The UiPath lawsuit landscape actually consists of three separate active shareholder cases against the robotic process automation company: a consolidated securities class action in the Southern District of New York over a 2024 guidance cut and CEO shakeup, an earlier securities case that survived dismissal on claims UiPath hid competitive losses to Microsoft, and a Delaware derivative suit alleging insiders sold more than $394 million in stock while concealing risks. A fourth, parallel securities case was dismissed with prejudice in July 2025. As of mid-2026, none of the surviving cases have reached discovery, settlement, or trial.
The Main Securities Class Action
The case most investors mean when they talk about “the” UiPath lawsuit is In re UiPath, Inc. Securities Litigation, No. 24-cv-04702, pending before Judge John P. Cronan in the Southern District of New York.1PACER Monitor. In Re UiPath, Inc Securities Litigation It was filed June 20, 2024 by Zack Steiner, later consolidated with a second action, and on September 5, 2024 Magistrate Judge Stewart D. Aaron appointed Simone Brunozzi as lead plaintiff and Bleichmar Fonti & Auld LLP as lead counsel.2BFA Law. In Re UiPath Securities Litigation
The class period runs from December 1, 2023 through May 29, 2024.3Robbins LLP. UiPath, Inc. The defendants are UiPath itself, CEO Daniel Dines, former CEO Robert Enslin, and CFO Ashim Gupta.4D&O Diary. Steiner v. UiPath, Inc. Complaint
What the Complaint Alleges
The complaint attacks UiPath’s public messaging around a 2022 “turnaround strategy” that was supposed to accelerate growth by overhauling sales. Executives said the strategy was producing “improved deal quality and customer quality.” According to the complaint, the company had actually shifted its sales incentives away from the multi-year contracts it publicly celebrated, and customers were refusing to renew or shrinking their deals.2BFA Law. In Re UiPath Securities Litigation
The suit also alleges UiPath overstated returns on its investments in sales and customer support and lacked a reasonable basis for its public statements about business prospects.5KTMC. UiPath, Inc. Enslin is accused of touting a “NorthStar” sales tool and the company’s AI products while the strategy was failing. Gupta allegedly told investors that sales investments were delivering the “right returns” while knowing about contract execution problems.4D&O Diary. Steiner v. UiPath, Inc. Complaint
The Stock Drop That Triggered the Case
On May 29, 2024, UiPath reported weak first-quarter fiscal 2025 results and cut its full-year revenue guidance by roughly $150 million, from a range of $1.555–$1.560 billion down to $1.405–$1.410 billion.5KTMC. UiPath, Inc. The same announcement disclosed Enslin’s resignation, effective June 1, and the return of founder Daniel Dines as sole CEO.6UiPath Investor Relations. UiPath to Re-Appoint Daniel Dines as Chief Executive Officer Company officers said their growth investments “have fallen short of our expectations, made us less agile in responding to customer needs and created short-term pressure on operating margins.”
The stock fell from $18.30 to $12.07 in one day, a drop of more than 34%.3Robbins LLP. UiPath, Inc. CFO Gupta attributed the weak quarter to “elongating” sales cycles for large deals and “increased deal scrutiny” from customers.7CNBC. UiPath Shares Tank 30% After Company Announces CEO Shakeup
Current Status
Judge Cronan granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss the amended complaint on July 23, 2025, but gave the plaintiffs 14 days to try again. Lead counsel filed a Second Amended Complaint on September 12, 2025. Defendants moved to dismiss that version on October 27, 2025, and briefing wrapped up on January 22, 2026.1PACER Monitor. In Re UiPath, Inc Securities Litigation The motion is pending.5KTMC. UiPath, Inc.
The Earlier Case Over Microsoft Competition
Severt v. UiPath, Inc., No. 23-cv-7908, was filed September 6, 2023 in the same court, before Judge Denise Cote. Plaintiff Paul Severt sued UiPath, Dines, and Gupta over a different set of alleged misstatements — those about competition with Microsoft in the RPA market.8CourtListener. Severt v. UiPath, Inc.
On November 4, 2024, Judge Cote issued a mixed ruling on the motion to dismiss. She threw out claims tied to UiPath’s annualized renewal run-rate metric, its business model descriptions, and its risk disclosures, finding those statements were either adequately qualified by other public information or too vague to be actionable. She also dismissed Securities Act claims on standing and timeliness grounds and initially dismissed claims against Gupta.8CourtListener. Severt v. UiPath, Inc.
One category of claims survived. The court held that statements executives made on earnings-call Q&A sessions about Microsoft — including “we do not see [Microsoft] a lot” and “even when we do, our win rate has no difference” — were actionable statements of fact rather than corporate puffery. Two confidential witnesses, an executive and a salesperson, supported allegations that UiPath was losing customers to Microsoft and that Microsoft’s robots came up in about half of all sales calls. The company had also redirected engineers and changed its marketing to respond to Microsoft, which the court found sufficient to plead scienter.8CourtListener. Severt v. UiPath, Inc.
In March 2025, the court permitted reinstatement of the claims against Gupta with the parties’ consent. A motion for class certification was filed in February 2025. As of early 2026, the case remained active with proceedings underway.8CourtListener. Severt v. UiPath, Inc.
A Parallel Case That Was Dismissed With Prejudice
Not every UiPath shareholder case is still alive. A separate action, No. 24 Civ. 3800, was also filed in the Southern District of New York and assigned to Judge Edgardo Ramos. It named the same three individual defendants and covered the same December 2023 through May 2024 class period as the main class action.9ZLK. Southern District of New York Dismisses UiPath Securities Fraud Claims
On July 23, 2025, Judge Ramos dismissed every claim with prejudice, meaning the plaintiffs cannot refile. The court found the challenged statements were either non-actionable puffery or protected forward-looking statements, that the complaint did not raise a strong inference the executives knowingly or recklessly misled investors, and that the plaintiffs had not adequately shown how the alleged misrepresentations caused their losses. The court also said it did “not view Enslin’s resignation as meaningful in this context,” rejecting the argument that the CEO change itself supported an inference of wrongdoing.9ZLK. Southern District of New York Dismisses UiPath Securities Fraud Claims
The Delaware Derivative Suit Over $394M in Insider Sales
The newest case takes a different legal angle. On March 12, 2026, shareholders filed a derivative suit in the Delaware Court of Chancery. Derivative actions are brought on behalf of the company itself against officers and directors accused of harming it.
According to reporting by Law360, the complaint accuses UiPath’s “top executives and directors” of misleading investors about slowing growth and intensifying competition in the RPA market, and alleges that insiders sold more than $394 million in stock while concealing those risks.10Law360. UiPath Execs Hid Risks, Ditched $394M in Stock, Suit Alleges The case is in its earliest stages.
Where the Cases Stand
All three surviving cases are pre-discovery. The main class action, 24-cv-04702, is waiting on Judge Cronan’s ruling on the motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint.5KTMC. UiPath, Inc. The Severt case, 23-cv-7908, has survived dismissal on its Microsoft-competition claims and is in class certification proceedings.8CourtListener. Severt v. UiPath, Inc. The Delaware derivative suit is newly filed.10Law360. UiPath Execs Hid Risks, Ditched $394M in Stock, Suit Alleges No case has reached settlement or trial.