NEW YORK, June 15, 2009 LawFuel.com — The Brualdi Law Firm, P.C.
announces that a lawsuit has been commenced in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf of purchasers of Kenexa Corp. (“Kenexa” or the “Company”) (Nasdaq:KNXA) common stock between between May 8, 2007 and November 7, 2007, inclusive (the “Class Period”) for violations of the federal security laws.
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 Kexena common stock during the Class Period, and wish to move the court for appointment of lead plaintiff, you must do so by August 10, 2009. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. The lead plaintiff will be selected from among applicants claiming the largest loss from investment in the Company during the Class Period. You do not need to seek appointment as a lead plaintiff in order to share in any recovery.
To be a member of the class you need not take any action at this time, and you may retain counsel of your choice. If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions concerning this Notice or your rights or interests with respect to these matters, please contact Sue Lee at The Brualdi Law Firm, P.C. 29 Broadway, Suite 2400, New York, New York 10006, by telephone toll free at (877) 495-1187 or (212) 952-0602, by email to [email protected] or visit our website at http://www.brualdilawfirm.com.
The Complaint charges that Kenexa and certain of its officers and directors violated federal securities laws. Specifically, the Complaint alleges that defendants failed to disclose the following adverse facts:
(i) that sales cycles for the Company’s Employment Process Outsourcing
(“EPO”) and assessments lines of business were lengthening, causing sales to be pushed out and revenue growth to slow; (ii) that Kenexa was experiencing problems with its international sales and would need to revamp that sales force; (iii) that the Company was experiencing problems with a significant EPO client such that the client was requesting to be released from its contract with the Company; and (iv) based on the foregoing, defendants lacked a reasonable basis for their positive statements about the Company, its earnings, operations and prospects.