NASDAQ:DNUT 22 October 2025

Krispy Kreme (DNUT) Q3 2025: Adjusted EPS Turns Positive, Free Cash Flow Returns as Turnaround Gains Traction — Nov. 6, 2025

Krispy Kreme reported Q3 2025 revenue of $375.3 million, down 1.2% year over year, but posted a surprise adjusted EPS of $0.01, beating expectations for a loss. Shares jumped as the company reiterated guidance for stronger cash flow into year-end. Net loss was $20.1 million, or –$0.11 per share GAAP. Global points of access fell 6.1% after closing underperforming locations.

6 November 2025

Earnings Reports·NASDAQ:DNUT·Stock Market

Krispy Kreme Stock Soars on Bold Global Expansion Amid U.S. Sales Slump

Krispy Kreme shares surged 14% to $3.71 on Oct. 21, despite being down 65% year-to-date. The company posted a Q2 net loss of $441.1 million on revenue of $379.8 million, citing heavy impairment charges and the end of its McDonald’s USA partnership. Management announced a turnaround plan and new store openings in Spain, Brazil, and Uzbekistan. Wall Street remains cautious, with analyst targets ranging from $2.50 to $6.45.

22 October 2025

NASDAQ:DNUT·Stock Market

Nevada Temporarily Bans Prediction Market Firm Kalshi Over Gaming License Dispute
March 20, 2026, 2:30 PM EDT. Kalshi, a prediction markets platform offering event-based contracts on sports, elections, and entertainment, was temporarily banned in Nevada by a 14-day restraining order from the First Judicial District Court. The ruling prohibits Kalshi from operating its derivatives exchange without a gaming license, marking the first state-level forced cessation for the company. The ban follows earlier Nevada cease-and-desist actions and precedes a likely extension through the legal case, said gaming attorney Daniel Wallach. The dispute comes amid mounting regulatory scrutiny nationally, including criminal charges from Arizona and ongoing battles in multiple states. Kalshi contends its sports contracts are financial swaps, not gambling, a view supported by the federal Commodity Futures Trading Commission, which claims jurisdiction over these markets. This case highlights tensions between state gambling laws and federally regulated prediction markets.