Aubrie, an Associate with the Firm, concentrates her practice in securities litigation. Aubrie graduated from the Emory University School of Law with honors in 2024. At Emory, she served as a Notes and Comments Editor on the Emory Law Journal and was the 2023 recipient of the Journal’s Mary Laura “Chee” Davis Award for Writing Excellence. While in law school, she interned with Judge Jason Ashford in Houston County, Georgia. She received her B.A. From Portland State University in 2018 and her MPhil from the University of Cambridge in 2019.
Current Cases
-
Defendant Apple Inc. is a global technology company that designs and markets the iPhone, Mac, iPad, and other technology products, and offers a variety of web services. This securities class action arises out of Apple’s materially false and misleading statements concerning two of the Company’s central sources of revenue: the iPhone and the App Store.
On January 28, 2026, Plaintiff filed a 215-page complaint on behalf of a putative class of investors alleging that Defendants Apple Inc., Chief Executive Officer Tim Cook, current Chief Financial Officer Kevan Parekh, former Chief Financial Officer Luca Maestri, Senior Vice President of Software Engineering Craig Federighi, and Senior Director of AI and Machine learning Kelsey Peterson, violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act.
As alleged, Defendants made false and misleading statements touting the release of highly anticipated artificial intelligence-enabled upgrades to Apple’s digital assistant, Siri, while at the same time misrepresenting Apple’s compliance with a nationwide injunction issued against the Company as a result of anticompetitive App Store restrictions. The injunction, issued in Epic Games, Inc. v. Apple Inc., Case No. 4:20-cv-05640-YGR (N.D. Cal.), enjoined the Company from preventing developers from using external purchase links to steer customers to alternate purchase options, and therefore had significant implications for Apple’s App Store revenue.
On the first day of the Class Period, Apple filed its quarterly report with the SEC, which represented that Apple was in compliance with the injunction. Just one month later, on June 10, 2024, with pressure from the market mounting for Apple to make a major announcement of artificial intelligence offerings, Apple held its annual Worldwide Developers Conference. During the event, Defendants announced a suite of new AI features under the banner of Apple Intelligence, which included major AI-powered upgrades to Siri. Defendants claimed these features would launch with the iPhone 16 in the fall of 2024.
In truth, Defendants’ purported compliance with the injunction consisted of host of anticompetitive measures designed to preserve Apple’s supracompetitive App Store revenue stream, and the purported Apple Intelligence-powered Siri features were nowhere near ready for market. As the Complaint alleges, Defendants internally modeled the negative financial impact of actual compliance with the injunction and so deliberately crafted a plan to reduce the revenue impact, knowing full well that their plan subverted the letter and spirit of the injunction. At the same time Defendants misrepresented Apple’s compliance with the injunction, they were also publicly touting the new Siri features announced in June 2024. However, behind the scenes, the Company barely possessed a working prototype, and had in fact announced the features using video mock-up demonstrations of technology that did not exist.
The truth regarding Apple’s violations of the injunction and the non-existence of the much-touted Siri upgrades came to light through a series of corrective disclosures between February and May 2025. During a multi-day hearing in February 2025, the testimony of Apple executives revealed that Apple knew its response to the injunction carried a significant risk of non-compliance and that Apple fashioned its response to the Injunction to avoid the financial impact of the injunction. In early March 2025, Apple announced that its heavily advertised Apple Intelligence-powered Siri upgrades would be indefinitely delayed. Morgan Stanley then downgraded Apple based on the Company’s delay in releasing an updated Siri, citing consumer survey data indicating that the delay would negatively impact the rate that users upgraded to the iPhone 16. This news, which had obviously implications for Apple’s iPhone sales, caused a sharp stock price decline and erased billions in Apple’s market capitalization. Then, on April 30-May 1, 2025, when the presiding judge in the Epic Games litigation issued an order finding that Apple had willfully violated the injunction, Defendants failed to provide any specifics on the timing of Apple’s release of the AI-enhanced Siri, and Defendant Cook acknowledged that the ongoing Epic Games litigation posed a risk to the Company. These disclosures caused additional drops in Apple’s stock price.
Defendants moved to dismiss the Complaint on February 25, 2026. Briefing on the motion to dismiss is complete.
-
Defendant Humana Inc. is an insurance and healthcare company that provides medical benefit plans to approximately 16.3 million people. This securities fraud class action arises out of Humana’s materially false or misleading statements concerning the profitability and quality of its core Medicare Advantage business, which generates the vast majority of the Company’s revenue. Medicare Advantage plans provide health insurance to seniors over the age of 65 and those under 65 with particular disabilities.
