Scott + Scott, LLC Announces Date to the Filing of Lead Plaintiff in Securities Case Against Netflix, Inc.
27 Juillet 2004 - 4:28AM
PR Newswire (US)
Scott + Scott, LLC Announces Date to the Filing of Lead Plaintiff
in Securities Case Against Netflix, Inc. Scott + Scott, LLC files
complaint against Netflix for alleged securities fraud at
Shareholder Request; Motion for Lead Plaintiff must be submitted 60
days from the July 22, 2004 SAN DIEGO, July 26 /PRNewswire/ --
Scott + Scott, LLC ( or ), a U.S. law firm based in Connecticut
with offices in Ohio and California (http://www.scott-scott.com/ ),
announces that it has filed a complaint in the Northern District of
California against Netflix, Inc. ("Netflix") (NASDAQ:
NFLXNASDAQ:-NASDAQ:News) for alleged acts in violation of U.S.
securities fraud laws. You can contact Scott + Scott, LLC at
800/404-7770 (EDT) or 800/332-2259 (PDT); you can also dial direct
at 860/537-3818 in Connecticut or 619/233-4565 in California. Those
who purchased securities in Netflix can contact the firm to further
discuss this matter. If you would like to move for appointment of
Lead Plaintiff you must do so no later than 60 days from July 22,
2004. Signing a certification with Scott + Scott does not
automatically make you a Lead Plaintiff, to be a Lead Plaintiff you
must meet certain qualifications required by law. Scott + Scott
does not submit a shareholder as a Lead Plaintiff without further
consultation. If you would like more information concerning the
signing of a client certification or the opportunity to serve as a
Lead Plaintiff you may contact Scott + Scott directly or choose any
qualified attorney of your choice. The complaint alleges that,
between October 1, 2003, and July 15, 2004 (the Class Period),
Netflix and its CEO Reed Hastings, CFO Barry McCarthy and Chief
Marketing Officer Leslie Kilgore failed to disclose the number of
subscriber cancellations being suffered by the Company, even as
they repeatedly touted the large number of new subscribers being
added to the Company's subscriber base. The complaint further
alleges that they also consistently understated the Company's churn
rate (the percentage of its subscribers that cancelled per month).
Netflix achieved this by using an improper calculation of the rate
that produced an artificially low churn rate in quarters in which
the Company was adding substantial numbers of new subscribers. The
standard definition of churn rate (and the definition used by other
publicly-traded companies that report churn rate such as Sprint and
Nextel Partners) is "the percentage of participants who discontinue
their use of a service divided by the average number of total
participants during a given period of time." Netflix instead
divided canceling subscribers by subscribers at the beginning of
the period plus subscriber additions. Because beginning subscribers
plus new subscribers were consistently a larger number than average
subscribers throughout the Class Period, the Company reported an
artificially low churn rate throughout the Class Period by erasing
the effect that canceling subscribers had on average subscribers
during each period. Moreover, it is alleged that the Company
repeatedly made statements throughout the Class Period that its
churn rate was declining to "record lows," when in fact in some of
these quarters its churn rate was markedly rising. For example, in
the third quarter of 2003, Netflix claimed that its churn rate had
reached a new record low of 5.2% when in fact its churn rate had
risen from 7% to 7.7% during the quarter. Disclosure of actual
subscriber cancellations and the actual churn rate was critically
important for investors analyzing the Company's prospects and the
potential of its business model. The Company spends approximately
$35 in marketing expense to acquire each new subscriber. Had
investors known that the Company was being forced continuously to
replenish its subscriber base through additional marketing
expenditures; it would have called into question the potential
long-term profitability of the Company and the viability of its
business model. In other words, the Company's artificially low
claimed churn rate obscured the fact that it was not retaining many
subscribers long enough to break even on them. The truth came to
light when, after the market closed on July 15, 2004, the Company
issued an earnings release which, for the first time, disclosed the
number of subscriber cancellations during previous quarters.
Specifically, the press release stated that, while the Company had
added 537,000 new subscribers during the second quarter, it had
suffered 422,000 subscriber cancellation, meaning 72% of the
Company's 583,000 new subscribers in the second quarter of 2004 had
merely replaced subscribers who had cancelled. The release also
showed that 41% of the Company's 760,000 new subscribers in the
second quarter had merely replaced subscribers who had cancelled,
and 71% of the Company's 327,000 new subscribers in the second
quarter of 2003 had merely replaced subscribers who had cancelled.
In response, Netflix shares declined from $32 per share to $20 per
share over the next two days, a decline of 38%. During the Class
Period, the shares had traded as high as $39.77 per share, during
which period Hastings, McCarthy and Kilgore sold approximately $13
million in Netflix shares. Netflix, Inc. is an online movie rental
subscription service in the United States, providing more than 2
million subscribers access to a library of movies, television and
other filmed entertainment titles. For the standard subscription
plan, subscribers can rent as many DVDs as they want, with three
movies out at a time, and keep them for as long as they like. There
are no due dates and no late fees. Subscribers select titles at the
Company's Netflix Website receive them on DVD by first-class mail
and return them to Netflix at their convenience using prepaid
mailers. Netflix also provides information on DVD movies, including
critic reviews, member reviews, online trailers, ratings and
personalized movie recommendations. Scott + Scott, LLC, a
Connecticut-based law firm with offices in Ohio and California, is
a law firm with a national practice and reputation. Scott + Scott
has dedicated itself to client communication and satisfaction. The
firm is currently litigating major securities, antitrust and
employee retirement plan cases throughout the United States and
represents pension funds, charities, foundations, individuals and
other entities worldwide -- in both class and non-class cases.
Please visit our website at http://www.scott-/ scott.com to learn
more about the firm, its practice and other cases. If you wish to
discuss this action with an attorney or have any questions
concerning this notice, your rights or any matter within our
expertise, please contact attorney Neil Rothstein at
nrothstein@scott- scott.com or by calling 1/800- 404-7770 (EDT) or
1/800-332-2259 (PDT). You can dial direct in California at
1/619-233-4565. Scott + Scott, LLC is located at 108 Norwich
Avenue, Colchester, CT 06415; phone: 860/537-3818; fax: 860/537-
4432. This release is issued in accordance with the applicable
federal law of the United States. Other cases recently filed or
under investigation by the firm include Seagate, Commerce Bancorp,
Cardinal Health, KVH Industries, Red Hat, Yukos Oil, Washington
Mutual Inc. and more. DATASOURCE: Scott + Scott, LLC CONTACT: Neil
Rothstein of Scott + Scott, LLC, +1-800-404-7770 (EDT) or
+1-800-332-2259 (PDT), Web site: http://www.scott-scott.com/
Copyright