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)
$0.00303
$0.00303$0.00303
+0.93%
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

Shocking OpenVPP Partnership Claim Draws Urgent Scrutiny

Shocking OpenVPP Partnership Claim Draws Urgent Scrutiny

The post Shocking OpenVPP Partnership Claim Draws Urgent Scrutiny appeared on BitcoinEthereumNews.com. The cryptocurrency world is buzzing with a recent controversy surrounding a bold OpenVPP partnership claim. This week, OpenVPP (OVPP) announced what it presented as a significant collaboration with the U.S. government in the innovative field of energy tokenization. However, this claim quickly drew the sharp eye of on-chain analyst ZachXBT, who highlighted a swift and official rebuttal that has sent ripples through the digital asset community. What Sparked the OpenVPP Partnership Claim Controversy? The core of the issue revolves around OpenVPP’s assertion of a U.S. government partnership. This kind of collaboration would typically be a monumental endorsement for any private cryptocurrency project, especially given the current regulatory climate. Such a partnership could signify a new era of mainstream adoption and legitimacy for energy tokenization initiatives. OpenVPP initially claimed cooperation with the U.S. government. This alleged partnership was said to be in the domain of energy tokenization. The announcement generated considerable interest and discussion online. ZachXBT, known for his diligent on-chain investigations, was quick to flag the development. He brought attention to the fact that U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) Commissioner Hester Peirce had directly addressed the OpenVPP partnership claim. Her response, delivered within hours, was unequivocal and starkly contradicted OpenVPP’s narrative. How Did Regulatory Authorities Respond to the OpenVPP Partnership Claim? Commissioner Hester Peirce’s statement was a crucial turning point in this unfolding story. She clearly stated that the SEC, as an agency, does not engage in partnerships with private cryptocurrency projects. This response effectively dismantled the credibility of OpenVPP’s initial announcement regarding their supposed government collaboration. Peirce’s swift clarification underscores a fundamental principle of regulatory bodies: maintaining impartiality and avoiding endorsements of private entities. Her statement serves as a vital reminder to the crypto community about the official stance of government agencies concerning private ventures. Moreover, ZachXBT’s analysis…
Share
BitcoinEthereumNews2025/09/18 02:13
Forward Industries Bets Big on Solana With $4B Capital Plan

Forward Industries Bets Big on Solana With $4B Capital Plan

The firm has filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission to launch a $4 billion at-the-market (ATM) equity program, […] The post Forward Industries Bets Big on Solana With $4B Capital Plan appeared first on Coindoo.
Share
Coindoo2025/09/18 04:15
Coinbase Joins Ethereum Foundation to Back Open Intents Framework

Coinbase Joins Ethereum Foundation to Back Open Intents Framework

Coinbase Payments has joined the Open Intents Framework as a core contributor, working alongside Ethereum Foundation and other major players. The initiative aims to simplify complex multi-chain interactions through automated solver technology. The post Coinbase Joins Ethereum Foundation to Back Open Intents Framework appeared first on Coinspeaker.
Share
Coinspeaker2025/09/18 02:43