Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP, representing investors of Edwards Lifesciences Corporation (“Edwards Lifesciences” or the “Company”) (NYSE:EW), has filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Central District of California on behalf of a class (the “Class”) comprising all purchasers of Edwards Lifesciences common stock between April 25, 2012 and April 23, 2013, inclusive (the “Class Period”). A COPY OF THE COMPLAINT IS AVAILABLE FROM THE COURT OR FROM GLANCY BINKOW & GOLDBERG LLP. PLEASE CONTACT US TOLL-FREE AT (888) 773-9224, OR AT (212) 682-5340, OR BY EMAIL TO SHAREHOLDERS@GLANCYLAW.COM TO DISCUSS THIS MATTER. IF YOU INQUIRE BY EMAIL PLEASE INCLUDE YOUR MAILING ADDRESS, TELEPHONE NUMBER AND NUMBER OF SHARES PURCHASED. Edwards Lifesciences is a medical device maker that designs and markets, among other things, artificial heart valves for implantation in patients with advanced cardiovascular disease. The Company offers a range of such valves, including both valves that require traditional open-chest surgery, and its newer SAPIEN line of transcatheter heart valves (“THVs”), which may be implanted using a minimally invasive procedure. The Complaint alleges that the Company issued false and/or misleading statements and failed to disclose material facts related to the prospects, projected sales and adoption of the Company’s Edwards SAPIEN transcatheter aortic heart valve, including the related transfemoral and transapical delivery methods (“SAPIEN”), and related projections of financial performance for the Company’s operations. Specifically, the Complaint alleges that the defendants knew but concealed from Edwards Lifesciences’ shareholders during the Class Period that: (1) adoption of SAPIEN was weaker than the Company claimed, due to concerns among physicians over the risks and complexity of the procedure for implanting the valve; (2) Edwards Lifesciences’ outlook for sales and earnings per share (“EPS”) was significantly weaker than the optimistic guidance defendants offered to investors; and (3) as a result, defendants lacked a reasonable basis for the statements made concerning the Company’s operations, forecasts and outlook.