Litigation

On June 11, 2025 and July 18, 2025, two stockholders filed putative securities class action lawsuits against the Company and certain of its executive officers in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, purportedly on behalf of classes of the Company’s investors who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company’s common stock between February 27, 2025 and May 26, 2025 (Ho v. Rocket Pharmaceuticals, Inc., and Gaurav Shah, Case No. 3:25-cv-10049) and between September 17, 2024 and May 26, 2025 (Yankov v. Rocket Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Gaurav Shah and Aaron Ondrey, 3:25-cv-13532), respectively. The complaints allege violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder in connection with various public statements made by the Company regarding its Phase 2 clinical trial for RP-A501 for Danon disease. The actions seek unspecified damages, costs and expenses, including attorneys’ fees. On September 9, 2025, the Court consolidated the two pending putative securities class action lawsuits, appointed two stockholders as co-lead plaintiffs, and approved their selection of co-lead counsel. Pursuant to a stipulation approved by the Court on September 22, 2025, the co-lead plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint on November 18, 2025. The consolidated amended complaint, captioned in re Rocket Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Securities Litigation, 3:25-cv-10049, is brought on behalf of persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company’s securities during the period of February 28, 2024 through August 25, 2025 (inclusive). Plaintiffs claim that the lawsuit arises from Defendants’ public statements and purported omissions concerning Rocket’s Phase 2 clinical trial for RP-A501 for DD. Among other things, Plaintiffs allege that Defendants failed to disclose certain SAEs that impacted patients during the Phase 2 clinical trial and the introduction of a C3 inhibitor to the trial’s protocol and that Defendants purportedly lacked a viable trial design that could safely and effectively dose patients while managing the risk of serious adverse events. According to Plaintiffs, Rocket’s stock price was inflated as a result of these purported misstatements and omissions. We intend to vigorously defend against the consolidated amended complaint’s allegations. On January 30, 2026, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint. The Plaintiffs response to the Company’s motion was filed on April 1, 2026 and the Defendants reply was filed on May 15, 2026. Given the nature of the cases, including that the proceedings are in their early stages, the Company is unable to predict the ultimate outcome of the cases or estimate the range of potential loss, if any.

On October 22, 2025, a putative derivative action was filed in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, naming as defendants certain of the Company’s officers and current or former directors. The complaint, which names the Company as a nominal defendant, alleges that the defendants engaged in wrongful conduct during the period from September 17, 2024, through May 26, 2025. The allegations in the complaint largely parallel those made in the previously filed putative securities class action complaints, with additional allegations regarding a purported lack of internal controls and alleged insider trading. The complaint seeks declaratory relief, an award of damages to the Company, an order directing the Company and the individual defendants to institute certain requested corporate governance reforms, restitution from the individual defendants, and costs and disbursements related to the lawsuit. The parties agreed to stay all proceedings in the putative derivative action until any motions to dismiss the putative securities class action are resolved, and on December 22, 2025, the court approved the parties’ stipulation to that effect. The Company intends to vigorously defend the litigation. The Company will pay the legal fees related to the putative derivative action against the Company’s officers and directors. Given the nature of the litigation, including the fact that it is in its early stages, the Company is unable to predict its ultimate outcome or estimate the range of potential loss, if any.

From time to time, the Company may be subject to various legal proceedings and claims that arise in the ordinary course of its business activities. Although the results of litigation and claims cannot be predicted with certainty, the Company does not believe it is party to any other claim or litigation the outcome of which, if determined adversely to the Company, would individually or in the aggregate be reasonably expected to have a material adverse effect on its business. Regardless of the outcome, litigation can have an adverse impact on the Company because of defense and settlement costs, diversion of management resources and other factors.

Indemnification Arrangements

Pursuant to its bylaws and as permitted under Delaware law, the Company has indemnification obligations to directors, officers, employees or agents of the Company or anyone serving in these capacities. Potential indemnification obligations include obligations from lawsuits. The maximum potential amount of future payments the Company could be required to pay is unlimited. The Company has insurance that reduces its monetary exposure and would enable it to recover a portion of any future amounts paid. As a result, the Company believes that the estimated fair value of these indemnification commitments is minimal.

Throughout the normal course of business, the Company has agreements with vendors that provide goods and services required by the Company to run its business. In some instances, vendor agreements include language that requires the Company to indemnify the vendor from certain damages caused by the Company’s use of the vendor’s goods and/or services. Potential damages include damages from lawsuits. The Company has insurance that would allow it to recover a portion of any future amounts that could arise from these indemnifications. As a result, the Company believes that the estimated fair value of these indemnification commitments is minimal.