A securities class action has been filed against PROCEPT BioRobotics Corporation (PRCT) on behalf of all purchasers of Procept common stock between February 28, 2024 through February 25, 2026. This case has been filed in the USDC – NDCA.
Procept is a commercial stage medical technology company focused primarily on the treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia (“BPH”), commonly known as an enlarged prostate. BPH generally affects older men and symptoms may include frequent urination, loss of bladder control, or problems with urination.
During the Class Period, Procept manufactured and sold medical devices that delivered its proprietary Aquablation therapy, which the Company claims is safer for the treatmentof BPH compared to alternative surgical treatments. Each device consists of an image-guided surgical device (the “System”) and a single-use handpiece that is disposed following its use in a procedure.
During the Class Period, Procept and its executives claimed that utilization of the Company’s devices was increasing. For example, for its first fiscal quarter of 2024, Procept reported that the Company’s installed base had grown more than 80% to more than 350, compared to roughly 190 units in the prior year quarter. Notably, handpiece unit sales increased sequentially during every quarter reported over the same period, suggesting that utilization among Procept’s deployed Systems was increasing. Speaking during the corresponding conference call, Company executives highlighted these purported growth trends. For example, defendant Waters represented that Procept was experiencing “increased utilization across all [customer] cohorts,” which he attributed in part to growing customer adoption of the Company’s technology. Defendant Zadno similarly touted the purportedly “increased utilization” by Procept’s customers, which he represented demonstrated “growing” customer and patient demand for the Company’s technology.
During Procept’s earnings call, analysts pressed Company management for information regarding the Company’s discount program. For example, an analyst from Truist Securities inquired about the “health” of the underlying demand for procedures given the various “seemingly transient . . . externalities” that Procept had previously used to excuse lackluster procedure volumes. In response, defendant Wood stated that Procept’s revenue “shortfall” was driven by customers “stocking up” on discounted handpieces “at the end of a quarter,” while also acknowledging that the Company “had never” reported on actual procedures.
As a result of these serial disclosures, the price of Procept shares has declined by more than 75% from its all-time high of approximately $100 per share during the Class Period to less than $25 per share following the end of the Class Period and has continued to decline subsequently, inflicting substantial economic damages on investors.