To: All persons and entities who purchased or otherwise acquired the common stock of Pilgrim's Pride Corporation from May 5, 2008 to October 28, 2008, inclusive, including all those who purchased the common stock of Pilgrim's Pride Corporation pursuant and/or traceable to any registration statement, prospectus, prospectus supplement or any documents therein incorporated by reference filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission in connection with the Company's May 14, 2008 Secondary Offering, and who were damaged thereby (the "Class").

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Order of the Court, that the above-captioned action has been certified as a class action for purposes of settlement only and that a settlement for One Million Five Hundred Thousand Dollars ($1,500,000) has been proposed.  A hearing will be held before the Honorable Rodney Gilstrap in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Sam B. Hall, Jr. Federal Building and United States Courthouse, 100 East Houston Street, Marshall, Texas 75670, Courtroom 106, at 9:00 a.m., on May 1, 2012 to determine: (1) whether the proposed Settlement should be approved as fair, reasonable and adequate; (2) whether the Action should be dismissed with prejudice against Defendants; (3) whether the proposed Plan of Allocation should be approved as fair and reasonable; and (4) whether Lead Counsel's application for an award of attorneys' fees and reimbursement of expenses should be approved.

IF YOU ARE A MEMBER OF THE CLASS DESCRIBED ABOVE, YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE AFFECTED AND YOU MAY BE ENTITLED TO SHARE IN THE SETTLEMENT FUND.  If you have not yet received the full printed Notice of Pendency of Class Action and Proposed Settlement, Motion for Attorneys' Fees and Expenses and Settlement Fairness Hearing (the "Notice") and Proof of Claim and Release form ("Proof of Claim"), you may obtain copies of these documents by contacting:

Pilgrim's Pride Corporation Securities Litigation
c/o Rust Consulting, Inc.
P.O. Box 2619
Faribault, MN 55021-9619
(866) 430-8117
www.PilgrimsPrideSecuritiesSettlement.com

Bernstein Liebhard LLP 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 Veolia Environnement S.A.  American Depository Shares (“ADSs”) during the period between April 27, 2007 and August 4, 2011, inclusive (the “Class Period”).

The complaint charges Veolia and certain of its officers and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Veolia operates utility and public transportation businesses. The Company supplies drinking water, provides waste management services, manages and maintains heating and air conditioning systems, and operates rail and road passenger transportation systems.

The complaint alleges that, during the Class Period, defendants issued materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company’s business and prospects. Specifically, defendants misrepresented and/or failed to disclose the following adverse facts: (a) that Veolia was materially overstating its financial results by engaging in improper accounting practices; (b) that the Company lacked adequate internal controls and was therefore unable to ascertain its true financial condition; (c) that Veolia failed to timely record an impairment charge for its Transport business in Morocco, Environmental Services businesses in Egypt, Marine Services business in the United States, and for Southern Europe; (d) that the Company’s revenues were being hampered by the renewal of some of its major concession contracts; and (e) that, as a result of the foregoing, defendants lacked a reasonable basis for their positive statements about the Company and its prospects.

On August 4, 2011, Veolia announced its half year results, for the period ended June 30, 2011. For the half year, the Company reported consolidated revenue of €16,286.7 million. Moreover, defendants reported operating income of €252.2 million, compared to €1100.7 million in the prior year period, due to “non-recurring write-downs amounting to €686M (principally in Italy, Morocco and the United States).” The Company stated that it would exit certain businesses and certain geographies, including its Transport business in Morocco, Environmental Services businesses in Egypt, Marine Services business in the United States and in Southern Europe. In reaction to these announcements, the price of Veolia ADSs fell $4.66 per share, or over 22%, to close at $16.10 per share, on heavy trading volume.

Plaintiffs seek to recover damages on behalf of all Class members who purchased or otherwise acquired Veolia ADSs during the Class Period. If you purchased or otherwise acquired Veolia ADSs during the Class Period, and either lost money on the transaction or still hold the shares, you may wish to join in this action to serve as lead plaintiff. In order to do so, you must meet certain requirements set forth in the applicable law and file appropriate papers no later than February 27, 2012.

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 Bernstein Liebhard LLP, or other counsel of your choice, to serve as your counsel in this action.

If you are interested in discussing your rights as a Veolia shareholder and/or have information relating to the matter, please contact Joseph R. Seidman, Jr. at (877) 779-1414 or seidman@bernlieb.com.

Bernstein Liebhard has pursued hundreds of securities, consumer and shareholder rights cases and recovered over $3 billion for its clients. It has been named to The National Law Journal’s “Plaintiffs’ Hot List” in each of the last nine years.

You can obtain a copy of the complaint from the clerk of the court for the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York.

