Investors that purchased the Company’s securities and have suffered a loss, please fill in transaction information below, or email to email@example.com.
There is no cost or obligation associated with submitting your information. If you are a shareholder who suffered a loss, please submit your contact information and purchase information to participate in the putative class action.
We also encourage you to contact Lesley F. Portnoy of The Portnoy Law Firm, at 310.692.8883, to discuss your rights free of charge. You can also reach us through the firm’s website at www.portnoylaw.com, or by email at firstname.lastname@example.org.
If you choose to take no action, you can remain an absent class member.
Joining the case through the Portnoy Law website enables investors to learn about their legal claims and take an active role in recovering their losses.
The Portnoy Law Firm represents investors around the world and specializes in securities class action lawsuits and shareholder rights litigation.
Portnoy Law Firm
Lesley F. Portnoy, Esq.,
1800 Century Park East, Suite 600
Los Angeles, CA 90067
On January 1, 2022, an article from the New York Times called into question the accuracy of certain prenatal tests, including Natera’s Panorama test, alleging that positive results on tests are incorrect approximately 85 percent of the time, and that patients who receive a positive result are supposed to pursue follow-up testing, which “can cost thousands of dollars, come with a small risk of miscarriage and can’t be performed until later in pregnancy.”
On this news, Natera’s stock price fell $5.35, or 5.7%, over two trading days to close at $88.04 per share on January 4, 2022, thereby injuring investors.
Then, on January 14, 2022, a nonprofit watchdog group filed a complaint with the SEC requesting an investigation into whether Natera had “repeatedly” claimed that its tests were “much more reliable than it appears they really are.”
On this news, Natera’s stock fell $6.29, or 9.3%, to close at $61.08 per share on January 18, 2022.
On March 9, 2022, Hindenburg Research published a report which alleged, among other things, that Natera’s revenue growth has been “fueled by deceptive sales and billing practices aimed at doctors, insurance companies and expectant mothers.”
On this news, Natera’s stock price fell $17.95, or 32.8%, to close at $36.80 per share on March 9, 2022, thereby further injuring investors.
Then, on March 14, 2022, a Delaware District Court jury found that Natera had engaged in false advertising, including claims that its kidney transplant test, Prospera, was more accurate than its competing tests.
On this news, Natera’s stock price fell $5.57 per share, or 15.5%, to close at $30.32 per share on March 15, 2022, thereby further injuring investors.
Then, on April 19, 2022, the United States Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”) issued a safety communication “to educate patients an health care providers and to help reduce the inappropriate use” of non-invasive prenatal tests (“NIPT”), cautioning that NIPTs’ reliability and accuracy “may not be supported with sound scientific evidence,” revealing that there had been “cases where a screening test reported a genetic abnormality and a confirmatory diagnostic test later found that the fetus was healthy.”
On this news, Natera’s stock fell $1.53, or 3.9%, to close at $38.63 per share on April 19, 2022, thereby injuring investors further.
The complaint filed in this class action alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company’s business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to investors that: (1) Panorama was not reliable and resulted in high rates of false positives; (2) Prospera did not have superior precision compared to competing tests; (3) as a result of Defendants’ false and misleading claims about Natera’s technology, the Company was exposed to substantial legal and regulatory risks; (4) Natera relied upon deceptive sales and billing practices to drive its revenue growth; and (5) as a result, Defendants’ positive statements about the Company’s business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times.