WILMINGTON, Del.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Rigrodsky & Long, P.A.:
- Do you, or did you, own shares of LifeLock, Inc. (NYSE: LOCK)?
- Did you purchase your shares between February 26, 2013 and February 19, 2014, inclusive?
- Did you lose money in your investment in LifeLock, Inc.?
- Do you want to discuss your rights?
Rigrodsky & Long, P.A. announces that it has filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of Arizona on behalf of all persons or entities that purchased the securities of LifeLock, Inc. (“LifeLock” or the “Company”) (NYSE: LOCK) between February 26, 2013 and February 19, 2014, inclusive (the “Class Period”), alleging violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against certain of the Company’s officers (the “Complaint”). The case is entitled Scesny v. LifeLock, Inc., Case No. 14-cv-479 (D. Ariz.).
If you purchased shares of LifeLock during the Class Period, 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., 2 Righter Parkway, Suite 120, Wilmington, DE 19803 at (888) 969-4242, by e-mail to firstname.lastname@example.org, or at: http://www.rigrodskylong.com/news/lifelock-inc-lock.
The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company’s business operations, financial condition and prospects. Specifically, the Complaint alleges that the defendants failed to disclose that the Company’s marketing and advertising practices violated applicable government rules and regulations, as well as the terms of the March 2010 Settlement Order (“Settlement Order”), and that the Company’s financial statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. As a result of the foregoing, the Company’s stock traded at artificially inflated prices during the Class Period.
According to the Complaint, in March 2010, the Company and Defendant Todd Davis (“Davis”), the Chairman and Chief Executive Officer (“CEO”) of the Company, entered into the Settlement Order with the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) whereby the Company settled allegations by the FTC that certain of the Company’s advertising and marketing practices constituted deceptive acts or practices in violation of the Federal Trade Commission Act (“FTC Act”). The Settlement Order enjoined the Company and Defendants Davis from deceptive advertising and marketing of its identity theft protection services, including making any misrepresentations of “the means, methods, procedures, effects, effectiveness, coverage, or scope of” our identity theft protection services. Many of the allegations in the FTC complaint, which accompanied the Settlement Order, related to the inherent limitations of using credit report fraud alerts as the foundation for identity theft protection.
Notwithstanding the Settlement Order, the Company allegedly continued its deceptive advertising practices. In its 2013 Form 10-K filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 19, 2014, LifeLock disclosed that it had met with the FTC regarding its compliance with the terms of the Settlement Order, after a whistleblower had discussed certain violations of the Settlement Order with the FTC.
On this news, shares in LifeLock fell $2.29 per share, or nearly 10%, over the course of four trading sessions, closing at $20.00 per share on February 25, 2014.
If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than May 5, 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.
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.