According to the complaint, through a series of partial disclosures made between September 7, 2012 and January 3, 2013, the market learned that the Company’s business was not as defendants had portrayed it throughout the Class Period. On September 7, 2012, Mellanox shares were downgraded from Buy to Hold. Then on October 18, 2012, Mellanox reported third quarter 2012 financial results and issued lower than expected fourth quarter 2012 fiscal guidance. Finally, at the end of the day on January 2, 2013, defendants were forced to concede that Mellanox had grossly missed its fourth quarter 2012 revenue guidance by upwards of 20%. This news, along with the earlier negative announcements, shocked the market causing the price of Mellanox stock to fall precipitously, on unusually high trading volume.Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers of Mellanox common stock during the Class Period (the “Class”). The plaintiff is represented by Robbins Geller, which has expertise in prosecuting investor class actions and extensive experience in actions involving financial fraud. Robbins Geller represents U.S. and international institutional investors in contingency-based securities and corporate litigation. With nearly 200 lawyers in nine offices, the firm represents hundreds of public and multi-employer pension funds with combined assets under management in excess of $2 trillion. The firm has obtained many of the largest recoveries and has been ranked number one in the number of shareholder class action recoveries in MSCI’s Top SCAS 50 every year since 2003. According to Cornerstone Research, the firm’s recoveries have averaged 35% above the median for all firms over the past seven years (2005-2011). Please visit http://www.rgrdlaw.com for more information.
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP (“Robbins Geller”) ( http://www.rgrdlaw.com/cases/mellanox/) 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 all persons or entities who purchased the common stock of Mellanox Technologies, Ltd. (“Mellanox” or the “Company”) (NASDAQ:MLNX) between April 19, 2012 and January 2, 2013 (the “Class Period”). 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 firstname.lastname@example.org. 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/mellanox/. 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. The complaint charges Mellanox and certain of its officers and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Mellanox produces and supplies interconnect products for computing, storage, and communication applications in the computing, Web 2.0, storage, financial services, database, and Cloud markets. Mellanox’s most lucrative product offering at the start of the Class Period was its InfiniBand product. InfiniBand technology is used to transfer and store data in high-end computing and data centers. The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants issued materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company’s financial performance and future prospects. According to the complaint, the true facts, which were known or recklessly disregarded by each of the defendants but concealed from the investing public during the Class Period, were as follows: (i) Mellanox was receiving a continuous stream of customer complaints concerning glitches in its InfiniBand product; (ii) Mellanox knew that the pace of a competitor’s development of its own InfiniBand adaptor would diminish Mellanox’s product offering and increase competition in the InfiniBand market in which Mellanox enjoyed a near monopoly; (iii) Mellanox knew that its outsized first and second quarter 2012 sales growth was not sustainable and was not the result of defendants’ business acumen or growth in the InfiniBand market; (iv) Mellanox’s inventory was dramatically increasing, both at the Company and in the hands of at least one significant customer, which would decrease sales and profit margins going forward; and (v) as a result, Mellanox knew its actual sales growth supported neither its own fourth quarter 2012 guidance nor the inflated share price targets the investment community was modeling based on defendants’ bullish Class Period statements and guidance.