Rigrodsky & Long, P.A. announces that a complaint has been filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia on behalf of all persons or entities that purchased the common stock of VeriSign, Inc. (“VeriSign” or the “Company”) (NASDAQ GS: VRSN) between June 25, 2012 and October 25, 2012 (the “Class Period”), alleging violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against the Company and certain of its officers (the “Complaint”).

If you purchased shares of VeriSign during the Class Period, or purchased shares prior to the Class Period and still hold VeriSign, and wish to discuss this action or have any questions concerning this notice or your rights or interests, please contact Timothy J. MacFall, Esquire or Peter Allocco of Rigrodsky & Long, P.A., 825 East Gate Boulevard, Suite 300, Garden City, NY at (888) 969-4242, by e-mail to info@rigrodskylong.com, or at: http://www.rigrodskylong.com/investigations/verisign-inc-vrsn.

VeriSign is a provider of Internet infrastructure services. By leveraging their global infrastructure, they provide network confidence and availability for mission-critical Internet services, such as domain name registry services and infrastructure assurance services. The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, defendants made materially false and misleading statements, and omitted materially adverse facts, about the Company’s business, operations and prospects. Specifically, the Complaint alleges that: (a) challenges to the Company’s registry pricing scheme that Defendants knew about but concealed from the market 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 which are not updated often or provided little or no content; (e) subpar domain name owners had stopped renewing their agreements with VeriSign as a result of the Internet search engine’s efforts to discourage them by demonetizing their practices; and (f) as a result, Defendants knew VeriSign’s FY 2012 earnings guidance was not attainable. As a result of defendants’ false and misleading statements, the Company’s stock traded at artificially inflated prices during the Class Period.

According to the Complaint, based on Defendants’ bullish statements concerning its ongoing business metrics and the strong forward earnings guidance, including projecting FY 2012 revenues “in the range of $870 million to $880 million, representing an annual growth rate of between 13% and 14%,” VeriSign’s stock traded at inflated prices throughout the Class Period, trading above $50 per share by October 4, 2012. Then, on October 25, 2012, after the close of trading, VeriSign shocked the market by disclosing that the DOJ was reviewing its domain name pricing arrangements and that it was now doubtful that review would be complete in time to allow the U.S. Commerce Department to renew its contract before it expired on November 30, 2012. VeriSign also disclosed that the Company’s 3Q ’12 sales had been negatively impacted by industry efforts to stymie unseemly business practices. As a result, Defendants lowered the Company’s FY 2012 revenue outlook by $5 million, now stating revenue would not exceed $875 million. On this news, shares in VeriSign fell over 15%, closing at $39.39 per share on October 26, 2012, from a close of $46.60 per share on October 25, 2012, on volume of over 23 million shares.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than March 18, 2013. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting 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. Your ability to share in any recovery is not, however, affected by the decision whether or not to serve as a lead plaintiff. Any member of the proposed 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.

While Rigrodsky & Long, P.A. did not file the Complaint in this matter, the firm, with offices in Wilmington, Delaware and Garden City, New York, regularly litigates securities class, derivative and direct actions, shareholder rights litigation and corporate governance litigation, including claims for breach of fiduciary duty and proxy violations in the Delaware Court of Chancery and in state and federal courts throughout the United States.

Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.