Case Page

 

Case Status:    DISMISSED    
On or around 04/20/2016 (Other)

Filing Date: July 25, 2014

According to the law firm press release, the complaint arises out of false and misleading statements regarding the ability of the Company to transform its earning profile through, among other things, the negotiation of a lucrative long-term television deal. The complaint alleges that, during the Class Period, certain of WWE’s officers issued materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company’s ability to command a premium fee in upcoming negotiations to renew its television license agreement. Specifically, defendants caused WWE to issue false and misleading statements in public filings, press releases, and conference calls where they publicized their ability to renew their television license agreement at double the value in upcoming negotiations. These statements downplayed the fact that advertisers pay less to reach WWE viewers than traditional sports or other shows on the USA Network and the negative impact on the television license negotiations resulting from the Company’s launch of its WWE Network.

On May 15, 2014, after the market closed, the Company issued a press release that it had reached a multi-year deal with NBCUniversal Cable Entertainment increasing the value of the U.S. television license agreement by $57 million, or 50%. Upon this announcement, on May 16, 2014, WWE stock dropped over 43%, from $19.93 to close at $11.27.

On November 5, 2014, the Court issued an Order consolidating case and appointing lead plaintiff and lead counsel. Lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint on January 5, 2015.

On March 31, 2016, the Court issued an Order granting Defendants' motion to dismiss. Judgment was entered in favor of defendants, and this case was closed.

COMPANY INFORMATION:

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

SECURITIES INFORMATION:

Ticker Symbol: WWE
Company Market: New York SE
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: D. Connecticut
DOCKET #: 14-CV-01070
JUDGE: Hon. Alvin W. Thompson
DATE FILED: 07/25/2014
CLASS PERIOD START: 10/31/2013
CLASS PERIOD END: 05/16/2014
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Law Offices of Alfred G. Yates
    519 Alleghany Bldg., 429 Forbes Avenue, Law Offices of Alfred G. Yates, PA 15219
    412.391.5164 ·
  2. Robbins Arroyo LLP
    600 B Street, Suite 1900, Robbins Arroyo LLP, CA 92101
    619.525.3990 619.525.3991 ·
  3. Wofsey Rosen Kweskin & Kuriansky LLP
    600 Summer Street, Wofsey Rosen Kweskin & Kuriansky LLP , CT 06901-1490
    203.327.2300 203.967-9273 · info@wrkk.com
No Document Title Filing Date
COURT: D. Connecticut
DOCKET #: 14-CV-01070
JUDGE: Hon. Alvin W. Thompson
DATE FILED: 01/05/2015
CLASS PERIOD START: 10/31/2013
CLASS PERIOD END: 05/16/2014
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Brower Piven (New York)
    488 Madison Avenue. Eighth Floor, Brower Piven (New York), NY 10022
    212.501.9000 212.501.0300 · info@browerpiven.com
  2. Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC (Former New York)
    12 East 41st St. 12th Floor, Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC (Former New York), NY 10017
    212.696.3730 212.696.3730 ·
  3. Rome McGuigan, P.C.
    One State Street, 13th Floor , Rome McGuigan, P.C. , CT 06103
    860.549.1000 860.724.3921 ·
No Document Title Filing Date