You must register to view and download the Settlement Notice and Settlement Proof.
June 7, 2021 - The court granted final approval of the settlement.
April 28, 2021 - The court preliminarily approved the partial settlement.
April 22, 2021 - A stipulation of partial settlement was filed by the parties.
September 8, 2020 - An amended complaint was filed.
April 24, 2020 - An investor in shares of Akazoo S.A. (NASDAQ: SONG) filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York over alleged violations of Federal Securities Laws by Akazoo S.A. in connection with certain allegedly false and misleading statements made between September 11, 2019 and April 20, 2020.
Luxembourg based Akazoo S.A. operates as an on-demand music and audio streaming, and media and AI technology company. On April 20, 2020, Quintessential Capital gave a presentation regarding Akazoo S.A., stating that the Company looks like an accounting scheme because its users, subscribers, revenue and profit may be profoundly overstated. Shares of Akazoo S.A. (NASDAQ: SONG) declined from $3.18 per share on April 7, 2020, to as low as $1.42 per share on April 20, 2020, respectively to as low as $1.06 per share on April 24, 2020.
According to the complaint the plaintiff alleges on behalf of purchasers of Akazoo S.A. (NASDAQ: SONG) common shares between September 11, 2019 and April 20, 2020, that the defendants violated Federal Securities Laws.
More specifically, the plaintiff claims that between September 11, 2019 and April 20, 2020, the defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that Akazoo overstated its revenue, profits, and cash holdings, that Akazoo holds significantly lesser music distribution rights than it has stated and implied, that as opposed to Akazoo’s continued statements, it does not operate in 25 countries, that Akazoo has a significantly smaller user base than it states, that Akazoo has closed its headquarters and other offices around the world, and that as a result, defendants’ public statements were materially false and/or misleading at all relevant times. According to the suit, these true details were disclosed by a market research firm.