NEW YORK, Dec. 13, 2013 /PRNewswire/ -- Pomerantz Grossman Hufford Dahlstrom & Gross LLP has filed a class action lawsuit against Ixia ("Ixia" or the "Company")(NASDAQ: XXIA) and certain of its officers. The class action, filed in United States District Court, Central District of California, and docketed under 2:13-cv-8440, is on behalf of a class consisting of all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired IXIA securities between April 29, 2010 and October 24, 2013 both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"). This class action seeks to recover damages against Defendants for 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 who purchased Ixia securities during the Class Period, you have until January 14, 2014 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. Ixia delivers information technology solutions to a wide variety of organizations, through real-time monitoring, real-world testing, and rapid assessment of networks and systems. The Company's tools are purportedly used to provide "end-to-end visibility" and complete understanding into user behavior, security vulnerabilities, network capacity, application performance, and IT resiliency. 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 improperly recognized revenues related to its warranty and software maintenance contracts; (2) The Company's Chief Executive Officer "CEO" misstated his academic credentials and employment history; (3) the Company lacked adequate internal and financial controls; and (4) as a result of the foregoing, the Company's statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.