GlobeNewswire

Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. Reminds Investors That Class Action Lawsuits Have Been Filed Against Bakkt, IronNet, IIPR, and Natera and Encourages Investors to Contact the Firm

NEW YORK, May 13, 2022 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., a nationally recognized shareholder rights law firm, reminds investors that class actions have been commenced on behalf of stockholders of Bakkt Holdings, Inc. (NYSE: BKKT), IronNet, Inc. (NYSE: IRNT), Innovative Industrial Properties, Inc. (NYSE: IIPR), and Natera, Inc. (NASDAQ: NTRA). Stockholders have until the deadlines below to petition the court to serve as lead plaintiff. Additional information about each case can be found at the link provided.

Bakkt Holdings, Inc. (NYSE: BKKT)

Class Period: October 15, 2021 IPO or March 31, 2021 – November 19, 2021

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: June 20, 2022

Bakkt was formerly known as “VPC Impact Acquisition Holdings” and operated as a special purpose acquisition company (SPAC), also called a blank-check company, which is a development stage company that has no specific business plan or purpose or has indicated its business plan is to engage in a merger or acquisition with an unidentified company or companies, other entity, or person.

On January 11, 2021, the Company and Legacy Bakkt announced entry into a definitive agreement for the Business Combination that would result in Legacy Bakkt becoming a publicly traded company with an enterprise value of approximately $2.1 billion.

On March 31, 2021, the Company filed a registration statement on Form S-4 with the U.S Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) in connection with the Business Combination, which, after several amendments, was declared effective by the SEC on September 17, 2021 (the “Registration Statement”). Also on September 17, 2021, the Company filed a proxy statement and prospectus on Form 424B3 with the SEC in connection with the Business Combination, which formed part of the Registration Statement (the “Proxy” and, together with the Registration Statement, the “Offering Documents”).

On or about October 15, 2021, the Company and Legacy Bakkt completed the Business Combination pursuant to the Offering Documents. Thereafter, the Company changed its name to “Bakkt Holdings, Inc.” and began operating a digital asset platform that enables consumers to buy, sell, convert, and spend digital assets.

The complaint alleges that the Offering Documents were negligently prepared and, as a result, contained untrue statements of material fact or omitted to state other facts necessary to make the statements made not misleading and were not prepared in accordance with the rules and regulations governing their preparation, and that throughout the Class Period Defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company’s business, operations, and compliance policies. Specifically, the Offering Documents and Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) the Company had defective financial controls; (ii) as a result, there were errors in the Company’s financial statements related to the misclassification of certain shares issued prior to the Business Combination; (iii) accordingly, the Company would need to restate certain of its financial statements; (iv) the Company downplayed the true scope and severity of these issues; (v) the Company overstated its remediation of its defective financial controls; and (vi) as a result, the Offering Documents and Defendants’ public statements throughout the Class Period were materially false and/or misleading and failed to state information required to be stated therein.

On May 17, 2021, Bakkt—then still operating as VIH—notified the SEC of its inability to timely file its quarterly report for the quarter ended March 31, 2021. Specifically, the Company advised that, as a result of a statement issued by the SEC, “the Company reevaluated the accounting treatment of its public warrants and private placement warrants” and “is currently determining the extent of the SEC Statement’s impact on its financial statements[.]”

On this news, the Company’s share price fell $0.13 per share, or 1.26%, to close at $10.18 per share on May 18, 2021.

Then, on October 13, 2021, the Company disclosed in an SEC filing that it had also previously failed to properly account for the classification of its Class A ordinary shares and “adjust[ed] . . . the initial carrying value of the Class A ordinary shares subject to possible redemption with the offset recorded to additional paid-in capital (to the extent available), accumulated deficit and Class A ordinary shares.” Notably, the Company revised its balance sheet as of December 31, 2020, including, among other changes, additional paid-in capital that was reduced from $9,860,338 to nil, an accumulated deficit that ballooned from $4,861,190 to $29,250,419, and total shareholders’ equity of $5,000,009 that swung to a total shareholders’ deficit of $29,249,901.

