Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

SoylentNews is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop. Only 18 submissions in the queue.

Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Action Lawsuit Against Netflix, Inc.

posted by Fnord666 on Monday July 22 2019, @11:59PM   Printer-friendly
from the jump-on-the-bandwagon dept.

An Anonymous Coward writes:

Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces it has filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of the securities of Netflix, Inc. (NFLX) from April 17, 2019 through July 17, 2019, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for Netflix investors under the federal securities laws.

[...] According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Netflix would not be able to gain its expected target number of new subscribers in the second quarter of 2019; (2) Netflix would also lose subscribers from the United States in the second quarter of 2019; and (3) as a result, defendants' public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages.

https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20190722005575/en/

This is in addition to the investigation by the Schall Law Firm. I guess Rosen beat them to the punch.

Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Action Lawsuit Against Netflix, Inc. | Log In/Create an Account | Top | 18 comments | Search Discussion
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

  • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Wednesday July 24 2019, @01:09AM (2 children)

    by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday July 24 2019, @01:09AM (#870553) Journal

    You need to use some common sense. Obviously...

    Obviously the 'common' part that we share between our 'senses' is small.

    As a side note: it may worth checking the side of the "common sense" equation that you have under your control, maybe there is something that you can do about that "People around here have no financial/economic sense it seems" that annoys you.

    Obviously if there were no forced disclosures then people would have a choice between companies that disclose their financials and those that do not.

    Ummm... two points that you missed in your "neat, plausible, and wrong" [wikiquote.org] solution to the problem:

    1. assuming no "forcing", you assert that the people will invest mostly in entities that use disclosure. (I'll let aside that this asserting introduces the implicit assumption of "people - as a population - have memory and do not repeat mistakes" - which assumption is necessary if you require the "survival of people as economic beings").
      If the assertion is true, on long term, the market will naturally slide into a state in which the great majority of players will use disclosure (but no strong guarantees that all will)
      So, even if you are right about 'forcing disclosure is not required', the difference between the existence or non-existence of "forced disclosure" regulation? By using "forcing", the final (dynamic equilibrium) state is the same, only it is achieved sooner.
    2. A thing that your argument ignored is the fact that disclosure is required, by regulation, to be truthful.
      Even with the 'forced truthful disclosure', many players find ways to get around. Examples: Bernie Madoff [wikipedia.org] (bad faith running for 20 years) or muddying the water so that even they don't know the risks [wired.com] (reckless, with the "bad faith" component hard to prove).

      If you regulate the disclosure and impose penalties for abuses, at least you have chances for reparation in case of damages caused by breaking the rules.
      Without the "forced truthful disclosure", there's no chance in hell the people will get something back from the 'predators'.
      The consequence? In the absence of regulation, more players will try abuses - because the potential benefit of "one hit schemes" far outweigh the cost of running such a ruse. Which means a greater proportion of the society wealth is squandered

    Conclusion? Regulated disclosure is not perfect, but better than unregulated disclosure.

    --
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  
    Total Score:   2  

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 24 2019, @12:45PM (1 child)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 24 2019, @12:45PM (#870624)

    Fraud is fraud. There is already a legal system to deal with that. You obviously haven't thought this through the slightest bit.

    • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Wednesday July 24 2019, @10:12PM

      by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday July 24 2019, @10:12PM (#870886) Journal

      There is already a legal system to deal with that.

      Yeap, indeed it is. With too big to fail as one of the outcomes.

      --
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford