BOCA RATON, Fla., Jul 29, 2010 (BUSINESS WIRE) — Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP (“Robbins Geller”) (http://www.rgrdlaw.com/cases/monsanto/) today announced that a class action has been commenced on behalf of an institutional investor in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri on behalf of purchasers of the common stock of Monsanto Company (“Monsanto” or the “Company”) /quotes/comstock/13*!mon/quotes/nls/mon (MON 57.84, -0.07, -0.12%) between January 7, 2009 and May 27, 2010, inclusive (the “Class Period”), seeking to pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”).
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, David J. George 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/monsanto/. 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 Monsanto and certain of its officers and executives with violations of the Exchange Act. Monsanto is a provider of agricultural products for farmers including seeds, biotechnology trait products, and herbicides, most notably Roundup(R).
The complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, defendants failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company’s true financial condition, business and prospects. Specifically, the complaint alleges that defendants failed to disclose: (i) that demand for the Company’s herbicide products was substantially declining as competition from Chinese producers of generic glyphosate products was causing a collapse in the prices of glyphosate products; (ii) that the Company would be unable to maintain herbicide prices as defendants knew that they had to cut prices significantly to be able to compete with the avalanche of generic herbicide products that were entering the market; and (iii) that, as a result of the foregoing, defendants’ positive statements about the Company, its earnings, prospects and financial condition were lacking in a reasonable basis and materially misleading.
GE Free BC 