Following these additional disclosures, the Company’s share price fell $0.47 per share, or 4.73%, to close at $9.46 per share on October 14, 2021.

Finally, on November 22, 2021, Bakkt disclosed in another SEC filing that the Company’s management “has re-evaluated . . . the accounting classification of the Class A ordinary shares . . . of [VIH] . . . and has identified errors in the historical financial statements of VIH . . . related to the misclassification . . . of the Class A Ordinary Shares prior to the [Business Combination].” Specifically, the Company found that, as a result of errors in its condensed consolidated financial statements for the year ended December 31, 2020, and the quarterly periods ended March 31, 2021, June 30, 2021 and September 30, 2021, Bakkt should “restate certain of VIH’s condensed consolidated financial statements from” those periods.

On this news, Bakkt’s stock price fell $2.70 per share, or 13.69%, to close at $17.02 per share on November 22, 2021.

As of the time the complaint was filed, Bakkt’s Class A common stock was trading between $4 to $5 per share and continues to trade below its initial value from the Business Combination, damaging investors.

For more information on the Bakkt class action go to: https://bespc.com/cases/BKKT

IronNet, Inc. (NYSE: IRNT)

Class Period: September 15, 2021 – December 15, 2021

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: June 21, 2022

On August 27, 2021, IronNet became a publicly traded company via a merger with LGL Systems Acquisition Corp. (“LGL”), a blank check company otherwise known as a special purpose acquisition vehicle (“SPAC”). Like other SPACs, LGL did not initially have any operations or business of its own. Rather, it raised money from investors in an initial public offering and then later used the proceeds from the offering to acquire IronNet, which had been a private company.

The complaint charges IronNet, its Co-Chief Executive Officers, and its Chief Financial Officer with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. According to the complaint, the defendants made materially false and misleading statements and failed to disclose known adverse facts about IronNet's business, operations, and prospects, including that: (i) the Company had materially overstated its business and financial prospects; (ii) the Company was unable to predict the timing of significant customer opportunities which constituted a substantial portion of its publicly-issued FY 2022 financial guidance; (iii) the Company had not established effective disclosure controls and procedures to reasonably ensure its public disclosures were timely, accurate, complete, and not otherwise misleading; and (iv) as a result, the Company’s public statements were materially false, misleading, and/or lacked any reasonable basis in fact at all relevant times.

For more information on the IronNet class action go to: https://bespc.com/cases/IRNT

Innovative Industrial Properties, Inc. (NYSE: IIPR)

Class Period: May 7, 2020 – April 13, 2022

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: June 24, 2022

On April 14, 2022, market researcher Blue Orca Capital released a report describing the Company as “a marijuana bank masquerading as a REIT. IIPR’s model is to conduct sale-leaseback transactions with cannabis producers who are otherwise prohibited from borrowing money because of federal regulations.” The report further noted that “[u]nlike with other REITs, IIPR cannot expect to recover the lost income from defaulting tenants because it appears that the actual value of its properties are substantially below their carrying value on the IIPR’s balance sheet.”

On this news, the Company’s share price fell $13.76 per share, or 7.5%, to close at $169.68 per share on April 14, 2022.

According to the complaint, during the class period, defendants touted its rigorous underwriting standards and extensive experience in the cannabis industry. They also stated that the Company’s organization and operations qualify it to be taxed as a REIT for U.S federal income tax purposes. Notwithstanding, defendants failed to disclose that the value of the Company’s properties are significantly lower than represented and that the Company’s focus is to be a cannabis company lender rather than a REIT. Further, Innovative Industrial Properties’ top customers may not be able to continue making payments and the Company would face significant issues replacing those customers.

For more information on the IIPR class action go to: https://bespc.com/cases/IIPR

Natera, Inc. (NASDAQ: NTRA)

Class Period: February 26, 2020 – April 19, 2022

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: June 27, 2022

Natera, a Delaware corporation with principal executive offices in Austin, Texas, offers genetic testing in the areas of women’s health, oncology, and organ health. Among other things, the Company produces and markets a non-invasive prenatal test (“NIPT”) called “Panorama,” and a screening test for kidney transplant failure called “Prospera.” Natera’s common stock trades on the NASDAQ under the ticker symbol “NTRA.” 

