InvenSense, Inc.

Shareholder Securities Fraud Litigation

Rigrodsky & Long, P.A. Announces A Securities Fraud Class Action Lawsuit Has Been Filed Against InvenSense, Inc. (NYSE: INVN)

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 InvenSense, Inc. (“InvenSense” or the “Company”) (NYSE: INVN) between July 29, 2014 and October 28, 2014, 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 InvenSense during the Class Period, or purchased shares prior to the Class Period and still hold InvenSense,  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.

InvenSense designs, develops, markets and sells Micro-Electro-Mechanical Systems (“MEMS”) sensors, such as accelerometers, gyroscopes and microphones for consumer electronics.  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: (1) the Company had entered into an agreement with Apple to supply sensors for the iPhone 6 and iPhone 6 plus at heavily discounted prices compared to other consumers; (2) the low prices charged to Apple, along with low prices charged to Samsung, had, and would continue to, negatively impact the Company’s margins; (3) InvenSense encountered manufacturing problems and inefficiencies which negatively impacted margins; (4) defendants lacked a reasonable basis to provide its stated near term financial guidance or to assure investors that margins would be consistent with historical levels; (5) the Company’s Form 10-Q for the first quarter of 2015 failed to disclose then presently known trends, events or uncertainties associated with the Company’s sales and margins that were reasonably likely to have a material effect on InvenSense’s future operating results; and (6) as a result of the foregoing, defendants lacked a reasonable basis for their positive statements about the Company’s financial performance and outlook during the Class Period.  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, on October 28, 2014, the Company announced disappointing financial results for the quarter ended September 28, 2014, and revealed a substantial drop-off in margins due in large part to low pricing for Apple and Samsung, operational inefficiencies with the iPhone 6 rollout, and a charge related to old inventory.

On this news, shares in InvenSense plummeted over 25%, closing at $16.08 per share on October 29, 2014, on extraordinarily high trading volume.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than March 9, 2015.  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.