Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP (“Robbins Geller”) ( http://www.rgrdlaw.com/cases/verisigninc/) today announced that a class action has been commenced in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia on behalf of all persons or entities who purchased the common stock of VeriSign, Inc. (“VeriSign” or the “Company”) (NASDAQ:VRSN) between June 25, 2012 and October 25, 2012 (the “Class Period”).
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, Samuel H. Rudman or David A. Rosenfeld of Robbins Geller at 800/449-4900 or 619/231-1058, or via e-mail at firstname.lastname@example.org. 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/verisigninc/. 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 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.