Throughout the Class Period, Defendants repeatedly assured investors that Panorama was reliable, that Prospera was more accurate than competing tests, and that Natera’s growth was driven by its superior technology and customer experience. 

However, investors began to learn the truth on January 1, 2022, when The New York Times published a detailed report calling into question the accuracy of certain prenatal tests manufactured by Natera and other diagnostic testing companies. Among other things, The New York Times reported that Natera’s positive results for several genetic disorders were incorrect more than 80 percent of the time. 

On this news, the price of Natera common stock fell $5.35 per share, or approximately 6% over two trading days, from a close of $93.39 per share on December 31, 2021, to close at $88.04 per share on January 4, 2022. 

Less than two weeks later, on January 14, 2022, the Campaign for Accountability— a nonprofit watchdog group—filed a complaint with the SEC requesting an investigation as to whether “Natera repeatedly claimed – in marketing materials and earnings calls – that [its] tests are much more reliable than it appears they really are.”

On this news, the price of Natera common stock fell $6.29 per share, or more than 9%, from a close of $67.37 per share on January 14, 2022, to close at $61.08 per share on January 18, 2022. 

Then, on March 9, 2022, Hindenburg Research (“Hindenburg”) issued an investigative report (the “Hindenburg Report”) alleging, 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, the price of Natera common stock fell as much as $28.65 per share, or more than 52%, from a close of $54.75 per share on March 8, 2022, to an intra-day low of $26.10 per share on March 9, 2022. 

On March 14, 2022, a jury found that Natera had intentionally and willfully misled the public by utilizing false advertisements to market Prospera in violation of the federal Lanham Act, the Delaware Deceptive Trade Practices Act, and Delaware common law. Among other things, the jury found that Natera’s marketing falsely claimed that Prospera was more accurate than the competing kidney transplant testing offered by CareDx, Inc. (“CareDx”). Ultimately, the jury awarded CareDx $44.9 million in monetary damages.  

On this news, Natera common stock fell as much as $8.81 per share, or approximately 22.5%, from an intra-day high of $39.13 per share on March 14, 2022, to close at $30.32 per share on March 15, 2022. 

On April 19, 2022, the United States Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”) issued a safety communication “to educate patients and health care providers and to help reduce the inappropriate use of [NIPTs].” The FDA cautioned that statements about NIPTs’ reliability and accuracy “may not be supported with sound scientific evidence” and revealed the existence of “cases where a screening test reported a genetic abnormality and a confirmatory diagnostic test later found that the fetus was healthy.” The FDA suggested that patients discuss benefits and risks with a healthcare provider before deciding to undergo NIPT or making any pregnancy-related decisions on the basis of NIPT results. In addition, the FDA advised health care providers that they should not rely on NIPT results alone to diagnose chromosomal abnormalities or disorders. 

On this news, the price of Natera common stock fell as much as $1.53 per share, or approximately 3.9%, from an intra-day high of $39.63 per share on April 19, 2022, to close at $38.10 per share on April 20, 2022. 

This Complaint 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 and operations. Specifically, Defendants misrepresented and/or failed to disclose: (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 of the foregoing, Defendants’ statements about the Company’s business, operations, and prospects lacked a reasonable basis. 

As a result of Defendants’ wrongful acts and omissions, and the significant decline in the market value of the Company’s securities, Plaintiff and other members of the Class have suffered significant damages

For more information on the Natera class action go to: https://bespc.com/cases/NTRA

About Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C.:

Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. is a nationally recognized law firm with offices in New York, California, and South Carolina. The firm represents individual and institutional investors in commercial, securities, derivative, and other complex litigation in state and federal courts across the country. For more information about the firm, please visit www.bespc.com. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes.

Contact Information:

Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C.
Brandon Walker, Esq.
Melissa Fortunato, Esq.
(212) 355-4648
investigations@bespc.com
www.bespc.com


Primary Logo