Rigrodsky & Long, P.A. Files Securities Fraud Class Action Lawsuit Against Pacific Biosciences of California, Inc.

Rigrodsky & Long, P.A. announces that it has filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on behalf of all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired the common stock of Pacific Biosciences of California, Inc. (“PacBio” or the “Company”) (Nasdaq: PACB) between October 27, 2010, and September 20, 2011, inclusive (the “Class Period”) alleging violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Complaint”). The case is entitled Primo v. Pacific Biosciences of California, Inc., Case No. C-11-6599-CW (N.D. Cal.).

If you wish to view a copy of the Complaint, discuss this action, or have any questions concerning this notice or your rights or interests, please contact Timothy J. MacFall, Esquire or Noah R. Wortman, Case Development Director of Rigrodsky & Long, P.A., 919 North Market Street, Suite 980 Wilmington, Delaware, 19801 at (888) 969-4242, by e-mail to info@rigrodskylong.com, or at: http://www.rigrodskylong.com/news/pacific-biosciences-of-ca-pacb.

PACB is a development stage company that develops, manufactures, and markets an integrated platform for genetic analysis. The Company engages in commercializing a platform, single molecule, real-time technology (SMRT) for the detection of biological events.

The Complaint asserts that, during the Class Period, defendants failed to disclose material adverse facts regarding the Company's overall operational and financial condition that were caused by significant problems with its third generation human genome sequencing technology. Defendants' failure to disclose these problems rendered their statements concerning the Company's financial condition and future prospects materially false and misleading which, in turn, artificially inflated the price of PacBio common stock during the Class Period.

On August 5, 2010, JP Morgan downgraded its rating of PacBio due to a significantly lower projection of orders in 2012. It projected that PacBio would not become profitable until 2015, and it lowered its target price for PacBio shares down to $10. That day, August 5, 2011, shares of PacBio closed at $6.50, a decline of $3.40, or over 34%, on trading volume that was over two times greater than the previous day's. The next trading day, August 8, 2011, PacBio closed at $5.60, a decline of an additional $0.90, again on very heavy trading volume. In two trading days, PacBio stock lost $4.30, or over 43% of its value.

On September 20, 2011, after the close of the market, PacBio announced it was reducing its workforce by approximately 130 employees, or approximately 28% of its total workforce. The Company thus admitted what was apparent to its analysts: its products were not selling at the rate it had projected. Moreover, with the cuts to its research and development department, the prospects for needed improvement in the Company's new and still developing technology were dim. The market reacted immediately. The Company's shares, which closed at $5.56 on September 20, 2011, lost $1.31 to close at $4.25 on September 21, 2011, a decline of almost 24%, on trading volume that was nearly nine times greater than the previous day's.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than 60 days from today. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. In order to be appointed lead plaintiff, the Court must determine that the class member's claim is typical of the claims of other class members, and that the class member will adequately represent the class. Your ability to share in any recovery is not, however, affected by the decision whether or not to serve as a lead plaintiff. Any member of the proposed class may move the court to serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member.

Rigrodsky & Long, P.A., with offices in Wilmington, Delaware and Garden City, New York, regularly litigates securities class, derivative and direct actions, shareholder rights litigation and corporate governance litigation, including claims for breach of fiduciary duty and proxy violations in the Delaware Court of Chancery and in state and federal courts throughout the United States.

Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.