Case Page

 

Case Status:    DISMISSED    
On or around 07/02/2013 (Notice of voluntarily dismissal)

Filing Date: June 05, 2013

According to the law firm press release, Uni-Pixel manufactures fingerprint-resistant and hard coat protective cover films for touch screen-enabled devices. Its key product is UniBoss, a copper-mesh film that sits under the glass in touch-sensitive devices, and that the Company claims is cheaper to manufacture and more responsive than other competing technologies.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants issued materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company’s operations and business. Specifically, defendants failed to disclose that: (i) the terms of the purported December 2012 licensing agreement with a “Major PC Maker” were either immaterial or legally unenforceable; (ii) the terms of the purported April 2013 licensing agreement with a “Major Ecosystem Partner” were either immaterial or legally unenforceable; (iii) the terms of the purported April 2013 manufacture and supply agreement with Kodak were either immaterial or legally unenforceable; (iv) there were significant design defects in the UniBoss technology; and (v) as a result, defendants knew the Company’s projected sales and earnings were unattainable.

The complaint alleges that the market price of Uni-Pixel’s common stock declined precipitously in May, 2013 as the market learned that the Company’s business metrics and financial prospects were not as represented during the Class Period, with the stock price dropping from its Class Period high of $41.00 per share on April 17, 2013 to close $15.21 per share on May 31, 2013.

COMPANY INFORMATION:

Sector:
Industry:
Headquarters: United States

SECURITIES INFORMATION:

Ticker Symbol: UNXL
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: S.D. New York
DOCKET #: 13-CV-03840
JUDGE: Hon. Alvin K. Hellerstein
DATE FILED: 06/05/2013
CLASS PERIOD START: 12/07/2012
CLASS PERIOD END: 05/31/2013
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Ademi & O'Reilly, LLP
    3620 East Layton Ave., Ademi & O'Reilly, LLP, WI 53110
    866-264-3995 414-482-8001 · inquiry@ademilaw.com
  2. 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