Investor Alert: NET Power Lawsuit Deadline Looms Amid Claims of Misled Clean Energy Hopes

The clean energy sector, long a magnet for both idealism and investment capital, has become the stage for a high-stakes legal battle that underscores the risks of overpromising in a volatile industry. NET Power Inc. (NYSE: NPWR), a company at the forefront of carbon capture technology, faces a securities fraud lawsuit alleging it misled investors about the feasibility of its flagship Project Permian—a utility-scale power plant in Texas. With a June 17, 2025, deadline for investors to join the class action, the case highlights the critical need for due diligence and legal awareness in an era where green energy projects often collide with financial reality.

The Allegations: A Story of Delayed Hopes
At the heart of the lawsuit Luciani v. NET Power Inc. are claims that the company exaggerated the timeline, cost, and operational viability of Project Permian, a $2 billion project aimed at demonstrating its Allam Cycle carbon capture technology. Investors were told the plant would be operational by 2026 at a cost of $950 million to $1.1 billion. Instead, the project faced cascading delays and cost overruns, with the completion date pushed to 2029 and the price tag nearly doubling.

Key disclosures unraveled the narrative:
- In November 2023, the company admitted delays, extending the timeline to 2027–2028. This caused a 18% stock drop.
- By March 2025, the cost estimate surged to $1.7–$2.0 billion, with completion now projected for 2029. The stock plummeted 31%.
- In April 2025, the resignations of the CFO and COO—cited as critical to the project's execution—drove another 6% decline.

Plaintiffs argue these setbacks were foreseeable but deliberately obscured to maintain an inflated stock price. The lawsuit alleges violations of the Securities Exchange Act, seeking compensation for investors who bought shares during the June 2023–March 2025 “Class Period.”

Why This Matters for Investors
The case is a cautionary tale about the fragile balance between innovation and transparency in the energy sector. Clean energy projects, particularly those involving novel technologies like carbon capture, are inherently risky. Delays and cost overruns are common, but when companies downplay these risks, investors bear the brunt.

For those who owned NPWR during the Class Period, the June 17 deadline is non-negotiable. Filing as a lead plaintiff requires demonstrating significant financial loss, but all eligible investors can join the class without cost or obligation. Law firms like Robbins Geller and Levi & Korsinsky, with proven track records in securities litigation, are already mobilizing.

A Template for Due Diligence
The NET Power case offers a blueprint for investors navigating the energy sector:
1. Scrutinize Project Milestones: Ask whether timelines and budgets account for supply chain risks, regulatory hurdles, and technical uncertainties.
2. Follow Management Transitions: The abrupt departure of key executives, especially those tied to core projects, can signal deeper operational issues.
3. Monitor Third-Party Validation: Seek independent assessments of technology viability and financial projections.

Investment Implications
While the lawsuit's outcome remains uncertain, the case reinforces the value of legal recourse for investors. For those holding NPWR shares during the Class Period, the potential recovery hinges on swift action. Even if the stock has rebounded slightly from its March lows—now trading near $5.50—the damage to investor confidence is lasting.

In the broader market, the case underscores the need for skepticism toward companies with overly optimistic projections. Clean energy is vital, but its promise must be balanced with realistic financial stewardship. Investors should demand clarity and hold firms accountable for their claims—before, not after, the setbacks occur.

Act Now or Risk Losing Rights
The June 17 deadline is a stark reminder: in the legal arena, timing is everything. Affected investors must contact qualified attorneys immediately to preserve their eligibility. This isn't just about recovering losses; it's about ensuring that the market remains a place where honesty, not hype, drives investment decisions.

As the energy transition accelerates, cases like this one will test both companies and investors. For now, the lesson is clear: vigilance and preparedness are the best defenses against the storms of overpromised progress.