The Brualdi Law Firm P.C. Announces Class Action Lawsuit Against Candela Corp

NEW YORK, May 2, 2008 (Lawfuel) — The Brualdi Law Firm P.C.
announced today that a class action lawsuit has been filed in the
United States District of Massachusetts on behalf of all purchasers of
securities of Candela Corporation (Nasdaq:CLZR) from February 1, 2006
through August 21, 2007, inclusive (the “Class Period”).

No class has yet been certified in the above action. If you purchased
Candela Corporation stock during the Class Period, you may be a member
of the proposed Class. You must move the Court on or before June 2,
2008 if you wish to serve as a lead plaintiff. In making your decision,
you should take into account that those with large financial losses
resulting from the alleged federal securities law violations are given
preference in being appointed lead plaintiff.

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 Tali Leger,
Director of Shareholder Relations at The Brualdi Law Firm P.C., 29
Broadway, Suite 2400, New York, New York 10006, by telephone toll free
at (877) 495-1877 or (212) 952-0602, by email to
[email protected] or visit our website at
http://www.brualdilawfirm.com/.

The Complaint charges Candela and certain of its officers and directors
with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Candela
manufactures and distributes clinical solutions that enable physicians,
surgeons, and personal care practitioners to treat selected cosmetic
and medical conditions using lasers, aesthetic laser systems, and other
advanced technologies. More specifically, the Complaint alleges that
the Company failed to disclose and misrepresented the following
material adverse facts which were known to defendants or recklessly
disregarded by them: (1) that the Company was not able to remain
competitive in the field; (2) specifically, the Company was not
offering a competitive multi-configuration/multi-application device and
was losing market share; (3) that the Company and Palomar Medical
Technologies, Inc. (“Palomar”) had exchanged various communications
concerning the prospect of patent litigation by Palomar, which if
commenced would increase costs; (4) that the Company lacked adequate
internal and financial controls; and (5) that, as a result of the
foregoing, the Company’s statements about its financial well-being and
future business prospects were lacking in any reasonable basis when
made.

Scroll to Top