Rosen Law Firm Encourages Soleno Therapeutics Investors to Secure Counsel Before Deadline

Investors who purchased Soleno common stock between March 2025 and November 2025 may be eligible for compensation.

Mar. 23, 2026 at 2:23am

Got story updates? Submit your updates here. ›

The Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, is reminding purchasers of Soleno Therapeutics, Inc. (NASDAQ: SLNO) common stock between March 26, 2025 and November 4, 2025 of the important May 5, 2026 lead plaintiff deadline in a securities class action lawsuit. The lawsuit alleges that Soleno made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose significant evidence of safety concerns related to its drug DCCR for treating Prader-Willi syndrome.

Why it matters

This case highlights the importance of transparency and disclosure from pharmaceutical companies, especially those developing drugs for rare diseases. Investors rely on accurate information to make informed decisions, and any misleading statements or omissions can have significant financial consequences.

The details

According to the lawsuit, Soleno allegedly downplayed, misrepresented, and/or concealed evidence of safety concerns related to DCCR, including issues with excess fluid retention in clinical trial participants. This allegedly made DCCR's commercial viability and likelihood of widespread adverse events after launch much lower than disclosed.

  • The class period is from March 26, 2025 through November 4, 2025.
  • The lead plaintiff deadline is May 5, 2026.

The players

Rosen Law Firm

A global investor rights law firm that is representing investors in this securities class action lawsuit against Soleno Therapeutics.

Soleno Therapeutics, Inc.

A biopharmaceutical company developing a drug called DCCR to treat Prader-Willi syndrome.

Got photos? Submit your photos here. ›

What’s next

Investors who purchased Soleno common stock during the class period have until May 5, 2026 to move the court to serve as lead plaintiff in the class action lawsuit.

The takeaway

This case underscores the need for pharmaceutical companies to be fully transparent about the safety and efficacy of their drug candidates, especially for treatments targeting rare diseases where patients and investors have limited options. Misleading statements can have serious consequences for both patients and shareholders.