Case Page

 

Case Status:    SETTLED
On or around 12/21/2012 (Date of order of distribution of settlement)

Filing Date: August 13, 2007

Several complaints allege that the company and certain of its officers and directors disseminated materially false and misleading information to the investing public with regards to the seasonality of Limelight's business and the degree to which Limelight offers discounted services to their customers. The purported results of these misstatements were artificially inflated stock prices during the company's initial public offering (IPO) and a 46% price drop following Limelight's first performance statements as a public company.

Headquartered in Tempe, Arizona, Limelight provides digital media content delivery network services for traditional and emerging media companies throughout the United States, Europe, and Asia Pacific.

As summarized by the Company’s Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2009, in August 2007, the Company, certain of its officers and current and former directors, and the firms that served as the lead underwriters in the Company’s initial public offering were named as defendants in several purported class action lawsuits filed in the U.S. District Courts for the District of Arizona and the Southern District of New York. All of the New York cases were transferred to Arizona and consolidated into a single action. The plaintiffs’ consolidated complaint asserted causes of action under Sections 11, 12, and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, on behalf of a purported class of individuals who purchased the Company’s common stock in its initial public offering and/or pursuant to its Prospectus. The complaint alleges, among other things, that the Company omitted and/or misstated certain facts concerning the seasonality of its business and the loss of revenue related to certain customers. On March 17, 2008, the Company and the individual defendants moved to dismiss all of the plaintiffs’ claims and a hearing was held on June 16, 2008. On August 8, 2008, the court granted the motion to dismiss, dismissing plaintiffs’ claims under Section 12 with prejudice and granting leave to amend the claims under Sections 11 and 15. Plaintiffs chose not to amend the claims under Sections 11 and 15, and on August 29, 2008 the court entered judgment in favor of the Company. On September 5, 2008, Plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal, and appellate briefs were filed by the parties in January and February 2009.

According to the Company's Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010, in November 2009 the parties entered into a Memorandum of Understanding to settle this lawsuit for an amount well within the coverage limits of the primary carrier of our directors and officers liability insurance, and on July 7, 2010 the parties entered into a settlement agreement consistent with the terms of the Memorandum of Understanding, which will require court approval. A hearing before the Federal District Court is currently scheduled for March 22, 2011. We anticipate court approval of the settlement.

On September 02, 2010, a notice of appeal was filed in the 9th Circuit.

On December 10, 2010, an Order Preliminarily Approving Settlement and Providing For Notice was filed with the Court.

On March 23, 2011, an Order Awarding Lead Plaintiffs’ Counsel Attorneys’ Fees and Reimbursement of Litigation Expenses was filed along with an Order Approving Plan of Allocation. On the same day, a Final Judgment and Order of Dismissal With Prejudice.

On December 21, 2012, the Court issued a Distribution Order for the Net Settlement Fund in this case.

COMPANY INFORMATION:

Sector: Services
Industry: Business Services
Headquarters: United States

SECURITIES INFORMATION:

Ticker Symbol: LLNW
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: D. Arizona
DOCKET #: 07-CV-07205
JUDGE: Hon. Paul A. Crotty
DATE FILED: 08/13/2007
CLASS PERIOD START: 06/08/2007
CLASS PERIOD END: 08/08/2007
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Paskowitz & Associates
    60 East 42nd Street, 46th Floor, Paskowitz & Associates, NY 10165
    212.685.0969 212.685.2306 · classattorney@aol.com
  2. Roy Jacobs & Associates (New York)
    350 Fifth Avenue Suite 3000 , Roy Jacobs & Associates (New York), NY 10118
    · classattorney@pipeline.com
No Document Title Filing Date
COURT: D. Arizona
DOCKET #: 07-CV-01603
JUDGE: Hon. Paul A. Crotty
DATE FILED: 01/30/2008
CLASS PERIOD START: 06/08/2007
CLASS PERIOD END: 08/09/2007
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Labaton Sucharow LLP
    140 Broadway, Labaton Sucharow LLP, NY 10005
    212.907.0700 212.818.0477 · info@labaton.com
  2. Schiffrin Barroway Topaz & Kessler, LLP (Radnor)
    280 King of Prussia Road, Schiffrin Barroway Topaz & Kessler, LLP (Radnor), PA 19087
    610.667.7706 610.667.7056 · info@sbtklaw.com
No Document Title Filing Date
No Document Title Filing Date