Netflix Renews Call for Dismissal of Securities Laws Violation Claim
A class-action complaint alleging Netflix hid the negative effects of its May 2014 subscription price hike from investors didn't show the company's subsequent public statements about the increase were false or demonstrated it acted with scienter, Netflix said in a…
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Export Compliance Daily combines U.S. export control news, foreign border import regulation and policy developments into a single daily information service that reliably informs its trade professional readers about important current issues affecting their operations.
docket 17-cv-1070 reply (in Pacer) Wednesday in support of its motion to dismiss. The filing with the U.S. District Court of the Northern District of California in Oakland, also said since no amendment can cure the untimeliness of the action, coming more than two years after the facts on which the complaint rests were publicly known, it should be dismissed with prejudice. Plaintiff James Ziolkowski, in his original complaint (in Pacer) alleging violations of the Securities Exchange Act and of SEC rules, argued that when the price hike's effects on subscriber growth became public in October 2014, he and other investors "suffered enormous investment losses" due the 19 percent decrease in share value. Plaintiffs' counsel didn't comment Thursday.