A new securities class action lawsuit filed against Endava plc, a technology consulting and digital transformation company that has promoted its transition to an “AI-native” business model, represents the 28th AI-related securities class action lawsuit filed in 2026. The lawsuit also raises an increasingly important question in the evolving AI-related litigation landscape: what makes a securities suit “AI-related”?
Although Endava’s AI-focused strategy features prominently in the complaints, the allegations themselves concern the accounting treatment of certain customer and supplier agreements, related internal controls, and the company’s financial reporting and disclosures. Complaints filed on September 29 and 30, 2026, allege that Endava misled investors regarding contract extensions and client credits that later became the subject of an internal investigation.
As discussed below, the case illustrates the growing difficulty of distinguishing between AI-related securities litigation and more traditional securities litigation as AI becomes increasingly integrated into corporate strategy and operations. Unlike many of the earliest AI-related securities suits, which center on alleged misrepresentations regarding AI technology or capabilities, the Endava action is based on familiar accounting and disclosure allegations. The lawsuit nevertheless finds itself within the expanding body of AI-related securities litigation because of the central role AI played in the company’s business strategy and investor messaging.
A copy of the September 29, 2026, complaint against Endava can be found here. A copy of the September 30 complaint can be found here.
The Endava Complaint
The first lawsuit was filed on September 29, 2026, in the Southern District of New York by shareholder Guillermo Salgado Laguna against Endava plc, CEO John Cotterell, and CFO Mark Thurston. The complaint alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act on behalf of investors who purchased Endava securities between September 4, 2025, and September 21, 2026.
A second, substantially similar lawsuit was filed the following day, September 30, 2026, by shareholder Tomas Novak in the same court. According to both complaints, the company repeatedly emphasized its transition toward becoming “AI-native,” highlighting initiatives such as its Dava.Flow AI delivery framework, AI-enabled software development capabilities, strategic partnerships with major AI providers, and the growing contribution of AI-related work to its revenues.
Endava also allegedly highlighted extensions of key relationships with major payments-sector customers and discussed what executives characterized as an “unexpected” client credit that had been granted to secure future business opportunities. Company executives purportedly described the customer credit as a procedural matter and emphasized the strength of the affected client relationships.
The shareholder plaintiffs further allege that the company failed to disclose that the accounting treatment of these agreements required additional review, and that its internal controls may have been ineffective, likely delaying the release of its financial results.
The alleged truth began to emerge on September 21, 2026, when Endava announced that CFO Mark Thurston had been placed on administrative leave pending an investigation by independent outside counsel acting on behalf of the Board’s Audit Committee. According to the company’s announcement, the investigation was initiated after the company’s outside auditors raised concerns regarding the accounting treatment of certain customer and supplier agreements and related matters. The company simultaneously announced the appointment of an interim chief financial officer.
According to the complaints, investors reacted sharply. On September 22, 2026, the company’s share price fell from $2.79 to $2.11, a decline of approximately 24%.
Discussion
Endava’s AI-native transformation strategy features prominently in both its public disclosures and the shareholder complaints. However, the alleged securities fraud concerns accounting treatment, financial reporting, internal controls, and related disclosures, rather than the company’s AI capabilities or offerings. Unlike some earlier AI-related securities suits, the complaint does not allege that the company misrepresented the capabilities, functionality, or existence of its AI offerings. Rather, it asserts more traditional allegations concerning the accounting treatment of customer and supplier agreements and the company’s related financial reporting.
In that sense, the lawsuit highlights the continuing challenge of defining what constitutes an “AI-related” securities action. Endava’s AI-focused business strategy and investor messaging form part of the factual backdrop to the allegations, but the alleged misconduct is not inherently AI-specific. The case therefore arguably belongs in the AI-related category not because the alleged fraud concerns AI technology itself, but because the company made AI a significant part of its business strategy, public disclosures, and communications with investors. As AI becomes increasingly embedded in ordinary corporate operations, distinguishing between AI-related securities litigation and more traditional securities litigation may become increasingly difficult.
The Endava lawsuit also illustrates the expanding variety of cases being grouped within the broader category of AI-related securities litigation. Some earlier AI-related actions focused on allegations that companies overstated the nature or capabilities of their AI offerings. More recent suits, including the actions filed against Commvault, Datavault AI, and Qfin, involve a broader range of alleged misconduct at companies that have prominently incorporated AI into their business strategies, investor messaging, or growth plans. The common thread among these cases is not necessarily the nature of the alleged wrongdoing itself, but rather the prominence of AI in the company’s business strategy, public disclosures, and communications with investors.
Endava nevertheless differs in an important respect. While the company’s AI-native transformation strategy features prominently in the factual background, the alleged misconduct concerns accounting treatment, financial reporting, internal controls, and related disclosures. The complaint therefore raises an interesting question: should a lawsuit be considered AI-related simply because it involves a company pursuing an AI-focused strategy, even when the alleged wrongdoing is not directly tied to AI technology or AI-related representations? As AI becomes integrated into an ever-growing number of products, services, and business strategies, that question is likely to arise with increasing frequency.
For D&O insurers, brokers, and other market participants, the case underscores that securities exposure at AI-focused companies may take many different forms. As AI becomes further integrated into ordinary business operations and growth strategies, securities suits involving AI-oriented companies may arise from accounting, disclosure, operational, governance, or other traditional business issues. The result may be a growing overlap between so-called AI-related securities litigation and more conventional securities claims, making it increasingly difficult to determine when AI is truly the source of the alleged wrongdoing and when it is simply part of the corporate backdrop against which familiar securities law allegations arise.
Recent Comments