NEW YORK, Aug. 26, 2013 /PRNewswire/ -- Pomerantz Grossman Hufford Dahlstrom & Gross LLP has filed a class action lawsuit against Velti Plc. ("Velti" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: VELT) and certain of its officers. The class action, filed in United States District Court, Northern District of California, and docketed under 13-cv-03954, is on behalf of a class consisting of all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired securities of Velti between January 27, 2011 and August 20, 2013 both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"). This class action seeks to recover damages against the Company and certain of its officers and directors as a result of alleged violations of the federal securities laws pursuant to Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. If you are a shareholder with purchased Velti securities during the Class Period, you have until October 21, 2013 to ask the Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class. A copy of the Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com. To discuss this action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at firstname.lastname@example.org or 888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll free, x237. Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their mailing address, telephone number, and number of shares purchased. Velti engages in the provision of mobile marketing and advertising technology and solutions for brands, advertising agencies, mobile operators, and media companies primarily in Europe, the Americas, Asia, and Africa. The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) the Company was overstating its revenue; (2) the Company had difficulties collecting its receivables from certain customers; (3) the Company lacked a reasonable basis for assuming that its receivables would be paid by certain customers; (4) the Company lacked adequate internal and financial controls; and (5) as a result of the foregoing, the Company's statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.