The Complaint alleges that Defendants throughout the Class Period made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) as a result of Holley’s extensive focus on its direct-to-consumer (“DTC”) channel, Holley’s critically important relationships with its resellers and distributors, whose business made up the vast majority of Holley’s revenue, were suffering significant damage; (ii) Holley used discounting and other similar efforts to grow its DTC channel, which undermined the pricing discipline Holley historically had with its resellers and distributors, and further damaged Holley’s relationship with its resellers and distributors; (iii) as a result of Holley’s strained relationships with its resellers and distributors, those resellers and distributors were decreasing their purchases of Holley products, returning products already purchased at significant levels that were far above historical norms, and increasing their purchases of competitors’ products; (iv) Holley’s growing DTC channel could not offset the negative financial impact of Holley’s increasingly strained relationships with its resellers and distributors and, as a result, Holley’s critical relationship with resellers and distributors was deteriorating; (v) Holley had failed to successfully integrate and capture synergies from its numerous acquisitions, which left Holley with inefficient operations, excess costs, and inventory management problems; and (vi) Holly benefited from COVID-related stimulus money that temporarily boosted its sales and performance, and despite this unsustainable, temporary boost, defendants misled investors to believe the growth was sustainable and the result of persistent demand, and supportive of positive financial guidance.