Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP Announces Class Periods for Shareholder Lawsuits -- LQID, LIOX, NEOF, AIRN


BALA CYNWYD, Pa., Sept. 12, 2001 (PRIMEZONE) -- Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP announced today that it recently filed lawsuits on behalf of shareholders of Liquid Audio, Inc., Lionbridge Technologies, Inc., Neoforma.com, Inc. and Airspan Networks, Inc. for violations of the federal securities laws.

If you purchased the securities of any of the companies listed below during the class period, you may be a member of the class and have until the date specified to move the court to become the lead plaintiff. For more information on a particular lawsuit and to view the complaint, you may visit our website at www.sbclasslaw.com. To learn more about your rights and interests in these cases and your ability to potentially recoup your losses, please contact Schiffrin & Barroway directly at 888-299-7706 (toll free) or 610-667-7706, fax number 610-667-7056 or by e-mail at info@sbclasslaw.com

LIQUID AUDIO, INC. (Nasdaq:LQID) (Class Period: 07/08/99 - 12/06/00). On or about July 8, 1999, Liquid Audio commenced an initial public offering of 4.2 million shares of common stock at $15.00 per share (the "IPO"). In connection therewith, Liquid Audio filed a registration statement, which incorporated a 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. The complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The lead plaintiff motion must be filed no later than September 18, 2001.

LIONBRIDGE TECHNOLOGIES, INC. (Nasdaq:LIOX) (Class Period: 08/20/99 - 12/06/00). On or about August 20, 1999, Lionbridge commenced an initial public offering of 3.5 million shares of common stock at $10.00 per share ("the IPO"). In connection therewith, Lionbridge filed a registration statement, which incorporated a 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 Lionbridge 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 Lionbridge shares in the after-market at pre-determined prices. The complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The lead plaintiff motion must be filed no later than September 18, 2001.

NEOFORMA.COM, INC. (Nasdaq:NEOF) (Class Period: 01/24/00 - 12/06/00).On or about January 24, 2000, Neoforma.com commenced an initial public offering of 7,000,000 of its shares of common stock at an offering price of $13 per share (the "Neoforma.com IPO"). In connection therewith, Neoforma.com filed a registration statement, which incorporated a prospectus (the "Prospectus"), with the SEC. The complaint alleges that the Prospectus was materially false and misleading because it failed to disclose, among other things, that: (i) Merrill Lynch, Bear Stearns and Robertson Stephens had solicited and received excessive and undisclosed commissions from certain investors in exchange for which Merrill Lynch, Bear Stearns and Robertson Stephens allocated to those investors material portions of the restricted number of Neoforma.com shares issued in connection with the Neoforma.com IPO; and (ii) Merrill Lynch, Bear Stearns and Robertson Stephens had entered into agreements with customers whereby Merrill Lynch, Bear Stearns and Robertson Stephens agreed to allocate Neoforma.com shares to those customers in the Neoforma.com IPO in exchange for which the customers agreed to purchase additional Neoforma.com shares in the aftermarket at pre-determined prices. As alleged in the complaint, the SEC is investigating underwriting practices in connection with several other initial public offerings. The complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The lead plaintiff motion must be filed no later than September 20, 2001.

AIRSPAN NETWORKS, INC. (Nasdaq:AIRN) (Class Period: 07/19/00 - 12/06/00). On or about July 19, 2000, Airspan commenced an initial public offering of 5,500,000 of its shares of common stock at an offering price of $15 per share (the "Airspan IPO"). In connection therewith, Airspan filed a registration statement, which incorporated a prospectus (the "Prospectus"), with the SEC. The complaint alleges that the Prospectus was materially false and misleading because it failed to disclose, among other things, that: (i) defendants had solicited and received excessive and undisclosed commissions from certain investors in exchange for which defendants allocated to those investors material portions of the restricted number of Airspan shares issued in connection with the Airspan IPO; and (ii) Defendants had entered into agreements with customers whereby Defendants agreed to allocate Airspan shares to those customers in the Airspan IPO in exchange for which the customers agreed to purchase additional Airspan shares in the aftermarket at pre-determined prices. As alleged in the complaint, the SEC is investigating underwriting practices in connection with several other initial public offerings. The complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The lead plaintiff motion must be filed no later than September 21, 2001.

Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP has prosecuted shareholder class actions for over fourteen years and has recovered more than $1 billion for investors.

If you are a shareholder in any of the companies listed above and would like to be a lead plaintiff in one of these securities class actions, please contact Schiffrin & Barroway at 888-299-7706.

More information on these and other class actions can be found on the Class Action Newsline at www.primezone.com/ca



            

Contact Data