According to the law firm press release, Mellanox Technologies, Ltd. ("Mellanox" or the Company) 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.

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.

On May 14, 2013, the Court issued an Order consolidating cases, appointing lead Plaintiffs, and approving the selection of lead Counsel. On July 12, the lead Plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint.

On October 10, 2013, the Court issued an Order granting a transfer of this case to the Northern District of California.

On March 31, 2014, the Court issued an Order granting Defendants' motion to dismiss. Plaintiffs were given leave to file an amended Complaint.

Plaintiffs filed an amended Complaint on May 19, 2014. Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss the amended Complaint on July 7. On December 17, 2014, the Court issued an Order granting Defendants' Motion to Dismiss. The case was dismissed with prejudice.