The complaint alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Specifically, the lawsuit alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants touted that they closely monitored Argo’s underwriting policies and had the ability to set appropriate reserves. Argo cultivated a narrative that it had a long history of successfully managing its reserves and that the Company had a “prudent reserving philosophy.” However, this narrative created by Argo was false and misleading. Argo’s reserves were wholly inadequate, its underwriting standards were not prudent as represented, and Argo had dramatically changed its underwriting policies on certain U.S. construction contracts as far back as 2018. Further, these policies were underwritten outside of the Company’s “core” business including in certain states and for certain exposures that were far riskier than investors understood and that the Company no longer would service moving forward.