A class action lawsuit has been filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of California on behalf of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the common stock of Netlist, Inc. ("Netlist" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: NLST) in connection with its November 30, 2006 Initial Public Offering ("IPO") through April 16, 2007, inclusive (the "Class Period").

The Complaint charges Netlist and certain of the Company's executive officers and directors with violations of federal securities laws. Among other things, plaintiff claims that defendants' material omissions and materially false and misleading statements concerning the Company's business, operations and prospects caused Netlist's stock price to become artificially inflated, inflicting damages on investors. Netlist is a designer and manufacturer of high-performance memory subsystems, which are sold to original equipment manufacturers in the server, high-performance computing, and communications markets. The Complaint alleges that defendants failed to disclose, among other things, that: (1) the Company was experiencing the effects of an over-supplied memory chip market, and demand for the Company's products had deteriorated substantially; (2) due to excessive inventory levels, the Company's two largest customers would be forced to slash their product orders to return to acceptable levels; (3) the Company's profit margins were quickly eroding in the memory chip market; (4) the Company lacked adequate internal controls; and (5) as a result of the foregoing, among other things, the Company's Registration Statement was false and misleading at all relevant times.

On April 16, 2007, Netlist shocked investors when it reported its first quarter 2007 preliminary financial results, which disclosed for the first time that its operating results would be dramatically lower than investors were led to believe, primarily due to an oversupplied dynamic random access memory market, which in turn affected the Company's product pricing and gross margins. Additionally, the Company revealed that it had experienced a lower than expected demand for high-end products from its largest customers, due to excess inventory which had also significantly reduced demand for the Company's products. As a result of this news, shares of the Company's stock declined more than 28 percent, or $1.68 per share, to close on April 17, 2007, at $4.29 per share, on unusually heavy trading volume.

If you are a member of the class, you may, no later than July 27, 2007, request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff of the class. Although your ability to share in any recovery is not affected by the decision whether or not to seek appointment as a lead plaintiff, lead plaintiffs can participate in important decisions which could affect the recovery for class members.

If you wish to discuss this action, or have any questions concerning this notice or your rights, please contact us, toll free, at (888) 529-4787 or by email at info.newcases@kmslaw.com.

Kirby McInerney & Squire, LLP has specialized in complex litigation, including securities class actions, for several decades. The firm has repeatedly demonstrated its expertise in this field, and has been recognized by various courts which have appointed the firm to major positions in consolidated and multi-district litigation. The firm's efforts on behalf of shareholders in securities litigation have resulted in recoveries totaling hundreds of millions of dollars, and the firm's achievements and quality of service have been chronicled in numerous published decisions. More information about the firm, class actions in general, or about the role of the lead plaintiffs in a securities class action can be obtained through Kirby McInerney & Squire, LLP's website at http://www.kmslaw.com/.

Website: http://www.kmslaw.com/

The Humane Society of the United States and Weil, Gotshal & Manges have filed what they believe to be the first class action lawsuit against a U.S. puppy dealer, alleging that the company sold puppies with genetic defects and contagious parasitic infections and failed to reimburse customers for the sick animals or their medical problems.

Weil Gotshal, led by New York litigator Paul Ferrillo, filed the lawsuit on a pro bono basis on behalf of the Humane Society in Broward County Circuit Court against the south Florida-based Wizard of Claws. The lawsuit so far represents about 100 class members, said Jonathan Lovvorn, who heads up the Humane Society's litigation department. Each representative will have damages of $2,000 to $5,000, making the lawsuit worth hundreds of thousands of dollars, he said.

The sale of sick and dying puppies to customers who were unable to receive reimbursement for either the price of the sick dogs or veterinary treatments that sometimes cost thousands of dollars violated Florida animal and consumer protection laws, the Humane Society said. The lawsuit seeks unspecified compensatory damages and injunctive relief against the further sale of puppies by Wizard of Claws.

A Web site for Pembroke Pines, Fla.-based Wizard of Claws shows photos of various breeds of puppies for sale. All puppies are checked by a veterinarian and "all our attention goes to their well being," the site says. The company says it "backs up our puppies 100 percent." A Wizard of Claws representative declined comment and referred calls to owner James Anderson, who was not available.

Ferrillo, who was drawn to the case in part by his affection for his Jack Russell terrier, investigated the puppy dealer and brought the case with help from a team of about a dozen lawyers in Weil Gotshal's Miami and New York offices in addition to Humane Society attorneys.

In a victory for 3M Co., a judge ruled today that 67,700 residents of Washington County will not be considered as a a single group in a lawsuit against the company for damages allegedly suffered because of chemicals detected in their water.