Bernstein Liebhard LLP
10 East 40th Street
New York, New York 10016
(877) 779-1414
www.bernlieb.com

Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP today announced that a class action has been commenced in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama on behalf of purchasers of the common stock of Walter Energy, Inc. between April 20, 2011 and September 21, 2011, inclusive.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than 60 days from today. If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions concerning this notice or your rights or interests, please contact plaintiff’s counsel, Samuel H. Rudman or David A. Rosenfeld of Robbins Geller at 800/449-4900 or 619/231-1058, or via e-mail at djr@rgrdlaw.com. 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/walterenergy/. 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 Walter and certain of its officers and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Walter, through its consolidated subsidiaries, mines and exports hard coking coal for the global steel industry.

The complaint alleges that, during the Class Period, defendants issued materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company’s business and prospects. Specifically, defendants misrepresented and/or failed to disclose the following adverse facts: (i) that the Company was experiencing so-called “squeeze” events in Alabama and lower coal transportation rates in Canada that significantly reduced Walter’s coal production; (ii) that the Company’s commitment to ship more than 700,000 tons of coal in the second quarter at first quarter sales prices would result in a material adverse effect on Walter’s average sales prices and operating results during the second quarter; (iii) that Walter was experiencing a significant decline in its margins and profitability; and (iv) that, based on the foregoing, defendants lacked a reasonable basis for their positive statements about the Company and its business prospects during the Class Period.

On August 3, 2011, Walter issued a press release announcing its operating results for its 2011 fiscal second quarter, the period ended June 30, 2011. For the quarter, the Company announced net income of $107.4 million, or $1.71 per diluted common share, significantly less than Wall Street estimates. Then, On September 21, 2011, Walter issued a press release announcing its attempt to “enhance” its historical statistical disclosure and its revisions to its 2011 second half sales expectations. In response to this announcement, the price of Walter common stock declined from $75.00 per share on September 20, 2011 to $66.25 on September 21, 2011, on extremely heavy trading volume.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers of Walter common stock during the Class Period (the “Class”). The plaintiff is represented by Robbins Geller, which has expertise in prosecuting investor class actions and extensive experience in actions involving financial fraud.

Robbins Geller, a 180-lawyer firm with offices in San Diego, San Francisco, New York, Boca Raton, Washington, D.C., Philadelphia and Atlanta, is active in major litigations pending in federal and state courts throughout the United States and has taken a leading role in many important actions on behalf of defrauded investors, consumers, and companies, as well as victims of human rights violations.

http://www.rgrdlaw.com

Bernstein Liebhard LLP today announced that a class action has been commenced in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio on behalf of purchasers of Chemed Corporation common stock during the period between February 15, 2010 and November 16, 2011.

The complaint charges Chemed and certain of its officers and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Chemed, through its subsidiaries, provides hospice care and repair and cleaning services in the United States. The Company operates in two segments: VITAS and Roto-Rooter.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants issued materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company’s business and prospects. Specifically, defendants misrepresented and/or failed to disclose the following adverse facts: (a) that the Company engaged in a scheme to fraudulently bill Medicare for hospice services for patients who did not qualify for hospice and fraudulently shifted the costs of those patients from health maintenance organizations that covered those patients prior to enrollment in hospice to the U.S. government; (b) that a significant portion of the Company’s hospice enrollments, revenues and earnings were the direct result of defendants’ scheme to enroll ineligible patients in hospice and fraudulently bill Medicare for hospice services; (c) that, in a complaint filed under seal, a former VITAS manager had accused the Company of engaging in a Company-wide scheme to enroll ineligible patients in hospice and fraudulently bill Medicare; (d) that the Company failed to maintain adequate internal controls and procedures with respect to hospice enrollments and Medicare billings; (e) that the Company’s financial results were materially overstated as a result of defendants’ fraudulent scheme to enroll ineligible patients in hospice; and (f) that, as a result of the foregoing, defendants lacked a reasonable basis for their positive statements about the Company and its prospects.

On November 16, 2011, a Bloomberg article entitled “Whistleblower Accuses Chemed Unit of Medicare HMO Conspiracy” disclosed that a former VITAS manager had accused Chemed of defrauding the federal government by conspiring with health insurers to enroll Medicare patients who were not dying into hospice. The article also discussed a U.S. Department of Justice investigation into fraudulent conduct by VITAS. In response to these announcements, shares of the Company’s stock fell $6.87 per share, or 11%, to close at $50.65 per share on November 16, 2011.

Plaintiffs seek to recover damages on behalf of all Class members who purchased or otherwise acquired Chemed shares during the Class Period. If you purchased or otherwise acquired Chemed shares during the Class Period, and either lost money on the transaction or still hold the shares, you may wish to join in this action to serve as lead plaintiff. In order to do so, you must meet certain requirements set forth in the applicable law and file appropriate papers no later than March 12, 2012.

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 Bernstein Liebhard LLP, or other counsel of your choice, to serve as your counsel in this action.

If you are interested in discussing your rights as a Chemed shareholder and/or have information relating to the matter, please contact Joseph R. Seidman, Jr. at (877) 779-1414 or seidman@bernlieb.com.

