Allegations of product safety failures, misleading disclosures, and significant financial losses have led to a new legal challenge for the leadership of a major energy technology company. On April 10, 2026, Joe Chan filed a verified shareholder derivative complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin against current and former members of Generac Holdings Inc.’s board of directors and certain executive officers.
The complaint names Aaron Jagdfeld, Marcia J. Avedon, John D. Bowlin, Robert D. Dixon, William Jenkins, Andrew Lampereur, Bennet Morgan, Nam T. Nguyen, David A. Ramon, Kathryn Bohl (formerly Roedel), Dominick Zarcone, and York A. Ragen as defendants. Generac Holdings Inc., an energy technology solutions company incorporated in Delaware with principal offices in Waukesha, Wisconsin, is listed as the nominal defendant.
According to the filing, Chan brings this action on behalf of Generac to address alleged breaches of fiduciary duties by these individuals between April 29, 2021 and November 1, 2022—a period referred to as the “Relevant Period.” The complaint asserts that during this time frame, defendants failed to disclose material information about weakening demand for home standby generators following an initial surge due to COVID-19 shelter-in-place orders. It also alleges that they concealed serious defects in the company’s SnapRS component used in residential solar power systems.
Generac’s business includes backup power generation systems for various applications as well as solar storage solutions sold through independent dealers known as channel partners. The complaint highlights that residential products made up nearly two-thirds (63.8%) of total net sales in 2022. However, it claims that after an early pandemic-driven increase in generator sales and backlog orders—described by CEO Jagdfeld as part of a “Home as a Sanctuary” trend—the actual market demand began declining while field inventories rose.
The document details how defective SnapRS components allegedly caused overheating incidents and even fires in customer homes starting in August 2021. Despite mounting complaints from channel partners such as Pink Energy (Power Home Solar LLC) and Valley Solar about high failure rates leading to warranty claims and service calls, the company continued to promote its product safety standards publicly: “Generac maintains a robust product safety function that is involved in all aspects of product design and production[,]” according to statements cited from company publications.
The complaint further states that Pink Energy filed suit against Generac Power Systems Inc., claiming damages including $39 million for unpaid service invoices related to SnapRS defects and $155 million in lost revenue attributed to those issues. Pink Energy eventually ceased operations in September 2022 before filing for bankruptcy; its closure was attributed by its own announcement to “faulty Generac solar equipment.”
As problems with both product reliability and concentrated reliance on single channel partners became public through partial disclosures over late 2021 into 2022—including reports of disappointing financial results—Generac’s stock price reportedly fell from $442.88 per share on November 1, 2021 to $105.71 per share one year later.
Plaintiff Chan contends that throughout this period executives breached their duties by failing to correct or disclose material facts about changing demand trends for generators; defects leading to fire risks; overdependence on Pink Energy; inadequate internal controls; and making false or misleading public statements regarding business prospects.
In addition to seeking redress for these alleged breaches under state law principles such as loyalty and good faith—as outlined extensively through references to company codes of conduct—the lawsuit invokes federal securities statutes including Section 14(a), Section 10(b), Section 20(a), Rule 14a-9, Rule 10b-5 under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
Chan requests relief on behalf of Generac for damages incurred due not only to direct financial harm but also reputational damage resulting from defending class actions brought by consumers (the Consumer Action) and investors (the Securities Class Action). He seeks recovery for costs associated with these litigations along with other losses linked directly or indirectly to defendants’ alleged misconduct.
Attorneys representing Joe Chan are not individually named within this excerpted portion of the court filing provided. The case is identified as Case No. 2:26-cv-00618-BHL.
Source: 226cv00618_Chan_v_Jagdfeld_Complaint_Eastern_District_Wisconsin.pdf
