Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP (“Robbins Geller”) ( http://www.rgrdlaw.com/cases/tremor/) today announced that a class action has been commenced in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of purchasers of Tremor Video, Inc. (“Tremor Video”) (NYSE:TRMR) common stock pursuant and/or traceable to the Registration Statement and Prospectus issued in connection with Tremor Video’s June 27, 2013 initial public stock offering (the “IPO”).
If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than 60 days from today. If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions concerning this notice or your rights or interests, please contact plaintiff’s counsel, Samuel H. Rudman or David A. Rosenfeld of Robbins Geller at 800/449-4900 or 619/231-1058, or via e-mail at email@example.com. If you are a member of this class, you can view a copy of the complaint as filed or join this class action online at http://www.rgrdlaw.com/cases/tremor/. Any member of the putative 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. Any purchaser of Tremor Video is invited to contact us concerning their eligibility to serve as a lead plaintiff in this action, regardless of the date of their purchase.
The complaint charges Tremor Video, certain of its officers and directors and the underwriters of the IPO with violations of the Securities Act of 1933. Tremor Video, headquartered in New York, New York, is a provider of technology-driven video advertising solutions for advertisers and agencies and publisher partners in the United States and internationally.
Tremor Video filed with the SEC a Registration Statement which, following several amendments and being declared effective by the SEC, was used to conduct the IPO on June 27, 2013. The complaint alleges that the Registration Statement was negligently prepared and, as a result, contained untrue statements of material facts or omitted to state other facts necessary to make the statements made not misleading and was not prepared in accordance with the rules and regulations governing its preparation. Specifically, defendants failed to disclose the following material facts which existed at the time of the IPO: (a) that the online advertising market had materially shifted towards mobile browsing, as opposed to desktop browsing, where the Company was at a significant disadvantage to its competitors; and (b) that the Company was losing sales to competitors as a result of its inferior mobile browsing capabilities.