On August 20, 2010, SearchMedia announced that the historical financial statements of SMIL for the 2007 and 2008 fiscal years would have to be restated and that the financial statements from these periods can no longer be relied upon. SearchMedia informed investors that it estimated that SMIL’s revenue in 2007 and 2008 had been overstated by approximately $6 million and $25 million, respectively.On this news, SearchMedia’s stock fell $0.78 per share, or nearly 23%, to close on August 20, 2010, at $2.62 per share on unusually heavy trading volume, and further declined an additional $0.92 per share, more than 35%, to close on August 23, 2010, at $1.70 per share, again on unusually heavy trading volume. Over the course of these two days of trading, SearchMedia’s stock declined a combined $1.70 per share, or 50%, from the closing price of $3.40 per share on August 19, 2010. Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of class members and is represented by Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP, a law firm with significant experience in prosecuting class actions, and substantial expertise in actions involving corporate fraud. If you are a member of the class described above, you may move the Court, no later than November 15, 2010, to serve as lead plaintiff, however, you meet certain legal requirements. If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions concerning this Notice or your rights or interests with respect to these matters, please contact Michael Goldberg, Esquire, of Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP, 1801 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 311, Los Angeles, California 90067, by telephone at (310) 201-9150 or Toll Free at (888) 773-9224, by e-mail to firstname.lastname@example.org , or visit our website at http://www.glancylaw.com.
Please replace the release dated September 14, 2010 with the following corrected version due to multiple revisions. The corrected release reads: GLANCY BINKOW & GOLDBERG LLP, REPRESENTING INVESTORS WHO PURCHASED SEARCHMEDIA HOLDINGS LIMITED (F/K/A IDEATION ACQUISITION CORP.) ANNOUNCES CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT AND SEEKS TO RECOVER LOSSES Notice is hereby given that Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP has filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Central District of California on behalf of a class consisting of all persons or entities who purchased the securities of SearchMedia Holdings Limited (formerly, Ideation Acquisition Corp.) (“SearchMedia” or “Ideation” or the “Company”) (NYSE AMEX: IDI), between April 1, 2009, and August 20, 2010, inclusive (the “Class Period”). The action is brought on behalf of all purchasers of the Company’s securities – including but not limited to purchasers of SearchMedia common stock – during the foregoing Class Period. A copy of the Complaint is available from the court or from Glancy Binkow Goldberg LLP. Please contact us by phone to discuss this action or to obtain a copy of the Complaint at (313) 201-9150 or Toll Free at (888) 773-9224, by email at email@example.com, or visit our website at http://www.glancylaw.com. The Complaint charges certain of the Company’s current and former executive officers and directors with violations of federal securities laws. Ideation was a blank-check company formed for the purpose of acquiring, through a merger, capital stock exchange, asset acquisition or other similar business combination, one or more businesses. On April 1, 2009, the Company announced an agreement to purchase SearchMedia International Limited ("SMIL"), a purported nationwide multi-platform media company in China. On October 30, 2009, Ideation completed the acquisition of SMIL (the “Merger”) and changed its name to SearchMedia. The Complaint relates to material misstatements and/or omissions in the joint proxy statement and prospectus (the "Proxy/Prospectus") issued in connection with the Merger, as well as other public statements issued during the Class Period related to the Merger and SMIL. The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period defendants knew or recklessly disregarded that their public statements concerning SearchMedia and SMIL’s business, operations and prospects were materially false and misleading. Specifically, defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose: (1) that SMIL was improperly recognizing revenue; (2) that certain of SMIL’s accounts receivable related to sales generated primarily in the in-elevator business were uncollectible, (3) that, as a result, SMIL’s financial results were overstated; (4) that SMIL’s financial results were not prepared in accordance with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles; (5) that SMIL lacked adequate internal and financial controls; and (6) as a result of the above, SMIL’s financial statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.