RCAT Investors Have the Opportunity to Lead the Red Cat Securities Fraud Lawsuit with Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP
Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP Securities Litigation Partner James (Josh) Wilson Encourages Investors Who Suffered Losses Exceeding $50,000 In Red Cat To Contact Him Directly To Discuss Their Options
If you suffered losses exceeding $50,000 in Red Cat between March 18, 2022 and January 15, 2025 and would like to discuss your legal rights, call Faruqi & Faruqi partner Josh Wilson directly at 877-247-4292 or 212-983-9330 (Ext. 1310).
[You may also click here for additional information]
New York, New York--(Newsfile Corp. - June 7, 2025) - Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP, a leading national securities law firm, is investigating potential claims against Red Cat Holdings, Inc. ('Red Cat' or the 'Company') (NASDAQ: RCAT) and reminds investors of the July 21, 2025 deadline to seek the role of lead plaintiff in a federal securities class action that has been filed against the Company.
[ This image cannot be displayed. Please visit the source: https://images.newsfilecorp.com/files/6455/254757_fff550f144b5ab48_001full.jpg ]
Faruqi & Faruqi is a leading national securities law firm with offices in New York, Pennsylvania, California and Georgia. The firm has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for investors since its founding in 1995. See www.faruqilaw.com.
As detailed below, the complaint alleges that the Company and its executives violated federal securities laws by making false and/or misleading statements and/or failing to disclose that: (1) the Salt Lake City Facility's production capacity, and Defendants' progress in developing the same, was overstated; (2) the overall value of the SRR Contract was overstated; and (3) as a result, Defendants' public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.
In March 2022, Red Cat announced that Teal had been selected by the U.S. Department of Defense's Defense Innovation Unit and the U.S. Army to compete in Tranche 2 of the U.S. Army's Short Range Reconnaissance Program of Record (the 'SRR Program'). The SRR Program is a U.S. Army initiative to provide a small, rucksack-portable sUAS to U.S. Army platoons.
At all relevant times, Defendants suggested or otherwise asserted that the SRR Program's Tranche 2 contract (the 'SRR Contract') was worth potentially hundreds of millions to over a billion dollars in contract revenues.
In March 2023, Company management confirmed that "[t]he Salt Lake City factory is complete and ready to go' and "[w]e now have the capacity to produce thousands of drones per month.'
The complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) the Salt Lake City Facility's production capacity, and Defendants' progress in developing the same, was overstated; (ii) the overall value of the SRR Contract was overstated; and (iii) as a result, Defendants' public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.
On July 27, 2023, Red Cat hosted a conference call with investors and analysts to discuss its financial and operating results for its fiscal year 2023. During the call, Defendants revealed that the Salt Lake City Facility could only currently produce 100 drones per month, and that the facility was still being built, refined, and expanded. Red Cat filed an annual report on Form 10-K with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission the same day, which likewise reported that construction of the facility was only 'substantially completed' and potentially could reach a production capacity of one thousand drones per month over the next 2 to 3 years, but only with additional capital investments and manufacturing efficiencies realized.
Following these disclosures, Red Cat's stock price fell $0.10 per share, or 8.93%, to close at $1.02 per share on July 28, 2023.
On September 23, 2024, Red Cat issued a press release announcing its financial and operating results for the first quarter of its fiscal year 2025. Among other results, the Company reported losses per share of $0.17, missing consensus estimates by $0.09, and revenue of $2.8 million, missing consensus estimates by $1.07 million. On a subsequent conference call that Red Cat hosted with investors and analysts the same day to discuss these results, Company management disclosed that Red Cat had spent 'the past four months . . . retooling [the Salt Lake City Facility] and preparing for high volume production[,]' while admitting that a 'pause in manufacturing of Teal 2 and building our Army prototypes impacted Teal 2 sales' because, inter alia, Red Cat 'couldn't produce and sell Teal 2 units[] while retooling [its] factory.'
On this news, Red Cat's stock price fell $0.80 per share, or 25.32%, over the following two trading sessions, to close at $2.36 per share on September 25, 2024.
On November 19, 2024, Red Cat issued a press release announcing that it had won the SRR Contract. On a subsequent conference call that Red Cat hosted with investors and analysts the same day to discuss the contract win, Defendants continued to assert that the SRR Contract was worth potentially hundreds of millions of dollars, while expressing their confidence that Red Cat could realize up to $50 million to $79.5 million in revenue from the SRR Contract during it fiscal year 2025 alone.
