"The World Wrestling Entm’t securities class action lawsuit charges WWE and certain of its senior executives with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. WWE is an integrated media and entertainment company primarily known for its scripted professional wrestling shows. In recent years, WWE has entered into important strategic relationships with the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, including a multi-year television distribution rights agreement with the Orbit Showcase Network (“OSN”), a Saudi-controlled direct broadcast satellite provider, and a 10-year partnership with the Saudi General Sports Authority to host live events in Saudi Arabia."
The complaint filed in this class action alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company’s business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to investors: (1) that they were experiencing rising tension with the Saudi government and a breakdown in negotiations over a renewed broadcasting distribution deal; (2) that the Saudi government and its affiliates had failed to make millions of dollars in payments owed to WWE pursuant to existing contractual commitments between the parties, including at least $60 million owed in connection with the June 2019 Super ShowDown event; (3) that the Orbit Showcase Network (“OSN”) had terminated the broadcast of WWE programming in the first quarter of 2019 despite a contractual obligation to continue such broadcasts and this cancellation was symptomatic of a deterioration in the business relationship between the parties; (4) that the OSN had rebuffed efforts to renew a distribution rights agreement on terms acceptable to WWE, and such renewal was unlikely to occur in 2019, if ever; (5) that WWE did not have the ability to expand its operations in the Middle East or within Saudi Arabia as had been represented to investors; (6) that the OSN had refused to restart the broadcast of WWE programming despite a contractual obligation to continue such broadcasts; and (7) as a result, Defendants’ public statements were materially false and/or misleading at all relevant times.