Case Page

 

Case Status:    DISMISSED    
On or around 08/20/2002 (Date of order of final judgment)

Filing Date: June 05, 2001

According to the docket posted, on October 26, 2001, the Court entered the Order consolidating the related actions, appointing lead plaintiff and approving lead plaintiff’s selection of lead counsel. On November 28, 2001, the plaintiffs filed an Amended Class Action Complaint. In March 2002, the defendants responded by filing motions to dismiss the complaint. On August 15, 2002, the Court entered the Memorandum and Order signed by U.S. District Judge Lawrence M. McKenna granting the motions to dismiss the complaint. Finally, on August 20, 2002, the Court entered Judgment, and the case was closed

The original complaint alleges that the prospectus authored by defendants misrepresented the true state of Streamedia's business at the time of the IPO. Specifically, the complaint alleges that Streamedia did not have any of the Internet broadcasting and other technical capabilities that were described in the prospectus. Furthermore, the complaint alleges that the Streamedia had not developed any programming or content for distribution and did not have any licensees or distributors for its claimed programming at the time of the IPO.

COMPANY INFORMATION:

Sector: Technology
Industry: Computer Services
Headquarters: United States

SECURITIES INFORMATION:

Ticker Symbol: SMIL
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 #: 01-CV-04889
JUDGE: Hon. Lawrence M. McKenna
DATE FILED: 06/05/2001
CLASS PERIOD START: 12/22/1999
CLASS PERIOD END: 06/01/2001
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. P.C. (New York, Former Office)
    275 Madison Avenue, 34th Floor, The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. P.C. (New York, Former Office), NY 10016
    212.686.1060 212.202.3827 · info@rosenlegal.com
No Document Title Filing Date
COURT: S.D. New York
DOCKET #: 01-CV-04889
JUDGE: Hon. Lawrence M. McKenna
DATE FILED: 11/28/2001
CLASS PERIOD START: 12/22/1999
CLASS PERIOD END: 06/01/2001
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. P.C. (New York, Former Office)
    275 Madison Avenue, 34th Floor, The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. P.C. (New York, Former Office), NY 10016
    212.686.1060 212.202.3827 · info@rosenlegal.com
No Document Title Filing Date