Rigrodsky & Long, P.A. Announces A Securities Fraud Class Action Lawsuit Has Been Filed Against Net 1 UEPS Technologies, Inc.

Rigrodsky & Long, P.A.:

• Do you, or did you, own shares of Net 1 UEPS Technologies, Inc. (NASDAQ GS: UEPS)?
• Did you purchase your shares before August 27, 2009, or between August 27, 2009 and November 27, 2013, inclusive?
• Did you lose money in your investment in Net 1 UEPS Technologies, Inc.?
• Do you want to discuss your rights?

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 Southern District of New York on behalf of all persons or entities that purchased the common stock of Net 1 UEPS Technologies, Inc. (“Net 1” or the “Company”) (NASDAQ GS: UEPS) between August 27, 2009 and November 27, 2013, 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 Net 1 during the Class Period, or purchased shares prior to the Class Period and still hold Net 1, 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/net-1-ueps-technologies-inc-ueps.

Net 1 is a leading provider of payment solutions and transaction processing services across multiple industries and in a number of emerging economies. 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: (i) the Company’s practices to secure contracts in South Africa were in violation of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (“FCPA”); and (ii) as a result of the above, the Company’s financial statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. 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, on December 4, 2012, the Company disclosed that it was under investigation by the U.S. Department of Justice, Criminal Division and the Division of the Enforcement of the Securities and Exchange Commission to determine whether the Company has “violated provisions of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act and other U.S. federal criminal laws by engaging in a scheme to make corrupt payments to officials of the Government of South Africa in connection with securing a contract with [the] South African Social Security Agency (“SASSA”) to provide social welfare and benefits payments.”

Then, on November 29, 2013, the Company announced that the South African Constitutional Court ruled that the tender process followed by the SASSA in awarding a contract to Net 1’s wholly owned subsidiary Cash Paymaster Services (Proprietary) Limited (“CPS”) was constitutionally invalid.

On this news, shares in Net 1 dropped more than 28%, closing at $8.19 per share on November 29, 2013, on unusually heavy trading volume.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than February 24, 2014. 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.

Rigrodsky & Long, P.A.Timothy J. MacFall, EsquirePeter Allocco888-969-4242516-683-3516Fax: [e-mail]://www.rigrodskylong.com