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.Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers of VeriSign common stock during the Class Period (the “Class”). The plaintiff is represented by Robbins Geller, which has expertise in prosecuting investor class actions and extensive experience in actions involving financial fraud. Robbins Geller represents U.S. and international institutional investors in contingency-based securities and corporate litigation. With nearly 200 lawyers in nine offices, the firm represents hundreds of public and multi-employer pension funds with combined assets under management in excess of $2 trillion. The firm has obtained many of the largest recoveries and has been ranked number one in the number of shareholder class action recoveries in MSCI’s Top SCAS 50 every year since 2003. According to Cornerstone Research, the firm’s recoveries have averaged 35% above the median for all firms over the past seven years (2005-2011). Please visit http://www.rgrdlaw.com for more information.
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 email@example.com. 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.