According to the Complaint, during the class period, defendants failed to disclose: (a) that UiPath’s “ramping” contract model and defendants’ directions to investors to focus on the bespoke ARR metric created a materially misleading impression of client demand for the Company’s products and its revenue and ARR growth metrics, as the lower initial contract commitment induced certain customers to sign up with the Company who would not pay for larger commitments as the contracts ramped in later time periods; (b) that part of the motivation for UiPath’s “ramping” contract model was the Company’s inability to sign up customers for longer-term engagements without substantial discounting; (c) that UiPath’s actual total addressable market was not as large as portrayed by defendants, because many companies included in the market survey did not need the type of high-cost, high-functionality automation products offered by the Company; (d) that UiPath was losing customers to Microsoft, ServiceNow, SAP, Salesforce, IBM, and other established enterprise software vendors that were building automation into their platforms; (e) that UiPath was losing customers due to the increased availability of low-code automation software offered by vendors, such as Microsoft’s Power Automate software, which were capable of addressing the majority of customer use cases at a fraction of the price of UiPath’s products and services; (f) that UiPath was suffering from a loss of channel sales due to strained relationships with the Company’s partners as a result of increased competition between UiPath and these partners; and (g) that, as a result of (a)-(f) above, defendants’ statements during the class period regarding the Company’s business, operations, and key financial metrics such as revenues and ARR were materially false and misleading.