Then, on January 16, 2025, Kerrisdale Capital ('Kerrisdale') published a report (the 'Kerrisdale Report') alleging, inter alia, that Defendants had overstated the value of the SRR Contract, which Kerrisdale found was only worth approximately $20 million to $25 million based on U.S. Army budget documents. The Kerrisdale Report also alleged that Defendants had been misleading investors about the Salt Lake City Facility's production capacity for years, while also raising concerns about the timing of executive departures and insider transactions that took place shortly after Red Cat announced it had won the SRR Contract.
On this news, Red Cat's stock price fell $2.35 per share, or 21.54%, over the following two trading sessions, to close at $8.56 per share on January 17, 2025.
The court-appointed lead plaintiff is the investor with the largest financial interest in the relief sought by the class who is adequate and typical of class members who directs and oversees the litigation on behalf of the putative class. Any member of the putative class may move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member. Your ability to share in any recovery is not affected by the decision to serve as a lead plaintiff or not.
Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP also encourages anyone with information regarding Red Cat's conduct to contact the firm, including whistleblowers, former employees, shareholders and others.
To learn more about the Red Cat class action, go to www.faruqilaw.com/RCAT or call Faruqi & Faruqi partner Josh Wilson directly at 877-247-4292 or 212-983-9330 (Ext. 1310).
Follow us for updates on LinkedIn, on X, or on Facebook.
Attorney Advertising. The law firm responsible for this advertisement is Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP ( www.faruqilaw.com ). Prior results do not guarantee or predict a similar outcome with respect to any future matter. We welcome the opportunity to discuss your particular case. All communications will be treated in a confidential manner.
To view the source version of this press release, please visit https://www.newsfilecorp.com/release/254757
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Washington Post
15 minutes ago
- Washington Post
Direct pay to college athletes starts July 1. Some key dates tied to implementation of settlement
It took five years for the $2.8 billion antitrust lawsuit against the NCAA and five major conferences to reach a settlement. Now comes the process for implementing it. Following are significant dates: Settlement approved; settlement-related NCAA rules are effective, as adopted by the NCAA Division I Board on April 21, 2025. NIL Go portal launches. Opt-in deadline for non-defendant schools to fully commit to revenue sharing. First date for direct institutional revenue-sharing payments to student-athletes. Opt-in schools must 'designate' student-athletes permitted by the settlement to remain above roster limits. With the exception of the 'designated' student-athletes, fall sports must be at or below roster limits by their first day of competition. With the exception of 'designated' student-athletes, winter and spring sports must be at or below roster limits by their first day of competition or Dec. 1, whichever is earlier. ___ AP college sports:
Forbes
16 minutes ago
- Forbes
Musk Follows Harvard In Biting The Hand That Feeds
Elon Musk and Harvard Both Bite the Governmental Hand that Feeds Them From an early age, children are taught essential lessons: do not play with fire, do not pet strange dogs, and if one cannot swim, stay out of the deep end. Another timeless rule—often forgotten by those in positions of immense wealth and influence—is this: do not bite the hand that feeds you. This lesson, while simple, has profound implications in the real world. It applies just as readily to billionaires and institutions as it does to children on a playground. Yet recent actions by both Elon Musk and prominent academic institutions—most notably Harvard, but also Columbia, MIT, and others—suggest that even the most successful individuals and organizations are capable of ignoring foundational wisdom. Harvard set the tone. Amid growing political scrutiny and a shifting cultural landscape, the university has drawn intense criticism over its handling of campus protests, particularly those involving slogans such as 'from the river to the sea.' The administration's decision to defend even the most controversial speech—widely viewed by many as antisemitic—has triggered investigations and jeopardized billions in tax-exempt status and government research funding. This raises a critical question: is this truly the hill worth dying on? Is preserving the right to controversial protest slogans worth risking Harvard's institutional future? It is doubtful that most students and faculty would knowingly trade funding, grants, and prestige for this fight. Elon Musk, the world's richest man, has now followed suit—this time turning his attention toward President Donald Trump, with whom he has launched a high-profile and personal feud. What makes this move especially striking is that President Trump is not a distant figure or a fading influence. He is once again sitting in the White House, wielding executive authority over regulatory agencies, defense contracting, and infrastructure initiatives—all areas that directly affect Musk's companies. Tesla, SpaceX, and xAI have flourished in part because of government partnership. SpaceX alone holds multibillion-dollar contracts with NASA and the Department of Defense. Tesla has benefitted from years of energy subsidies and EV tax incentives. Picking a fight with the sitting president—regardless of personal