On January 12, 2012, Metabolix issued a press release announcing that ADM had given notice of termination of the Telles joint venture. ADM disclosed it terminated the Telles joint venture because uncertainty about projected capital and production costs, combined with the rate of market adoption, led to projected financial returns for ADM that were too uncertain. On the same day, ADM further disclosed that the Telles joint venture was not delivering sufficient results now and was not expected to deliver sufficient results in a reasonable timeframe. Upon this news, Metabolix shares declined approximately 57%, to reach a multi-year low of $2.54.If you are a member of the class, you may, no later than April 17, 2012, request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff of the class. A lead plaintiff is a representative party that acts on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. In order to be appointed lead plaintiff, the Court must determine that the class member's claim is typical of the claims of other class members, and that the class member will adequately represent the class. Under certain circumstances, one or more class members may together serve as "lead plaintiff." Your ability to share in any recovery is not, however, affected by the decision whether or not to serve as a lead plaintiff. You may retain Ryan & Maniskas, LLP or other counsel of your choice, to serve as your counsel in this action. For more information about the case or to participate online, please visit: www.rmclasslaw.com/cases/mblx or contact Richard A. Maniskas, Esquire toll-free at (877) 316-3218, or by e-mail at email@example.com. For more information about class action cases in general or to learn more about Ryan & Maniskas, LLP, please visit our website: www.rmclasslaw.com. Ryan & Maniskas, LLP is a national shareholder litigation firm. Ryan & Maniskas, LLP is devoted to protecting the interests of individual and institutional investors in shareholder actions in state and federal courts nationwide.
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 firstname.lastname@example.org 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.