MBUU CLASS ACTION NOTICE

Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit Against Malibu Boats, Inc.

Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP (“GPM”), announces that it has filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, captioned Yoon v. Malibu Boats, Inc., et al., Case No. 24-cv-3254, on behalf of persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired Malibu Boats, Inc. (“Malibu Boats” or the “Company”) (NASDAQ: MBUU) securities between November 4, 2022 and April 11, 2024, inclusive (the “Class Period”). Plaintiff pursues claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”).

Investors are hereby notified that they have 60 days from the date of this notice to move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff in this action.

If you suffered a loss on your Malibu Boats investments or would like to inquire about potentially pursuing claims to recover your loss under the federal securities laws, you can submit your contact information at www.glancylaw.com/cases/Malibu-Boats-Inc/. You can also contact Charles H. Linehan, of GPM at 310-201-9150, Toll-Free at 888-773-9224, or via email at [e-mail] or visit our website at www.glancylaw.com to learn more about your rights.

On February 20, 2024, before the market opened, Malibu Boats announced the Company’s Chief Executive Officer (“CEO”) had “mutually agreed” to cease to serve as CEO.

On this news, the Company’s stock price fell $4.33 or 9.1%, to close at $43.15 per share on February 20, 2024, on unusually heavy trading volume.

Then, on April 11, 2024, after the market closed, Malibu Boats revealed that Tommy’s Boats (“Tommy’s”) had filed a complaint against the Company. After the Company disclosed news of the lawsuit, various media outlets publicized the Complaint, which alleged the Company “engaged in an elaborate scheme” to “pump nearly $100 million” worth of inventory into Tommy dealerships since late 2022 to “artificially inflate Malibu’s sales performance.” According to the Complaint, Malibu Boats forced the Company’s highest priced, highest margin, slow moving “Malibu” branded inventory (as opposed to the lower-margin, but faster moving “Axis” brand) onto Tommy’s dealerships. Malibu Boats recognizes a sale when the dealer takes delivery of the boat, regardless of whether it has been sold to the end user. As a result, this scheme enabled the Company to represent that it experienced strong wholesale demand and sales, even as sales to the end user declined. The Complaint revealed that, approximately one week prior to the Company announcing the separation with Defendant Springer, certain “Malibu stakeholders” admitted to the principal of Tommy’s dealerships that Malibu was in fact “intentionally pumping Tommy’s full of inventory.” The Complaint further alleged the Company withheld payment of incentives from Tommy’s for nearly two years before suddenly cutting ties with Tommy’s.