Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP (“Robbins Geller”) ( http://www.rgrdlaw.com/cases/linnenergy/) today announced that a class action has been commenced in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of purchasers of LINN Energy, LLC (“LINN” or the “Company”) (Nasdaq:LINE) units during the period between February 25, 2010 and July 3, 2013 (the “Class Period”). If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than 60 days from July 9, 2013. If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions concerning this notice or your rights or interests, please contact plaintiffs’ counsel, Samuel H. Rudman or David A. Rosenfeld of Robbins Geller at 800/449-4900 or 619/231-1058, or via e-mail at firstname.lastname@example.org. If you are a member of this class, you can view a copy of the complaint as filed or join this class action online at http://www.rgrdlaw.com/cases/linnenergy/. Any member of the putative class may move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member. The complaint charges LINN and certain of its officers with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. LINN describes itself as a top-15 U.S. independent oil and natural gas development company whose mission is to acquire, develop and maximize cash flow from its portfolio of long-life oil and natural gas assets. LINN, a limited liability company, became a public entity when it issued “units” representing its limited liability company interests to the public in 2006. The units are listed and traded on the NASDAQ Global Select Market. The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants issued materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company’s operations and business. Specifically, defendants misrepresented and failed to make public the following adverse facts: (i) that the Company failed to sufficiently disclose how its reported distributable cash flow, or DCF, and its distribution coverage ratio were derived; (ii) that the Company failed to disclose that its reported adjusted EBITDA included the financial benefits of its hedging strategies while the financial costs were not included; (iii) that the Company failed to disclose known events or uncertainties associated with its reported cash flows; (iv) that as a result of (i)-(iii) above, defendants materially misrepresented the true risk associated with the Company’s ability to continue to issue stable or increasing cash distributions; (v) that the Company’s disclosure controls were materially deficient, and its representations concerning them were materially false and misleading; and (vi) that based on the foregoing, defendants lacked a reasonable basis for their positive statements about the Company, its cash flows, distributions and future financial prospects.