Bernstein Liebhard has pursued hundreds of securities, consumer and shareholder rights cases and recovered almost $3 billion for its clients. It has been named to The National Law Journal’s “Plaintiffs’ Hot List” in each of the last nine years.

You can obtain a copy of the complaint from the clerk of the court for the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio.

Bernstein Liebhard LLP  
10 East 40th Street  
New York, New York 10016  
(877) 779-1414  
www.bernlieb.com 

Leading employment law firm Seyfarth Shaw LLP has issued its annual Workplace Class Action Litigation Report, covering a charged national landscape of "bet the company" employment disputes fueled by an aggressive plaintiffs' bar, invigorated federal and state enforcement regimes, a sluggish economic recovery, and several groundbreaking rulings by the U.S. Supreme Court in 2011 that are certain to reverberate in the year ahead and beyond.

Seyfarth notes that the Supreme Court's decision in Wal-Mart Stores v. Dukes, handed down last June, has already been cited more than 260 times in federal and state court opinions, and AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion 215 times -- remarkable figures for rulings less than a year old. Dukes, which established a new standard for certifying class actions, and Concepcion , which held that federal arbitration law supersedes limitations imposed by individual states, opened the floodgates to a wave a new case law in class actions, which will continue to evolve in the coming year and impact litigants for years to come.

Released this week, Seyfarth's 8th annual Workplace Class Action Litigation Report examines the theoretical and strategic uncertainties stemming from the Supreme Court's employment law rulings in 2011, and the challenges they pose for companies and their defense counsel. The new Report is the most comprehensive yet, examining 976 class action decisions rendered in the past 12 months by federal and state courts, including private plaintiff and government enforcement actions. The number of case rulings covered by Seyfarth climbed 15% over last year's total of 849 -- a direct result of issues raised by Dukes and Concepcion that have loomed over workplace litigation since those landmark decisions last spring.

Seyfarth's Report remains the sole compendium dedicated exclusively to labor and employment class action litigation in the U.S. Regarded as "the definitive source on employment class action litigation" (EPLiC Magazine, Spring 2011), it has become the "go-to" research and resource guide for businesses and corporate counsel facing complex litigation. Corporate counsel routinely depict the prospect of large workplace class-actions as especially worrisome for companies, as well as a significant burden for in-house legal budgets.

Seyfarth Shaw has over 750 attorneys located in 10 offices throughout the United States , including: Atlanta , Boston , Chicago , Houston , Los Angeles , New York , Sacramento , San Francisco and Washington, D.C. , as well as internationally in London . Seyfarth Shaw provides a broad range of legal services in the areas of labor and employment, employee benefits, litigation, corporate and real estate. The firm's clients include over 300 of the Fortune 500 companies, and our practice reflects virtually every industry and segment of the economy. For more information, please visit www.seyfarth.com.

Rigrodsky & Long, P.A. announces that it has filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired the common stock of IntraLinks Holdings, Inc. between February 17, 2011 and November 10, 2011, inclusive, alleging violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The case is entitled Thaler v. IntraLinks Holdings, Inc., C.A. No. 11-CV-9528 (S.D.N.Y.). The Complaint names IntraLinks and certain of its officers and directors as defendants.

If you wish to view a copy of the Complaint, discuss this action, or have any questions concerning this notice or your rights or interests, please contact Timothy J. MacFall, Esquire or Noah R. Wortman, Case Development Director of Rigrodsky & Long, P.A., 919 North Market Street, Suite 980 Wilmington, Delaware, 19801 at (888) 969-4242, by e-mail to info@rigrodskylong.com, or at: http://www.rigrodskylong.com/news/intralinks-il.

IntraLinks, together with its subsidiaries, provides software-as-a-service (SaaS) solutions for securely managing content, exchanging critical business information, and collaborating within and among organizations worldwide.

The Complaint asserts that during the Class Period, defendants knew, or recklessly disregarded, that the positive statements concerning the Company’s business prospects, as well as the full year guidance provided by Defendants on February 17, 2011, were materially false and misleading because by end of the first quarter of 2011 a large Enterprise customer informed the Company that it was dramatically reducing its use of IntraLinks’ products going forward and that the Company would have to reducing its earnings expectations as a result. Despite their knowledge of the foregoing, however, defendants failed to disclose that their positive statements about the Company’s business prospects, or the financial guidance issued in February 2011, were no longer accurate in light of the reduced use of the Company’s products by the large Enterprise customer.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than February 4, 2012. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting 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. Your ability to share in any recovery is not, however, affected by the decision whether or not to serve as a lead plaintiff. Any member of the proposed 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.

Rigrodsky & Long, P.A., with offices in Wilmington, Delaware and Garden City, New York, regularly litigates securities class, derivative and direct actions, shareholder rights litigation and corporate governance litigation, including claims for breach of fiduciary duty and proxy violations in the Delaware Court of Chancery and in state and federal courts throughout the United States.