Kaplan Fox Alerts Aardvark Therapeutics, Inc. (AARD) Investors to a Securities Class Action Deadline on October 13, 2026

New York, New York--(Newsfile Corp. - August 17, 2026) - Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed against Aardvark Therapeutics, Inc. ("Aardvark" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: AARD) on behalf of investors that purchased or otherwise acquired Aardvark common stock pursuant and/or traceable to the Company's initial public offering on or about February 13, 2025, or between February 13, 2025 and May 14, 2026 (the "Class Period"). If you are an investor in Aardvark and have suffered losses, you may CLICK HERE to contact us. You may also contact Kaplan Fox by emailing [email protected] or by calling (646) 315-9003. DEADLINE REMINDER: If you are a member of the proposed Class, you may move the court no later than October 13, 2026 to serve as a lead plaintiff for the purported class. If you have losses we encourage you to contact us to learn more about the lead plaintiff process. You need not seek to become a lead plaintiff in order to share in any possible recovery. According to the complaint, the truth began to emerge on February 27, 2026 when Aardvark issued a press release "announc[ing] it is voluntarily pausing the Phase 3 Hunger Elimination or Reduction Objective (HERO) trial." On this news, Aardvark's stock price fell $7.02 per share, or 56.2%, to close at $5.47 per share on March 2, 2026. Then, on May 14, 2026, according to the complaint, Aardvark issued a press release "announc[ing] that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has placed a full clinical hold on its investigational new drug application (IND) for ARD-101 related to the Company's previously announced voluntary pause." On this news, Aardvark's stock price fell $2.16 per share, or 32.1%, to close at $4.57 per share on May 15, 2026. The complaint alleges, the IPO Offering Documents and Defendants throughout the Class Period made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) ARD-101 was less safe than Defendants had led investors to believe; (ii) accordingly, ARD-101's clinical, regulatory, and commercial prospects were overstated; and (iii) as a result, Defendants' public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.