N@N

WILMINGTON, Del.--([ BUSINESS WIRE ])--[ Rigrodsky & Long, P.A. ] announces that it has filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired the common stock of IntraLinks Holdings, Inc. (aIntraLinksa or the aCompanya) (NYSE: [ IL ]) between February 17, 2011 and November 10, 2011, inclusive (the aClass Perioda), alleging violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the aComplainta). The case is entitled Thaler v. IntraLinks Holdings, Inc., C.A. No. 11-CV-9528 (S.D.N.Y.). The Complaint names IntraLinks and certain of its officers and directors as defendants.

If you wish to view a copy of the Complaint, discuss this action, or have any questions concerning this notice or your rights or interests, please contact [ Timothy J. MacFall, Esquire ] or [ Noah R. Wortman, Case Development Director ] of Rigrodsky & Long, P.A., 919 North Market Street, Suite 980 Wilmington, Delaware, 19801 at (888) 969-4242, by e-mail to [ info@rigrodskylong.com ], or at: [ http://www.rigrodskylong.com/news/intralinks-il ].

IntraLinks, together with its subsidiaries, provides software-as-a-service (SaaS) solutions for securely managing content, exchanging critical business information, and collaborating within and among organizations worldwide.

The Complaint asserts that during the Class Period, defendants knew, or recklessly disregarded, that the positive statements concerning the Companyas business prospects, as well as the full year guidance provided by Defendants on February 17, 2011, were materially false and misleading because by end of the first quarter of 2011 a large Enterprise customer informed the Company that it was dramatically reducing its use of IntraLinksa products going forward and that the Company would have to reducing its earnings expectations as a result. Despite their knowledge of the foregoing, however, defendants failed to disclose that their positive statements about the Companyas business prospects, or the financial guidance issued in February 2011, were no longer accurate in light of the reduced use of the Companyas products by the large Enterprise customer.

In addition, IntraLinksa April 7, 2010 Prospectus for its Secondary Offering was materially false and misleading because defendants knew, or recklessly disregarded, and failed to disclose that IntraLinksa business was being adversely affected by the large Enterprise customeras decision to reduce use of the Companyas products.

On May 11, 2011, IntraLinks issued a press release announcing financial results for the first quarter of 2011. The press release also contained an updated business outlook, reducing the Companyas Full Year 2011 income projection to $17 to $19 million, from $21 to $23 million as previously reported in February 2011.

On that same day, the Company held an analystsa conference call. On that call, Defendants revealed that a large Enterprise customer was dramatically reducing its use of IntraLinksa products, causing the Company to reduce its earnings guidance. Moreover, Defendant Andrew Damico (aDamicoa), the Companyas President and Chief Executive Officer, admitted that Defendants were aware of the foregoing by the end of the first quarter. Damico stated that the Company had met with the Enterprise customer at that time and was informed that the customer would be reducing usage for the remainder of the year.

The price of IntraLinksa common stock declined sharply, from a close of $29.99 per share on May 10, 2011 (the day before the disclosures), to a close of $20.22 per share on May 11, 2011 (the day of the disclosures), on extremely heavy trading volume.

On August 10, 2011, IntraLinks issued a press release announcing its financial results for the period ending June 30, 2011. In that release, the Company reported second quarter 2011 revenues and earnings in line with its guidance, but reduced guidance for the third quarter of 2011. O that same date, IntraLinks held an analystsa conference call. During the call, Defendants revealed that the Company had received a subpoena from the SEC seeking documents from January 1, 2011 to the present.

As a consequence of these additional disclosures, the price of IntraLinksa common stock declined from a close of $12.16 per share on August 9, 2011 (the day before the disclosures), to a close of $6.64 per share on August 10, 2011 (the day of the disclosures), on extremely heavy trading volume.

On November 8, 2011, IntraLinks issued a press release announcing its financial results for the period ending September 30, 2011. For the third quarter 2011, the Company reported total revenue of $54.8 million. The Company also reported continuing problems in its Enterprise business segment.

In response to this announcement, the price of IntraLinks common stock declined from a close $8.79 per share on November 8, 2011 (the day of the announcement), to a close of $4.80 per share on November 10, 2011 (two days after the announcement).

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than February 4, 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 memberas 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.

[ Rigrodsky & Long, P.A. ], 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.