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 magicJack VocalTec Ltd. (“magicJack” or the “Company”) (NASDAQ GM: CALL) between February 28, 2012 and January 8, 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 magicJack during the Class Period, or purchased shares prior to the Class Period and still hold magicJack, 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/magicjack-vocaltec-ltd-call.
magicJack is a cloud communications leader that is the inventor of voice-over-Internet-Protocol (“VoIP”), the softphone (“magicJack PC”) and the award winning magicJack products. 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: (i) the Company overstated revenue, earnings and cash flow in its United States Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) filings; (ii) the Company overstated its cash balance by investing its shareholder cash in highly aggressive and unconventional securities; (iii) the Company has overstated its earnings by inconsistently treating its allowance for doubtful accounts and billing adjustments; (iv) the Company improperly altered the estimated life of its assets, causing a decrease in its depreciation expense; (v) while the Company claimed that it was writing down its excess inventory of chips, it instead wrote down finished products in order to hide weakening sales momentum; and (vi) as a result of the above, the Company’s financial statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. As a result of defendants’ false and misleading statements, the Company’s stock traded at artificially inflated prices during the Class Period.