Rigrodsky & Long, P.A.
Do you, or did you, own shares of VeriFone Systems, Inc. (NYSE: PAY)?
Did you purchase your shares before December 14, 2011, or between
December 14, 2011 and February 20, 2013, inclusive?
Did you lose money in your investment in VeriFone Systems, Inc.?
Do you want to discuss your rights?
& Long, P.A. 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
VeriFone Systems, Inc. (“VeriFone” or the “Company”) (NYSE: PAY)
between December 14, 2011 and February 20, 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 VeriFone during the Class Period, or
purchased shares prior to the Class Period and still hold VeriFone, 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 firstname.lastname@example.org,
or at: http://www.rigrodskylong.com/investigations/verifone-systems-inc-pay.
VeriFone is a leading global provider of payment solutions that enable
secure electronic payment transactions and value-added services at the
POS (point of sale). 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 was
encountering serious problems in transitioning to an increasingly
subscriptions-based service model; (ii) VeriFone used past acquisitions
to mask its declining revenue base; (iii) the Company inappropriately
recognized revenues from distributors during periods where such revenues
should have been deferred; (iv) the Company lacked adequate internal and
financial controls; and (v) 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. While issuing these materially misleading
statements, the Individual Defendants and other Company insiders
disposed of over $11 million worth of VeriFone stock.
According to the Complaint, on April 30, 2012, Deutsche Bank issued a
detailed research report asserting for the first time that VeriFone was
inflating its organic growth through acquisitions by treating as
“organic growth” VeriFone sales to legacy customers of a company known
as Hypercom Corp. (“Hypercom”) and possibly to customers of other
acquired companies. In reality, such sales simply cannibalized millions
of dollars in Hypercom product sales and did not constitute organic
Then, on February 20, 2013, the Company announced its preliminary
financial results for the first fiscal quarter ended January 31, 2013.
VeriFone reported that it expected first quarter non-GAAP net income to
be between $0.47 and $0.50 per share and GAAP net income to be between
$0.07 and $0.10 per share on revenue of $424 million, falling well below
analysts’ profit forecast of $0.73 per share of revenue of $492 million.
Analysts immediately began to doubt VeriFone’s explanation of weak
macro-economic conditions in Europe and an increase in deferred revenue
related to volume shipments to customers in the Middle East and Africa
that did not meet first quarter revenue recognition requirement. On this
news, shares in VeriFone dropped nearly 43%, closing at $13.65 per share
on February 21, 2013, from a close of $31.89 per share on February 20,
2013, on volume of over 50 million shares.
If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later
than May 6, 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.
& 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
Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.