at $42.65 per share on April 22, 2026, on unusually heavy trading volume.

What Is The Lawsuit About?

The complaint filed in this class action alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company’s business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to investors: (1) the Company’s first quarter margins had significantly benefited from advanced purchasing of memory components; (2) that the Company’s advanced supply of memory components was dwindling; (3) that, as a result, the Company was experiencing negative margin pressure as it was forced to purchase memory components at rising market prices; and (4) that, as a result of the foregoing, Defendants’ positive statements about the Company’s margins, business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.