Bragar Eagel & Squire highlights Erasca class action with August 10, 2026 deadline

Multiple shareholder law firms are pursuing or investigating claims tied to Erasca, Inc. after disclosures involving its cancer drug candidate ERAS-0015 triggered a sharp selloff. Bragar Eagel & Squire, ClaimsFiler, Kirby McInerney, Robbins Geller, Pomerantz and Rosen have all highlighted a federal securities class action pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California on behalf of investors who purchased or otherwise acquired Erasca securities between January 14, 2025 and April 26, 2026, with an August 10, 2026 deadline to seek appointment as lead plaintiff. Grabar Law Office separately said it is investigating potential shareholder derivative claims on behalf of current holders who owned shares before January 14, 2025, focusing on whether Erasca's directors and senior executives maintained adequate oversight, disclosure controls, compliance procedures and risk-management systems related to public statements about ERAS-0015. The underlying allegations center on Erasca's promotion of ERAS-0015 as a potential "best-in-class" therapy and its comparisons with Revolution Medicines' RMC-6236, which plaintiffs say exposed the company to patent and trade secret disputes and lacked a reasonable basis. On April 27, 2026, Erasca disclosed in a Form 8-K that counsel for Revolution Medicines alleged infringement of U.S. Patent No. 12,409,225, trade-secret-related issues and improper comparative statements; Erasca said the assertions were without merit and that it intended to contest them. Later that day, Erasca reported preliminary Phase 1 data and disclosed that one patient receiving 24 mg of ERAS-0015 died after a Grade 3 treatment-related adverse event of pneumonitis progressed to Grade 5 following withdrawal of supportive care per patient decision. Erasca also said comparisons with other product candidates, including RMC-6236, were based on cross-study analyses rather than head-to-head clinical trials and were inherently limited. The stock fell about 11% on April 27 and another roughly 48% on April 28, with some releases citing a combined two-day decline of about 53.9%.