|
|
|
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP Files Class Action
Securities Class Action |
2012/01/16 09:37
|
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP today announced that a class action has been commenced on behalf of an institutional investor in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on behalf of purchasers of Netflix, Inc. common stock during the period between December 20, 2010 and October 24, 2011.
If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than 60 days from today. If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions concerning this notice or your rights or interests, please contact plaintiff’s counsel, Darren Robbins of Robbins Geller at 800-449-4900 or 619-231-1058, or via e-mail at djr@rgrdlaw.com. If you are a member of this class, you can view a copy of the complaint as filed or join this class action online at http://www.rgrdlaw.com/cases/netflix. Any member of the putative 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.
The complaint charges Netflix and certain of its officers and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Netflix is a subscription service that streams television shows and movies over the Internet, and in the United States subscribers can have DVDs delivered to their homes.
The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants issued materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company’s business practices and its contracts with content providers. As a result of defendants’ false statements, Netflix’s stock traded at artificially inflated prices during the Class Period, reaching a high of almost $300 per share on July 13, 2011. While Netflix stock was inflated (partially by Netflix buying back its own stock), Company insiders were selling 388,661 shares of their own Netflix stock for proceeds of $90.2 million.
On September 15, 2011, Netflix updated its third quarter 2011 guidance and revealed that it had lost a million subscribers due to its recently announced price increases becoming effective. On this news, Netflix stock fell nearly $40 per share to close at just under $170 per share. On September 19, 2011, the Company announced that, in an effort to offset skyrocketing costs and rapidly defecting customers, the Company would begin charging separately for its two services and had raised prices as much as 60%. Netflix stock dropped to $130 per share on this news. Then, on October 24, 2011, Netflix issued its third quarter 2011 shareholder letter, which reported a net loss of 810,000 U.S. subscribers, translating into a cumulative loss of 5.5 million subscribers. The subsequently filed Form 10-Q revealed that Netflix’s obligations for content over the coming years had skyrocketed to $3.5 billion, with $2.8 billion due within three years. These disclosures caused Netflix stock to collapse from $118.84 per share on October 24, 2011 to $80.86 per share on October 27, 2011, a 32% decline in three days and a 73% decline from the stock’s Class Period high.
According to the complaint, the true facts, which were known by the defendants but concealed from the investing public during the Class Period, were as follows: (a) Netflix had short-term contracts with content providers and defendants were aware that the Company faced the choice of renegotiating the contracts in 2011 at much higher rates or not renewing them at all; (b) content providers were already demanding much higher license fees, which would dramatically alter Netflix’s business; (c) defendants recognized that Netflix’s pricing would have to dramatically increase to maintain profit margins given the streaming content costs they knew the Company would soon be incurring; and (d) Netflix was not on track to achieve the earnings forecasts made by and for the Company for 2011.
Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers of Netflix common stock during the Class Period (the “Class”). The plaintiff is represented by Robbins Geller, which has expertise in prosecuting investor class actions and extensive experience in actions involving financial fraud.
Robbins Geller, a 180-lawyer firm with offices in San Diego, San Francisco, New York, Boca Raton, Washington, D.C., Philadelphia and Atlanta, is active in major litigations pending in federal and state courts throughout the United States and has taken a leading role in many important actions on behalf of defrauded investors, consumers, and companies, as well as victims of human rights violations. The Robbins Geller Web site (http://www.rgrdlaw.com) has more information about the firm.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ryan & Maniskas, LLP Announces Class Action Lawsuit
Securities Law Firm |
2012/01/16 09:37
|
Ryan & Maniskas, LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed in United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio on behalf of purchasers of Chemed Corporation common stock during the period between February 15, 2010 and November 16, 2011.
The complaint charges alleges that during the Class Period, defendants issued materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company’s business and prospects. Specifically, defendants failed to disclose the following adverse facts: (1) that the Company engaged in a scheme to fraudulently bill Medicare for hospice services for patients who did not qualify for hospice and fraudulently shifted the costs of those patients from health maintenance organizations that covered those patients prior to enrollment in hospice to the U.S. government; (2) that a significant portion of the Company’s hospice enrollments, revenues and earnings were the direct result of defendants’ scheme to enroll ineligible patients in hospice and fraudulently bill Medicare for hospice services; (3) that, in a complaint filed under seal, a former VITAS manager had accused the Company of engaging in a Company-wide scheme to enroll ineligible patients in hospice and fraudulently bill Medicare; (4) that the Company failed to maintain adequate internal controls and procedures with respect to hospice enrollments and Medicare billings; (5) that the Company’s financial results were materially overstated as a result of defendants’ fraudulent scheme to enroll ineligible patients in hospice; and (6) that, as a result of the foregoing, defendants lacked a reasonable basis for their positive statements about the Company and its prospects.
