cases

LifeLock, Inc. (NYSE: LOCK)

Ryan & Maniskas, LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed in the United States District Court for the District of Arizona on behalf of purchasers of common stock of LifeLock, Inc. (NYSE: LOCK) during the period from February 26, 2013 through and including February 19, 2014 (the "Class Period").

Join the class action

Ryan & Maniskas, LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed in the United States District Court for the District of Arizona on behalf of purchasers of common stock of LifeLock, Inc. (“LifeLock” or the “Company”) (NYSE: LOCK) during the period from February 26, 2013 through and including February 19, 2014 (the "Class Period").

If you purchased shares of LifeLock and would like to learn more about these claims or if you wish to discuss these matters and have any questions concerning this announcement or your rights, contact Richard A. Maniskas, Esquire toll-free at (877) 316-3218 or to sign up online, visit: www.rmclasslaw.com/cases/lock. You may also email Mr. Maniskas at rmaniskas@rmclasslaw.com.

LifeLock is a provider of proactive identity theft protection, providing its services to consumers and enterprises. On March 8, 2010, the Federal Trade Commission ("FTC") filed a complaint against the Company and Defendant Todd Davis, alleging amongst other things, that the Company issued dramatically misleading advertisements and guarantees to customers regarding its identity theft protection services. Specifically, the March 8 Complaint alleged that the Company's aggressive advertising campaigns misled investors into believing that the Company provided certain services and benefits which in fact were not provided. The FTC further alleged that the Company misled consumers to believe that LifeLock's protection services, "provided complete protection against all forms of identity theft by making customers' personal information useless to identity thieves." In fact, the Company provided no real protection against identity theft.

As a result of its fraudulent advertising practices, in March 2010, the Company and Defendant Todd Davis entered into an settlement order (the, "Settlement Order") with the FTC whereby the Company settled allegations by the FTC that certain of the Company's advertising and marketing practices constituted deceptive acts or practices in violation of the FTC Act. The Settlement Order prohibited the Company from continuing to engage in these deceptive marketing practices.

The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period Defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business, operational and compliance policies. Specifically, defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose: (1) the Company's marketing and advertising practices were in direct violation of applicable government rules and regulations; (2) the Company was in direct violation of the Settlement Order; (3) the Company's revenues were earned through violations of the FTC Act and the Settlement Order; and (4) as a result of the above, the Company's financial statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

On February 19, 2014, the Company announced that it had met with the FTC regarding its alleged non-compliance with the terms of the Settlement Order, after a whistleblower had discussed certain violations with the FTC. This announcement, which was not Filed in a Form 8-K or other press release by the Company, was first picked up by the market on Sunday, February 23, 2014, when a short seller from Seeking Alpha published an article entitled: "Lifelock: Pending FTC Investigation Revealed in 10-K". On this news, the Company's shares fell more than $1.47 per share to $20.32, or over 6.00%, on February 24, 2014.

If you are a member of the class, you may, no later than May 5, 2014, request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff of the class. A lead plaintiff is a representative party that acts on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. In order to be appointed lead plaintiff, the Court must determine that the class member's claim is typical of the claims of other class members, and that the class member will adequately represent the class. Under certain circumstances, one or more class members may together serve as "lead plaintiff." Your ability to share in any recovery is not, however, affected by the decision whether or not to serve as a lead plaintiff. You may retain Ryan & Maniskas, LLP or other counsel of your choice, to serve as your counsel in this action.