WILMINGTON, Del.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Rigrodsky & Long, P.A.:
- Do you, or did you, own shares of Aruba Networks, Inc. (NASDAQ GS: ARUN)?
- Did you purchase your shares before May 17, 2012, or between May 17, 2012 and May 16, 2013, inclusive?
- Did you lose money in your investment in Aruba Networks, 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 Northern District of California on behalf of all persons or entities that purchased the common stock of Aruba Networks, Inc. (“Aruba” or the “Company”) (NASDAQ GS: ARUN) between May 17, 2012 and May 16, 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 Aruba during the Class Period, or purchased shares prior to the Class Period and still hold Aruba, 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: http://www.rigrodskylong.com/investigations/aruba-networks-inc-arun.
Aruba is the leading provider of next-generation network access solutions for mobile enterprise networks. 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: (i) the Company did not hold a competitive advantage over Cisco Systems, Inc. (“Cisco”); (ii) the Company was well aware of the weaknesses in Aruba’s marketing abilities given the “bundling” advantages that Cisco held over Aruba; (iii) Cisco’s bundling practices would greatly undermine the Company’s market share and overall success rate in signing contracts with clients; and (iv) as a result of the above, the Company’s financial statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. 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, on May 16, 2013, the Company issued a press release announcing its financial results for the third quarter 2013; reporting net income of $14 million or $0.11 per diluted share, well below analysts’ expectations. Much to the surprise of analysts, who were only recently reassured that Cisco’s bundling practices posed no threat to Aruba’s revenues, Defendant Dominic Orr blamed the disappointing earnings shortfall on “a heightened level of competition and bundling strategy from our largest competitor [Cisco].” Analysts immediately voiced skepticism regarding the accuracy of the Company’s prior disclosures regarding the impact of Cisco’s marketing practices on Aruba’s sales, noting that Cisco’s bundling practices had been well in place for over a year.
On this news, shares in Aruba fell over 25%, closing at $13.10 per share on May 17, 2013, from a close of $17.61 per share on May 16, 2013, on volume of over 55 million shares.
If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than July 22, 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.
