ADMA Shareholder Alert: ADMA BIOLOGICS, INC. Securities Class Action Lawsuit - Investors Should Contact SueWallSt

ADMA Biologics' SEC filings allegedly used boilerplate risk language and selective related party disclosures to obscure a channel stuffing scheme and undisclosed distributor operating from its own headquarters.

NEW YORK, June 18, 2026 /PRNewswire/ -- SueWallSt examines the adequacy of ADMA Biologics, Inc.'s (NASDAQ: ADMA) risk disclosures and related party reporting throughout the Class Period of August 9, 2024 through March 25, 2026. Find out if you qualify to recover losses from ADMA's alleged disclosure failures. You may also contact Joseph E. Levi, Esq. at [email protected] or (888) SueWallSt.

A securities class action alleges ADMA's reported 20% ASCENIV revenue growth in 2025 was fictitious, masking an estimated 3% decline driven by channel stuffing. The lead plaintiff deadline is August 10, 2026.

What the Company Disclosed

Across seven consecutive SEC filings between August 2024 and February 2026, ADMA included a recurring caveat about its internal controls: "A control system, no matter how well designed and operated, cannot provide absolute assurance that the objectives of the control system are met, and no evaluation of controls can provide absolute assurance that all control issues and instances of fraud, if any, within a company have been detected."

The Company also disclosed related party purchases from GenesisBPS, an entity owned by the Grossman family, reporting amounts ranging from $34 thousand to $0.4 million per period. Each quarterly and annual filing repeated these disclosures in substantially identical language.

What the Complaint Challenges as Missing

The securities action contends these disclosures were designed to create an appearance of transparency while omitting the most material facts:

• ADMA disclosed purchases from GenesisBPS but allegedly concealed sales to the similarly named Genesis BioPharma Services, a separate entity that operated out of ADMA's own corporate headquarters in Ramsey, New Jersey
• Revenue recognition policies stated product revenue was recognized "when the customer is deemed to have control over the product" but allegedly omitted that ADMA shipped unwanted ASCENIV inventory to distributors to fabricate demand
• Internal control certifications signed under Sarbanes-Oxley allegedly affirmed effectiveness while the Company lacked controls sufficient to detect or prevent channel stuffing
• The boilerplate fraud caveat language appeared in every filing, yet the complaint charges that specific, known instances of revenue inflation were occurring simultaneously

Why Generic Warnings May Not Protect

The complaint highlights a critical distinction in securities law: generic risk factor language warning that controls "cannot provide absolute assurance" does not shield a company from liability when specific, concrete problems are already occurring. The action alleges ADMA knew its ASCENIV growth was artificially manufactured through excess shipments to distributors who could not sell the product at its $900/gram price point because payors denied reimbursement.

As pleaded, the gap between what ADMA disclosed and what it allegedly knew was not a matter of forecasting uncertainty. It was a matter of concealing an existing scheme.

"Generic risk factor language cannot substitute for disclosing specific, known problems that are already affecting a company's operations. Investors reading ADMA's filings were entitled to know that related party sales were occurring and that revenue growth depended on shipping product distributors could not move." -- Joseph E. Levi, Esq.

Speak with an attorney about ADMA's alleged disclosure gaps or call (888) SueWallSt.

LEAD PLAINTIFF DEADLINE: August 10, 2026

About SueWallSt

SueWallSt, Top 50 securities litigation firm (ISS, seven consecutive years). Over 70 professionals. Hundreds of millions recovered for investors.

Frequently Asked Questions About the ADMA Lawsuit

Q: What specific misstatements does the ADMA lawsuit allege? A: The complaint alleges ADMA made materially false or misleading statements regarding revenue recognition practices, internal control effectiveness, and related party transactions during the Class Period. When the true state was revealed by a short-seller report on March 24, 2026, the stock price declined sharply.

Q: When did ADMA allegedly mislead investors? A: The Class Period runs from August 9, 2024 to March 25, 2026. The alleged fraud was revealed through a Culper Research report exposing channel stuffing and an undisclosed related party distributor.

Q: What do ADMA investors need to do right now? A: Gather brokerage records including purchase dates, share quantities, and prices paid. Contact SueWallSt for a free, no-obligation evaluation at [email protected] or (888) SueWallSt. No immediate action is required to remain eligible as a class member.

Q: What if I already sold my ADMA shares -- can I still recover losses? A: Yes. Eligibility is based on when you purchased, not whether you still hold them. Investors who bought during the Class Period and sold at a loss may still participate.

Q: Do I need to go to court or give testimony? A: No. The overwhelming majority of class members never appear in court or give depositions. You submit a claim form to receive your portion of recovery.

Q: What does it cost me to participate? A: Nothing. Securities class actions are handled on a pure contingency basis. No upfront fees, no retainer, no out-of-pocket costs.

Q: Has SueWallSt handled similar cases before? A: Yes, including securities class actions involving revenue inflation, earnings guidance fraud, dividend misrepresentation, and executive misconduct across numerous industries.

CONTACT:
SueWallSt
Joseph E. Levi, Esq.
33 Whitehall Street, 27th Floor
New York, NY 10004
[email protected]
Tel: (888) SueWallSt
Fax: (212) 363-7171

SOURCE SueWallSt.com