November 5, 2020 - An amended consolidated complaint was filed.

September 24, 2020 - The court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss with leave to amend.

July 1, 2020 - A motion to dismiss was filed.

May 20, 2020 - A consolidated complaint was filed.

January 16, 2020 - An investor in shares of Portola Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (NASDAQ: PTLA) filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California over alleged violations of Federal Securities Laws by Portola Pharmaceuticals, Inc. in connection with certain allegedly false and misleading statements made between November 5, 2019 and January 9, 2020.

San Francisco, CA based Portola Pharmaceuticals, Inc., a biopharmaceutical company, develops and commercializes novel therapeutics in the areas of thrombosis and other hematologic disorders and inflammation in the United States. On January 9, 2020, Portola Pharmaceuticals, Inc announced preliminary net revenues of only $28 million for the fourth quarter of 2019. Portola Pharmaceuticals, Inc attributed the result to a $5 million reserve adjustment for short-dated product, and flat quarter-over-quarter demand. According to the announcement, the company estimated Andexxa revenues to be around $28 million for the fourth quarter. Oppenheimer’s analyst, Jay Olson, stated that this estimate is well below our $39 million estimate and $41 million consensus.
According to the announcement, Portola Pharmaceuticals, Inc attributed the decrease in fourth quarter Andexxa sales, in part, to hospital pharmacies curtailed use of Andexxa following drug utilization reviews in an effort to manage pharmacy budgets.

According to the complaint the plaintiff alleges on behalf of purchasers of Portola Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (NASDAQ: PTLA) common shares between November 5, 2019 and January 9, 2020, that the defendants violated Federal Securities Laws. More specifically, the plaintiff claims that between November 5, 2019 and January 9, 2020, the Defendants failed to disclose to investors that Portola’s internal control over financial reporting regarding reserve for product returns was not effective, that Portola was shipping longer-dated product with 36-month shelf life, that Portola had not established adequate reserve for returns of prior shipments of short-dated product, that, as a result, Portola was reasonably likely to need to “catch up” on accounting for return reserves, and that, as a result of the foregoing, Defendants’ positive statements about the Company’s business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.