On November 20, 2024, Plaintiff filed a 215-page complaint on behalf of a putative class of investors alleging that Defendants Humana, its former Chief Executive Officer, Bruce D. Broussard, and current Chief Financial Officer, Susan Diamond, violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act.
As alleged in the Complaint, Humana reaped record profits during the height of the COVID-19 pandemic due to abnormally low use of healthcare services by the Company’s Medicare Advantage members. By mid-2022, investors were concerned that Humana would see heightened healthcare utilization, and therefore lower profits, as its Medicare Advantage members began seeking care that had been deferred during the pandemic. For Humana, member utilization and the associated cost of providing member benefits is the key measure of the Company’s profitability. During the Class Period, Defendants assured investors that the Company was continuing to experience favorable utilization trends in its Medicare Advantage business, and downplayed worries about future utilization increases. In addition, Defendants touted as a competitive advantage and revenue-driver Humana’s Star ratings—a quality measure assigned each year by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (“CMS”) that had historically resulted in billions of dollars in additional payments to Humana.
However, unbeknownst to investors, as the effects of the pandemic abated, Defendants knew that the depressed utilization had created a massive backlog of healthcare needs, particularly elective surgical procedures. By the beginning of the Class Period in July 2022, Defendants knew that there was a surge of Medicare Advantage members seeking previously deferred care, which was significantly increasing the Company’s benefit expenses. Moreover, Defendants knew that the Company’s own internal analyses showed that Humana faced a significant downgrade in its Star ratings, jeopardizing billions in Medicare revenue.
The Complaint alleges that Defendants actively concealed the Company’s increased Medicare Advantage utilization through improper denials of claims for medical services and aggressive prior authorization practices. At the same time, Defendants undertook a series of destructive cost-cutting measures and headcount reductions. These cost-cutting measures led to declines in the quality of Humana’s Medicare Advantage benefit plans, and ultimately, its Star ratings by hamstringing the departments responsible for ensuring that Humana’s members had access to high quality, accessible, and efficient healthcare.
The truth regarding Humana’s increased utilization began to emerge in June 2023, causing a series of stock price declines in the latter half of 2023 and early 2024. Throughout this period, Defendants continued to tout the Company’s Star ratings and claimed that they could offset the Company’s increased utilization costs through further cost cuts. Then, in October 2024, the truth regarding the dramatic decline in Humana’s Medicare Advantage plans was revealed when the Company’s significantly degraded Star ratings were released by CMS, causing another precipitous drop in Humana’s stock price. Defendants moved to dismiss the Complaint in January 2025. In April 2026, the Court denied Defendants’ motion to dismiss, sending the case into fact discovery.
-
Defendant Lucid designs, produces, and sells luxury EVs. This securities fraud class action arises out of Defendants’ misrepresentations and omissions regarding Lucid’s production of its only commercially-available electronic vehicle (“EV”), the Lucid Air, and the factors impacting that production.
To start the Class Period, on November 15, 2021, Defendants told investors that Lucid would produce 20,000 Lucid Airs in 2022. This was false, and Defendants knew it. According to numerous former Lucid employees, Defendants already knew then that Lucid would produce less than 10,000 units in 2022, and admitted this fact during internal meetings preceding the Class Period. They also knew why Lucid could not meet this production target—the Company was suffering from its own unique and severe problems that were stalling production of the Lucid Air, including internal logistics issues, design flaws, and the key drivers of parts shortages. These problems had not only prevented, but continued to prevent Lucid from ramping up production of the Lucid Air.
Despite the actual state of affairs at Lucid, on November 15, 2021, and at all times thereafter during the Class Period, Defendants concealed these severe, internal, Company-specific problems. At every turn, when asked about the pace of production, or to explain the factors causing Lucid’s production delays, Defendants blamed the Company’s woes on the purported impact of external, industrywide supply chain problems and repeatedly assured investors that the Company was “mitigating” that global impact. These misrepresentations left investors with a materially false and misleading impression about Lucid’s actual production and internal ability and readiness to mass produce its vehicles. Against that backdrop, Defendants then lied, time and again, about the number of vehicles Lucid would produce. Even when, in February 2022, Defendants announced a reduced production target of 12,000 to 14,000 units, they continued to point to purported industry-wide supply chain problems and once more assured the market that the Company was thriving in spite of such issues. When the truth regarding Lucid’s false claims about its production and the factors impacting that production finally emerged, Lucid’s stock price cratered, causing massive losses for investors.
