WILMINGTON, Del. -- (Business Wire)
Rigrodsky & Long, P.A.:
- Do you, or did you, own shares in Mellanox Technologies, Ltd.
(NASDAQ GS: MLNX)?
- Did you purchase your shares prior to April 19, 2012, or between
April 19, 2012 and January 2, 2013, inclusive?
- Did you lose money in your investment in Mellanox Technologies,
- Do you want to discuss your rights?
& Long, P.A. announces that a complaint has been filed in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on
behalf of all persons or entities that purchased the common stock of
Mellanox Technologies, Ltd. (“Mellanox” or the “Company”) (NASDAQ GS: MLNX)
between April 19, 2012 and January 2, 2013, inclusive (the “Class
Period”), alleging violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
against the Company and certain of its officers (the “Complaint”).
If you purchased shares of Mellanox during the Class Period, or
purchased shares prior to the Class Period and still hold Mellanox, and
wish to discuss this action or have any questions concerning this notice
or your rights or interests, please contact Timothy
J. MacFall, Esquire or Peter Allocco of Rigrodsky & Long, P.A., 825
East Gate Boulevard, Suite 300, Garden City, NY at (888) 969-4242, by
e-mail to firstname.lastname@example.org,
or at: http://www.rigrodskylong.com/investigations/mellanox-technologies-ltd-mlnx.
Mellanox is a fabless semiconductor company that produces and supplies
high-performance interconnect products that facilitate efficient data
transmission between servers, storage systems and communications
infrastructure equipment and other embedded systems. The Complaint
alleges that throughout the Class Period, defendants made materially
false and misleading statements, and omitted materially adverse facts,
about the Company’s business, operations and prospects. Specifically,
the Complaint alleges that: (a) Mellanox was receiving a continuous
stream of customer complaints concerning glitches it its InfiniBand
product offerings during the Class Period; (b) Mellanox knew that the
pace of Intel Corporation’s (“Intel”) development of its own competing
InfiniBand adaptor would both diminish Intel’s demand for Mellanox’s
product offering and detrimentally increase competition in the
InfiniBand market in which Mellanox enjoyed a near monopoly; (c)
Mellanox knew that its outsized 1Q and 2Q sales growth were not
sustainable and were not the result of Defendants’ business acumen,
growth in the InfiniBand market generally, or significant adoption by
the market of Mellanox’s own InfiniBand product offerings, but was
instead due to short-term sales boosts attributable to Intel’s rollout
of the Romley CPU upgrade; (d) Mellanox’s inventory was dramatically
increasing, both at the Company and in the hands of at least one
significant OEM customer, which would decrease sales and profit margins
going forward; and (e) as a result, Mellanox knew its actual sales
growth supported neither its own 4Q 2012 guidance nor the inflated share
price targets the investment community was modeling based on Defendants’
bullish Class Period statements and guidance. As a result of defendants’
false and misleading statements, the Company’s stock traded at
artificially inflated prices during the Class Period.
According to the Complaint, Mellanox repeatedly increased its own
forward financial guidance throughout the Class Period – ignoring both
the potential decreases in Intel’s own demand for Mellanox InfiniBand –
related product offerings and competition from the networking behemoth
with far superior sales and technological capabilities. Mellanox also
concealed that repeated reports of significant product glitches with its
own InfiniBand product offerings during the Class Period were
diminishing sales demand and increasing the Company’s manufacturing
However, through a series of partial disclosures made between September
7, 2012 and January 3, 2013, the market learned that the Company’s
business was not as Mellanox had portrayed it throughout the Class
Period, causing significant declines in the price of Mellanox stock.
Culminating in a press release issued on January 2, 2013, the Company
conceded that it had grossly missed its 4Q 2012 revenue guidance by
upwards of 20%. On this news, shares in Mellanox fell over 17%, closing
at $50.70 per share on January 3, 2013, from a close of $61.19 per share
on January 2, 2013, on volume of over 8 million shares.
If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later
than April 8, 2013. 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.
& Long, P.A. did not file the Complaint in this matter, the
firm, 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
Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.
Rigrodsky & Long, P.A.
Timothy J. MacFall, Esquire
Source: Rigrodsky & Long, P.A.
© 2017 Canjex Publishing Ltd. All rights reserved.