Case Page

 

Case Status:    DISMISSED    
On or around 09/28/2006 (Date of order of final judgment)

Filing Date: February 15, 2005

According to a press release dated October 9, 2006, SINA Corporation, a leading online media company and mobile value-added service (MVAS) provider for China and for the global Chinese communities, announced that the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York has dismissed, without leave to amend, a consolidated securities class action complaint filed against the Company and certain of its directors and officers. On September 25, 2006, Judge Buchwald issued an order granting the defendants' motion to dismiss the amended consolidated complaint in its entirety, without leave to amend. In the dismissal order, Judge Buchwald held that "the complaint altogether fails to support the conclusion that [SINA] acted with intent to deceive or defraud the public or that they were reckless in this regard."

The original complaint charges SINA and certain of its officers with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
More specifically, the Complaint alleges that the Company failed to disclose and misrepresented the following material adverse facts which were known to defendants or recklessly disregarded by them: (1) that the Company was increasingly relying on services related to "fortune telling" advertising, like horoscopes and astrology, in order to meet its earnings forecasts and generate a positive revenue stream; (2) that the Chinese government had clamped down on "fortune telling" advertising and the resulting clampdown on "fortune telling" advertising would have a material effect on the Company's revenue stream; (3) that China Mobile Communication Corp.'s recent change in its billing process for multimedia messaging services SINA provides to China Mobile subscribers had a material effect on the Company's business; and (4) that as a result of the above, the defendants' positive statements about the growth and prospectus of SINA were lacking in any reasonable basis when made.

The complaint further alleges that on or around February 7, 2005, after the markets closed, SINA announced its financial results for the fourth quarter and full year ended December 31, 2004. The results and the Company's business outlook shocked the market. Shares of SINA fell $2.96 per share, or 10.82 percent, to close at $24.39 per share on unusually high trading volume.

COMPANY INFORMATION:

Sector: Technology
Industry: Computer Services
Headquarters: China

SECURITIES INFORMATION:

Ticker Symbol: SINA
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 #: 05-CV-02154
JUDGE: Hon. Kimba M. Wood
DATE FILED: 02/15/2005
CLASS PERIOD START: 10/26/2004
CLASS PERIOD END: 02/07/2005
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Brodsky & Smith, LLC (former Pennysylvania)
    11 Bala Avenue, Suite 39, Brodsky & Smith, LLC (former Pennysylvania), PA 19004
    610.668.7987 610.660.0450 · esmith@Brodsky-Smith.com
  2. Dyer & Shuman, LLP
    801 East 17th Avenue, Dyer & Shuman, LLP, CO 80218-1417
    303.861.3003 800.711.6483 · info@dyershuman.com
  3. Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP (NY)
    1501 Broadway, Suite 1416, Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP (NY), NY 10036
    917.510.000 646.366-089 · info@glancylaw.com
  4. Law Offices of Brian M. Felgoise, P.C.
    Esquire at 261 Old York Road, Suite 423, Law Offices of Brian M. Felgoise, P.C., PA 19046
    215.886.1900 · securitiesfraud@comcast.net
  5. 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
  6. Schatz & Nobel, P.C.
    330 Main Street, Schatz & Nobel, P.C., CT 06106
    800.797.5499 860.493.6290 · sn06106@AOL.com
  7. Schiffrin & Barroway LLP
    3 Bala Plaza E, Schiffrin & Barroway LLP, PA 19004
    610.667.7706 610.667.7056 · info@sbclasslaw.com
  8. Seeger Weiss LLP (New York Old Address)
    40 Wall Street. The Trump Building, Seeger Weiss LLP (New York Old Address), NY 10005
    212.584.0700 · info@seegerweiss.com
  9. Wechsler Harwood LLP
    488 Madison Avenue 8th Floor, Wechsler Harwood LLP, NY 10022
    212.935.7400 · info@whhf.com
No Document Title Filing Date
COURT: S.D. New York
DOCKET #: 05-CV-02154
JUDGE: Hon. Kimba M. Wood
DATE FILED: 09/15/2005
CLASS PERIOD START: 10/26/2004
CLASS PERIOD END: 02/07/2005
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP (Melville)
    58 South Service Road, Suite 200, Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP (Melville), NY 11747
    631.367.7100 631.367.1173 ·
  2. Wechsler Harwood LLP
    488 Madison Avenue 8th Floor, Wechsler Harwood LLP, NY 10022
    212.935.7400 · info@whhf.com
No Document Title Filing Date
No Document Title Filing Date