Rigrodsky & Long, P.A. 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 securities of Ubiquiti Networks, Inc. (“Ubiquiti” or the “Company”) (NASDAQ GS: UBNT) between October 14, 2011 and August 9, 2012, inclusive, (the “Class Period”) and/or pursuant or traceable to the Company’s October 14, 2011 initial public offering (the “IPO”), alleging violations of the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against the Company, certain of its officers and directors, and the underwriters in the IPO (the “Complaint”). If you purchased shares of Ubiquiti during the Class Period, and/or pursuant or traceable to the IPO 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/ubiquiti-networks-inc-ubnt. Ubiquiti, a Delaware corporation headquartered in San Jose, California, leverages innovative proprietary technologies to deliver wireless networking solutions with compelling price-performance characteristics to both start-up and established network operators and service providers. 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 the defendants knew, but concealed from the investing public: (1) the true magnitude of the risks the Company faced from counterfeit goods; (2) the widespread nature and extent of the counterfeit operations and the impact the counterfeit activities would have on the Company’s future operating results; (3) the increased risks to the Company’s operations due to its unique business model, whereby it relied exclusively upon distributors to sell its products to end customers; and (4) that the Company lacked the proper internal controls to prevent its product designs from being stolen and replicated. As a result of defendants’ false and misleading statements, the Company’s stock traded at artificially inflated prices during the Class Period.