Rigrodsky & Long, P.A. Files Securities Fraud Class Action Against Focus Media Holding Limited

Rigrodsky & Long, P.A. announces that it has filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired the American Depository Receipts (“ADRs”) of Focus Media Holding Limited (“Focus Media” or the “Company”) (Nasdaq: FMCN) between September 25, 2007 and November 21, 2011, inclusive (the “Class Period”), alleging violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Complaint”). The case is entitled Palny v. Focus Media Holding Limited, C.A. No. 11-CV-9051-CM (S.D.N.Y.). The Complaint names Focus Media and certain of its officers and directors as defendants.

If you wish to view a copy of the Complaint, 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 info@rigrodskylong.com, or at: http://www.rigrodskylong.com/news/focus-media-holding.

Focus Media is a multi-platform digital media company and operates a liquid crystal display (LCD) network using audiovisual digital displays in China.

During the Class Period the Company reported that it had engaged in several acquisitions, including that of Framedia, Target Media, Focus Media Wireless, Allyes, CGEN and other smaller acquisitions. As alleged more fully in the Complaint, in a research report dated November 21, 2011 (the “Research Report”), Muddy Waters, LLC (“Muddy Waters”) reported that that Focus Media deliberately overpaid for these acquisitions, writing down $1.1 billion out of $1.6 billion in acquisitions since 2005 (such write-downs being equivalent to one-third of the Company’s present enterprise value). Muddy Waters disclosed that by November 2011, Focus Media had written at least 21 of its acquisitions down to zero and then given them away for no consideration. Muddy Waters reported that many of these write-downs were not justified, and it was possible that the Company gave these acquisitions away to conceal losses from its outside auditors. In addition, Muddy Waters disclosed that certain Focus Media insiders, including Defendant Jiang, had used the Company as their counterparty in trading in and out of Allyes, earning a total of at least $70.1 million, while the Company’s shareholders ultimately lost $159.6 million. The Complaint alleges that defendants deliberately overpaid for these acquisitions, all but ensuring that Focus Media would incur costs, including those relating to intangibles or goodwill, in excess of its projected costs for these transactions.

In addition, the Complaint alleges that defendants materially overstated that the majority of displays on the Company’s LCD display network were placed in “heavy-traffic areas of commercial office buildings,” when, in fact, only approximately 30% of the displays are in commercial buildings. According to the Research Report, “In Tier I cities, only approximately 45% of [the Company’s] screens are in office buildings. In Tier II cities, only approximately 30% of screens are in office buildings. The balance of screens is substantially all in residential buildings. Residential buildings are inherently less valuable to advertisers than are office buildings.”

Following the issuance of the Research Report, the price of Focus Media ADRs dropped precipitously from a close of $25.50 per ADR on November 18, 2011 (the last full trading day prior to the issuance of the Research Report), to a close of $15.43 per ADR on November 21, 2011, the day that the Research Report was issued, a drop of approximately 40%.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than sixty (60) days from today. 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.

Rigrodsky & Long, P.A., 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.

Copyright Business Wire 2010

More from Press Releases

NFL Pushes for Regulation Following Supreme Court's Sports Gambling Ruling

NFL Pushes for Regulation Following Supreme Court's Sports Gambling Ruling

21st Century Fox Scoops Up Local News Stations

21st Century Fox Scoops Up Local News Stations

Walmart CEO: 'We Are Transforming Globally' With Flipkart

Walmart CEO: 'We Are Transforming Globally' With Flipkart

Three-Part FREE Webinar Series

Three-Part FREE Webinar Series

March 24 Full-Day Course Offering: Professional Approach to Trading SPX

March 24 Full-Day Course Offering: Professional Approach to Trading SPX