CAMBRIDGE, MA – September 5, 2026 (STL.News) Sarepta Therapeutics, Inc. (NASDAQ: SRPT) is facing continuing shareholder scrutiny as Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC becomes the latest law firm to announce an investigation involving the biotechnology company’s officers and directors, adding to an already substantial collection of securities litigation, derivative lawsuits, and investor investigations.
Kahn Swick & Foti, or KSF, announced that it is investigating whether Sarepta Therapeutics’ officers and/or directors breached their fiduciary duties to shareholders or otherwise violated state or federal laws.
The KSF investigation should not be confused with a newly filed lawsuit. KSF’s announcement describes an investigation, and initiating an investigation does not establish that Sarepta or any of its officers or directors committed wrongdoing.
However, KSF is far from the only law firm involved in shareholder matters surrounding Sarepta.
A federal securities class action is already pending, multiple shareholder derivative actions have been filed, another law firm has announced a separate fiduciary-duty investigation, and numerous securities litigation firms have appeared in connection with the class-action proceedings.
The expanding legal activity follows regulatory and investor concerns involving ELEVIDYS, Sarepta’s gene therapy for Duchenne muscular dystrophy, and other therapies utilizing the company’s AAVrh74 platform.
Multiple Law Firms Involved in Sarepta Therapeutics Matters
The most significant law firms for investors to understand are Grant & Eisenhofer P.A. and The Schall Law Firm, because those firms were formally selected as lead counsel for the investors pursuing the securities class action.
The federal court appointed an investor group consisting of Anthony Defilippis, Nicholas Barrass, William Wrede and Robert Feldstein as lead plaintiffs and approved Grant & Eisenhofer and The Schall Law Firm as lead counsel.
That gives the two firms a fundamentally different status from firms that merely announced investigations or solicited shareholders.
The securities litigation originated June 26, 2025, when plaintiff Daniel Dolgicer filed a proposed class-action lawsuit against Sarepta and certain executives.
The original proposed class included investors who purchased or acquired Sarepta securities between June 22, 2023, and June 24, 2025.
While determining who would lead the litigation, numerous investors and investor groups sought appointment as lead plaintiff, bringing additional securities law firms into the proceeding.
Court records show firms connected to the litigation have included Grant & Eisenhofer, The Schall Law Firm, Shamis & Gentile, Levi & Korsinsky, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd, Pomerantz, Bernstein Liebhard, Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, Gainey McKenna & Egleston and Abraham, Fruchter & Twersky, among others.
Not all of those firms have the same role today.
Some represented investors seeking appointment as lead plaintiff, while others appeared at different stages of the litigation. Grant & Eisenhofer and The Schall Law Firm ultimately emerged as the court-appointed lead counsel.
Shamis & Gentile also played an early role. The federal court specifically noted that the firm published notice of the lawsuit on June 26, 2025, as required under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act.
Levi & Korsinsky represented a separate group of investors that sought lead-plaintiff status before later withdrawing that request.
Federal court records show that Sarepta and its defendants have their own legal representation, including Latham & Watkins.
Separately, Bragar Eagel & Squire publicized the previously filed securities class action and encouraged eligible Sarepta investors to consider seeking appointment as lead plaintiff before the August 2025 deadline.
These distinctions matter because an investor alert or law-firm announcement does not necessarily mean that the firm filed the underlying lawsuit or currently controls the litigation.
KSF Launches Separate Sarepta Therapeutics Investigation
Kahn Swick & Foti’s current action focuses on potential corporate-governance issues.
KSF said it is investigating whether Sarepta officers and/or directors breached their fiduciary duties to shareholders or violated state or federal laws.
The firm is seeking information from investors and has invited long-term Sarepta shareholders to contact it concerning their legal rights.
KSF’s investigation comes after the securities class action and several derivative actions had already been filed.
Another shareholder-rights firm, Johnson Fistel, PLLP, announced its own investigation in January 2026 concerning potential shareholder derivative claims against Sarepta directors.
Johnson Fistel said its investigation concerns whether certain officers and directors may have breached fiduciary duties to Sarepta and its shareholders.
As with KSF’s investigation, Johnson Fistel’s announcement should not be interpreted as a judicial finding of wrongdoing.
Sarepta Therapeutics – Securities Lawsuit Remains Pending
The principal securities case has progressed substantially since it was originally filed.
After the lead plaintiffs and lead counsel were appointed, the litigation transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York to the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts.
The lead plaintiffs subsequently filed an amended complaint on Jan. 22, 2026.
According to Sarepta’s SEC disclosures, the amended complaint expanded the proposed class period to investors who acquired Sarepta securities between June 22, 2023, and Nov. 3, 2025.
The amended complaint alleges additional theories involving statements concerning the safety profile of ELEVIDYS and limb-girdle muscular dystrophy therapies utilizing the AAVrh74 viral vector, development of LGMD therapies, and the status of the ESSENCE trial.
Sarepta and the named defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on March 9, 2026.
According to Sarepta Therapeutics’ latest quarterly SEC filing, the federal court held oral arguments concerning that motion on Aug. 4, 2026.
The allegations therefore remain contested. A securities complaint represents allegations made by plaintiffs and does not constitute a judicial determination that the defendants violated securities laws.
Sarepta Therapeutics – Shareholder Derivative Lawsuits Add Another Layer
Sarepta is also dealing with shareholder derivative litigation.
