Rigrodsky & Long, P.A.:
Rigrodsky & Long, P.A.
- Do you, or did you, own shares of Active Power, Inc. (NASDAQ CM: ACPW )?
- Did you purchase your shares before April 30, 2013, or between April 30, 2013 and September 5, 2013, inclusive?
- Did you lose money in your investment in Active Power, 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 Western District of Texas on behalf of all persons or entities that purchased the common stock of Active Power, Inc. (“Active Power” or the “Company”) (NASDAQ CM:
) between April 30, 2013 and September 5, 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 Active Power during the Class Period, or purchased shares prior to the Class Period and still hold Active Power, 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:
Active Power designs, manufactures and services uninterruptible power supply (“UPS”) products and modular infrastructure solution (“MIS”) products that provide electrical power continuity and integrated infrastructure platforms for data centers and other mission critical applications. 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 the Company did not maintain a strategic distribution partnership with Digital China Information Service Company Limited (“Digital China”), the largest IT solutions provider in China. As a result of defendants’ false and misleading statements, the Company’s stock traded at artificially inflated prices during the Class Period.