Case Page

 

Case Status:    ONGOING    
On or around 12/15/2014 (Ongoing date of last review)

Filing Date: July 14, 2014

According to the law firm press release, it is alleged that throughout the Class Period, Liquidity falsely represented the financial condition of the Company in issuing false and misleading statements concerning the Company's current and future profitability, its growth initiatives including the integration and performance of its acquisitions, the seriousness of the competition in the industry, and the adverse effects of its declining Department of Defense business and the offsetting gains in its commercial and local and state government segments. At all relevant times, Defendants wrongfully portrayed Liquidity as a profitable, growing company with substantial potential for further growth, and falsely reassured investors that any struggles by the Company were merely temporary side effects to its lucrative growth initiative. These material misrepresentations and omissions artificially inflated the Company's stock and allowed certain Company insiders to receive a windfall from selling the Company's stock at inflated prices.

On October 14, 2014, the Court issued an Order appointing lead plaintiffs and approving lead counsel. Lead plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on December 15.

COMPANY INFORMATION:

Sector: Services
Industry: Retail (Catalog & Mail Order)
Headquarters: United States

SECURITIES INFORMATION:

Ticker Symbol: LQDT
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. District Columbia
DOCKET #: 14-CV-01183
JUDGE: Hon. Beryl A. Howell
DATE FILED: 07/14/2014
CLASS PERIOD START: 02/01/2012
CLASS PERIOD END: 05/07/2014
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Levi & Korsinsky LLP (DC)
    1101 30th Street, NW; Suite 115, Levi & Korsinsky LLP (DC), DC 20007
    ·
  2. 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
COURT: D. District Columbia
DOCKET #: 14-CV-01183
JUDGE: Hon. Beryl A. Howell
DATE FILED: 12/15/2014
CLASS PERIOD START: 02/01/2012
CLASS PERIOD END: 05/07/2014
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. Spector Roseman Kodroff & Willis, P.C. (Washington, D.C.)
    1101 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Suite 600, Spector Roseman Kodroff & Willis, P.C. (Washington, D.C.), DC 20004
    202.756.3600 202.756.3600 ·
No Document Title Filing Date