The filed complaint alleges that defendants made false statements and/or concealed that: (a) Extreme was suffering from adverse client demand trends as its clients had ordered more product from Extreme than needed in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic to avoid supply shortages and because of a lack of alternative sourcing options and thereby had cannibalized their Class Period purchasing needs; (b) Extreme was increasingly offsetting these adverse organic demand trends with the fulfillment of backlog orders in a manner that materially exceeded the proportion represented to investors; (c) as a result of (a)-(b), Extreme was drawing down its backlog at a much faster rate than represented to investors; (d) as a result of (a)-(c), Extreme’s backlog was already decreasing and at a much quicker pace than defendants’ statements to investors that backlog would only “begin to shrink” in 4Q23 and it would be not until “fiscal ‘26 when it really goes back to normal”; (e) as a result of (a)-(d), Extreme’s backlog was not on track to continue increasing to $600 million; and (f) as a result of (a)-(e) above, defendants had materially misrepresented Extreme’s organic demand, revenue growth, and market share gains as the fulfillment of Extreme’s backlog masked a decline in organic demand and attendant revenues.