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.
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.As a result of this news, SearchMedia’s stock plummeted almost 23% to close as $2.62 per share on August 20, 2010. The Company’s stock continued its slide to close at $0.92 per share on August 23, 2010 or approximately another 35% down. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than November 15, 2010. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions concerning this notice or your rights or interests, please contact Timothy J. MacFall, Esquire or Noah R. Wortman, Case Development Director of Rigrodsky & Long, P.A., 919 North Market Street, Suite 980 Wilmington, Delaware, 19801 at (888) 969-4242, by e-mail to firstname.lastname@example.org, or via our website: http://www.rigrodskylong.com/news/SearchMediaHoldingsLimited-IDI. 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.