On December 13, 2022, Plaintiff filed a 138-page consolidated complaint on behalf of a putative class of investors alleging that Defendants violated 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act. On February 23, 2023, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss. In August 2024, the Court denied in part and granted in part Defendants’ motion to dismiss. On September 20, 2024, Plaintiff filed an amended complaint, which Defendants moved to dismiss. In May 2025, the Court denied in part and granted in part Defendants’ motion to dismiss, sending the case into fact discovery. Plaintiff moved for class certification on February 27, 2026. Briefing on that motion is scheduled to be complete in July 2026.
-
This securities fraud class action arises out of Natera’s representations and omissions about the purported “superiority” of its kidney transplant rejection test, Prospera, compared to a competitor’s product, AlloSure, and the revenues and demand associated with the Company’s flagship non-invasive prenatal screening test, Panorama. During the Class Period, Defendants touted Prospera’s superiority over AlloSure based on what they represented as a head-to-head comparison of underlying study data. However, internal Natera emails revealed that Natera recognized that the comparisons were unsupported and misleading. Further, Defendants consistently highlighted the impressive revenue performance and seemingly organic demand for Panorama. However, the market was unaware that Natera employed several deceptive billing and sales practices that inflated these metrics. Meanwhile, Defendants, CEO Steve Chapman, CFO Matthew Brophy, and co-founder and Executive Chairman of the Board, Matthew Rabinowitz, sold more than $137 million worth of Natera common stock during the Class Period. Natera also cashed in, conducting two secondary public offerings, selling investors over $800 million of Natera common stock during the Class Period.
The truth regarding Prospera’s false claims of superiority and the Company’s deceptive billing and sales practices was disclosed to the public through disclosures on March 9, 2022, and March 14, 2022. Natera’s stock price fell significantly in response to each corrective disclosure, causing massive losses for investors.
On October 7, 2022, Plaintiffs filed an 89-page amended complaint on behalf of a putative class of investors alleging that Natera, Chapman, Brophy, Rabinowitz, and former Chief Medical Officer and Senior Vice President of Medical Affairs, Paul R. Billings, violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act. Plaintiffs also allege that Defendants Chapman, Brophy, and Rabinowitz violated Section 20A of the Exchange Act by selling personally held shares of Natera common stock, while aware of material nonpublic information concerning Prospera and Panorama. In addition, Plaintiffs claim that Defendants Chapman, Brophy, Rabinowitz, several Natera directors, and the underwriters associated with Natera’s July 2021 secondary public offering violated Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the Securities Act.
On December 16, 2022, Defendants filed motions to the complaint, which Plaintiffs opposed on February 17, 2023. On September 11, 2023, the Court entered an Order granting in part and denying in part Defendants’ motions to dismiss the complaint. In the Order, the Court sustained all claims arising under Sections 10(b), 20(a), and 20(A) of the Exchange Act based on the complaint’s Panorama allegations. The Court also sustained Plaintiffs’ Securities Act claims based on the Panorama fraud that arose from Defendants’ disclosure violations under two SEC regulations (Item 105 and Item 303), both of which required the provision of certain material facts in the Company’s offering materials.
In the Spring 2025, the Court granted Plaintiffs’ motion for class certification and denied Defendants’ motion for judgment on the pleadings. Fact discovery is ongoing.
Read Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint Here
Read Motion for Class Certification Here
Read Report and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge Here
Read Order Preliminarily Granting Plaintiffs’ Motion to Voluntarily Dismiss Here
Notice of the pendency of the Action and the Court’s certification of the Class is being disseminated to the Class. The Notice also advises of the preliminarily granted motion to voluntarily dismiss Section 12(a)(2) claims from the Action without prejudice. You can review a copy of the Notice below. For more information, please visit the case website, www.NateraSecuritiesAction.com. You can also contact the Administrator, A.B. Data, Ltd., by calling 1-866-830-1050 or emailing [email protected].
Laicite or Laicita: The Regulation of Religious Symbols in French and Italian Public Schools, 73 Emory L. J. 191 (2023) – View Publication Here
Practice Areas
Education
-
Portland State University
B.A., 2018 cum laude, Honors in History
-
University of Cambridge
Master of Philosophy, 2019
-
Emory University
J.D., 2024 with honors
Admissions
- Pennsylvania
- USDC, Eastern District of Pennsylvania