According to Sarepta Therapeutics’ latest Form 10-Q, a shareholder derivative lawsuit was filed July 15, 2025, in the Southern District of New York over some of the same disclosures at issue in the securities class action.
Two substantially similar derivative lawsuits followed on Aug. 20 and Sept. 10, 2025.
The lawsuits named several Sarepta directors and executives as defendants, with Sarepta itself named as a nominal defendant.
The derivative actions alleged, among other claims, breaches of fiduciary duties and violations of Section 14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act relating to Sarepta’s 2024 and 2025 annual proxy statements.
The court subsequently consolidated the three New York derivative cases.
In November 2025, the court stayed the consolidated derivative litigation until the securities action is resolved.
But the derivative litigation did not end there.
Another shareholder derivative lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts on April 7, 2026.
A similar Massachusetts derivative lawsuit was filed on July 23, 2026.
Sarepta reported that those actions contain allegations based on substantially similar statements and theories as the securities litigation, along with allegations concerning company performance and compensation, Sarepta’s November 2024 stock repurchase, and certain director stock sales.
The Massachusetts derivative proceedings have also been stayed pending developments in the securities case.
ELEVIDYS Controversy Remains Central
Much of the shareholder litigation traces back to safety developments involving Sarepta’s gene-therapy programs.
On March 18, 2025, Sarepta disclosed the death of a 16-year-old patient from acute liver failure following treatment with ELEVIDYS.
Further developments followed.
In June 2025, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration disclosed that it was investigating reports of fatal acute liver failure involving non-ambulatory pediatric patients treated with ELEVIDYS.
The regulatory situation escalated after another death involving an adult patient who had received an investigational Sarepta Therapeutics gene therapy utilizing the AAVrh74 platform.
The FDA subsequently took several actions involving Sarepta’s gene-therapy programs.
Those developments contributed to substantial volatility in Sarepta shares and became important components of subsequent shareholder allegations.
The federal court handling the original securities litigation noted that Sarepta shares had fallen approximately 82.77% by June 25, 2025, compared with the share price before disclosure of the first ELEVIDYS-related death.
That market decline does not by itself establish that securities fraud occurred. The pending litigation will determine whether plaintiffs can establish the elements required under federal securities law.
Sarepta Therapeutics Legal Matters Involve Several Firms
Based on federal court records, company disclosures, and law-firm announcements reviewed by STL.News, law firms connected to the Sarepta Therapeutics securities litigation or related shareholder investigations include:
- Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC — Announced the current investigation into whether Sarepta Therapeutics officers and/or directors breached fiduciary duties or violated state or federal laws.
- Grant & Eisenhofer P.A. — Court-appointed lead counsel representing the lead plaintiffs in the Sarepta securities class action.
- The Schall Law Firm — Court-appointed co-lead counsel with Grant & Eisenhofer in the securities class action.
- Shamis & Gentile P.A. — Published the initial PSLRA notice concerning the securities lawsuit and has appeared in the litigation.
- Levi & Korsinsky, LLP — Represented the Sarepta Investors Group, which sought lead-plaintiff appointment before withdrawing its motion.
- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP — Appears among the law firms associated with the federal Sarepta securities litigation.
- Pomerantz LLP — Appears among firms involved in the securities litigation.
- Bernstein Liebhard LLP — Appears among firms associated with the federal case.
- Bleichmar Fonti & Auld LLP — Appears among firms associated with the litigation.
- Gainey McKenna & Egleston — Appears among the firms connected with the securities case.
- Abraham, Fruchter & Twersky LLP — Appears among firms associated with the federal litigation.
- Johnson Fistel, PLLP — Announced a separate investigation into potential shareholder derivative claims involving Sarepta officers and directors.
- Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. — Publicized the previously filed Sarepta securities class action and solicited investors concerning participation and the former lead-plaintiff deadline.
- Latham & Watkins LLP — Appears in the federal docket on the defense side of the Sarepta litigation.
The presence of numerous law firms should not be interpreted as meaning that each firm filed a separate lawsuit against Sarepta. Some represented competing lead-plaintiff candidates, some are court-appointed counsel, some publicized or investigated potential shareholder claims, and others represent defendants.
What Sarepta Therapeutics Investors Should Watch
For investors, the most important current legal development may be the federal court’s consideration of Sarepta Therapeutics’ motion to dismiss the amended securities complaint.
Sarepta’s latest Form 10-Q states that oral argument on the motion occurred Aug. 4, 2026.
Meanwhile, the shareholder derivative proceedings remain another potential source of legal exposure, although several have been stayed pending resolution of the securities litigation.
KSF’s latest investigation adds another layer, but it does not necessarily mean another lawsuit will be filed.
Investors should therefore distinguish carefully between a law-firm investigation, an investor solicitation, a shareholder derivative lawsuit and the pending securities class action.
The legal proceedings remain unresolved, and the allegations against Sarepta and the individual defendants have not been proven merely because lawsuits or investigations have been initiated.
Sources: U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission filings by Sarepta Therapeutics; federal court records in In re Sarepta Therapeutics Securities Litigation; Kahn Swick & Foti; Johnson Fistel; The Schall Law Firm; Bragar Eagel & Squire; and related federal court docket information.
Disclaimer: This article is provided for news and informational purposes only and does not constitute legal, investment, or financial advice. Lawsuits and investigations contain allegations or examine potential claims. The existence of an investigation, complaint, or investor solicitation does not establish wrongdoing, liability, or damages. Defendants may contest allegations in court, and investors should consult qualified legal or financial professionals about their individual circumstances.
