Case Page

 

Case Status:    DISMISSED    
On or around 06/25/2013 (Stipulation and order of dismissal (voluntary dismissal))

Filing Date: January 16, 2013

According to the law firm press release, the complaint charges VeriSign and certain of its officers and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. VeriSign provides Internet infrastructure services to various networks worldwide. It offers registry services that operate the authoritative directory of .com, .net, .cc, .tv, and .name domain names, as well as the back-end systems for .gov, .jobs, and .edu domain names.

The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, defendants highlighted the purported strong growth in VeriSign’s domain name registrations and led the market to believe that 2012 third quarter renewals were progressing with equal vigor. Specifically, the complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants issued materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company’s operational status and financial projections, and failed to disclose the following adverse facts: (a) that challenges to the Company’s registry pricing scheme made it more likely than not that the U.S. Department of Justice (“DOJ”) and Department of Commerce would demand price concessions in exchange for leaving VeriSign in charge of operating the .com and .net networks; (b) VeriSign’s growth in domain name registrations was in decline; (c) VeriSign was relying heavily on revenues from “parking” websites and other dubious websites focused on drawing in and monetizing traffic, rather than in providing cogent business leads; (d) defendants knew that Google and other Internet search engines had been tweaking their algorithms to improve the quality of their search results by ranking lower subpar quality websites, such as those that are not updated often or provide little or no content; (e) subpar domain name owners had stopped renewing their agreements with VeriSign as a result of the Internet search engines’ efforts to discourage them by demonetizing their practices; and (f) as a result, defendants knew VeriSign’s fiscal 2012 earnings guidance was not attainable.

On October 25, 2012, after the close of trading, VeriSign issued a press release announcing the Company’s third quarter 2012 financial results. VeriSign shocked the market by disclosing that the DOJ was reviewing its domain name pricing arrangements and that it was doubtful that the review would be completed in time to allow the Commerce Department to renew its contract before it expired on November 30, 2012. On this news, VeriSign’s stock fell precipitously from its October 25, 2012 closing price of $46.60 per share to close below $40 per share on October 26, 2012, falling $7.21 per share, or 15.47%, on extremely high volume.

On April 12, 2013, the Court issued an Order appointing lead plaintiff and approving the selection of lead counsel.

On June 25, 2013, the case was voluntarily dismissed with prejudice.

COMPANY INFORMATION:

Sector: Technology
Industry: Software & Programming
Headquarters: United States

SECURITIES INFORMATION:

Ticker Symbol: VRSN
Company Market: NASDAQ
Market Status: Public (Listed)

About the Company & Securities Data


"Company" information provides the industry and sector classification and headquarters state for the primary company-defendant in the litigation. In general, "Securities" information provides the ticker symbol, market, and market status for the underlying securities at issue in the litigation.

In most cases, the primary company-defendant actually issued the securities that are the subject of the litigation, and the securities information and company information relate to the same entity. In a small subset of cases, however, the primary company-defendant is not the issuer (for example, cases against third party brokers/dealers), and the securities information and company information do not relate to the same entity.
COURT: E.D. Virginia
DOCKET #: 13-CV-00060
JUDGE: Hon. Liam O'Grady
DATE FILED: 01/16/2013
CLASS PERIOD START: 06/25/2012
CLASS PERIOD END: 10/25/2012
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Bottini & Bottini, Inc.
    7817 Ivanhoe Avenue, Suite 102, Bottini & Bottini, Inc., CA 92037
    858.914.2001 858.914.2002 ·
  2. Craig C. Reilly, Esq.
    111 Oronoco Street, Craig C. Reilly, Esq., VA 22314
    703.549.5354 703.549.5354 ·
  3. Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP (Melville)
    58 South Service Road, Suite 200, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP (Melville), NY 11747
    631.367.7100 631.367.1173 ·
No Document Title Filing Date