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.