Rigrodsky & Long, P.A. Announces A Securities Fraud Class Action Lawsuit Has Been Filed Against Mellanox Technologies, Ltd.

  Rigrodsky & Long, P.A. Announces A Securities Fraud Class Action Lawsuit Has
  Been Filed Against Mellanox Technologies, Ltd.

Business Wire

WILMINGTON, Del. -- February 11, 2013

Rigrodsky & Long, P.A.:

  *Do you, or did you, own shares in Mellanox Technologies, Ltd. (NASDAQ GS:
  *Did you purchase your shares prior to April 19, 2012, or between April 19,
    2012 and January 2, 2013, inclusive?
  *Did you lose money in your investment in Mellanox Technologies, Ltd.?
  *Do you want to discuss your rights?

Rigrodsky & Long, P.A. announces that a complaint has been filed in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of all
persons or entities that purchased the common stock of Mellanox Technologies,
Ltd. (“Mellanox” or the “Company”) (NASDAQ GS: MLNX) between April 19, 2012
and January 2, 2013, inclusive (the “Class Period”), alleging violations of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against the Company and certain of its
officers (the “Complaint”).

If you purchased shares of Mellanox during the Class Period, or purchased
shares prior to the Class Period and still hold Mellanox, and wish to discuss
this action or have any questions concerning this notice or your rights or
interests, please contact Timothy J. MacFall, Esquire or Peter Allocco of
Rigrodsky & Long, P.A., 825 East Gate Boulevard, Suite 300, Garden City, NY at
(888) 969-4242, by e-mail to info@rigrodskylong.com, or at:

Mellanox is a fabless semiconductor company that produces and supplies
high-performance interconnect products that facilitate efficient data
transmission between servers, storage systems and communications
infrastructure equipment and other embedded systems. The Complaint alleges
that throughout the Class Period, defendants made materially false and
misleading statements, and omitted materially adverse facts, about the
Company’s business, operations and prospects. Specifically, the Complaint
alleges that: (a) Mellanox was receiving a continuous stream of customer
complaints concerning glitches it its InfiniBand product offerings during the
Class Period; (b) Mellanox knew that the pace of Intel Corporation’s (“Intel”)
development of its own competing InfiniBand adaptor would both diminish
Intel’s demand for Mellanox’s product offering and detrimentally increase
competition in the InfiniBand market in which Mellanox enjoyed a near
monopoly; (c) Mellanox knew that its outsized 1Q and 2Q sales growth were not
sustainable and were not the result of Defendants’ business acumen, growth in
the InfiniBand market generally, or significant adoption by the market of
Mellanox’s own InfiniBand product offerings, but was instead due to short-term
sales boosts attributable to Intel’s rollout of the Romley CPU upgrade; (d)
Mellanox’s inventory was dramatically increasing, both at the Company and in
the hands of at least one significant OEM customer, which would decrease sales
and profit margins going forward; and (e) as a result, Mellanox knew its
actual sales growth supported neither its own 4Q 2012 guidance nor the
inflated share price targets the investment community was modeling based on
Defendants’ bullish Class Period statements and guidance. As a result of
defendants’ false and misleading statements, the Company’s stock traded at
artificially inflated prices during the Class Period.

According to the Complaint, Mellanox repeatedly increased its own forward
financial guidance throughout the Class Period – ignoring both the potential
decreases in Intel’s own demand for Mellanox InfiniBand – related product
offerings and competition from the networking behemoth with far superior sales
and technological capabilities. Mellanox also concealed that repeated reports
of significant product glitches with its own InfiniBand product offerings
during the Class Period were diminishing sales demand and increasing the
Company’s manufacturing costs.

However, 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 Mellanox had portrayed it throughout the Class Period, causing
significant declines in the price of Mellanox stock. Culminating in a press
release issued on January 2, 2013, the Company conceded that it had grossly
missed its 4Q 2012 revenue guidance by upwards of 20%. On this news, shares in
Mellanox fell over 17%, closing at $50.70 per share on January 3, 2013, from a
close of $61.19 per share on January 2, 2013, on volume of over 8 million

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than
April 8, 2013. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of
other class members in directing the litigation. In order to be appointed lead
plaintiff, the Court must determine that the class member’s claim is typical
of the claims of other class members, and that the class member will
adequately represent the class. Your ability to share in any recovery is not,
however, affected by the decision whether or not to serve as a lead plaintiff.
Any member of the proposed class may move the court to serve as lead plaintiff
through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do nothing and remain an
absent class member.

While Rigrodsky & Long, P.A. did not file the Complaint in this matter, the
firm, with offices in Wilmington, Delaware and Garden City, New York,
regularly litigates securities class, derivative and direct actions,
shareholder rights litigation and corporate governance litigation, including
claims for breach of fiduciary duty and proxy violations in the Delaware Court
of Chancery and in state and federal courts throughout the United States.

Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.


Rigrodsky & Long, P.A.
Timothy J. MacFall, Esquire
Peter Allocco
Fax: 302-654-7530
Press spacebar to pause and continue. Press esc to stop.