Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP Securities Litigation Partner James (Josh) Wilson Encourages Investors Who Suffered Losses In Firefly Aerospace To Contact Him Directly To Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP Securities Litigation Partner James (Josh) Wilson Encourages Investors Who Suffered Losses In Firefly Aerospace To Contact Him Directly To

SHAREHOLDER INVESTIGATION: Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP Examining Potential Securities Law Violations at Firefly Aerospace

Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP Securities Litigation Partner James (Josh) Wilson Encourages Investors Who Suffered Losses In Firefly Aerospace To Contact Him Directly To Discuss Their Options

If you purchased or otherwise acquired: (a) Firefly common stock pursuant and/or traceable to the Offering Documents (defined below) issued in connection with the Company’s initial public offering conducted on or about August 7, 2025 (the “IPO” or “Offering”); and/or (b) Firefly securities between August 7, 2025 and September 29, 2025, both dates inclusive (the “Class Period”) 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–(BUSINESS WIRE)–$FLY #ClassAction—Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP, a leading national securities law firm, is investigating potential claims against Firefly Aerospace Inc. (“Firefly” or the “Company”) (NASDAQ: FLY) and reminds investors of the January 12, 2026 deadline to seek the role of lead plaintiff in a federal securities class action that has been filed against the Company.

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) Firefly had overstated the demand and growth prospects for its Spacecraft Solutions offerings; (2) Firefly had overstated the operational readiness and commercial viability of its Alpha rocket program; (3) the foregoing, once revealed, would likely have a material negative impact on the Company; and (4) as a result, the Offering Documents and Defendants’ public statements throughout the Class Period were materially false and/or misleading and failed to state information required to be stated therein.

Firefly conducted its August 7, 2025 IPO pursuant to the Offering Documents, selling 19.296 million shares of common stock priced at $45.00 per share.

On September 22, 2025, Firefly reported its financial results for the second quarter of 2025, its first earnings report as a public company. Among other items, Firefly reported a loss of $80.3 million, or $5.78 per share, compared to $58.7 million, or $4.60 per share, for the same quarter in 2024. Firefly also reported revenue of $15.55 million, below analyst estimates of $17.25 million and down 26.2% from the same quarter in 2024. Significantly, Firefly reported revenue of only $9.2 million in its Spacecraft Solutions business segment, representing a 49% year-over-year decrease.

On this news, Firefly’s stock price fell $7.58 per share, or 15.31%, to close at $41.94 per share on September 23, 2025.

Less than one week later, on September 29, 2025, Firefly disclosed that “the first stage of Firefly’s Alpha Flight 7 rocket experienced an event that resulted in a loss of the stage.” Notably, Firefly CEO Jason Kim stated during the September 22, 2025 earnings call that the Company “expect[ed] to launch Flight 7 in the coming weeks.” Following on the heels of Firefly’s failed April 2025 Alpha rocket launch, the Alpha 7 test failure raised significant questions about Firefly’s ability to meet its commercial launch commitments and the viability of the Company’s technology.

On this news, Firefly’s stock price fell $7.66 per share, or 20.73%, to close at $29.30 per share on September 30, 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 Firefly’s conduct to contact the firm, including whistleblowers, former employees, shareholders and others.

To learn more about the Firefly Aerospace class action, go to www.faruqilaw.com/FLY 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.

Contacts

Josh Wilson

877-247-4292 or 212-983-9330 (Ext. 1310)

Market Opportunity
Common Protocol Logo
Common Protocol Price(COMMON)
$0.002997
$0.002997$0.002997
-0.16%
USD
Common Protocol (COMMON) Live Price Chart
Disclaimer: The articles reposted on this site are sourced from public platforms and are provided for informational purposes only. They do not necessarily reflect the views of MEXC. All rights remain with the original authors. If you believe any content infringes on third-party rights, please contact service@support.mexc.com for removal. MEXC makes no guarantees regarding the accuracy, completeness, or timeliness of the content and is not responsible for any actions taken based on the information provided. The content does not constitute financial, legal, or other professional advice, nor should it be considered a recommendation or endorsement by MEXC.

You May Also Like

Tokyo’s Metaplanet Launches Miami Subsidiary to Amplify Bitcoin Income

Tokyo’s Metaplanet Launches Miami Subsidiary to Amplify Bitcoin Income

Metaplanet Inc., the Japanese public company known for its bitcoin treasury, is launching a Miami subsidiary to run a dedicated derivatives and income strategy aimed at turning holdings into steady, U.S.-based cash flow. Japanese Bitcoin Treasury Player Metaplanet Opens Miami Outpost The new entity, Metaplanet Income Corp., sits under Metaplanet Holdings, Inc. and is based […]
Share
Coinstats2025/09/18 00:32
China Blocks Nvidia’s RTX Pro 6000D as Local Chips Rise

China Blocks Nvidia’s RTX Pro 6000D as Local Chips Rise

The post China Blocks Nvidia’s RTX Pro 6000D as Local Chips Rise appeared on BitcoinEthereumNews.com. China Blocks Nvidia’s RTX Pro 6000D as Local Chips Rise China’s internet regulator has ordered the country’s biggest technology firms, including Alibaba and ByteDance, to stop purchasing Nvidia’s RTX Pro 6000D GPUs. According to the Financial Times, the move shuts down the last major channel for mass supplies of American chips to the Chinese market. Why Beijing Halted Nvidia Purchases Chinese companies had planned to buy tens of thousands of RTX Pro 6000D accelerators and had already begun testing them in servers. But regulators intervened, halting the purchases and signaling stricter controls than earlier measures placed on Nvidia’s H20 chip. Image: Nvidia An audit compared Huawei and Cambricon processors, along with chips developed by Alibaba and Baidu, against Nvidia’s export-approved products. Regulators concluded that Chinese chips had reached performance levels comparable to the restricted U.S. models. This assessment pushed authorities to advise firms to rely more heavily on domestic processors, further tightening Nvidia’s already limited position in China. China’s Drive Toward Tech Independence The decision highlights Beijing’s focus on import substitution — developing self-sufficient chip production to reduce reliance on U.S. supplies. “The signal is now clear: all attention is focused on building a domestic ecosystem,” said a representative of a leading Chinese tech company. Nvidia had unveiled the RTX Pro 6000D in July 2025 during CEO Jensen Huang’s visit to Beijing, in an attempt to keep a foothold in China after Washington restricted exports of its most advanced chips. But momentum is shifting. Industry sources told the Financial Times that Chinese manufacturers plan to triple AI chip production next year to meet growing demand. They believe “domestic supply will now be sufficient without Nvidia.” What It Means for the Future With Huawei, Cambricon, Alibaba, and Baidu stepping up, China is positioning itself for long-term technological independence. Nvidia, meanwhile, faces…
Share
BitcoinEthereumNews2025/09/18 01:37
USDC Treasury mints 250 million new USDC on Solana

USDC Treasury mints 250 million new USDC on Solana

PANews reported on September 17 that according to Whale Alert , at 23:48 Beijing time, USDC Treasury minted 250 million new USDC (approximately US$250 million) on the Solana blockchain .
Share
PANews2025/09/17 23:51