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

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.

Levi & Korsinsky, LLP 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.