OTC QB
MDBX

Medbox, Inc.

Shareholder Securities Fraud Litigation

Rigrodsky & Long, P.A. Announces A Securities Fraud Class Action Lawsuit Has Been Filed Against Medbox, Inc. (OTC QB: MDBX)

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 Central District of California on behalf of all persons or entities that purchased the common stock of Medbox, Inc. (“Medbox” or the “Company”) (OTC QB: MDBX) between November 20, 2013 and December 29, 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 Medbox during the Class Period, or purchased shares prior to the Class Period and still hold Medbox, 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.

Medbox, through its subsidiary Medicine Dispensing Systems, sells its patented vending machines that dispense medical marijuana, software and consulting services to pharmacies, alternative medicine dispensaries and local governments in the United States.  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) Medbox was recognizing revenue before earned on certain customer contracts; (2) Medbox lacked effective internal controls; (3) due to its false financial reporting, Medbox was not complying with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles or SEC rules and regulations during the Class Period and, as such, was not eligible for listing on a national exchange; (4) due to its financial misstatements, Medbox was not in compliance with its debt covenants; and (5) as a result, Medbox was not on track to achieve its financial targets 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 December 30, 2014, before the opening of trading, Medbox issued a press release disclosing that it would be forced to restate the past five quarters of financial reports and potentially its “financial statements for 2012 and for the first two quarter of 2013 . . . as well.”  The Company further disclosed that the earnings restatement had triggered a default on its debt covenants that had forced it to seek a forbearance from lenders.  The release stated that the “steps [being taken were] part of the continued initiative of [Medbox’s] new board of directors and new management team to implement better controls and emphasize transparency.”

On this news, shares in Medbox fell almost 13%, closing at $5.58 per share on December 31, 2014, on high trading volume.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than March 23, 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.