DENVER, July 8, 2008 (LAWFUEL) — Dyer & Berens LLP
(www.DyerBerens.com) today announced that a class action has been
commenced in the United States District Court for the Central District
of California on behalf of purchasers of MRV Communications, Inc.
(“MRV” or the “Company”) (Nasdaq:MRVC) common stock during the period
between March 31, 2003 and June 5, 2008 (the “Class Period”). The
complaint charges MRV and certain of its current and former officers
with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

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, Jeffrey A. Berens of Dyer & Berens
LLP at (888) 300-3362 or (303) 861-1764, or via e-mail at
jeff@dyerberens.com. Any member of the purported 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.

MRV is a supplier of communications equipment and services to carriers,
governments and enterprise customers worldwide. The complaint alleges
that, during the Class Period, defendants made false and misleading
statements concerning the Company’s employee stock option grant
practices and financial results. Defendants allegedly caused or allowed
MRV to issue statements that failed to disclose or misstated the
following: (i) that the Company had problems with its internal controls
that prevented it from issuing accurate financial reports and
projections; (ii) that because of improperly recorded stock-based
compensation expenses the Company’s financial results violated GAAP;
and (iii) that the Company’s public disclosures covering a seven-year
period presented an inflated view of MRV’s earnings and earnings per
share, which would later have to be restated.

On June 5, 2008, MRV announced that it expects to restate its 2002 to
2008 financial statements, and that its previously-issued financial
statements, earnings press releases, and similar communications should
no longer be relied upon. The restatement relates to the previously
undisclosed stock-option backdating problems and related accounting
issues. This report came after the Company had earlier announced that a
review of its options granting practices had found no evidence that
grant dates were designed to occur on dates with lower, more favorable
exercise prices. MRV’s management now states that it is likely that
these previous conclusions were incorrect. Upon disclosure of this
news, MRV’s share price plummeted approximately 24%.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers of MRV
common stock during the Class Period. The plaintiff is represented by
Dyer & Berens LLP, which has expertise in prosecuting investor class
actions and extensive experience in actions involving financial fraud.
The firm’s extensive experience in securities litigation, particularly
in cases brought under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act,
has contributed to the recovery of hundreds of millions of dollars for
aggrieved investors. For more information about the firm, please go to
www.DyerBerens.com.

More information on this and other class actions can be found on the
Class Action Newsline at www.primenewswire.com/ca

Washington, D.C., July 8, 2008 (LAWFUEL) – The Securities and Exchange Commission today released findings from extensive 10-month examinations of three major credit rating agencies that uncovered significant weaknesses in ratings practices and the need for remedial action by the firms to provide meaningful ratings and the necessary levels of disclosure to investors.

Under new statutory authority from Congress that enabled the SEC to register and examine credit rating agencies, the agency’s staff conducted examinations of Fitch Ratings Ltd., Moody’s Investor Services Inc., and Standard & Poor’s Ratings Services to evaluate whether they are adhering to their published methodologies for determining ratings and managing conflicts of interest. With the recent subprime market turmoil, the SEC has been particularly interested in the rating agencies’ policies and practices in rating mortgage-backed securities and the impartiality of their ratings.

The SEC staff’s examinations found that rating agencies struggled significantly with the increase in the number and complexity of subprime residential mortgage-backed securities (RMBS) and collateralized debt obligations (CDO) deals since 2002. The examinations uncovered that none of the rating agencies examined had specific written comprehensive procedures for rating RMBS and CDOs. Furthermore, significant aspects of the rating process were not always disclosed or even documented by the firms, and conflicts of interest were not always managed appropriately.

“We’ve uncovered serious shortcomings at these firms, including a lack of disclosure to investors and the public, a lack of policies and procedures to manage the rating process, and insufficient attention to conflicts of interest,” said SEC Chairman Christopher Cox. “When the firms didn’t have enough staff to do the job right, they often cut corners. That’s the bad news. There’s also good news. And that’s that the problems are being fixed in real time. The recent events affecting our economy and our markets have galvanized regulators around the world to re-examine the regulatory framework governing credit rating agencies, but ultimately the responsibility for providing meaningful ratings to investors begins with the credit rating firms themselves.”

Lori Richards, Director of the SEC’s Office of Compliance Inspections and Examinations, said, “These examinations found shortcomings in the ratings processes used by each of the firms examined. The firms have all agreed to implement broad reforms to address the letter and the spirit of the findings, to better ensure that investors can have confidence in their ratings.”

The Summary Report of Issues Identified in the Commission Staff’s Examinations of Select Credit Rating Agencies describes the significant weaknesses in the rating agencies’ processes in rating subprime RMBS and CDOs linked to subprime residential mortgage-backed securities from January 2004 to the present.

Specifically, the examinations found:

There was a substantial increase in the number and in the complexity of RMBS and CDO deals since 2002, and some of the rating agencies appear to have struggled with the growth.

Significant aspects of the ratings process were not always disclosed.

Policies and procedures for rating RMBS and CDOs can be better documented.

The rating agencies are implementing new practices with respect to the information provided to them.

The rating agencies did not always document significant steps in the ratings process – including the rationale for deviations from their models and for rating committee actions and decisions – and they did not always document significant participants in the ratings process.

The surveillance processes used by the rating agencies appear to have been less robust than the processes used for initial ratings.

Issues were identified in the management of conflicts of interest and improvements can be made.

The rating agencies’ internal audit processes varied significantly.

The examinations were conducted by staff in the SEC’s Office of Compliance Inspections and Examinations, Division of Trading and Markets, and Office of Economic Analysis. The report summarizes generally the remedial actions that credit rating agencies are expected to take as a result of the examinations, and includes observations by the SEC’s Office of Economic Analysis about conflicts of interest that are unique to these products. A factual summary of the models and methodologies used by the rating agencies is provided in the report to provide transparency to the ratings process and the activities of the rating agencies in connection with the recent subprime mortgage turmoil.

The SEC last month proposed a three-fold set of comprehensive reforms to regulate the conflicts of interests, disclosures, internal policies, and business practices of credit rating agencies. The first portion of rulemaking would address conflicts of interest in the credit ratings industry and require new disclosures designed to increase the transparency and accountability of credit ratings agencies. The second portion would require credit rating agencies to differentiate the ratings they issue on structured products from those they issue on bonds through the use of different symbols or by issuing a report disclosing the differences. The third part of the SEC’s proposed rulemaking would clarify for investors the limits and purposes of credit ratings and ensure that the role assigned to ratings in SEC rules is consistent with the objectives of having investors make an independent judgment of credit risks.