Lost Money on Rocket Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (RCKT)? Contact Levi & Korsinsky Before August 11, 2025 to Join Class Action
https://zlk.com/pslra-1/rocket-pharmaceuticals-inc-lawsuit-submission-form?prid=157260&wire=5&utm_campaign=12
or contact Joseph E. Levi, Esq. via email at jlevi@levikorsinsky.com or call (212) 363-7500 to speak to our team of experienced shareholder advocates.
Cannot view this video? Visit:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bar7Q9XIFkc
THE LAWSUIT: A class action securities lawsuit was filed against Rocket Pharmaceuticals, Inc. that seeks to recover losses of shareholders who were adversely affected by alleged securities fraud between February 27, 2025 and May 26, 2025.
CASE DETAILS: According to the complaint, defendants provided overwhelmingly positive statements to investors while, at the same time, disseminating materially false and misleading statements and/or concealing material adverse facts concerning the true state of RP-A501's safety and clinical trial protocol; notably, that Rocket knew Serious Adverse Events (SAEs), including death of participants enrolled in the study, were a risk. In particular, Rocket amended the trial's protocol to introduce a novel immunomodulatory agent to the pretreatment regimen without providing this critical update to shareholders. Such statements absent these material facts caused Plaintiff and other shareholders to purchase Rocket's securities at artificially inflated prices.
On May 27, 2025, Rocket announced that the FDA placed a clinical hold on the RP-A501 Phase 2 pivotal study after at least one patient suffered a Serious Adverse Event (SAE), ultimately, death, while enrolled in the study following a substantive amendment to the protocol that the Company failed to disclose to investors at the time management made the revision. In fact, Rocket stated that, while the patient was dosed in May, the decision to amend the protocol was made "several months" earlier. Despite this, Rocket made no attempt to alert investors or the public to the change until after the SAE occurred.
Following this news, the price of Rocket's common stock declined dramatically. From a closing market price of $6.27 per share on May 23, 2025, Rocket's stock price fell to $2.33 per share on May 27, 2025, a decline of about 37% in the span of just a single trading day.
WHAT'S NEXT? If you suffered a loss in Rocket stock during the relevant time frame - even if you still hold your shares - go to https://zlk.com/pslra-1/rocket-pharmaceuticals-inc-lawsuit-submission-form?prid=157260&wire=5&utm_campaign=12 to learn about your rights to seek a recovery. There is no cost or obligation to participate.
WHY LEVI & KORSINSKY: Over the past 20 years, Levi & Korsinsky LLP has established itself as a nationally-recognized securities litigation firm that has secured hundreds of millions of dollars for aggrieved shareholders and built a track record of winning high-stakes cases. The firm has extensive expertise representing investors in complex securities litigation and a team of over 70 employees to serve our clients. For seven years in a row, Levi & Korsinsky has ranked in ISS Securities Class Action Services' Top 50 Report as one of the top securities litigation firms in the United States. Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
CTV News
2 minutes ago
- CTV News
U.S. deal to top agenda at Carney's premiers meeting: political commentator
Watch Political commentator Scott Reid on key issues expected at PM Carney's meeting with premieres next week, including focus on potential U.S. deal.
CTV News
2 minutes ago
- CTV News
NFLPA head Lloyd Howell Jr. steps down amid reports he expensed trips to strip clubs
NFL Players Association (NFLPA) Executive Director Lloyd Howell Jr., seen here in New Orleans on Feb 5, has stepped down from his role amid various controversies, including reports that he expensed the union for trips to strip clubs. (Kirby Lee/USA Today Sports/Imagn Images/Reuters/File via CNN Newsource) NFL Players Association (NFLPA) Executive Director Lloyd Howell Jr. has stepped down from his role amid various controversies, including reports on Friday that he expensed the union for trips to strip clubs. 'It's clear that my leadership has become a distraction to the important work the NFLPA advances every day,' Howell said in a statement late on Thursday night. 'For this reason, I have informed the NFLPA Executive Committee that I am stepping down as Executive Director of the NFLPA and Chairman of the Board of NFL Players effective immediately. I hope this will allow the NFLPA to maintain its focus on its player members ahead of the upcoming season.' When contacted by CNN, the NFLPA declined to comment. CNN has also reached out to Howell Jr., through the union. According to Reuters, which cited ESPN, receipts from a trip taken by Howell in November 2023 showed that the NFLPA was billed for a car service and other costs by Tootsie's Cabaret in Miami, which claims to be the largest strip club in the world. Citing ESPN, Reuters also reported that a second strip club bill was also reviewed by the NFLPA's lawyers, relating to a reported trip in February during the NFLPA summit and itemizing US$2,426 in charges, which included cash withdrawals from a club ATM ranging between $200 and $525. Howell reportedly earned between $3.5 million and $4 million in his role with the NFLPA. That was not the only controversy which Howell has become embroiled in during the last two weeks. Citing ESPN, Reuters reported that alongside his commitments to the NFLPA, Howell also held a part-time consultancy role with The Carlyle Group, a private equity firm that the NFL reportedly approved to pursue minority ownership in NFL franchises. This has been viewed by many as a serious conflict of interest. On top of that, Reuters – citing ESPN – also reported that Howell had decided to keep NFL players in the dark over an arbitration ruling on suspected collusion between team owners. Amid concerns that owners were coming together to reduce the growth of quarterback contracts, arbitrator Christopher Droney ruled there was not sufficient evidence to support the claims, per Reuters. However, he added that 'by a clear preponderance of the evidence,' the NFL's general counsel, along with commissioner Roger Goodell, did encourage owners to restrict guaranteed money in player contracts, the agency reported. According to reports, Howell and the NFLPA had a confidentiality agreement with the NFL designed to stop the full report from leaking. Although Howell did brief players on the matter, he did not give them copies of the report, according to Reuters, which cited ESPN. 'I am proud of what we have been able to accomplish at the NFLPA over the past two years,' Howell added in his statement. 'I will be rooting for the players from the sidelines as loud as ever, and I know the NFLPA will continue to ensure that players remain firmly at the center of football's future.' By Jamie Barton, CNN
