Jasper Therapeutics, Inc.

On July 7, 2025, Jasper released an update on its Phase 1b/2a clinical study of subcutaneous briquilimab for the treatment of Chronic Spontaneous Urticaria (“CSU”), referred to as the “BEACON Study,” stating that certain results “appear to be confounded by an issue with one drug product lot used in those cohorts, with 10 of the 13 patients dosed with drug from the lot in question,” and that Jasper was “taking steps to ensure that drug product from the lot in question is returned to the Company and that sites have drug product from other lots to continue dosing.” Further, the Company revealed it “has also determined that the drug product lot in question was used to treat participants enrolled in the ETESIAN [Study]. As a result, and in order to focus resources on advancing briquilimab in CSU, the Company is halting the study and pausing development in asthma.” Jasper also disclosed that it would be “halting development in SCID” and “will be implementing a number of other cost cutting measures including a potential restructuring, to extend runway and reduce expenses.”

On this news, Jasper’s stock price fell $3.73, or 55.1%, to close at $3.04 per share on July 7, 2025, thereby injuring investors.The complaint filed in this class action alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company’s business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to investors that: (1) Jasper lacked the controls and procedures necessary to ensure that the third-party manufacturers on which it relied were manufacturing products in full accordance with cGMP regulations and otherwise suitable for use in clinical trials; (2) the foregoing failure increased the risk that results of ongoing studies would be confounded, thereby negatively impacting the regulatory and commercial prospects of the Company’s products, including briquilimab; (3) the foregoing increased the likelihood of disruptive cost-reduction measures; (4) accordingly, the Company’s business and/or financial prospects, as well as briquilimab’s clinical and/or commercial prospects, were overstated; and (5) as a result, Defendants’ positive statements about the Company’s business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times.