EQS-News: ROSEN, A LEADING AND RANKED FIRM, Encourages Mercury Systems, Inc. Investors to Secure Counsel Before Important Deadline in Securities Class Action - MRCY

WHY ROSEN LAW: We encourage investors to select qualified counsel with a track record of success in leadership roles. Often, firms issuing notices do not have comparable experience, resources or any meaningful peer recognition. Many of these firms do not actually litigate securities class actions, but are merely middlemen that refer clients or partner with law firms that actually litigate the cases. Be wise in selecting counsel. The Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm has achieved the largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese Company. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 4 each year since 2013 and has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. In 2019 alone the firm secured over $438 million for investors. In 2020, founding partner Laurence Rosen was named by law360 as a Titan of Plaintiffs’ Bar. Many of the firm’s attorneys have been recognized by Lawdragon and Super Lawyers.

DETAILS OF THE CASE: According to the lawsuit, defendants made materially false and misleading statements and failed to disclose material adverse facts about Mercury's business and operations. Specifically, defendants failed to disclose that: (1) Mercury’s serial acquiror strategy was not working and Mercury was using improper revenue recognition practices such as changing to long-term contracts to mask deteriorating organic growth; (2) the acquisition would cause Physical Optics Corporation (“POC”) to lose its small business accreditation, which would prevent POC from winning contracts that made up a large portion of its historical business; (3) Mercury had at least twenty programs that were suffering and not performing well; (4) Mercury’s 1MPACT strategic growth initiative to increase margins was not working and was in fact cutting into margins; and (5) as result, Mercury’s statements about its financial performance and its ability to meet its lofty projections were based on false assumptions. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages.