WILMINGTON, Del., April 13, 2016 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- Rigrodsky & Long, P.A.:
- Do you, or did you, own shares of Apigee Corporation (NASDAQ:APIC)?
- Did you purchase your shares pursuant and/or traceable to the initial public offering on or about April 24, 2015?
- Did you lose money in your investment?
Rigrodsky & Long, P.A. announces that a complaint has been filed in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Mateo, on behalf of all persons or entities that purchased the common stock of Apigee Corporation (“Apigee” or the “Company”) (NASDAQ:APIC) pursuant or traceable to its initial public offering (“IPO”) commenced on or about April 24, 2015, alleging violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1933 against the Company, the sponsors of the IPO, and certain of the Company’s officers (the “Complaint”).
If you purchased shares of Apigee in connection with its IPO, 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., 2 Righter Parkway, Suite 120, Wilmington, DE 19803 at (888) 969-4242; by e-mail to info@rl-legal.com; or at: http://rigrodskylong.com/investigations/apigee-corporation-apic.
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. As a result of defendants’ alleged false and misleading statements, the Company’s stock traded at artificially inflated prices during the Class Period.
According to the Complaint, the documents filed in connection with the IPO contained materially false and misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Apigee faced direct competition from Amazon, upon whose platform Apigee’s entire cloud infrastructure was running, and who was preparing to compete against Apigee for potential new customers, particularly potential new customers who were already using Amazon’s new technology stack; (2) Apigee’s 2Q 2015 revenues of just $17 million had included an “unusually large transaction” of $5.9 million from just one customer which had comprised approximately 35% of that quarter’s revenues and was not repeating going forward; (3) Apigee’s 4Q 2014 billings of just $21.7 million had included $8.6 million from three very large deal that had comprised a full 39% of that quarter’s revenues and were not repeating going forward; (4) lowered demand for Apigee’s product offerings was requiring the Company to scale back on its direct sales efforts and to focus more of its efforts on selling through channel partners such as Accenture and SAP; (5) as a result of the foregoing, Apigee was experiencing lowered billings; and (6) as a result, at the time of the IPO, the Company’s business and financial prospects were not what defendants had led the market to believe they were in the Registration Statement.
Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.