No class has yet been certified in the above action. Until a class is certified, you are not represented by counsel unless you retain one. If you purchased this stock during the above referenced class period you have certain rights. To be a member of the class you need not take any action at this time, and you may retain counsel of your choice.

According to Securities and Exchange Commission filings, the complaint alleges that the defendants violated federal securities laws by making material misleading statements and omissions, providing inaccurate financial information, and failing to make proper disclosures.

The initial class action suit was filed in 2005. The company denies liability.

The memorandum of understanding is subject to certain contingencies that require court approval, including a provision that prevents its former independent auditors Grant Thornton LLP from prosecuting any claims against the company related to the litigation.

It was further alleged that while Mozilo and the insider-appointed benefits committee members had a fiduciary responsibility to warn employees of the company's precarious financial health, they hid information from plan participants.

Financial statements were also alleged to have been certified by Mozilo in an attempt to conceal the high-risk loans it was selling.

Steve Berman, the attorney representing the plaintiffs, said: "Most of these employees weren't risk takers, rather claims processors and line staff who go to work every morning, putting a little away every month for retirement, or to finance a child's education."

Countrywide Financial Corporation responded by saying that it had not yet seen the lawsuit, and did not generally comment on specific points of pending litigation.

A spokesperson said: " From what we can discern from the news release put out by the public relations firm for plaintiffs’ counsel, we do not believe the case has merit, and we will defend it vigorously.

“Countrywide values its work force, which we believe is among the most dedicated and talented in our industry, and we believe our 401(k) program is properly structured and provides competitive benefits to employee participants."

In a letter posted to EMC's Web site, Joe Tucci, the company's chairman, president and CEO strongly denied that discrimination or harassment happened or continue to occur at the company. "EMC has long been committed to maintaining a workplace free of discrimination and harassment, with significant opportunities for every employee to succeed and grow," he wrote.

He said that during the four years covered by the case, women sales reps at the company in the U.S. earned, on average, more than their male counterparts. Since 2001, the number of women at the vice president and senior vice president levels has more than doubled and the number of women at the director level has nearly tripled, he wrote.

However, the suit filed by former sales representatives Tami Remien and Debra Fletcher paints a very different picture. At the time they filed the suit, they said just one of EMC's most senior executives was a woman and that the Chicago sales office of 30 had at most six women.

Remien's managers, according to the suit, denied her the engineering and managerial support that her male counterparts received, took accounts that she had begun selling products to and gave them to less successful male sales people, and was told that she couldn't take on certain accounts because she didn't tolerate strip clubs, hunt, fish, drink or smoke. She claims that when she complained to human resources, her managers retaliated by taking away essentially all of her accounts and continued to deny her support.

She also claims that her boss often shouted gender-based obscenities at her and called her stupid.

Fletcher had similar experiences under the same manager. She also once made a large sale but her commission was given to a male co-worker because he had a family, according to the suit. One account was taken away from her after she was falsely accused of having a sexual relationship with the client, the suit claims.

Both women were let go from their jobs at EMC after being left with no accounts or with accounts that didn't generate revenue.

A Tarragon spokesman said it's the company's policy not to comment on pending litigation.

The complaint claims Tarragon stock traded at artificially inflated prices, reaching a high of $26.76 a share on July 22, 2005, as a result of defendants' false statements. The stock then fell, reaching 94 cents a share on Aug. 9, when Tarragon said its quarterly report would be delayed to give the company time to evaluate more than $125 million in property impairment charges and other write-downs made necessary by its decision to sell properties under adverse market conditions.

Tarragon and its subsidiaries are active in the Northeast, Florida, Texas and Tennessee.

Fort Lauderdale-based subsidiary Tarragon South is the developer of Las Olas River House, a high-rise in downtown Fort Lauderdale that was completed last year, but still has at least 22 units up for sale; and a planned mixed-use project with a condo tower on the site of the Gay & Lesbian Community Center on Andrews Avenue in Fort Lauderdale.

Tarragon is also an equity partner with Coscan Homes in Orchid Grove, a condo and townhouse community under construction in Pompano Beach.

Shirley Williams originally filed the discrimination case after she and several other employees were laid off in October 2001. Layoffs occurred again in March 2003.

The plaintiffs accused the company of using a computerized performance management system to determine which employees to let go. The plaintiffs contended that the system unfairly singled out employees older than 40.

A Sprint Nextel Corp. spokesman said at the time of the settlement agreement in May that the company settled the case to move on with business.

A Sprint Nextel representative was not immediately available for comment on Monday.

Kahn Gauthier Swick, LLC ("KGS") has filed the first class action lawsuit against China Sunergy Co. Ltd. ("China Sunergy" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: CSUN) in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, on behalf of shareholders who purchased the common stock of China Sunergy in connection with the Company's IPO on or about May 17, 2007, or who purchased shares thereafter in the open market. No class has yet been certified in this action.

UNLESS A CLASS IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT PERSONALLY REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU RETAIN AN ATTORNEY.

China Sunergy, certain of its officers and directors, and the Company's underwriters are charged with including, or allowing the inclusion of, materially false and misleading statements in the Registration Statement and Prospectus issued in connection with the IPO, in violation of the Securities Act of 1933.

Particularly, the Complaint charges that China Sunergy raised over $107.52 million through the issuance of 9.775 million shares, despite the Registration Statement's false and misleading statements that the Company: (1) was a "leading manufacturer of solar cell products, as measured by production capacity" that was experiencing remarkable revenue growth; and (2) had secured a sufficient supply of polysilicon, a raw material necessary to the continued production of its solar cell products. Yet at the time of the IPO and unbeknownst to shareholders, the Registration Statement failed to disclose that China Sunergy was already having difficulty obtaining a sufficient supply of polysilicon, which foreseeably would have a near-term adverse impact on earnings.

On July 3, 2007, only weeks after the IPO, China Sunergy issued a press release announcing preliminary results for 2Q:07 well below guidance, and claimed that it could suddenly not obtain critical raw materials necessary for production and its revenue goals. The Company's press release stated that "the relatively tight supply of polysilicon affected the quality, quantity and delivery of wafers and drove up overall wafer prices in the spot market, resulting in increased pressure on China Sunergy's margins."

On this news, shares of China Sunergy fell nearly 25% in a single trading day, from a high of $14.90 on July 2, 2007, to a close of $11.28 the following day, on exceedingly high volume of 3.659 million shares. As the impact of China Sunergy's belated disclosures resonated in the market, shares of the Company continued to decline, to about $7.50 per share by August 23, 2007. Shares fell significantly lower days later, to below $5.00 per share -- on news that the Company's CFO was resigning -- after China Sunergy revealed a loss of at least $.14 per share for 2Q:07. In all, China Sunergy shares fell from $16.70 per share from the highs following the IPO, to a low of below $5.00 per share -- all within approximately 10 weeks.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff in this class action lawsuit, you must move the Court no later than November 9, 2007. Any member of the purported 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. If you would like to discuss your legal rights, you may e-mail or call KGS Managing Partner Lewis Kahn, without obligation or cost to you, toll free 1-866-467-1400, ext. 100, or by email at lewis.kahn@kgscounsel.com. To learn more about this case or KGS, you may visit http://www.kgscounsel.com/case/case.asp?lngCaseId=5014. KGS focuses its practice on securities class action litigation, and has been appointed lead counsel in numerous federal securities class actions.