Rigrodsky & Long, P.A. Announces A Securities Fraud Class Action Lawsuit Has Been Filed Against Uni-Pixel, Inc.
Rigrodsky & Long, P.A. Announces A Securities Fraud Class Action Lawsuit Has Been Filed Against Uni-Pixel, Inc. Business Wire 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 “Complaint”). 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: http://www.rigrodskylong.com/investigations/uni-pixel-inc-unxl. 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. Contact: Rigrodsky & Long, P.A. Timothy J. MacFall, Esquire Peter Allocco 888-969-4242 516-683-3516 Fax: 302-654-7530 firstname.lastname@example.org http://www.rigrodskylong.com