Case Page

 

Case Status:    DISMISSED    
On or around 07/09/2013 (Notice of voluntarily dismissal)

Filing Date: February 19, 2013

According to the Complaint, Netflix is an Internet subscription service that streams TV shows and movies. The Company's subscribers can watch unlimited TV shows and movies, on nearly any Internet-connected screen, and in the United States, subscribers can also receive DVDs delivered to their homes.

The Complaint alleges that Netflix's revenue growth is largely correlated to subscriber growth. Netflix gave a target of 7 million new subscribers for its domestic streaming segment for the year ended 2012.

On July 24, 2012, the Company announced its results for the second quarter 2012. In its letter to Shareholders, defendants touted that the Company had "achieved financial performance in the top half of . . guidance in nearly every metric, and . . . returned to profitability." What was disconcerting to investors, however, was that the Company had only 530,000 net subscription additions for its domestic streaming business, resulting in total domestic streaming subscriptions of 23.94 million. The Company also noted that it may not reach its target of adding 7 million domestic streaming subscribers by the end of the year. On this news, the Company's stock price plummeted from $80.39 on July 24, 2012 to a close of $60.28 per share on July 25, 2012, a 25 percent decrease, on an extremely high volume of 24.8 million shares.

On July 9, 2013, the plaintiff filed a Notice voluntarily dismissing this case without prejudice.

COMPANY INFORMATION:

Sector: Services
Industry: Broadcasting & Cable TV
Headquarters: United States

SECURITIES INFORMATION:

Ticker Symbol: NFLX
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: N.D. California
DOCKET #: 13-CV-00712
JUDGE: Hon. Edward M. Chen
DATE FILED: 02/19/2013
CLASS PERIOD START: 07/03/2012
CLASS PERIOD END: 07/24/2012
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Rosenfarb Law Firm
    825 3rd Ave, 4th Floor , Rosenfarb Law Firm, NY 10022
    (855) 415-5455 ·
No Document Title Filing Date