The ruling The ruling by Washington County District Judge Mary Hannon denied class certification for the residents - which will greatly help 3M as it defends one of the biggest environmental lawsuits in state history.

"3M is pleased. The entire ruling is a victory," said company spokesman Bill Nelson.

Six county residents brought the lawsuit, which has been joined by another 1,000 people, according to the plaintiffs' lawyers.

Hannon's ruling means anyone wishing to sue the company for similar damages will have to do so in a separate legal action.

The chemicals detected in trace amounts are PFCs, or perfluorochemicals, made by 3M for such products as Teflon and Scotchgard stain repellant. They were legally disposed of by 3M in landfills in Washington County. In 2004, the chemicals were discovered in drinking water in Lake Elmo and Oakdale.

The discovery of a related chemical in drinking water in communities including Cottage Grove and Woodbury was announced in January.

Mega-doses of PFCs have caused cancer and other problems in rats. But state officials said they pose no short-term health risk to humans because they are in such minute amounts in the drinking water.

PFCs in water are measured in parts per billion - the equivalent of one second in 32 years. It is calculated that a Woodbury resident would have to drink 500,000 glasses of water a day to match the dose at which rats begin to show an effect. Longer-term studies of the effects of PFCs are under way.

The stakes in the case are potentially huge. If the case had gone to trial with the larger group certified as a class, no one could have predicted the amount of a potential settlement. But an Ohio case involving the same chemicals ended in 2005 with a settlement of $300 million.

In that case, the DuPont Company agreed to pay to remove chemicals from drinking water and monitor the health of water-drinking residents in the future. It did not pay for any alleged damages done to the water-drinkers.

Attorneys for the plaintiffs wouldn't comment Tuesday, but said in a written statement that their case would go forward without class certification.

But others suing 3M - or who may want to in the future - were disappointed.

"I think this is a setback," said Jon Archer, who noticed many neighborhood children with developmental disabilities when he lived in Oakdale.

He has blamed the water. "It shows you how big powerful attorneys manipulate the system," Archer said of today's ruling.

Mike Bradley, a Woodbury attorney with thyroid cancer, could have joined the lawsuit if the certification was allowed. Now, if he wants to sue 3M, he will have to take separate legal action.

"It's tremendously frustrating," said Bradley. "I am not sure what the judge was thinking. I am really concerned that corporate interests not be placed above families and children."

Specialty chemicals maker Cabot Corp. said Wednesday it agreed to settle the federal class action lawsuits pending against it that alleged it and other carbon black manufacturers violated antitrust laws in setting prices for carbon black sold in the United States.

In a filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission, Cabot said its share of the settlement cost is $10 million. Cabot also denied any wrongdoing of any kind, and said it "strongly believes that it has good defenses to these claims."

The company said it agreed to the settlement to avoid further expense, inconvenience, risk and the distraction of protracted litigation.

The settlement agreement is subject to court approval.

Boston-based Cabot said it will continue to defend the remaining antitrust lawsuits pending against it. There are suits pending in several state courts brought by purported classes of purchasers of carbon black, and a single federal case brought by a party that did not join the federal class action.

The high court certified a class covering about 72,000 former and current Wal-Mart workers. One legal expert said the decision "isn't good news for Wal-Mart".

"My speculation is that a jury is likely to find for the plaintiffs, given New Jersey juries and the pretty strong evidence put on elsewhere," said Carl Tobias, a law professor at the University of Richmond in Virginia. Wal-Mart, based in Bentonville, Arkansas, faces more than 70 US wage-and-hour suits, including class actions by employees claiming the company failed to pay for all hours worked or didn't compensate them properly for overtime.

Since December 2005, juries in Pennsylvania and California have awarded Wal-Mart workers a total of $US251 million ($A303 million) in pay and damages over such claims.

"We're disappointed with the decision and we're studying the opinion," Wal-Mart spokesman John Simley said.

Workers' lawyer Judy Spanier said her clients were "very pleased" with the decision. "It essentially adopts every argument we made," she said.

The ruling sends the case back to state court in New Brunswick for pretrial evidence-gathering.

The trial court first refused to grant class-action status, saying the case would be unmanageable. A mid-level appeals court upheld the decision. The Supreme Court found both lower courts were in error.

The workers claim Wal-Mart forced them to work through meal breaks, locked them in retail stores after they clocked out and coerced them into working off the clock.

The New Jersey action class will cover current and former hourly Wal-Mart staff employed from May 30, 1996, to the present.