NASDAQ GS
SNDK

SanDisk Corporation

Shareholder Securities Fraud Litigation

Rigrodsky & Long, P.A. Announces A Securities Fraud Class Action Lawsuit Has Been Filed Against SanDisk Corporation (NASDAQ GS: SNDK)

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 SanDisk Corporation (“SanDisk” or the “Company”) (NASDAQ GS: SNDK) between October 16, 2014 and March 25, 2015, 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 SanDisk during the Class Period, or purchased shares prior to the Class Period and still hold SanDisk,  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.

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: (1) the Company was experiencing certain production qualification delays on certain of its key products; (2) the Company was experiencing lower than expected sales of enterprise products; (3) the Company was vulnerable to lower pricing in some areas of the business; and (4) as a result of the foregoing, the Company would be forced to announced drastically lower first quarter revenue estimates compared to prior forecasts, and withdraw 2015 forecasts for the Company’s financial results in their entirety.  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 March 26, 2015, before the market opened, the Company issued a press release announcing that it expects revenue for the fiscal first quarter “to be approximately $1.3 billion, depending on final sell-through results, compared to the previously forecasted revenue range of $1.40 billion to $1.45 billion.”  As the Company disclosed, this reduction in guidance was “primarily due to certain product qualification delays, lower than expected sales of enterprise products and lower pricing in some area of the business.”  Moreover, the Company announced that it expects continued impact to its 2015 financial results from these factors as well as the previously identified supply challenges, and now forecasts 2015 revenue to be lower than the previously forecast.

On this news, shares in SanDisk dropped over 18%, closing at $66.20 per share on March 26, 2015, on heavy trading volume.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than May 29, 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.