Rigrodsky & Long, P.A. Announces A Securities Fraud Class Action Lawsuit Has
Been Filed Against Uni-Pixel, Inc.
WILMINGTON, Del. -- June 6, 2013
Rigrodsky & Long, P.A.:
*Do you, or did you, own shares of Uni-Pixel, Inc. (NASDAQ CM: UNXL)?
*Did you purchase your shares before December 7, 2012, or between December
7, 2012 and May 31, 2013?
*Did you lose money in your investment in Uni-Pixel, Inc.?
*Do you want to discuss your rights?
Rigrodsky & Long, P.A., including former Special Assistant United States
Attorney, Timothy J. MacFall, 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 Uni-Pixel, Inc.
(“Uni-Pixel” or the “Company”) (NASDAQ CM: UNXL) between December 7, 2012 and
May 31, 2013 (the “Class Period”), alleging violations of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 against the Company and certain of its officers (the
If you purchased shares of Uni-Pixel during the Class Period, or purchased
shares prior to the Class Period and still hold Uni-Pixel, 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 email@example.com, or at:
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 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 the defendants concealed
from the investing public that: (a) the terms of the purported December 2012
licensing agreement with a “Major PC Maker” were either immaterial or legally
unenforceable; (b) the terms of the purported April 2013 licensing agreement
with a “Major Ecosystem Partner” were either immaterial or legally
unenforceable; (c) the terms of the April 2013 manufacture and supply
agreement with Kodak were either immaterial or legally unenforceable; (d)
there were significant design defects in the UniBoss technology; and (e) as a
result, defendants knew the Company’s projected sales and earnings were
unattainable. As a result of defendants’ false and misleading statements, the
Company’s stock traded at artificially inflated prices during the Class
Period. During this time, several senior executives at Uni-Pixel utilized
these inflated prices to sell over $5 million worth of their Company shares.
According to the Complaint, several articles and reports were released raising
doubts and concerns over Uni-Pixel’s agreements with the “Major PC Maker” and
Kodak, as well as the UniBoss product itself, and the market did not respond
positively to these releases. One article cited Uni-Pixel’s critics as stating
that the Company was “better at promoting products to investors than bringing
them to market.” Another article emphasized that Kodak had deemed the
purported agreement with Uni-Pixel to be so insignificant that it had not even
bothered to file a Current Report on Form 8-K with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission announcing it (which is standard practice where agreements
are both material and create legally enforceable rights and/or duties). Then,
on May 31, 2013, the issuance of a report raising significant quality issues
with the touch mesh employed in the UniBoss caused the price of Uni-Pixel
stock to drop one last time.
On these revelations, shares in Uni-Pixel, which traded as high as $41.42 on
April 17, 2013, plummeted to a close of $15.21 on May 31, 2013.
If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than
August 5, 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
Press spacebar to pause and continue. Press esc to stop.