CBC
3 minutes ago
- CBC
Ottawa weighs plans on AI, copyright as OpenAI fights Ontario court jurisdiction
Social Sharing Canada's artificial intelligence minister is keeping a close watch on court cases in Canada and the U.S. to determine next steps for Ottawa's regulatory approach to AI. Some AI companies have claimed early wins south of the border, and OpenAI is now fighting the jurisdiction of an Ontario court to hear a lawsuit by news publishers. Evan Solomon's office said in a statement he plans to address copyright "within Canada's broader AI regulatory approach, with a focus on protecting cultural sovereignty and how [creators] factor into this conversation." But there are no current plans for a standalone copyright bill, as Solomon's office is "closely monitoring the ongoing court cases and market developments" to help chart the path forward. It's unclear how long it will take for those court cases to determine whether artificial intelligence companies can use copyrighted content to train their AI products. : Canadian news organizations, including CBC, sue ChatGPT creator 8 months ago CBC/Radio-Canada, Postmedia, Metroland, the Toronto Star, the Globe and Mail, and The Canadian Press have launched a joint lawsuit against ChatGPT creator OpenAI, for using news content to train its ChatGPT generative artificial intelligence system. The news organizations say OpenAI breaches copyright by 'scraping content' from their websites. The sole Canadian case to pose the question was launched late last year by a coalition of news publishers and the Ontario Superior Court is set to hear a jurisdictional challenge in September. The coalition — which includes The Canadian Press, Torstar, the Globe and Mail, Postmedia and CBC/Radio-Canada — is suing OpenAI for using news content to train its generative artificial intelligence system. The news publishers argue OpenAI is breaching copyright by scraping large amounts of content from Canadian media, and then profiting from the use of that content without permission or compensation. They said in court filings that OpenAI has "engaged in ongoing, deliberate and unauthorized misappropriation of [their] valuable news media works." "Rather than seek to obtain the information legally, OpenAI has elected to brazenly misappropriate the News Media Companies' valuable intellectual property and convert it for its own uses, including commercial uses, without consent or consideration." OpenAI challenging jurisdiction OpenAI has denied the allegations, and previously said its models are trained on publicly available data, and "grounded in fair use and related international copyright principles." The company, which is headquartered in San Francisco, is challenging the jurisdiction of the Ontario court to hear the case. It argued in a court filing that it's not located in Ontario and does not do business in the province. WATCH | U.S. media companies sue OpenAI in late 2023: New York Times sues OpenAI, Microsoft for copyright infringement 2 years ago OpenAI also argued the Copyright Act doesn't apply outside of Canada. OpenAI is asking the court to seal some documents in the case. The court is scheduled to hold a hearing on the sealing motion on July 30, according to a schedule outlined in court documents. It asked the court to seal documents containing "commercially sensitive" information, including about its corporate organization and structure, its web crawling and fetching processes and systems, and its "model training and inference processes, systems, resource allocations and/or cost structures." "The artificial intelligence industry is highly competitive and developing at a rapid pace," says an affidavit submitted by the company. "Competitors in this industry are many and range from large, established technology companies such as Google and Amazon, to smaller startups seeking to establish a foothold in the industry. "As recognized leaders in the artificial intelligence industry, competitors and potential competitors to the defendants would benefit from having access to confidential information of the defendants." A lawyer for the news publishers provided information on the court deadlines, but did not provide comment on the case. Numerous lawsuits dealing with AI systems and copyright are underway in the United States, some dating back to 2023. In late June, AI companies won victories in two of those cases. In a case launched by a group of authors, including comedian Sarah Silverman, a judge ruled AI systems' use of published work was fair use and the authors didn't demonstrate that use would result in market dilution. But the judge also said his ruling affects only those specific authors — whose lawyers didn't make the right arguments — and does not mean Meta's use of copyrighted material to train its systems was legal. Judge Vince Chhabria noted in his summary judgment that in "the grand scheme of things, the consequences of this ruling are limited." In a separate U.S. case, a judge ruled the use by AI company Anthropic of published books without permission to train its systems was fair use. But Judge William Alsup also ruled Anthropic "had no entitlement to use pirated copies." Jane Ginsburg, a professor at Columbia University's law school who studies intellectual property and technology, said it would be too simplistic to just look at the cases as complete wins for the AI companies. "I think both the question of how much weight to give the pirate nature of the sources, and the question of market dilution, are going to be big issues in other cases."
