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, Ltd.?
- Do you want to discuss your rights?
Rigrodsky & 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 costs.
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.
While Rigrodsky & 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 States.
Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.