Rigrodsky & Long, P.A. announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of California on behalf of all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired the common stock 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”), seeking to pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Complaint”). The Complaint names SearchMedia and certain of the Company’s current and former executive officers and directors as defendants. Ideation was a blank check company organized under the laws of the State of Delaware on June 1, 2007, and 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 alleges that during the Class Period, defendants made materially false and misleading statements, and/or omitted material facts, in the joint proxy statement and prospectus (the “Joint Proxy/Prospectus”) disseminated regarding the Merger, as well as in other public statements issued during the Class Period related to the Merger and SMIL. Additionally, the Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, defendants failed to disclose material adverse facts about SearchMedia’s business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, defendants made materially false and misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) SMIL was improperly recognizing revenue; (2) certain of SMIL’s accounts receivable related to sales generated primarily in the in-elevator business were uncollectible, (3) SMIL’s financial results during the Class Period were materially overstated; (4) SMIL’s financial results were not prepared in accordance with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (“GAAP”); (5) 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.