WILMINGTON, Del.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--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: http://www.rigrodskylong.com/investigations/netflix-inc.
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.