This securities class action lawsuit alleges that Starz failed to disclose several material facts with regard to the business and prospects of the company during the relevant period concerning allegedly illicit practices committed by its officers. As a result, the stock traded at artificially inflated prices, eventually causing the plaintiff to suffer losses once the true facts about the company became apparent.
What investors are part of this class action? The class period is currently defined as all persons and entities who purchased or otherwise acquired the securities of Starz from August 1, 2014 to October 29, 2015, inclusive (the "Class Period"). Starz common stock trades on the NASDAQ under the ticker symbol "STRZA" and "STRZB."
Procedural status: This lawsuit was filed on November 9, 2015 and is captioned Bolduc v. Starz, et al. It was filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. The lead plaintiff deadline is January 8, 2016.
Defendant Starz operates as a media and entertainment company and is a Delaware corporation headquartered in Englewood with an office in Beverly Hills, California. The company provides integrated global media and entertainment through premium subscription video programming distributed through cable operators, satellite television providers and telecommunications companies. The company also develops, produces and acquires entertainment content and distributes this content to consumers in the U.S. and throughout the world.
The plaintiff in this action acquired Starz securities at artificially inflated prices during the Class Period and was damaged upon the revelation key facts that were previously undisclosed contrary to law. It is alleged that the company filed a series of quarterly reports in which it was certified that all disclosure controls and procedures were made in accordance with the rules promulgated by the Securities and Exchange Commission. Similar statements were filed throughout the relevant period, concluding that no changes in the company's internal controls over financial reporting ever occurred which would have materially affected the same.
This occurred, according to the plaintiff, despite the fact that all of these statements were materially false and misleading because they did not disclose that:
Knowledge of these violations became public when, on October 29, 2015, online magazine Deadline Hollywood revealed that the company's former Senior VP of Sales and Affiliate Marketing filed a lawsuit against the company alleging that the contract with Comcast was the product of illicit business practices committed by corporate officers, that the plaintiff in that case had been ordered by senior management to fabricate revenue and subscriber information to be presented to the board and that the company had retaliated against him for refusing those orders.
Upon these revelations, the plaintiff in this action asserts that shares of STRZA fell $3.69 per share, or over 9% from its previous closing price, and shares of STRZB fell $4.98 per share, or over 13%, causing significant damage to investors. For these reasons, plaintiff seeks on behalf of himself and all other class members, damages resulting from defendants' actions, pre- and post-judgment interest, reasonable attorney fees and costs associated with bringing this action.
This case is in the notice period. When a shareholder brings suit under certain federal securities laws, generally that shareholder must give notice via a press release. This notice starts a sixty-day period of time when any shareholder can investigate the underlying claims of the lawsuit and then elect to bring suit as well. At the end of this sixty-day period, the court appoints one shareholder (or a group of shareholders) to prosecute the securities litigation. We will continue to review the docket and update this page as warranted.