Lieff Cabraser Reminds Fusion-io, Inc. Investors Of Upcoming Deadline In Class Action Litigation – FIO
Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann & Bernstein, LLP reminds investors of the
January 21, 2014 deadline to move for appointment as lead plaintiff in
class litigation brought on behalf of purchasers of the...
Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann & Bernstein, LLP reminds investors of the January 21, 2014 deadline to move for appointment as lead plaintiff in the securities class litigation brought on behalf of purchasers of the common stock of Fusion-io, Inc. (“Fusion-io” or the “Company”) (NYSE:FIO) between August 10, 2012 and October 23, 2013, inclusive (the “Class Period”). If you purchased Fusion-io common stock during the Class Period, you may move the Court for appointment as lead plaintiff by no later than January 21, 2014. A lead plaintiff is a representative party who acts on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. Your share of any recovery in the action will not be affected by your decision of whether to seek appointment as lead plaintiff. You may retain Lieff Cabraser, or other attorneys, as your counsel in the action. Fusion-io investors who wish to learn more about the action and how to seek appointment as lead plaintiff should click here or contact Sharon M. Lee of Lieff Cabraser toll-free at 1 800 541-7358. Fusion-io is a computer hardware and software systems company that designs and manufactures memory storage solutions. Since Fusion-io’s initial public offering in 2011, a small number of what the Company calls “strategic” customers have accounted for a significant portion of the Company’s revenues. The complaints allege that during the Class Period, defendants issued materially false and misleading statements regarding Fusion-io’s financial performance and future prospects. Specifically, defendants misrepresented to investors that Fusion-io was a market leader in large-scale flash memory applications and was not facing any competitive pressure or risk from the commoditization of flash memory products. Defendants also issued positive revenue guidance and misrepresented that Fusion-io was able to anticipate the demand from its strategic customers. As a result of defendants’ material misrepresentations and omissions, Fusion-io’s common stock traded at artificially inflated prices during the Class Period.