Rigrodsky & Long, P.A.:
- Do you, or did you, own shares of Fusion-io, Inc. (NYSE: FIO )?
- Did you purchase your shares before August 10, 2012, or between August 10, 2012 and October 23, 2013, inclusive?
- Did you lose money in your investment in Fusion-io, 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 Northern District of California on behalf of all persons or entities that purchased the common stock of Fusion-io, Inc. (“Fusion-io” or the “Company”) (NYSE: FIO) between August 10, 2012 and October 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 Fusion-io during the Class Period, or purchased shares prior to the Class Period and still hold Fusion-io, 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/fusion-io-inc-fio.
Fusion-io provides solutions for enterprises, hyperscale datacenters, and small to medium enterprises, or SMEs, that accelerate databases, virtualization, mission-critical applications, cloud computing, big data, and information systems. 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 mislead the investing public that the Company was a market leader in large-scale flash memory applications and was not facing any competitive pressure or risk from the commoditization of flash memory products. Further, the defendants issued unrealistically positive revenue guidance and misrepresented that the Company was able to anticipate the demand from its strategic customers based on its years of experience as their flash memory supplier. As a result of defendants’ false and misleading statements, the Company’s stock traded at artificially inflated prices during the Class Period.