Rigrodsky & Long, P.A.:
- Do you, or did you, own shares of NQ Mobile Inc. (NYSE: NQ )?
- Did you purchase your shares between May 5, 2011 and October 24, 2013, inclusive?
- Did you lose money in your investment in NQ Mobile Inc.?
- Do you want to discuss your rights?
Rigrodsky & Long, P.A., 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 Southern District of New York on behalf of all persons or entities that purchased the common stock of NQ Mobile Inc. (“NQ” or the “Company”) (NYSE: NQ) between May 5, 2011 and October 24, 2013, inclusive, including those investors who purchased NQ American Depository Receipts (“ADRs”) in its initial public offering (“IPO”) commencing on May 5, 2011 (collectively, the “Class Period”), alleging violations of the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against the Company and certain of its officers (the “Complaint”).
If you purchased shares of NQ 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 email@example.com, or at: http://www.rigrodskylong.com/investigations/nq-mobile-inc-nq.
NQ is a leading global provider of mobile Internet services. 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) NQ far overstated its presence and market share in China and further misrepresented the size of its paying user base; (2) that the Company’s antivirus program, Antivirus 7.0, was actually a spyware program that left users’ devices subject to attack; and (3) that the Company’s revenue and reported cash balances were materially overstated 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.