Case Page

 

Case Status:    SETTLED
On or around 10/06/2009 (Date of order of final judgment)

Filing Date: July 20, 2001

According to the Company’s FORM 10-Q For the Quarterly Period Ended June 30, 2006, on September 1, 2005, the Court preliminarily approved the proposed settlement, directed that notice of the terms of the proposed settlement be provided to class members, and scheduled a fairness hearing. On April 24, 2006, the Court held a fairness hearing in connection with the motion for final approval of the proposed settlement at which objections to the proposed settlement were heard. The Court did not issue a ruling at the fairness hearing. The settlement remains subject to a number of conditions, including final approval of the Court.

As summarized by the same SEC filing, the Company is a defendant in certain purported class action lawsuits filed byindividual shareholders in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against certain of its former officers and directors, and various of the underwriters in the Company’s initial public offering ("IPO") and secondary offering. On or about October 8, 2002, the Court entered an Order dismissing the claims asserted against certain individual defendants in the consolidated actions without any payment from these individuals or the Company. On or about February 19, 2003, the Court entered an Order dismissing with prejudice the claims asserted against the Company under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. As a result, the only claims that remain against the Company are those arising under Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended. The parties have negotiated and executed a definitive settlement agreement. The proposed settlement provides that the class members in the class action cases brought against the participating issuer defendants will be guaranteed a recovery of $1 billion by insurers of the participating issuer defendants. If recoveries totaling $1 billion or more are obtained by the class members from the underwriter defendants, however, the monetary obligations to the class members under the proposed settlement will be satisfied. In addition, the Company and any other participating issuer defendants will be required to assign to the class members certain claims that they may have against the underwriters of their IPO's. The proposed settlement contemplates that any amounts necessary to fund the settlement or settlement-related expenses would come from participating issuers' directors and officers liability insurance policy proceeds as opposed to funds of the participating issuer defendants themselves. A participating issuer defendant could be required to contribute to the costs of the settlement if that issuer's insurance coverage were insufficient to pay that issuer's allocable share of the settlement costs. If ultimately approved by the Court, the proposed settlement would result in the dismissal, with prejudice, of all claims in the litigation against the Company and all of the other issuer defendants who have elected to participate in the proposed settlement, together with the current or former officers and directors of participating issuers who were named as individual defendants. The proposed settlement does not provide for the resolution of any claims against the underwriter defendants, and the litigation as against those defendants is continuing. Consummation of the proposed settlement remains conditioned upon obtaining approval by the Court.

The complaint charges defendants with violations of the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 for issuing a Registration Statement and Prospectus (the "Prospectus") that contained materially false and misleading information and failed to disclose material information. The complaint alleges that the Prospectus was false and misleading because it failed to disclose (i) the Underwriter Defendants' agreement with certain investors to provide them with significant amounts of restricted Liquid Audio shares in the IPO in exchange for exorbitant and undisclosed commissions; and (ii) the agreement between the Underwriter Defendants and certain of its customers whereby the Underwriter Defendants would allocate shares in the IPO to those customers in exchange for the customers' agreement to purchase Liquid Audio shares in the after-market at pre-determined prices.

COMPANY INFORMATION:

Sector: Technology
Industry: Software & Programming
Headquarters: United States

SECURITIES INFORMATION:

Ticker Symbol: LQID
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-06661
JUDGE: Hon. Shira A. Scheindlin
DATE FILED: 07/20/2001
CLASS PERIOD START: 07/08/1999
CLASS PERIOD END: 12/06/2000
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Beatie & Osborne LLP
    599 Lexington Avenue, 42nd Floor, Beatie & Osborne LLP, NY 10022
    212.888.9000 212.888.9664 ·
  2. Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz, LLP (New York)
    10 E. 40th Street, 22nd Floor, Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz, LLP (New York), NY 10016
    800.217.1522 · info@bernlieb.com
  3. Lionel Z. Glancy
    1801 Avenue of the Stars Suite 308, Lionel Z. Glancy, CA 90067
    310.201.9150 ·
No Document Title Filing Date
COURT: S.D. New York
DOCKET #: 01-CV-06661
JUDGE: Hon. Shira A. Scheindlin
DATE FILED: 04/19/2002
CLASS PERIOD START: 07/08/1999
CLASS PERIOD END: 12/06/2000
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz, LLP (New York)
    10 E. 40th Street, 22nd Floor, Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz, LLP (New York), NY 10016
    800.217.1522 · info@bernlieb.com
  2. Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman LLP (New York)
    One Pennsylvania Plaza, 49th Floor, Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman LLP (New York), NY 10119
    212.594.5300 212.868.1229 · info@milbergweiss.com
  3. Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP (New York, NY)
    One Pennsylvania Plaza, Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP (New York, NY), NY 10119-1065
    212.594.5300 ·
  4. Schiffrin & Barroway LLP
    3 Bala Plaza E, Schiffrin & Barroway LLP, PA 19004
    610.667.7706 610.667.7056 · info@sbclasslaw.com
  5. Sirota & Sirota LLP
    110 Wall Street 21st Floor, Sirota & Sirota LLP, NY 10005
    888.759.2990 212.425.9093 · Info@SirotaLaw.com
  6. Stull, Stull & Brody (New York)
    6 East 45th Street, Stull, Stull & Brody (New York), NY 10017
    310.209.2468 310.209.2087 · SSBNY@aol.com
  7. Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP (New York)
    270 Madison Avenue, Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP (New York), NY 10016
    212.545.4600 212.686.0114 · newyork@whafh.com
No Document Title Filing Date