$50M Deal Under Microscope: Robbins LLP Probes Blaize Holdings for Securities Fraud

For securities litigation attorneys and corporate counsel, the Robbins LLP investigation into Blaize Holdings highlights the legal peril when AI-adjacent companies are accused of misrepresenting material partnerships. The alleged $50 million NeoTensr deal—reportedly struck with a 4-month-old entity—could give rise to Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 claims if insiders knowingly disseminated false information to inflate the stock. With two short-seller reports landing within 48 hours, the speed and severity of the stock drop underscore the importance of rigorous due diligence in corporate disclosures.

On June 16, 2026, shareholder rights law firm Robbins LLP announced investigations into Blaize Holdings, Inc. (NASDAQ: BZAI) and Datavault AI Inc. (NASDAQ: DVLT), signaling potential securities fraud and fiduciary duty claims against officers and directors of both companies. The Blaize probe follows dual short-seller reports published in late April 2026 that specifically targeted a recent agreement with NeoTensr, a counterparty described as only four months old. One report alleged that Blaize “artificially boosted [its] share price by engaging in a bogus deal” with a company whose website featured “products that appear to be photoshopped to add the Blaize logo,” casting doubt on the previously announced expectation of up to $50 million in revenue from the partnership. A second report, issued within two days, went further, labeling Blaize a fraud and questioning earlier customer agreements. The stock price of Blaize declined sharply following these publications, prompting Robbins LLP to open its investigation.

“

The alleged $50 million NeoTensr deal—reportedly struck with a 4-month-old entity—could give rise to Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 claims if insiders knowingly disseminated false information to inflate the stock.

These probes are part of a broader pattern in which AI-adjacent companies face heightened scrutiny from short-sellers and, subsequently, shareholder rights firms. Datavault AI became the subject of a similar investigation after Wolfpack Research published a critical report on October 31, 2025, alleging the company relied on misleading press releases filled with “buzzwords” concerning artificial intelligence, quantum computing, and Web 3.0 that did not reflect actual business operations, and that its blockchain marketplace had virtually no trading activity. Datavault’s stock also fell post-report. Robbins’ twin investigations underscore the legal exposure that emerges when publicly traded companies, especially those leveraging high-profile tech narratives, are accused of overstating commercial traction.

From a legal standpoint, the investigations focus on whether corporate insiders violated Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule 10b-5, which prohibit material misstatements or omissions in connection with the purchase or sale of securities. The short-seller allegations, if substantiated, could support claims that Blaize executives knowingly made false statements about the NeoTensr deal to inflate the stock price. Additionally, breaches of fiduciary duty under state corporate law may be alleged if directors and officers failed to act in the best interests of shareholders or engaged in self-dealing. For Datavault, the Wolfpack report’s claims of stock promotion and empty press releases similarly raise red flags about the accuracy of public disclosures.

The shareholder class action mechanism could provide a path to recovery for investors who acquired shares at artificially inflated prices. Robbins LLP, which touts over $1 billion recovered for shareholders since 2002 and operates on a contingency-fee basis, is positioning itself as the vehicle for collective redress. However, it is critical to note that at this stage, no lawsuit has been filed; the firm is merely investigating potential claims. The ultimate viability of any class action will hinge on whether the short-seller allegations can be corroborated, whether the stock decline can be directly linked to the alleged misrepresentations, and whether a sufficiently large class of affected shareholders emerges.