On March 23, 2012, the Company announced that four directors had resigned from the Board of Directors and that the Company’s Chief Executive Officer, Kaliel Tuzman, would resign from his position within six months but remain as the Board Chairman indefinitely. However, on April 16, 2012, the Company announced Mr. Tuzman’s resignation as Board Chairman. Following this, the Wall Street Journal published a critical report on the Company on May 3, 2012 concluding that Mr. Tuzman had “left a mess” of a company and that the new CEO would not endorse guidance. On that same day, the Company announced its preliminary results for the first quarter of 2012. Along with reporting a quarterly operating loss of $8 million, KIT digital’s new CEO revealed that the Company’s guidance was not reasonable. On this news, shares of KIT digital common stock dropped 30%, closing at $4.42 per share on May 3, 2012 from $6.34 the previous day, on heavy trading volume of over 10 million shares.If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than July 25, 2012. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. In order to be appointed lead plaintiff, the Court must determine that the class member’s claim is typical of the claims of other class members, and that the class member will adequately represent the class. Your ability to share in any recovery is not, however, affected by the decision whether or not to serve as a lead plaintiff. Any member of the proposed 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. While Rigrodsky & Long, P.A. did not file the Complaint in this matter, the firm, with offices in Wilmington, Delaware and Garden City, New York, regularly litigates securities class, derivative and direct actions, shareholder rights litigation and corporate governance litigation, including claims for breach of fiduciary duty and proxy violations in the Delaware Court of Chancery and in state and federal courts throughout the United States. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.
Rigrodsky & Long, P.A. 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 securities of KIT digital, Inc. (“KIT digital” or the “Company”) (NASDAQ GS: KITD) between November 8, 2011 and May 3, 2012, inclusive (the “Class Period”), alleging violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against the Company and certain of its officers and directors (the “Complaint”). If you purchased shares of KIT digital during the Class Period, or purchased shares prior to the Class Period and still hold KIT digital stock, 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/kit-digital-inc-kitd. KIT digital, a Delaware corporation headquartered in New York, New York, provides software solutions through its operating subsidiaries that enables its customers to manage and distribute video content through Internet websites, mobile and tablet devices, and both closed network Internet Protocol television (“IPTV”) and over-the-top (“OTT”) connected television environments. The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company’s business operations, financial condition and prospects. Specifically, the Complaint alleges that defendants misrepresented and omitted material facts concerning the overstated success of the Company’s integration of purchased assets, underreported costs of those acquisitions and the administration of those acquired assets. As a result of defendants’ false and misleading statements, the Company’s stock traded at artificially inflated prices during the Class Period. According to the Complaint, on November 9, 2011, the Company issued a press release which announced its financial results for the third quarter of 2011, the period ending September 30, 2011. The release touted “record” results for the Company including a 29% increase in revenue from the previous quarter, and a 124% increase from the same quarter one year prior. Further, the Company expected revenue in the fourth quarter of 2011 to increase 8% from the previous quarter, and 74% from the same quarter one year prior. Lastly, the Company expressed an upward revision bias to its previous stated 2012 revenue guidance.