Plaintiffs have taken no prisoners in the Liquidmetal securities class action, having achieved complete victory over Defendants’ motions to dismiss their ’33 and ’34 Act claims. Judge Steven D. Merryday (M.D. Fl.) “carefully considered the ninety-eight page consolidated amended class action complaint, the parties' exhaustive legal memoranda, and the pertinent legal authorities,” and concluded that “any reasonable investor contemplating investing during a company's IPO would want to know whether the company was overstating its financial earnings in violation of GAAP. Likewise, any reasonable investor would appreciate learning of an officer's preexisting obligation to violate the very lock-up agreement touted to investors in the IPO.”
You can read Primavera v. Liquidmetal, issued December 2, 2005, at 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 30418.
Nugget: “Although the amended complaint contains allegations based on ‘forward-looking’ statements, including projections of revenue, business objectives, and future economic performance, the plaintiffs sufficiently allege that no reasonable basis existed for the forward-looking statements issued during the class period.”