Case Page

 

Case Status:    ONGOING    
On or around 04/15/2014 (Ongoing date of last review)

Filing Date: February 07, 2013

According to the law firm press release, 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.

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.

COMPANY INFORMATION:

Sector: Technology
Industry: Semiconductors
Headquarters: United States

SECURITIES INFORMATION:

Ticker Symbol: MLNX
Company Market: NASDAQ
Market Status: Public (Listed)

About the Company & Securities Data


"Company" information provides the industry and sector classification and headquarters state for the primary company-defendant in the litigation. In general, "Securities" information provides the ticker symbol, market, and market status for the underlying securities at issue in the litigation.

In most cases, the primary company-defendant actually issued the securities that are the subject of the litigation, and the securities information and company information relate to the same entity. In a small subset of cases, however, the primary company-defendant is not the issuer (for example, cases against third party brokers/dealers), and the securities information and company information do not relate to the same entity.
COURT: N.D. California
DOCKET #: 13-CV-00925
JUDGE: Hon. Alvin K. Hellerstein
DATE FILED: 02/07/2013
CLASS PERIOD START: 04/19/2012
CLASS PERIOD END: 01/02/2013
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP (Melville)
    58 South Service Road, Suite 200, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP (Melville), NY 11747
    631.367.7100 631.367.1173 ·
No Document Title Filing Date
COURT: N.D. California
DOCKET #: 13-CV-04909
JUDGE: Hon. Alvin K. Hellerstein
DATE FILED: 10/23/2013
CLASS PERIOD START: 04/19/2012
CLASS PERIOD END: 01/02/2013
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC (Washington DC)
    1100 New York Avenue, N.W., Suite 500, West Tower, Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC (Washington DC), DC 20005
    202.408.4600 202.408.4600 ·
  2. Law Office of Jacob Sabo
    The Tower No. 3 Daniel Frisch Street, Law Office of Jacob Sabo 64731
    01197236078888 011 972 3 607 88 89 · sabolaw@inter.net.il
  3. Pomerantz LLP (New York)
    600 Third Avenue, Pomerantz LLP (New York), NY 10016
    212.661.1100 212.661.8665 · info@pomerantzlaw.com/
No Document Title Filing Date