Kaplan Fox Reminds UWM Holdings Corporation (UWMC) Investors of an Approaching Securities Class Action Deadline on October 13, 2026

Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed against UWM Holdings Corporation ("UWM Holdings" or the "Company") (NYSE: UWMC) on behalf of investors that purchased or otherwise acquired UWM Holdings securities between March 9, 2026 and August 5, 2026 (the "Class Period"). The Complaint alleges that on "August 5, 2026, after the market closed, UWM reported second quarter fiscal year 2026 financial results, including a $603.2 million interest rate derivatives loss which contributed to a $451.9 million second-quarter net loss. Total equity also fell 43.6% year over year, reflecting the net loss and derivative-related charges." "Then, on August 6, 2026, at 10:30 AM EDT, the Company held an earnings call in connection with its second quarter 2026 financial results. During that call, Chief Executive Officer Mathew Ishbia ('Ishbia') disclosed 'We were over-hedged, if you think of it that way, protecting against the Two Harbors transaction.' Ishbia further stated '[w]e don't traditionally hedge our MSRs [Mortgage Servicing Rights]' but 'when you're going through and acquiring a company like Two Harbors and a massive MSR book… it created a little more risk. So . . . we did put a hedge on to protect against that risk and then a lot of things happen[ed]…and then obviously, the Two Harbors transaction went away. And so a confluence of events that created a hedge loss.'" On "this news, shares of UWM Holdings fell $0.64 or 34.78% to close at $1.20 on August 6, 2026, on unusually heavy trading volume." The Complaint further alleges that "Defendants failed to disclose to investors that: (1) the Company had deviated from its traditional strategy of not hedging its mortgage servicing rights to take a major hedge position; (2) the Company over-hedged itself in anticipation of the Two Harbors transaction; (3) the Company's purported efforts to balance its risk in fact created an excess hedging risk; and (4) that, as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis."