Introduction

A securities class action lawsuit has been filed against Black Rock Coffee Bar, Inc. (NASDAQ: BRCB) in connection with both the Company's September 2025 initial public offering and statements made during the period from September 12, 2025 through May 12, 2026. The complaint alleges that the Company's Registration Statement and subsequent public filings made materially false and misleading statements about Black Rock Coffee's expansion strategy, specifically overstating the Company's ability to grow store density with minimal sales transfer, or cannibalization of existing store revenue. On May 12, 2026, the Company's first quarter 2026 earnings revealed a sharp decline in same-store sales growth and its CEO acknowledged that sales transfer from new store openings had materially impacted quarterly results. Following this disclosure, BRCB stock fell $3.32, or 30.3%, to close at $7.65 per share on May 13, 2026, approximately 62% below the $20.00 IPO price. By the commencement of the action, the complaint alleges Black Rock Coffee stock had traded as low as $7.23 per share, more than 63% below the IPO price.

Company Profile

Black Rock Coffee Bar, Inc. owns and operates a chain of drive-through coffee bars. As quoted in the complaint, the Company’s quarterly filing for the period ended September 30, 2025 reported 169 stores and described Black Rock Coffee as being in the “early stages of [its] long-term growth journey.” The complaint further alleges the Company promoted an expansion strategy focused on growing store density with limited or minimal sales transfer.

Class Period

September 12, 2025 through May 12, 2026

Investors who purchased or otherwise acquired Black Rock Coffee Bar securities during the Class Period, or Class A common stock pursuant and/or traceable to the September 2025 IPO Registration Statement, may have rights in the Black Rock Coffee Bar securities class action lawsuit.

Allegations

The complaint alleges that Black Rock Coffee Bar, certain executives, directors who signed the Registration Statement, and IPO underwriters are liable for alleged misstatements in the Registration Statement, and that the Company and certain executives made materially false or misleading statements during the Class Period regarding the Company’s expansion strategy and its impact on existing store performance. At the center of the alleged misrepresentations was the Company's repeated assurance that it would "focus growth in existing markets where we believe there is an opportunity to increase density with minimal sales transfer." The Registration Statement, filed in connection with the September 2025 IPO that raised approximately $306.5 million from the sale of 16,911,764 shares at $20.00 per share, presented the expansion model as carefully designed to build brand awareness with limited or minimal sales transfer from existing locations.

According to the complaint, those representations were materially misleading because new store openings were already leading to cannibalization of existing store revenue. In its November 11, 2025 earnings release for the third quarter, the Company touted "robust same store sales growth of 10.8%" and 11 new store openings. During the accompanying conference call on November 12, 2025, CEO Mark Davis reinforced the growth narrative, describing the Company's site selection approach as one that "allows us to build awareness with limited sales transfer." The Company's quarterly report filed the same day highlighted “significant whitespace in both existing and new markets” and stated that the Company had “ample whitespace” in existing markets to support a path to 1,000 stores by 2035. On March 3, 2026, the Company again emphasized "exceptional same store sales growth and new store openings" in its full year 2025 results, reporting same-store sales growth of 10.1% and 32 new store openings.

The complaint further alleges that the Company's risk disclosures in both the Registration Statement and its fiscal year 2025 annual report were misleading because they framed sales transfer as a hypothetical future risk, using language such as "may be significant" and "could adversely impact," when in fact the cannibalization effect was already occurring and materially impacting financial performance. Plaintiffs allege that defendants, including CEO Davis and CFO Rodderick F. Booth, who both signed the Registration Statement, knew or recklessly disregarded that the Company's positive statements about its expansion strategy and same-store sales growth lacked a reasonable basis.

The Truth Emerges

On May 12, 2026, after the market closed, Black Rock Coffee Bar released its first quarter 2026 financial results, revealing same-store sales growth of just 5.2%, a four-point decline year over year compared to the 9.2% rate in the same quarter the prior year. Revenue of $55.45 million missed consensus estimates. The results marked a sharp deceleration from the double-digit same-store growth rates the Company had reported for Q3 2025 and full-year 2025.

During the earnings call held the same day, according to the complaint, Davis’s statements revealed that the Company’s store expansion was producing sales transfer that the Company had previously characterized as limited or minimal. Davis stated that as the Company "grow[s] store density in these maturing markets and add[s] new locations around existing high-volume stores," it would "thoughtfully rebalanc[e] demand across [its] store base." He confirmed that "this dynamic can result in some sales transfer where a portion of volume from existing stores shifts to newer locations that have opened in closer proximity" and that sales transfer had "impacted same-store sales in the quarter," specifically creating a 160 basis point headwind in the Phoenix market. The complaint alleges these statements contradicted the Company’s prior representations that its expansion strategy would achieve growth with minimal or limited sales transfer.

Market Reaction

Following the May 12, 2026 after-hours disclosure, Black Rock Coffee Bar stock fell $3.32, or 30.3%, to close at $7.65 per share on May 13, 2026, on unusually heavy trading volume. The decline brought BRCB shares to approximately 62% below the $20.00 per share IPO price from just eight months earlier. By the commencement of this action, Black Rock Coffee stock had traded as low as $7.23 per share, representing a decline of more than 63% from the IPO offering price.

Next Steps

●       Lead Plaintiff Deadline: August 17, 2026

●       After the lead plaintiff deadline, the Court will consider any lead plaintiff motions.

●       Defendants may file a motion to dismiss.

●       If the case proceeds, the Court may later consider class certification.

Disclaimer: This shareholder alert is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified attorney for personalized guidance. No specific outcomes are guaranteed.

Check Eligibility

Never Miss Another Deadline

Scan the QR code or click the button to join.

Join on WhatsApp

Check Eligibility

Check Eligibility

Never Miss Another Deadline

Scan the QR code or click the button to join.

Join on WhatsApp

Introduction

A securities class action lawsuit has been filed by Levi & Korsinsky, LLP on behalf of plaintiff Harrison Apitz-Grossman against Embecta Corp. (NASDAQ: EMBC) and certain of its senior executives. The complaint covers investors who purchased or acquired Embecta common stock between November 25, 2025 and May 4, 2026 (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit alleges that defendants made materially false and misleading statements concerning Embecta's fiscal year 2026 revenue guidance and the strength of the company's U.S. pen needle business, while concealing that significant segment weakness made the company's guidance misleading and unattainable. When Embecta reported second quarter fiscal 2026 results on May 5, 2026, revealing a 14.4% year-over-year revenue decline and slashing full-year guidance, the stock plunged from $9.25 to $3.90 per share, a single-day loss of over 57.8%.

Company Profile

Embecta Corp. is a global medical device company focused on providing solutions for people living with diabetes. The company's product portfolio includes pen needles, insulin syringes, and safety injection devices, with pen needles and safety pen needles accounting for approximately 85% of Embecta's portfolio.

Class Period

November 25, 2025 – May 4, 2026

Investors who purchased or otherwise acquired Embecta Corp. (EMBC) common stock during the Class Period may be eligible to seek recovery under the federal securities laws.

Allegations

The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, defendants provided investors with materially false and misleading statements regarding Embecta's fiscal year 2026 guidance while concealing that the company's U.S. pen needle segment was experiencing significant competitive and market headwinds that made the guidance unattainable. When Embecta reported its fourth quarter and full year 2025 results on November 25, 2025, the company issued fiscal 2026 guidance calling for adjusted constant currency revenue to be flat to down 2% compared to 2025 levels, translating to an as-reported revenue range of $1.071 billion to $1.093 billion. CEO Devdatt Kurdikar stated that, in fiscal year 2026, the company intended to "maintain our global leadership position in our core product categories," while CFO Jacob Elguicze affirmed the guidance was "well aligned with the expectations established in our long-range plan."

According to the complaint, defendants continued reinforcing this narrative at the 44th Annual J.P. Morgan Healthcare Conference on January 14, 2026, where CEO Kurdikar described the pen needle business as "incredibly resolute" and emphasized the stability of the product portfolio despite external dynamics including GLP-1 adoption and pump usage. Kurdikar pointed to stable insulin pen prescriptions, a "slight positive trend" in new prescriptions for insulin pens, and the company's geographic diversification as evidence of the portfolio's durability. He further asserted that Embecta was the "unrivaled leader" in the pen needle market and cited data suggesting "a lot of concomitant use of GLP-1s with pen needles."

On February 5, 2026, when Embecta reported first quarter 2026 results, the complaint alleges defendants reaffirmed all previously provided guidance ranges, including revenue, adjusted operating margin, and adjusted earnings per share. CEO Kurdikar stated results were "largely consistent with our expectations," while CFO Elguicze systematically reaffirmed each guidance metric. The complaint alleges these statements were materially misleading because defendants knew or recklessly disregarded that segment weakness, particularly in the U.S. pen needle market, including competitive share losses concentrated at a single major customer, market volume softness in the retail channel, and the impact of patients not on preferred payer plans, was likely to disrupt both the company's second quarter 2026 results and its full-year revenue guidance.

The Truth Emerges

On May 5, 2026, Embecta published second quarter fiscal 2026 results that the complaint identifies as the alleged corrective disclosure. Revenue of $221.8 million represented a decline of 14.4% year-over-year on an as-reported basis, and 17.4% on an adjusted constant currency basis, dramatically worse than the guidance of flat to down 2%. The company slashed its fiscal year 2026 revenue guidance from a range of $1.071 billion to $1.093 billion down to $1.015 billion to $1.035 billion, a reduction of approximately $57 million at the midpoint. Adjusted earnings per share guidance was cut by roughly 40%, from $2.80 to $3.00 down to $1.55 to $1.75.

CEO Kurdikar acknowledged the results were "significantly below our expectations" and attributed the shortfall primarily to the U.S. business, citing increased competitive dynamics, share loss in pen needles concentrated at a single major customer, overall market volume softness for insulin pens and pen needles in the retail channel, and patients shifting to lower-cost purchasing channels. The pen needle category alone accounted for approximately $53 million, or roughly 70%, of the $75 million revenue guidance reduction. Kurdikar conceded that competitive share loss at the previously referenced customer was "a little bit deeper than we anticipated" and that the company was observing declines in insulin pen prescriptions that represented "more of a recent shift than certainly what we've seen over the past several years," directly contradicting the "incredibly resolute" characterization made just weeks earlier at the J.P. Morgan conference.

Market Reaction

The market response to Embecta's disclosures was immediate and severe. EMBC shares plummeted from a closing price of $9.25 on May 4, 2026 to $3.90 on May 5, 2026, a single-day decline of over 57.8%, or $5.35 per share. Multiple analysts downgraded the stock or slashed price targets in response. BTIG downgraded EMBC to Neutral from Buy, characterizing the results as a "major miss" with a significant "guidance cut." Wolfe Research published a note highlighting that the fiscal year 2026 EPS guide had been cut approximately 40%, while Mizuho cut its price target from $12.00 to $5.00, noting that "share recapture on lost retail share will take time to execute while competitive pressures from low-cost providers and to some extent GLP-1s are expected to persist."

Next Steps

●        Lead Plaintiff Deadline: August 17, 2026

●        After the lead plaintiff deadline, the Court will consider any lead plaintiff motions.

●        Defendants may file a motion to dismiss.

●        If the case proceeds, the Court may later consider class certification.

Disclaimer: This shareholder alert is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified attorney for personalized guidance. No specific outcomes are guaranteed.

Check Eligibility

Check Eligibility

Check Eligibility

Introduction

A securities class action lawsuit has been filed against Microsoft Corporation (NASDAQ: MSFT) and four of its senior executives on behalf of investors who purchased Microsoft common stock between May 1, 2025 and January 28, 2026. The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, defendants made materially false and misleading statements about the success, adoption, and competitive positioning of Microsoft's Copilot family of AI products, while concealing significant brand positioning failures, user experience problems, declining market share, and the need to divert billions of dollars in computing capacity away from profitable Azure cloud services to address Copilot's shortcomings. When the alleged truth began to emerge through Microsoft's disappointing fiscal second quarter 2026 earnings on January 28, 2026, and subsequent investigative reporting, MSFT shares fell over $48 per share in a single day and continued declining to a low of $380 per share by March 20, 2026, representing a 30% decline from the Class Period high.

Company Profile

Microsoft Corporation is a multinational technology conglomerate headquartered in Redmond, Washington. The Company's offerings span enterprise software, cloud computing (including its Azure platform), online services, gaming, and technological hardware. In recent years, Azure has served as Microsoft's primary growth driver, and the Company has invested heavily in artificial intelligence capabilities, including over $13 billion in OpenAI and a commitment to invest up to $5 billion in Anthropic, while launching its proprietary generative AI assistant, Copilot, across consumer and enterprise applications.

Class Period

May 1, 2025 – January 28, 2026

Investors who purchased Microsoft Corporation (MSFT) common stock during the Class Period may be eligible to seek recovery under the federal securities laws.

Allegations

The complaint alleges that Microsoft and four of its senior officers, CEO and Chairman Satya Nadella, CFO and Executive Vice President Amy E. Hood, Chief Marketing Officer for AI at Work Jared Spataro, and Executive Vice President of Experiences and Devices Rajesh Jha, made materially false and misleading statements about the performance, adoption, and competitive strength of Microsoft's Copilot family of AI products. Throughout the Class Period, these executives repeatedly told investors that Copilot enjoyed "best-in-class" capabilities, that customer adoption was accelerating at record pace, and that Microsoft was uniquely positioned to lead the AI transformation of enterprise and consumer software.

According to the complaint, beginning with Microsoft's fiscal third quarter 2025 earnings on April 30, 2025, CEO Nadella represented that Microsoft was "winning new customers with best-in-class AI capabilities" and that "hundreds of thousands of customers" were using Copilot, with adoption growing threefold year-over-year. CFO Hood highlighted "strong demand" and reported paid Microsoft 365 commercial seats growing 7% year-over-year. In subsequent quarterly earnings calls, investor conferences, and the December 2025 Annual Shareholders Meeting, defendants escalated these claims: Nadella touted surpassing 150 million monthly active Copilot users, called the product "best-in-class" on third-party benchmarks, and highlighted that over 90% of the Fortune 500 used Microsoft 365 Copilot. AI CMO Spataro told investors at the Goldman Sachs conference in September 2025 that Copilot was delivering 20% to 30% efficiency improvements and was "our fastest-growing M365 portfolio product" ever. EVP Jha, at the UBS conference in December 2025, stated that daily active engagement with Copilot had "more than doubled, quarter over quarter" for two consecutive quarters.

The complaint alleges these statements failed to disclose that Copilot had experienced significant brand positioning, user experience, usage, data siloing, computational capacity, organizational, and interoperability problems. Plaintiffs allege that Microsoft's flagship proprietary AI model ranked well below competitors on benchmark tests, that confusing product versions and forced integration were frustrating users, and that organizational silos between consumer-focused and enterprise-focused Copilot teams prevented a coherent product vision. Most critically, the complaint alleges defendants concealed that Microsoft needed to increase capital expenditures by billions of dollars and divert GPU and CPU capacity away from fulfilling demand for its profitable Azure services in order to address Copilot's competitive deficiencies and fund AI-related research and development. As a result, the complaint alleges, Microsoft had failed to convert a significant percentage of its more than 450 million commercial Microsoft 365 users to paid Copilot subscriptions, and Copilot was actively losing market share to rivals including Google's Gemini and OpenAI's ChatGPT.

The Truth Emerges

According to the complaint, the allegedly concealed problems began surfacing on January 28, 2026, when Microsoft reported its fiscal second quarter 2026 results. The earnings announcement and related call allegedly revealed three interrelated disappointments that contradicted defendants' prior representations. Azure revenue growth had slowed and missed analyst expectations, with CFO Hood attributing the shortfall to computational capacity constraints caused by the Company diverting CPU and GPU resources to Copilot applications and AI-related research and development. Capital expenditures had surged to $37.5 billion for the quarter alone, bringing the first-half fiscal 2026 total to $72.4 billion (compared to $88.2 billion for all of fiscal 2025), driven largely by Copilot development and capacity buildout. For the first time, Microsoft disclosed that total paid Microsoft 365 Copilot seats stood at only 15 million, a figure materially below analyst estimates and representing a small fraction of the Company's 450-million-plus commercial Microsoft 365 user base.

Days later, on February 3, 2026, The Wall Street Journal published an investigative article titled "Microsoft's Pivotal AI Product Is Running Into Big Problems," reporting on Copilot-related difficulties. The article reported that confusing brand positioning and interoperability problems had frustrated users, that Copilot subscribers were increasingly favoring competing products, and that some companies were using only about 10% of the Copilot subscription seats they had purchased. Previously unreported survey data showed that from July 2025 through late January 2026, the percentage of Copilot subscribers using the product as their primary option fell from 18.8% to 11.5%, while Google Gemini's share among paid users rose from 12.8% to 15.7%. The article further disclosed that Microsoft's effort to train proprietary models had been hampered by computing capacity shortages, as the Company rationed server time for OpenAI and other Azure customers. Notably, the article reported that CEO Nadella himself had sent a frustrated email to EVP Jha about Copilot's inability to fulfill basic prompts, which plaintiffs allege undercut defendants' public assurances of product excellence. Subsequent analyst commentary on February 11, 2026, by Melius Research analysts described the link between Copilot's problems and Azure capacity constraints as a "no-win situation," and on March 17, 2026, The Wall Street Journal reported that Microsoft was reorganizing its Copilot product teams in response to these challenges.

Market Reaction

Following Microsoft's January 28, 2026 earnings announcement, MSFT shares dropped over $48 per share, falling from $481.63 at market close on January 28, 2026 to $433.50 at market close on January 29, 2026, on abnormally high trading volume of nearly 129 million shares. The stock continued to decline as the market absorbed the full scope of the adverse disclosures, including The Wall Street Journal's February 3, 2026 investigative report on Copilot's problems. By February 5, 2026, MSFT had fallen below $393 per share. The sell-off deepened further through March 2026 as additional reporting and analyst commentary allegedly underscored the continuing nature of the challenges, with MSFT reaching a low of $380 per share by March 20, 2026, a 30% decline from its Class Period high above $550.

Next Steps

●       Lead Plaintiff Deadline: August 11, 2026

●       After the lead plaintiff deadline, the Court will consider any lead plaintiff motions.

●       Defendants may file a motion to dismiss.

●       If the case proceeds, the Court may later consider class certification.

Disclaimer: This shareholder alert is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified attorney for personalized guidance. No specific outcomes are guaranteed.

Check Eligibility

Introduction

A securities class action lawsuit has been filed against Nano-X Imaging Ltd. (NASDAQ: NNOX) and two of its senior executives on behalf of investors who purchased Nano-X securities between March 31, 2025 and April 17, 2026. The complaint alleges that throughout this class period, defendants made materially false and misleading statements about Nano-X's operational efficiency, manufacturing capabilities, and demand for its products, while concealing that the company's production operations were poorly aligned with actual demand and generating unsustainable operating expenses and cash burn. The truth began to emerge on April 20, 2026, when Nano-X reported a fourth quarter net loss of $33.4 million, driven largely by a $17.5 million impairment charge tied to a restructuring initiative at its Korean chip manufacturing facility, and simultaneously announced the departure of its Chief Financial Officer. Following these disclosures, Nano-X's stock price fell $0.695 per share, or 24.39%, to close at $2.155 per share.

Company Profile

Nano-X Imaging Ltd. develops a commercial-grade tomographic imaging device with a digital X-ray source, known as the Nanox.ARC, and also provides teleradiology services and develops artificial intelligence applications for medical imaging. The company produces components for its X-ray products at self-owned facilities, including a micro-electro-mechanical systems (MEMs) chip manufacturing facility in South Korea, as well as through third-party manufacturers.

Class Period

March 31, 2025 – April 17, 2026

Investors who purchased or acquired Nano-X Imaging Ltd. (NNOX) securities during the Class Period may be eligible to seek recovery under the federal securities laws.

Allegations

The complaint alleges that Nano-X and its senior executives, CEO Erez Meltzer and CFO Ran Daniel, made materially false and misleading statements throughout the class period regarding the company's manufacturing efficiency, operational progress, and demand for its products. Beginning with the March 31, 2025 announcement of fourth quarter 2024 results, Defendant Meltzer publicly touted Nano-X's "accelerated . . . US commercialization effort," "operational progress in 2024," and confidence that the company was "well-positioned to build our momentum." In quarterly earnings calls and press releases over the following months, defendants repeatedly emphasized purported efficiency gains, a growing customer pipeline, disciplined execution, and the value of the company's manufacturing infrastructure, including its self-owned Korean chip fabrication facility.

According to the complaint, these statements were materially misleading because defendants overstated the efficiency gains achieved in Nano-X's operations and the demand for its products. In reality, the company's production and manufacturing operations were poorly aligned with actual demand, resulting in significantly increased operating expenses and cash burn. In the May 2025 earnings call, Defendant Meltzer claimed the sales pipeline had "doubled since January 2025" and projected over 100 Nanox.ARC systems in various stages of deployment by year-end 2025. In August 2025, defendants reported being "on track" to meet yearly deployment targets and described an "increasingly robust" commercial pipeline. By November 2025, Meltzer emphasized "a highly efficient and scalable manufacturing infrastructure" and the company's dedication to "accelerating" its development, while notably failing to disclose any disconnect between manufacturing operations and product demand, or any contemplated restructuring.

The complaint further alleges that, based on their executive roles, access to company information, and responsibility for public filings, Meltzer and Daniel knew or recklessly disregarded that the challenged statements were materially false or misleading. Throughout the class period, the Individual Defendants signed Sarbanes-Oxley certifications attesting that the company's SEC filings contained no material misstatements or omissions. Meanwhile, with Nano-X's stock price artificially inflated by these alleged misrepresentations, the company conducted a registered direct offering in November 2025, raising $15 million in gross proceeds from an institutional investor.

The Truth Emerges

On April 20, 2026, Nano-X issued a press release announcing its fourth quarter 2025 financial results, revealing a net loss of $33.4 million for the quarter, compared to $14.1 million in the same period a year earlier, an increase of $19.3 million. The loss was driven largely by a $17.5 million impairment charge related to long-lived assets following a restructuring initiative at the company's Korean chip manufacturing facility. The press release acknowledged that Nano-X needed to shift "to a more efficient outsourced production model that is better aligned with current and anticipated demand," a stark reversal from months of public assurances about operational efficiency and a disciplined growth strategy. The same announcement disclosed that CFO Ran Daniel would step down from his position, effective July 31, 2026.

During a conference call held the same day, CEO Meltzer provided further details, disclosing the need "to reduce our Korean operation's OpEx and cash burn and improve efficiency." The restructuring plan called for closing the chip manufacturing line in South Korea, downsizing fabrication facilities, and transferring production activities to third-party international partners, with total restructuring and related charges expected to reach approximately $18.0 million. The complaint alleges that these disclosures contradicted defendants' repeated class-period statements portraying Nano-X as executing a disciplined manufacturing scale-up aligned with growing demand.

Market Reaction

The market reacted swiftly and severely to the April 20, 2026 disclosures. Investor news outlet Seeking Alpha reported that morning that Nano-X shares had lost approximately 17% in early trading, noting it was "on track to what could be its worst intraday decline in over two years." By the close of trading on April 20, 2026, NNOX had fallen $0.695 per share, or 24.39%, to close at $2.155 per share. The following day, investment banking and research firm Ladenburg Thalmann lowered its price target on Nano-X shares to $9.60 from $10.60, citing the approximately $17.5 million impairment charge and the CFO transition.

Next Steps

●       Lead Plaintiff Deadline: August 11, 2026

●       After the lead plaintiff deadline, the Court will consider any lead plaintiff motions.

●       Defendants may file a motion to dismiss.

●       If the case proceeds, the Court may later consider class certification.

Disclaimer: This shareholder alert is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified attorney for personalized guidance. No specific outcomes are guaranteed.

Check Eligibility

Introduction

A securities class action lawsuit has been filed against ADMA Biologics, Inc. (NASDAQ: ADMA) and certain of its senior executives on behalf of investors who purchased ADMA securities between August 9, 2024 and March 25, 2026. The complaint, filed in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, alleges that defendants made materially false and misleading statements about the company's revenue growth, internal controls, and related party transactions, while concealing a channel stuffing scheme that artificially inflated reported ASCENIV sales and an undisclosed related party distribution relationship involving an entity allegedly controlled by the company's Vice Chairman. After Culper Research published a short-seller report concerning these alleged practices in March 2026, ADMA stock declined over three trading sessions, falling 16.6%, 15%, and 13.9% on consecutive trading days. The complaint also cites analyst commentary stating that ADMA had declined approximately 47% year-to-date, and plaintiffs allege the declines caused significant shareholder losses.

Company Profile

ADMA Biologics, Inc. is a commercial biopharmaceutical company headquartered in Ramsey, New Jersey, dedicated to manufacturing, marketing, and developing specialty biologics for the treatment of immunodeficient patients at risk for infection and others at risk for certain infectious diseases. The company's flagship product is ASCENIV, an intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIG) therapy, and it also markets BIVIGAM and Nabi-HB, while operating plasma collection centers.

Class Period

August 9, 2024–March 25, 2026

Investors who purchased or acquired ADMA Biologics (ADMA) securities during the Class Period may be entitled to seek recovery under the federal securities laws.

Allegations

The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, ADMA Biologics and its senior leadership made materially false and misleading statements in the company's quarterly and annual SEC filings regarding revenue recognition practices, the effectiveness of internal controls over financial reporting, and the full scope of related party transactions. According to the lawsuit, defendants certified in each filing, pursuant to the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, that the company's financial reporting was accurate, that internal controls were effective, and that all fraud had been disclosed, when in fact the company was engaged in a scheme to inflate reported revenues and was concealing a material distribution relationship.

The core of the alleged fraud involves ASCENIV, ADMA's premium-priced IVIG therapy. The complaint alleges that ADMA engaged in channel stuffing by inducing distributors to accept excess, unwanted shipments of ASCENIV through rebates and extended payment terms stretching to 120 days. According to the lawsuit, this practice allowed ADMA to book revenues upon delivery to distributors even though end-market demand was not increasing, creating the appearance that ASCENIV revenues grew from $92.6 million in 2023 to $362.5 million in 2025 when, plaintiffs allege, the underlying growth was nonexistent. The complaint cites Culper's report, which described accounts from high-level employees at one of ADMA's two largest distributors who allegedly stated that, starting in 2025, ADMA requested larger orders at different ordering cycles and incentivized compliance with rebates and extended terms. One distributor employee allegedly stated that the activity amounted to "cooking the books a bit," while Culper also reported that a a former ADMA sales representative said the company would "encourage them to order more to goose the channel, and then it just sits there."

The complaint further alleges that ADMA concealed what Culper described as an apparent material related-party distribution relationship. While the company disclosed small purchases from GenesisBPS, an equipment provider allegedly owned by Adam Grossman and Jerrold Grossman until September 30, 2025, it allegedly never disclosed sales to Genesis BioPharma Services, a distinct entity that describes itself as a life sciences logistics provider, lists ASCENIV among its product offerings, and operates out of ADMA's own corporate headquarters at 465 Route 17, Ramsey, New Jersey. Plaintiffs allege this created an "apparent sleight of hand," giving the impression of transparency about Grossman-controlled entities while concealing what may be a material distribution relationship. Additional red flags cited by the complaint include the 2024 resignation of ADMA's 17-year auditor CohnReznick (replaced by KPMG, which flagged critical audit matters), the departure of a longstanding director, and the sudden retirement of CFO Brad Tade at age 52, effective immediately, in February 2026. Insiders collectively sold over $50 million in stock over the preceding three years, with CEO Grossman selling over $20 million and pledging more than 712,000 shares against a personal credit facility in January 2025.

The Truth Emerges

On March 24, 2026, Culper Research published a detailed report alleging that ADMA's reported revenue growth was "a fiction driven more than entirely by a de facto channel stuffing scheme and an undisclosed related party distributor." The report presented third-party sales data showing a significant and widening gap between ADMA's reported ASCENIV revenues and actual end-market utilization, estimating that approximately $200 million in ASCENIV inventory was sitting in the distribution channel. Culper further estimated that absent channel stuffing, ADMA's revenues actually declined 3% in 2025, compared to the 20% growth the company reported. The report also detailed what Culper described as an undisclosed relationship with Genesis BioPharma Services, including Culper's report that the entity operated from ADMA's headquarters.

The following day, ADMA issued a press release characterizing the short seller report as "premised on speculative assertions derived from unidentified and unreliable sources" containing "numerous misleading, false and inaccurate statements." The complaint cites Cantor Fitzgerald commentary stating that investors expressed disappointment in ADMA's response and that the firm had expected "more specific feedback addressing the direct claims" in the short seller report. On March 26, 2026, Cantor Fitzgerald downgraded ADMA stock from Overweight to Neutral, noting that investors expressed disappointment in the company's response and that the firm had expected "more specific feedback addressing the direct claims" in the short seller report. The analyst suspended its financial model for the company, citing concerns around increased days sales outstanding and accounts receivable, and stated that the lack of clarity made it "difficult to recommend investors take advantage of stock weakness."

Market Reaction

The alleged corrective disclosures were followed by a severe three-day decline in ADMA Biologics stock. On March 24, 2026, the day the Culper Research report was published, ADMA shares fell $2.26 per share, or 16.6%, to close at $11.33. The stock declined a further $1.70 per share, or 15%, on March 25, 2026, amid continued market reaction to the Culper report. On March 26, 2026, following the Cantor Fitzgerald downgrade, ADMA shares fell an additional $1.34 per share, or 13.9%, to close at $8.29. The complaint also cites analyst commentary stating that ADMA had declined approximately 47% year-to-date.

Next Steps

●       Lead Plaintiff Deadline: August 10, 2026

●       After the lead plaintiff deadline, the Court will consider any lead plaintiff motions.

●       Defendants may file a motion to dismiss.

●       If the case proceeds, the Court may later consider class certification.

Disclaimer: This shareholder alert is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified attorney for personalized guidance. No specific outcomes are guaranteed.

Check Eligibility

Introduction

A securities fraud class action has been filed against Erasca, Inc. (NASDAQ: ERAS) and two of its senior executives on behalf of investors who purchased Erasca common stock between January 14, 2025 and April 26, 2026. The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, defendants made materially false and misleading statements about the preclinical profile of Erasca's lead drug candidate, ERAS-0015, by touting comparative preclinical data against Revolution Medicines' competing pan-RAS molecular glue, RMC-6236, while allegedly failing to disclose that those comparisons were improper and exposed Erasca to patent and trade secret risk. When Erasca disclosed on April 27, 2026 that it had received a letter from Revolution Medicines alleging patent infringement and trade secret misappropriation, and separately disclosed a patient death in ERAS-0015's Phase 1 trial along with an acknowledgment that its cross-study comparisons were "inherently limited" and "may not be directly comparable," the stock collapsed over two days, falling from $21.49 to $9.90 per share, a decline of approximately 54%.

Company Profile

Erasca, Inc. is a clinical-stage precision oncology company headquartered in San Diego, California, focused on discovering, developing, and commercializing therapies for patients with RAS/MAPK pathway-driven cancers. One of the company's primary drug candidates is ERAS-0015, a pan-RAS molecular glue designed to treat patients with RAS mutant solid tumors, a category of mutations that drives nearly one-fourth of all solid tumors worldwide.

Class Period

January 14, 2025 – April 26, 2026

Investors who purchased or acquired Erasca, Inc. (ERAS) securities during the Class Period may be entitled to seek recovery under the federal securities laws.

Allegations

The complaint alleges that Erasca and its executives built the investment thesis for ERAS-0015 around detailed, repeated comparisons to Revolution Medicines' RMC-6236, the leading pan-RAS molecular glue in clinical development. At the January 2025 J.P. Morgan Healthcare Conference, CEO Jonathan Lim described ERAS-0015 as a "potential best-in-class" pan-RAS molecular glue with "low sub-nanomolar to low nanomolar" potency and "very high" oral bioavailability, noting tumor regression at very low doses. At the January 2026 J.P. Morgan Healthcare Conference, Lim elaborated that ERAS-0015 had 8 to 21-fold higher binding affinity to cyclophilin A versus RMC-6236, achieved comparable antitumor activity at one-tenth the dose, demonstrated preferential tumor distribution and longer residence time, and outperformed RMC-6236 on clearance, half-life, and oral bioavailability.

According to the complaint, defendants repeated and expanded these comparative claims in multiple SEC filings and investor presentations throughout the Class Period. The company's 2024 Annual Report on Form 10-K, filed March 20, 2025, included extensive side-by-side preclinical data comparing ERAS-0015 to RMC-6236 across binding affinity, tumor distribution, in vitro potency, in vivo efficacy, and pharmacokinetic profiles. A January 12, 2026 presentation filed on Form 8-K contained multiple slides with titles explicitly framing ERAS-0015 as superior to RMC-6236. Lim reiterated these comparisons at the January 2026 J.P. Morgan Healthcare Conference, and the company's 2025 Annual Report on Form 10-K, filed March 12, 2026, reproduced the same comparative preclinical data.

The complaint alleges these statements were materially false and misleading because ERAS-0015's preclinical data was based on improper comparisons to RMC-6236 that placed Erasca at risk of violating patent and trade secret protections held by Revolution Medicines. Plaintiffs allege that defendants knew or recklessly disregarded that their comparative claims were improper and that the company faced significant intellectual property exposure. The complaint further alleges that defendants were motivated to maintain the artificial inflation, pointing to a common stock offering that closed on January 23, 2026, raising approximately $258.8 million in gross proceeds, the timing of which coincided with the period of alleged misstatements about ERAS-0015's competitive profile.

The Truth Emerges

On April 27, 2026, before the market opened, Erasca disclosed in a Form 8-K that it had received a letter from Revolution Medicines' legal counsel alleging that ERAS-0015 infringes a RevMed patent (U.S. Patent No. 12,409,225) and is connected to alleged trade secret misappropriation. RevMed also alleged that Erasca had "improperly compared preclinical data of ERAS-0015 and RMC-6236 in public disclosures" and demanded that Erasca cease making "deceptive and untrue comparative statements comparing ERAS-0015 and RMC-6236." According to the complaint, this disclosure revealed the serious intellectual property risk that had been concealed from investors throughout the Class Period, during which defendants had presented detailed ERAS-0015 versus RMC-6236 comparisons without disclosing the company's exposure to patent and trade secret challenges.

Later the same day, after the market closed, Erasca filed a separate Form 8-K that compounded investor concerns. The filing reported preliminary Phase 1 clinical data for ERAS-0015 and disclosed that a patient who received 24 mg of ERAS-0015 had died approximately one month after starting treatment, classified as a Grade 3 treatment-related adverse event of pneumonitis that progressed to Grade 5 after withdrawal of supportive care. In the same filing, Erasca acknowledged that its comparisons between ERAS-0015 and RMC-6236 were based on cross-study analyses "not based on any head-to-head clinical trials" and that such comparisons are "inherently limited and such data may not be directly comparable." This acknowledgment stood in stark contrast to the confident, detailed comparative presentations that had characterized defendants' statements throughout the preceding sixteen months.

Market Reaction

Erasca's stock price declined significantly following both disclosures. Following the pre-market announcement of RevMed's patent and trade secret allegations on April 27, 2026, ERAS fell from a closing price of $21.49 on April 24, 2026 to open at $20.70 per share on April 27, and continued to fall, closing at $19.15 on April 27. The second Form 8-K, filed after the close on April 27, triggered a far steeper decline: ERAS fell more than 45% in premarket trading, opening at $10.51 on April 28, 2026, and continued to fall throughout the session, closing at $9.90 per share. Over the two-day period, the stock fell from a pre-disclosure closing price of $21.49 per share on April 24, 2026 to a closing price of $9.90 per share on April 28, 2026.

Next Steps

●       Lead Plaintiff Deadline: August 10, 2026

●       After the lead plaintiff deadline, the Court will consider any lead plaintiff motions.

●       Defendants may file a motion to dismiss.

●       If the case proceeds, the Court may later consider class certification.

Disclaimer: This shareholder alert is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified attorney for personalized guidance. No specific outcomes are guaranteed.

Check Eligibility

Check Eligibility

Check Eligibility

Introduction

A securities class action lawsuit has been filed against Via Transportation, Inc. (NYSE: VIA), certain of its senior executives and directors, and twelve underwriter defendants in connection with the Company's September 15, 2025 initial public offering. The IPO offered 10,714,285 shares of Via common stock at $46.00 per share, generating anticipated gross proceeds of nearly $493 million. The complaint alleges that the Registration Statement and Prospectus issued in connection with the IPO contained materially misleading statements and omissions, including the alleged failure to disclose that Via’s ARR per customer was already declining, a trend later described as the first decline in eight quarters, and that existing regulatory obstacles in Germany, a market responsible for nearly 20% of Via’s total revenue, were hindering the Company’s core “land and expand” growth strategy. According to the complaint, as these facts emerged through post-IPO earnings disclosures, Via’s stock declined sharply, trading as low as $14.52, a drop of nearly 70% from the $46.00 offering price.

Company Profile

Via Transportation, Inc. is a New York-headquartered technology company that, at the time of its IPO, provided software and tech-enabled services for cities, transit agencies, transport operators, school districts, universities, and corporations to plan, operate, and manage public transportation networks. The Company's vertically integrated platform addressed key transit workflows including planning and scheduling, operating software, tech-enabled services, passenger tools, and data and insights.

Class Period

This class action lawsuit concerns Via Transportation's IPO. Investors who purchased or acquired Via Transportation (VIA) common stock pursuant or traceable to the Company’s IPO on or around September 15, 2025, may be eligible to participate in the securities class action.

Allegations

The complaint alleges that the Offering Documents issued in connection with Via Transportation's September 15, 2025 IPO contained materially incorrect or misleading statements and omitted material information required by law to be disclosed. The Offering Documents were signed by individual defendants including CEO Daniel Ramot, CFO Clara Fain, and directors Arnon Dinur, William Nix, Noam Ohana, Nechemia Peres, Charles H. Rivkin, and Sarah E. Smith. Twelve underwriter defendants, led by Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC, Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC, and Allen & Company LLC, served as financial advisors, assisted in preparing the Offering Documents, and collectively earned $24.6 million in underwriting discounts and commissions.

According to the complaint, the Offering Documents prominently touted Via's "significant and durable revenue growth" and its "rapid growth," showcased by its Platform Annual Run-Rate Revenue. The documents highlighted the Company's "successful land and expand strategy," describing how customers would begin with a single solution and progressively adopt more of Via's platform, generating "flywheel effects." The Offering Documents also disclosed that revenues from Europe accounted for 29% to 32% of total revenues, with a majority earned in Germany, where nearly 20% of total revenue originated for the six months ended June 30, 2025.

The complaint alleges that these statements were materially misleading because, at the time of the IPO, Via's ARR per customer had already begun declining, a trend the Company failed to disclose. The complaint further alleges that the Offering Documents failed to reveal that Germany was undergoing a regulatory transition where customers had adopted microtransit but Via could not effectively sell its entire platform. German agencies were treating microtransit as a siloed service, allegedly limiting the cross-sell and upsell expansion that was central to the growth narrative presented to IPO investors. These omissions allegedly violated SEC Regulation S-K Item 303, which required disclosure of known events or uncertainties reasonably likely to cause disclosed financial information not to be indicative of future operating results, and Item 105, which required the risk factor section to adequately describe the most significant factors making the offering speculative.

The complaint asserts claims under Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, emphasizing that these are strict liability and negligence claims. The complaint expressly disclaims any allegation of fraud or scienter.

The Truth Emerges

On November 13, 2025, Via reported its third quarter 2025 earnings. During the earnings call, CFO Clara Fain disclosed that ARR per customer had declined for the first time in eight quarters, falling approximately 1% quarter-over-quarter. Fain attributed the decline to seasonal patterns affecting university, school, and corporate contracts during the summer, as well as to growth in the Company's relatively new schools business, where a significant increase in the number of customers contributed limited revenue because services had only just launched at the start of the academic year. The complaint frames this as the first post-IPO disclosure that the growth metric highlighted in the Offering Documents had declined.

The situation deepened on February 27, 2026, when Via reported fourth quarter and full year 2025 results. CEO Daniel Ramot disclosed that Via was "facing some headwinds" in Germany, acknowledging that while the Company had been "very successful in introducing microtransit," the next phase of platform-wide adoption was "proving to take longer than we would have liked." Ramot explained that advancing beyond microtransit in Germany required customers to restructure their networks, reduce fixed routes, and combine previously siloed services, a process that the European regulatory environment was making significantly slower than in the United States.

Additional details about the alleged Germany headwinds emerged on May 12, 2026, during Via's first quarter 2026 earnings call. Fain noted continued headwinds in Germany from a "sustained constrained budgetary environment," while Ramot provided a more detailed assessment, stating that Germany was "an unusual market" where Via had "not yet been able to crack it beyond the microtransit vertical." Ramot acknowledged that German agencies were still treating microtransit "as a silo" and that this dynamic, combined with macro funding headwinds across the country, was creating "real pressure" on Via's services and limiting growth there.

Market Reaction

The complaint alleges Via’s stock declined on three separate disclosure dates as the alleged undisclosed conditions emerged. On November 13, 2025, following the first disclosure that ARR per customer had declined, VIA shares fell approximately 13% to close at $43.14 per share. On February 27, 2026, after CEO Ramot discussed headwinds that the complaint alleges hindered platform expansion in Germany, VIA dropped nearly 8% to close at $17.18 per share. The most severe decline came on May 12, 2026. Following Ramot’s statements about Germany, VIA shares fell over 17% to close at $14.12 per share. At that price, Via's stock had fallen nearly 70% from the $46.00 IPO offering price. By the time the lawsuit was filed, Via's shares had traded as low as $14.52.

Next Steps

●       Lead Plaintiff Deadline: August 10, 2026

●       After the lead plaintiff deadline, the Court will consider any lead plaintiff motions.

●       Defendants may file a motion to dismiss.

●       If the case proceeds, the Court may later consider class certification.

Disclaimer

This shareholder alert is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified attorney for personalized guidance. No specific outcomes are guaranteed.

Check Eligibility

Introduction

A securities class action lawsuit has been filed against BitGo Holdings, Inc. (NYSE: BTGO) and several of its officers and directors in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York. The complaint, filed on June 8, 2026, asserts claims under both Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933 in connection with BitGo's January 22, 2026 initial public offering at $18.00 per share, and Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 covering a class period from January 22, 2025 through May 13, 2026. The complaint alleges that BitGo's Offering Documents and public statements throughout the Class Period were materially false and misleading because defendants understated the scope and severity of the risk that declining digital asset prices posed to the company's business and financial performance. After disclosures that the complaint characterizes as corrective, including reported net losses and deteriorating Digital Asset Sales margins tied in part to falling digital asset prices, BTGO shares fell 15.71% on March 27, 2026 and 17.2% on May 14, 2026.

Company Profile

BitGo Holdings, Inc. is a digital asset infrastructure company that provides a platform enabling customers to store, trade, and stake digital assets. At the time of its IPO, the company generated revenue through several segments, including Digital Asset Sales (derived from trading volume on its platform) and Staking (comprising rewards issued by blockchain protocols). BitGo is headquartered in Sioux Falls, South Dakota, and its Class A common stock trades on the New York Stock Exchange under the ticker symbol BTGO.

Class Period

January 22, 2025 through May 13, 2026

Investors who purchased BitGo Holdings securities during the class period, or who purchased BitGo Class A common stock pursuant or traceable to the Offering Documents issued in connection with BitGo's January 22, 2026 initial public offering, might be eligible to join the BitGo Holdings securities class action lawsuit.

Allegations

The complaint alleges that BitGo Holdings and its officers and directors made materially false and misleading statements in the company's IPO Offering Documents and in subsequent public statements throughout the Class Period regarding the resilience of BitGo's business model and the risks posed by digital asset price volatility. The Offering Documents, which were declared effective on January 21, 2026, included a letter from CEO and Co-Founder Michael Belshe projecting that "everything will be a digital asset" and asserting that the digital asset market represented a multi-trillion dollar opportunity. The documents repeatedly assured investors that "the fundamentals of our business continue to be strong and resilient over time" despite acknowledging the inherent volatility of digital asset prices. The complaint alleges these reassurances effectively negated the cautionary language about digital asset price risk, leaving investors with a materially misleading picture of the company's vulnerability to market downturns.

According to the complaint, the Offering Documents provided preliminary financial estimates for fiscal year 2025 that projected profitability, including estimated profit from operations between $3.2 million and $3.5 million, representing a claimed $10.3 million improvement from the prior year's operating loss. The documents highlighted that assets on platform had reached $104.0 billion by the quarter ended September 30, 2025, and that digital asset sales revenue was estimated between approximately $15.476 billion and $15.522 billion for fiscal year 2025. Plaintiff alleges these projections and metrics lacked a reasonable basis because defendants understated the severity of the risk that declining digital asset prices posed to BitGo’s business and financial performance.

Following the IPO, defendants continued to issue statements that the complaint characterizes as materially misleading. On January 22, 2026, defendant Belshe declared BitGo was "uniquely positioned" to navigate the road ahead. On January 29, 2026, while announcing the company's approval as a federally chartered national trust bank, Belshe stated that "digital assets are entering a new era where trust, regulation, and resilience are foundational." Subsequent press releases in February and March 2026 touted partnership expansions and referenced BitGo's "longstanding foundation of trust." The complaint alleges these statements failed to disclose the impact of falling digital asset prices on BitGo’s business, including lower Digital Asset Sales margins and declines in staking revenue. Even during the fiscal year 2025 earnings call on March 26, 2026, after acknowledging that BitGo's net loss was "materially driven by declines in digital asset prices," defendant Belshe continued to minimize the risk, claiming BitGo did not have "the same kind of exposure to digital assets that retail platforms do" and asserting that the company's total addressable market would see "huge growth" in the following two years.

The complaint further alleges that the individual defendants, including Belshe, Chief Financial Officer Edward Reginelli, and Chief Revenue Officer Chen Fang, enriched themselves through insider sales of 436,645 shares of BitGo common stock totaling over $7.3 million in proceeds during the Class Period, which the complaint cites as evidence of motive and opportunity. Defendants' failure to adequately disclose the scope and severity of digital asset price risk allegedly violated Item 105 of SEC Regulation S-K, which requires companies to concisely explain how each material risk factor affects the company or securities being offered.

The Truth Emerges

The first significant corrective disclosure came on March 26, 2026, when BitGo filed its annual report on Form 10-K for fiscal year 2025. The filing revealed that BitGo had swung from $156.6 million in net income for 2024 to a net loss of $14.8 million for 2025, a reversal the company attributed to "declines in digital asset prices impacting the Company's Bitcoin treasury." The Digital Asset Sales segment reported a quarterly margin of just 0.21%, less than half the 0.47% margin recorded in the prior year's fourth quarter. During the accompanying earnings call, defendant Reginelli disclosed that assets on platform had decreased 9% year over year to $81.6 billion, while assets staked had plummeted 51% to $15.6 billion, with both declines "driven by lower digital asset prices." Staking revenue in the fourth quarter fell approximately 64% year over year. Compounding investor concern, defendants declined to provide explicit guidance for the first fiscal quarter of 2026, even though only five days remained in the quarter, instead offering only vague commentary about "challenging" macroeconomic conditions that had "carried into the first quarter." Multiple analysts responded by cutting their price targets, with Deutsche Bank, Goldman Sachs, Compass Point, Rosenblatt, and Mizuho all reducing their estimates and citing weaker-than-expected trading margins, declining digital asset prices, and limited forward visibility.

The second corrective disclosure occurred on May 13, 2026, when BitGo reported first quarter 2026 results showing further deterioration. Total revenue of $3.8 billion represented a 38.7% decline from the preceding quarter, and the company reported a net loss of $60.7 million, compared to a net loss of $25.7 million in the same quarter one year earlier. BitGo attributed the results to "a weaker crypto market environment" and acknowledged that the net loss was "primarily driven by non-cash mark-to-market impacts related to the Company's Bitcoin treasury, as well as elevated IPO-related stock-based compensation expense." The complaint alleges these disclosures undermined defendants’ repeated assurances that BitGo’s business fundamentals were “strong and resilient,” as well as statements suggesting BitGo’s infrastructure-focused model had less direct exposure to digital asset prices than retail platforms.

Market Reaction

Following the March 26, 2026 earnings disclosure, BitGo's stock price fell $1.43 per share, or 15.71%, to close at $7.67 per share on March 27, 2026. This represented a decline of more than 57% from the $18.00 IPO offering price. The complaint alleges this decline reflected the market’s reaction to information that undermined defendants’ earlier statements about BitGo’s resilience. After the May 13, 2026 disclosure of first quarter 2026 results, BTGO fell an additional $2.05 per share, or 17.2%, to close at $9.86 on May 14, 2026. After the May 14, 2026 decline, BTGO closed approximately 45% below the $18.00 IPO price. The complaint alleges these events caused significant losses for investors who purchased shares in or traceable to the IPO or during the Class Period.

Next Steps

●       Lead Plaintiff Deadline: August 7, 2026

●       After the lead plaintiff deadline, the Court will consider any lead plaintiff motions.

●       Defendants may file a motion to dismiss.

●       If the case proceeds, the Court may later consider class certification.

Disclaimer: This shareholder alert is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified attorney for personalized guidance. No specific outcomes are guaranteed.

Check Eligibility

Check Eligibility

Introduction

A securities class action lawsuit has been filed against Roblox Corporation (NYSE: RBLX), its CEO David Baszucki, and its CFO Naveen K. Chopra by Levi & Korsinsky, LLP on behalf of investors who purchased Roblox common stock between October 30, 2025, and April 30, 2026. The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants made materially false and misleading statements about Roblox's growth potential and the anticipated impact of its mandatory age verification rollout, including issuing bookings growth guidance of 22% to 26% for fiscal year 2026 that allegedly failed to account for significant headwinds from the rollout. On April 30, 2026, Roblox reduced its bookings growth guidance to 8% to 12%, and the complaint alleges the disclosure revealed more significant impacts from the age verification rollout on engagement, organic growth, and app store ratings than management had previously communicated. Following this disclosure, Roblox's stock price plummeted from $55.26 to $45.13 per share in a single trading day, a decline of approximately 18.33%.

Company Profile

Roblox Corporation operates a global gaming and creation platform consisting of the Roblox Client, the Roblox Studio, and the Roblox Cloud. The company, headquartered in San Mateo, California, enables users to create, share, and experience interactive content across devices, and its common stock trades on the New York Stock Exchange under the ticker RBLX.

Class Period

October 30, 2025 – April 30, 2026

Investors who purchased or acquired Roblox Corporation (RBLX) securities during the Class Period may be entitled to seek recovery under the federal securities laws.

Allegations

The complaint alleges that beginning with the third quarter fiscal 2025 earnings call on October 30, 2025, defendants painted an overwhelmingly positive picture of Roblox's growth trajectory heading into 2026, even as the company prepared to mandate age verification across its platform. Defendant Baszucki repeatedly emphasized Roblox's "huge ability to virally attract new users" through organic hits, described the company as capturing only 3% of the global gaming market with vast room for expansion, and characterized the age verification rollout as a long-term value creator for shareholders with only the possibility of "short-term headwinds." Defendant Chopra reinforced this messaging by describing the platform's "tremendous organic growth" as the primary driver of expansion and characterizing potential headwinds from safety policies as uncertain while telling investors it was "too early to put any specific numbers around '26."

On February 5, 2026, defendants issued concrete fiscal 2026 guidance projecting 22% to 26% bookings growth, according to the complaint. Defendant Chopra stated that the guidance directly "reflects our confidence in the adoption of our age-checking technology" and was informed by data from early testing of the age verification rollout. Defendant Baszucki praised the rollout, telling analysts he was "very excited and proud of the way our age verification rollout has gone" and that the company had discovered "a bigger growth opportunity in the 18-plus demographic than previously assumed." When asked directly about challenges with the rollout, Baszucki dismissed concerns, stating "we sure don't think about it that way." Defendant Chopra further framed the guidance as conservative, noting it excluded any potential viral hits and highlighting how previous guidance cycles had underestimated the company's performance.

The complaint alleges these statements were materially false and misleading because defendants created a false impression that they possessed reliable information about the rollout's impact while failing to disclose that Roblox's organic growth was already faltering under the weight of the mandatory age verification process. According to the complaint, defendants knew or recklessly disregarded that age check adoption was tapering quickly, that the rollout was compounding reductions in on-platform communication, that app store ratings were declining as a result, and that these knock-on effects were producing a swift reduction in organic growth. Rather than disclosing these alleged risks, the complaint claims defendants used the exclusion of viral-hit assumptions to make the guidance appear conservative, even though it allegedly depended on a flawless rollout and continued organic momentum that was already deteriorating. On March 4, 2026, Defendant Chopra continued to reinforce this narrative at the Morgan Stanley Technology, Media & Telecom Conference, telling investors the company had been "encouraged" by user retention and engagement trends while acknowledging only that some headwind had been anticipated.

The Truth Emerges

According to the complaint, Roblox’s April 30, 2026 earnings call disclosed more significant impacts from the age verification rollout. Defendant Baszucki revealed that user acquisition and engagement had been significantly impacted, disclosing that only 51% of global daily active users had completed age verification (up from just 45% at the end of the prior quarter), that a "follow-on reduction" in communication engagement had occurred because users who had not age-checked were barred from communicating, and that even age-checked users experienced reduced engagement because they had fewer people to communicate with. The company also disclosed that its discovery algorithms had been biased toward monetization over retention, which, combined with reduced communication, had led to declining app store ratings and a corresponding reduction in organic sign-ups.

Defendant Chopra then discussed the guidance reduction, slashing full-year bookings growth guidance from 22% to 26% down to just 8% to 12%, with corresponding margin reductions. Chopra acknowledged that management now ‘better understand[s]’ the second-order impacts of reduced communication engagement, which the complaint alleges were more disruptive than defendants had previously represented. The company further disclosed that daily active users had come in weaker than anticipated and were expected to continue contracting into the second quarter before returning to sequential growth in the third quarter.

Market Reaction

The market reacted swiftly and sharply to Roblox's disclosures. From a closing price of $55.26 on April 30, 2026, RBLX shares fell to $45.13 on May 1, 2026, a single-day decline of approximately $10.13 per share, or 18.33%. Multiple prominent analysts slashed their price targets in response. Barclays cut its target by 48% to $60, noting the need to "lower estimates across the board." J.P. Morgan's Cory Carpenter reduced his target by 33% to $50, highlighting that "facial age verification has been much more disruptive than expected." Piper Sandler analyst Thomas Champion described himself as "bewildered" by the earnings call, calling attention to the dramatic gap between the guidance issued just one quarter earlier and the reality now confronting investors.

Next Steps

●        Lead Plaintiff Deadline: August 7, 2026

●        After the lead plaintiff deadline, the Court will consider any lead plaintiff motions.

●        Defendants may file a motion to dismiss the complaint.

●        If the case proceeds, the Court may later consider class certification.

Disclaimer: This shareholder alert is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified attorney for personalized guidance. No specific outcomes are guaranteed.

Check Eligibility

Check Eligibility

Introduction

A securities class action lawsuit has been filed against PicS N.V. (NASDAQ: PICS), its officers and directors, controlling shareholders, and the IPO underwriters in connection with the Company's January 30, 2026 initial public offering. In the IPO, approximately 22.9 million shares of Class A common stock were sold to investors at $19.00 per share, generating gross proceeds of $434.3 million. The complaint alleges that the Registration Statement and Prospectus issued in connection with the IPO contained materially false and misleading statements and omissions regarding the quality of PicS' credit portfolio, the adequacy of its credit evaluation models, and undisclosed adverse trends in loan defaults that had materialized before the offering. Specifically, the complaint alleges that PicS had conducted a review of its credit loss parameters in December 2025, weeks before the IPO, which revealed significant deficiencies in its credit evaluation procedures and resulted in the reclassification of approximately R$590 million of loans from Stage 2 to Stage 3 (credit-impaired), none of which was disclosed to IPO investors. By June 4, 2026, PicS Class A common stock had fallen to less than $9.00 per share, representing a decline of more than 50% from the $19.00 IPO price, allegedly damaging shareholders who purchased in or traceable to the offering.

Company Profile

PicS N.V. is one of the largest digital banks in Brazil, offering payment, credit, insurance, and investment products through its digital platform. At the time of its IPO, the Company had been expanding its credit operations, having transitioned in October 2023 from an asset-light model to directly originating credit products on its balance sheet, with credit products accounting for 52% of total revenue by the fourth quarter of 2025.

Class Period

This class action lawsuit concerns PicS N.V.'s IPO. Investors who purchased PicS N.V. Class A common stock in and/or traceable to the Company’s January 30, 2026 initial public offering may be members of the proposed class.

Allegations

The complaint alleges that the Offering Documents issued in connection with PicS' IPO painted a materially misleading picture of the Company's credit portfolio health and the sophistication of its risk management capabilities. The Registration Statement and Prospectus highlighted PicS' purportedly "strict credit underwriting criteria," its deployment of "a new generation of customized credit models" using "exclusive behavior credit data," and claimed the Company's proprietary models delivered "up to 3.0 times more accuracy." The Offering Documents also presented the Company's Stage 3 formation rate, a key measure of loans migrating into default, as a stable 3.6% as of September 30, 2025, suggesting the credit portfolio was performing within historical norms.

According to the complaint, these representations were materially false and misleading because they concealed critical adverse developments that had occurred before the IPO. In December 2025, weeks before shares were sold to the public, PicS conducted an annual review of its expected credit loss parameters and determined that its historical credit evaluation policies and procedures were deficient. The Company implemented several methodological enhancements, including the introduction of renegotiation delinquency tracking, further specialization of credit models for newly launched products, adoption of more advanced machine learning techniques, and migration from benchmark-based loss given default assumptions to internally developed models. Critically, PicS also adopted a stricter policy to accelerate the migration of renegotiated non-performing exposures from Stage 2 to Stage 3. The application of these changes resulted in the reclassification of approximately R$590 million of exposures from Stage 2 (underperforming) to Stage 3 (credit-impaired, already in default), generating an incremental expected credit loss charge of R$88 million in the three months ended December 31, 2025.

The complaint further alleges that the Offering Documents materially overstated the quality and reliability of PicS' credit models and user data to inform the Company's underwriting practices, and failed to disclose that PicS had experienced a heightened Stage 3 formation rate of more than 7% in the fourth quarter of 2025, nearly double the 3.6% rate reported as of September 30, 2025. Plaintiffs allege that the Company also suffered from degradations in customer credit quality and heightened risks of default and loan impairment stemming from its expansion into materially riskier business lines, resulting in adverse financial and operational trends that predated the IPO and were internally projected to continue worsening. The complaint alleges these omissions violated Item 303 and Item 105 of SEC Regulation S-K, which required disclosure of known trends, uncertainties, and the most significant risk factors affecting the investment.

The Truth Emerges

On March 19, 2026, less than two months after the IPO, PicS filed a Form 6-K with the SEC reporting its fourth quarter and full year 2025 financial results, covering a period that ended before the IPO. The filing revealed that R$590 million of the Company's credit portfolio balances had been reclassified from Stage 2 to Stage 3, and that PicS had implemented a stricter policy in December 2025 to accelerate the classification of renegotiated non-performing exposures. The filing also disclosed that PicS had conducted an annual review of expected credit loss parameters and implemented changes to its credit-loss methodology, which the complaint alleges reflected deficiencies in its prior credit evaluation procedures. The reported Stage 3 formation rate for the fourth quarter of 2025 spiked to 7.1%, a 97% increase over the 3.6% rate as of the third quarter of 2025, the last figure available to investors from the Offering Documents.

The deterioration continued after the IPO. On June 2, 2026, PicS announced its first quarter 2026 financial results, reporting that Stage 3 loans had increased to 13% of its total credit portfolio. Non-performing loans with balances 15 to 90 days overdue reached 8.4% of the portfolio, up from 6.2% during the prior year comparable period, while non-performing loans more than 90 days past due reached 8.9%, up from 4.0% in the comparable period. According to the complaint, these disclosures showed accelerating credit deterioration that had allegedly been underway before investors purchased shares in the IPO.

Market Reaction

The impact on PicS shareholders was severe. By June 4, 2026, PicS Class A common stock had fallen to a low of less than $9.00 per share, representing a decline of more than 50% from the $19.00 per share IPO price. The complaint notes that as early as five days after the IPO, on February 5, 2026, a Seeking Alpha analyst published a report titled "PicPay: Stay Away from the Stock at this Price," asserting the Company was significantly overvalued with an unfavorable margin profile compared to peers. The complaint alleges that investors who purchased PicS Class A common stock in or traceable to the IPO suffered significant losses as information about the Company’s credit portfolio was disclosed after the offering.

Next Steps

●       Lead Plaintiff Deadline: August 4, 2026

●       After the lead plaintiff deadline, the Court will consider any lead plaintiff motions.

●       Defendants may file a motion to dismiss.

●       If the case proceeds, the Court may later consider class certification

Disclaimer: This shareholder alert is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified attorney for personalized guidance. No specific outcomes are guaranteed.

Check Eligibility