Rigrodsky & Long, P.A. Announces A Securities Fraud Class Action Lawsuit Has
Been Filed Against Netflix, Inc.
WILMINGTON, Del. -- February 25, 2013
Rigrodsky & Long, P.A.
*Do you, or did you, own shares in Netflix, Inc. (NASDAQ GS: NFLX)?
*Did you purchase your shares prior to July 3, 2012, or between July 3,
2012 and July 24, 2012, inclusive?
*Did you lose money in your investment in Netflix, Inc.?
*Do you want to discuss your rights?
Rigrodsky & Long, P.A. 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 Netflix, Inc.
(“Netflix” or the “Company”) (NASDAQ GS: NFLX) between July 3, 2012 and July
24, 2012, 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 Netflix during the Class Period, or purchased
shares prior to the Class Period and still hold Netflix, 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
(888) 969-4242, by e-mail to email@example.com, or at:
Netflix is the world’s largest leading Internet television network with more
than 33 million members in over 40 countries. 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:
(a) the Company would report, in the second quarter of 2012, subscriber growth
significantly lower than analysts’ expectations; and (b) based on the
available data, it would be challenging for the Company to achieve the
projected 7 million new domestic streaming subscribers. 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 July 3, 2012, Netflix Chief Executive Officer,
Reed Hastings, posted on the Company’s public Facebook page that “Netflix
monthly viewing exceeded one billion hours for the first time ever in June.”
That announcement served to affirm Hastings’ statements made during the
Company’s earning call on April 23, 2012 that Netflix was targeting 7 million
new domestic subscribers for the year. The July 3, 2012 posting indicated that
the Company was “continuing to execute on all of the key dimensions” and
“everything was consistent with what [the Company had] been hoping for,”
leading the market to believe that Netflix was on “target for the year” to
achieve the 7 million net additions. On this news, the price of Netflix stock
skyrocketed to $81.72 per share, a 13.4 percent increase, on volume of almost
15 million shares.
However, on July 24, 2012, the Company disclosed its second quarter 2012
results, which revealed that Netflix had only achieved 530,000 net
subscription additions to date. Further, the Company noted that it may not
reach its target of adding 7 million domestic streaming subscribers by the end
of the year. On this news, shares in Netflix fell 25%, closing at $60.28 per
share on July 25, 2012, from a close of $80.39 per share on July 24, 2012, on
volume of over 24 million shares.
If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than
April 22, 2013. 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, Esquire
Press spacebar to pause and continue. Press esc to stop.