Hayward Holdings $19.85M Securities Settlement over Misleading Inventory Claims

The Hayward Holdings $19.85M Securities Settlement over Misleading Inventory Claims settlement offers $19.85M in total, with individual payouts of $10+ to eligible claimants who purchased or otherwise acquired hayward holdings inc. (hayw) common stock between oct. 27, 2021 and july 28, 2022 (inclusive). The deadline to file is June 19, 2026. Proof of purchase is required.
Deadline: June 19, 2026
Total amount allocated for all claims
Estimated amount per eligible claim
Claimants must provide the last four digits of their Social Security number or taxpayer identification number plus complete transaction and holdings information: number of shares held as of close of trading Oct. 26, 2021; trade dates for purchases/acquisitions and sales from Oct. 27, 2021 through Oct. 25, 2022; number of shares bought/sold/acquired; total purchase/sale prices; number of shares held as of close of trading Oct. 25, 2022. Acceptable supporting documents include broker confirmation slips, broker account statements, or other transaction records showing the required details. Joint purchaser signatures and proof of authority for representatives (executors, trustees, guardians, etc.) must be provided as applicable.
Settlement Summary
Hayward Holdings Inc. agreed to a $19.85 million settlement in a securities class action on behalf of investors who bought HAYW shares between Oct. 27, 2021 and July 28, 2022. Plaintiffs alleged that Hayward, its CEO and CFO, certain directors and private‑equity sponsors CCMP Capital and MSD Partners made materially false or misleading statements and omissions about inventory levels, growth and demand for pool products that artificially inflated the stock price; the defendants denied wrongdoing but settled to avoid the costs and risks of continued litigation. The fund covers administration costs, up to $6.62M in attorneys’ fees, expenses, a lead‑plaintiff service award and pro rata payments to class members calculated under a court‑approved plan (including formulas such as a 90‑day lookback and recognized‑loss rules), with claim and opt‑out deadlines running into mid‑2026. The lawsuit was brought under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act and SEC Rule 10b‑5, which prohibit material misstatements and require accurate, timely disclosures — so the case underscores how inventory and demand disclosures can be central to investor decisions and legal exposure. It also fits a broader pattern of post‑pandemic securities suits and regulatory scrutiny where volatile supply‑chain conditions and aggressive growth forecasts have prompted lawsuits or SEC inquiries; settlements and allocation mechanics illustrate both the limits of monetary recovery for dispersed investors and the continuing role of federal disclosure rules and enforcement in policing corporate statements.
Entities Involved
Related Topics
Eligibility Requirements
- Purchased or otherwise acquired Hayward Holdings Inc. (HAYW) common stock between Oct. 27, 2021 and July 28, 2022 (inclusive)
- Must be the beneficial purchaser/acquirer or a legal representative filing on behalf of a beneficial purchaser
- All joint purchasers or acquirers must sign the claim form
- Executors, administrators, guardians, conservators and trustees may file on behalf of others with proof of authority
- Submit a valid claim by the deadline (June 19, 2026) to be eligible for payment
Featured Investigations
Stay Updated
Subscribe to our newsletter for the latest settlement updates and news.
Important Notice About Filing Claims
Submitting false information in a settlement claim is considered perjury and will result in your claim being rejected. Fraudulent claims harm legitimate class members and may result in legal consequences.
If you are unsure about your eligibility for this settlement, please visit the official settlement administrator’s website using the link provided above. Review the eligibility criteria carefully before submitting a claim.
Class Action Champion is an independent information resource and is not affiliated with any settlement administrator, law firm, or court. We provide settlement information as a service to help connect eligible class members with legitimate settlements.
Related Settlements
Anne Arundel Dermatology Data Breach Settlement $2.4 Million for Patient Info Security Claims
Anne Arundel Dermatology P.A. agreed to pay a $2.4 million settlement to resolve allegations that a data breach exposed patients’ personal and health information. The incident occurred between Feb. 14, 2025, and May 13, 2025. Eligible class members are people in the U.S. who provided or whose information the clinic collected, received, or possessed on or before Dec. 9, 2025.
Travelers PIP Settlement for New Jersey Claims Up to 70 or More for Deductible Reductions
A class action settlement totaling at least the net settlement fund (with attorneys’ fees up to $275,000 and service awards of $7,500) resolves allegations that Travelers and St. Paul improperly reduced New Jersey PIP coverage limits by counting deductibles and copayments, causing some insureds to receive less than the PIP benefits available. Eligible policyholders (and certain heirs/representatives) who received final PIP payments between April 14, 2017 and April 1, 2023 that were within $3,000 of their policy limit—but not the full limit—may receive an automatic $70 and possibly additional compensation.
MUBI $1.6 Million Settlement for California Auto-Renewal Without Notice
California subscribers of the MUBI streaming service may be eligible for a $1.6 million class action settlement over alleged auto-renewal charges without adequate notice or proper consent. The claims cover sign-ups beginning April 1, 2021 and auto-renewals occurring through May 31, 2025, as described in Cesar Cejudo v. MUBI, Inc. To be eligible, claimants must have been California residents whose subscription renewed at least once and who did not receive a full refund of renewal charges.
MetLife $1.2 Million Settlement for Underinsured Motorist Coverage Offsets in New Mexico
Metropolitan Direct Property and Casualty Insurance Co. (MetLife) agreed to pay $1.2 million to settle claims that it misrepresented or failed to disclose underinsured motorist (UM/UIM) coverage limits and used improper offsets. The issue relates to New Mexico auto insurance activity between Oct. 1, 2010, and Jan. 31, 2022. Eligible class members include qualifying policyholders who had UM/UIM claim offsets by at-fault payments or who purchased UM/UIM coverage in that period.