conviction—puts this entire ecosystem at risk. And again the question must be asked: is this battle worth the damage? Whatever principle Musk may be defending, the consequences extend far beyond himself. Shareholders, employees, and retail investors—many of whom placed their trust and savings in his leadership—are the ones left exposed. The parallel between Harvard and Musk is striking: both have been immensely successful, aided in large part by government funding, favorable regulation, and public goodwill. And both have, for different reasons, chosen to confront the very institutions and leaders that have helped sustain their growth. There is precedent for how this ends. Jack Ma, once the most powerful entrepreneur in China, famously criticized the Chinese government. The backlash was immediate and absolute. His companies were dismantled. His IPO was cancelled. His wealth and influence evaporated almost overnight. Even in less authoritarian systems, the lesson holds: those who antagonize the systems that support them may not survive the consequences. While Musk's personal net worth has dropped from nearly $450 billion to approximately $300 billion, the impact is more symbolic than practical for him. But for millions of investors, employees, and stakeholders, these battles matter. Market volatility, regulatory backlash, and reputational risk all come with tangible financial costs—costs borne not just by Musk himself, but by those who have trusted and invested in his vision. The same applies to Harvard and peer institutions. Their leadership may believe they are standing on principle, but the price of alienating government agencies and key financial backers could reshape the long-term trajectory of these universities. The erosion of public trust, the loss of bipartisan support, and the potential withdrawal of federal funding pose existential threats. Leadership—whether in business or academia—requires more than conviction. It requires judgment, timing, and the discipline to separate personal ideology from institutional responsibility. Founder-led companies often outperform when leaders are focused, visionary, and measured. But when ego replaces strategy, the consequences can be swift and severe. No one is demanding absolute political alignment or silence in the face of controversy. No one is asking Elon Musk to wear a MAGA hat. But his recent actions have been so volatile, so self-destructive, that investors may soon be tempted to hand him something else entirely—a MEGA hat: Make Elon Great Again. In today's polarized environment, the margin for error has narrowed. And for those who owe much of their success to public support—whether in Silicon Valley or the Ivy League—biting the hand that feeds is not just unwise. It is unsustainable. ---------------------------------- Disclosure: Past performance is no guarantee of future results. Please refer to the following link for additional disclosures: Additional Disclosure Note: The author has an affiliation with ERShares and the XOVR ETF. The intent of this article is to provide objective information; however, readers should be aware that the author may have a financial interest in the subject matter discussed. As with all equity investments, investors should carefully evaluate all options with a qualified investment professional before making any investment decision. Private equity investments, such as those held in XOVR, may carry additional risks—including limited liquidity—compared to traditional publicly traded securities. It is important to consider these factors and consult a trained professional when assessing suitability and risk tolerance.
Yahoo
19 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Why Broadcom Inc. (AVGO) Crashed On Friday
We recently published a list of . In this article, we are going to take a look at where Broadcom Inc. (NASDAQ:AVGO) stands against other Friday's worst-performing stocks. Broadcom dropped its share prices for a second day on Friday, shedding 5 percent to finish at $246.93 apiece as investors appeared to have already priced in its impressive earnings performance for the second quarter of fiscal year 2025. In a statement, Broadcom Inc. (NASDAQ:AVGO) said it netted $4.965 billion during the period, higher by 134 percent than the $2.121 billion in the same period last year. Revenues also increased by 20 percent to $15 billion from $12.487 billion. A technician working at a magnified microscope, developing a new integrated circuit. 'Broadcom achieved record second quarter revenue on continued momentum in AI semiconductor solutions and VMware. [Second quarter] AI revenue grew 46 percent year-over-year to over $4.4 billion, driven by robust demand for AI networking,' Broadcom Inc. (NASDAQ:AVGO) President and CEO Hock Tan. 'We expect growth in AI semiconductor revenue to accelerate to $5.1 billion in Q3, delivering ten consecutive quarters of growth, as our hyperscale partners continue to invest,' he added. Broadcom Inc. (NASDAQ:AVGO) also declared a cash dividend of $0.59 per share to stockholders as of June 20 record, payable on June 30. Overall, AVGO ranks 6th on our list of Friday's worst-performing stocks. While we acknowledge the potential of AVGO as an investment, our conviction lies in the belief that some AI stocks hold greater promise for delivering higher returns and have limited downside risk. If you are looking for an extremely cheap AI stock that is also a major beneficiary of Trump tariffs and onshoring, see our free report on the best short-term AI stock. READ NEXT: 20 Best AI Stocks To Buy Now and 30 Best Stocks to Buy Now According to Billionaires. Disclosure: None. This article is originally published at Insider Monkey.
