Ryan & Maniskas, LLP ( www.rmclasslaw.com/cases/mblx) announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed in United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts on behalf of purchasers of the common stock of Metabolix, Inc. ("Metabolix" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: MBLX) from March 10, 2010 through January 12, 2012, inclusive (the "Class Period"). For more information regarding this class action suit, please contact Ryan & Maniskas, LLP (Richard A. Maniskas, Esquire) toll-free at (877) 316-3218 or by email at email@example.com or visit: www.rmclasslaw.com/cases/mblx. Metabolix is a bioscience company focused on bringing environmentally friendly solutions to the plastics, chemicals and energy industries. The Company has core capabilities in microbial genetics, fermentation process engineering, chemical engineering, polymer science, plant genetics and botanical science. The Company's largest platform, which it commercialized through Telles, its joint venture with Archer-Daniels-Midland Company ("ADM"), is a large-scale microbial fermentation system for producing a versatile family of polymers known as PHA's which it had branded under the name Mirel. Through Telles, Metabolix was promoting these bioplastics as biobased and biodegradable, but functionally equivalent, alternatives to petroleum-based plastics. The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, Metabolix, and certain controlling individuals of the Company, made fraudulent material misrepresentations and omissions regarding Metabolix's business and operations. Among other things, the complaint alleges that defendants materially misrepresented and/or failed to disclose the following adverse facts: (i) that the Telles joint venture would not meet its commercial phase benchmark as early as mid-2010, or even in 2011, which would allow the Metabolix to receive royalty payments and payments from services from Telles; (ii) that Mirel was not a commercially viable product that would offer value to Metabolix and its shareholders; and (iii) that, as a result of the foregoing, defendants lacked a reasonable basis for their positive statements about the Company and its prospects.