Rigrodsky & Long, P.A.:
Rigrodsky & Long, P.A.
- Do you, or did you, own shares of Polycom, Inc. (NASDAQ GS: PLCM )?
- Did you purchase your shares before July 24, 2012, or between July 24, 2012 and July 23, 2013, inclusive?
- Did you lose money in your investment in Polycom, Inc.?
- Do you want to discuss your rights?
, including former Special Assistant United States Attorney, Timothy J. MacFall, announces that a complaint has been filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on behalf of all persons or entities that purchased the common stock of Polycom, Inc. (“Polycom” or the “Company”) (NASDAQ GS:
) between July 24, 2012 and July 23, 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 Polycom during the Class Period 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
, or at:
Polycom is a global leader in open, standards-based unified communications and collaboration (UC&C) solutions for voice and video collaboration. 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 the defendants concealed from the investing public that: (1) the Company’s Chief Executive Officer (“CEO”) had been submitting inappropriate and irregular expense submissions; (2) the Company’s CEO was violating the Company’s code of conduct and was subject to dismissal at all relevant times; (3) the Company did not have effective internal controls over their business operations thus materially impacting the Company’s current and previous financial statements; (4) the CEO’s improper conduct created a risk that he would be terminated from the Company, jeopardizing the Company’s future success; and (5) 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.