Ultragenyx Pharmaceutical Inc. Investors with Substantial Losses Have Opportunity to Lead Class Action Lawsuit, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP Announces

The law firm of Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP announces purchasers or acquirers of Ultragenyx Pharmaceutical Inc. (NASDAQ: RARE) common stock between August 3, 2023 and December 26, 2025, inclusive (the “Class Period”), have until April 6, 2026 to seek appointment as lead plaintiff of the Ultragenyx class action lawsuit. Captioned Bailey v. Ultragenyx Pharmaceutical Inc., No. 26-cv-01097 (N.D. Cal.), the Ultragenyx class action lawsuit charges Ultragenyx as well as certain of Ultragenyx’ top executives with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

If you suffered substantial losses and wish to serve as lead plaintiff of the Ultragenyx class action lawsuit, please provide your information here:

https://www.rgrdlaw.com/cases-ultragenyx-pharmaceutical-inc-class-acti ...

You can also contact attorney J.C. Sanchez of Robbins Geller by calling 800/449-4900 or via e-mail at [e-mail].

CASE ALLEGATIONS: Ultragenyx is a biopharmaceutical company that focuses on the identification, acquisition, development, and commercialization of novel products for the treatment of rare and ultra-rare genetic diseases.

The Ultragenyx class action lawsuit alleges that defendants throughout the Class Period made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) defendants created the false impression that they possessed reliable information pertaining to the effects of setrusumab on patients with variable types of Osteogenesis Imperfecta (“OI”), while also minimizing risk that patients in Ultragenyx’ Phase III Orbit study would fail to achieve a statistically significant reduction in annualized fracture rate (“AFR”), such that the second interim analysis could be performed and presented to the investing public; and (ii) in truth, Ultragenyx’ optimism in the Phase III Orbit study’s results and interim analysis benchmark were misplaced because Ultragenyx failed to convey the risk associated with basing such threshold figures on Phase II results that had no placebo control group for appropriate comparison and thus had not ruled out that the reduction in AFR from that study could merely be triggered by an increased standard of care and the placebo effect of being provided a novel treatment.