Rigrodsky & Long, P.A. Announces A Securities Fraud Class Action Lawsuit Has Been Filed On Behalf Of Shareholders of Valence Technology, Inc.

WILMINGTON, Del.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Rigrodsky & Long, P.A. announces that a complaint has been filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of all persons or entities that purchased the securities of Valence Technology, Inc. (“Valence” or the “Company”) (OTC QB: VLNCQ) between August 3, 2011 and July 12, 2012, inclusive, (the “Class Period”), alleging violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against certain of the Company’s officers (the “Complaint”).

“filed a voluntary petition for a chapter 11 business reorganization in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of Texas.”

If you purchased shares of Valence during the Class Period, 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 [phone], by e-mail to [e-mail], or at: http://www.rigrodskylong.com/investigations/valence-technology-inc-vlncq.

Valence, a Delaware corporation headquartered in Austin, Texas, develops, manufactures and sells advanced energy storage systems utilizing their proprietary phosphate-based lithium-ion technology. The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company’s business operations, financial condition and prospects. Specifically, the Complaint alleges that the defendants knew, but concealed from the investing public: (1) that the Company’s Chairman of the Board, Carl E. Berg (“Berg”), would no longer pump money into the Company and save it from its debts; (2) that Valence was not going to raise capital by selling equity; (3) that Valence was not finding any favorable financing opportunities; and (4) that as a result of the foregoing, the Company was headed for bankruptcy and would not survive as a going concern. As a result of defendants’ false and misleading statements, the Company’s stock traded at artificially inflated prices during the Class Period.

According to the Complaint, since its inception in 1989, Valence has not achieved profitable operations and, thus, has financed its operating activities primarily through the sale of equity securities and the issuance of debt. Most importantly, the Company relied on Berg, who has pumped more than $100 million into Valence over the years and owns a substantial amount of its debt. By July 2012, the end of the Class Period, the Company owed Berg and his companies $69.1 million in loans.

Notwithstanding Berg’s tremendous financial backing for the Company, Valence still could not keep up with its debts and Berg grew tired of supporting a business that was not performing. Despite all this, the Defendants consistently misled investors about the Company’s business health and future prospects by evading inquiries concerning Valence’s liquidity and assuring the market of the Company’s available alternatives for raising capital. Adding to this all, the Company was facing a $3 million loan payment by July 3, 2012 and did not have enough cash to meet its outstanding obligations.

On July 12, 2012, nine days after the Company’s loan payment was due, Valence issued a press release disclosing to investors that the Company “filed a voluntary petition for a chapter 11 business reorganization in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of Texas.” On this news, shares in Valence declined over 92%, from a close of $0.65 per share on July 12, 2012 to $0.05 per share on July 16, 2012, on volume of over 31 million shares.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than November 12, 2012. 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.