Case Page

 

Case Status:    DISMISSED    
On or around 02/21/2003 (Other)

Filing Date: March 28, 2000

According to the Company’s FORM 10-K For The Fiscal Year Ended December 31, 2002, the Company filed a motion to dismiss this complaint and, on March 28, 2001, the suit was dismissed with prejudice. On April 25, 2001, plaintiffs appealed the decision to dismiss the suit to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. On January 28, 2003, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the dismissal of this action in its entirety.

The original Complaint alleges that Ilife, certain of its officers and directors, ING Baring Furman Selz LLC, Warburg Dillon Read LLC, and KPMG LLP violated section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933 and that certain defendants violated section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. In particular, it is alleged, among other things, that the Registration Statement and Prospectus were materially false and misleading because it failed to disclose the massive loss for the March 1999 quarter, even though that quarter had ended 43 days before the Offering, it misrepresented the true financial condition of the Company as of the effective date, it misrepresented the use of proceeds of the Offering, and it failed to disclose the stockholder deficit as of the effective date of the Offering. The Complaint alleges that as a result of these material misstatements and omissions, Ilife's stock price was artificially inflated throughout the Class Period.

COMPANY INFORMATION:

Sector: Technology
Industry: Computer Services
Headquarters: United States

SECURITIES INFORMATION:

Ticker Symbol: ILIF
Company Market: NASDAQ
Market Status: Public (Listed)

About the Company & Securities Data


"Company" information provides the industry and sector classification and headquarters state for the primary company-defendant in the litigation. In general, "Securities" information provides the ticker symbol, market, and market status for the underlying securities at issue in the litigation.

In most cases, the primary company-defendant actually issued the securities that are the subject of the litigation, and the securities information and company information relate to the same entity. In a small subset of cases, however, the primary company-defendant is not the issuer (for example, cases against third party brokers/dealers), and the securities information and company information do not relate to the same entity.
COURT: S.D. New York
DOCKET #: 00-CV-02337
JUDGE: Hon. William H. Pauley III
DATE FILED: 03/28/2000
CLASS PERIOD START: 05/13/1999
CLASS PERIOD END: 03/27/2000
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Leo W. Desmond
    2161 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard, Suite 204, Leo W. Desmond, FL 33409
    561.712.8000 561.712.8000 · stocklaw@bellsouth.net
  2. Rabin & Peckel LLP
    275 Madison Avenue, 34th Floor, Rabin & Peckel LLP, NY 10016
    212.682.1818 212.682.1892 · email@rabinlaw.com
No Document Title Filing Date
COURT: S.D. New York
DOCKET #: 00-CV-02337
JUDGE: Hon. William H. Pauley III
DATE FILED: 06/15/2000
CLASS PERIOD START: 05/13/1999
CLASS PERIOD END: 03/27/2000
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Murray, Frank & Sailer LLP
    275 Madison Ave 34th Flr, Murray, Frank & Sailer LLP, NY 10016
    212.682.1818 212.682.1892 · email@murrayfrank.com
  2. Rabin & Peckel LLP
    275 Madison Avenue, 34th Floor, Rabin & Peckel LLP, NY 10016
    212.682.1818 212.682.1892 · email@rabinlaw.com
No Document Title Filing Date