For more information regarding this class action suit, please contact Ryan & Maniskas, LLP toll-free at (877) 316-3218 or by email at rmaniskas@rmclasslaw.com or visit: www.rmclasslaw.com/cases/che.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Perry appeals judge's ruling on Va. primary ballot
Topics in Legal News |
2012/01/16 05:37
|
Texas Gov. Rick Perry on Sunday appealed a federal judge's refusal to add him and three other candidates to Virginia's Republican presidential primary ballot.
In a filing with the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, Perry's attorneys requested that the court order his name be placed on the ballot, or order that ballots not be printed or mailed before his appeal is considered.
Perry sued last month after failing to submit enough signatures to get on the Mach 6 ballot. Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum and former Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman joined Perry's lawsuit after also failing to qualify.
Only former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney and Texas Rep. Ron Paul qualified for the primary ballot.
Virginia requires candidates to obtain the signatures of 10,000 registered voters, including 400 from each of the state's 11 congressional districts, to get on the ballot. State law also allows only Virginia residents to circulate petitions.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
More US Catholics take complaints to church court
Opinions |
2012/01/15 09:38
|
Parents upset by the admission policy at a parochial school. Clergy and parishioners at odds over use of their building. A priest resisting a transfer to another parish.
It was once assumed that disagreements like these in the Roman Catholic Church would end one way: with the highest-ranking cleric getting the last word.
But that outcome is no longer a given as Catholics, emboldened following the clergy abuse scandals that erupted a decade ago this month, have sought another avenue of redress.
In recent years, clergy and lay people in the United States have increasingly turned to the church's internal legal system to challenge a bishop's or pastor's decision about even the most workaday issues in Catholic life, according to canon lawyers in academia, dioceses and in private practice. Sometimes, the challengers even win.
In one example cited by veteran canon lawyers, parishioners wanted to bar musical performances in their church that weren't liturgical. Their priest had been renting space to a local band. In another case, a nun filed a petition after a religious superior disclosed the nun's medical information to others — a potential violation of privacy. Regarding bishops' often contentious decisions to close parishes, the liberal reform group FutureChurch posts a guide on its website called "Canonical Appeals for Dummies" on seeking Vatican intervention to stay open. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ohio taking death penalty case to US Supreme Court
Topics in Legal News |
2012/01/15 09:38
|
Ohio's governor and attorney general said Sunday the state is asking the U.S. Supreme Court for a ruling that Ohio's protocol for carrying out the death penalty is constitutional.
Gov. John Kasich and Attorney General Mike DeWine said in a statement that the state wants the high court to reverse a federal appeals court decision to delay the Wednesday execution of Charles Lorraine.
Lorraine was condemned to death in the 1986 slaying of an elderly Trumbull County couple. But the federal appeals court said Friday his execution should be delayed to review changes Ohio has made in carrying out the death penalty.
Lorraine argued that Ohio broke its promise to adhere strictly to its execution procedures. But the state said that deviations from the procedures during the last execution were minor and that an inmate's rights would not be violated by changes, such as which official announces the start and finish times of an injection. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Investment Fraud Litigation |
|
|
|
|
Securities fraud, also known as stock fraud and investment fraud, is a practice that induces investors to make purchase or sale decisions on the basis of false information, frequently resulting in losses, in violation of the securities laws. Securities Arbitration. Generally speaking, securities fraud consists of deceptive practices in the stock and commodity markets, and occurs when investors are enticed to part with their money based on untrue statements.
|
|
|
| |
| |
| |
|
The content contained on the web site has been prepared by Securities Law News as a service to the internet community and is not intended to constitute legal advice or a substitute for consultation with a licensed legal professional in a particular case. | Affordable Law Firm Website Design by Law Promo |
|
Legal News RSS Feed
