Pomerantz Law Firm Issues Corrected Class Action Notice

Pomerantz Haudek Grossman & Gross LLP issues this corrected notice to clarify the deadline for filing for Lead Plaintiff in the securities class action lawsuit Pomerantz has filed against First Solar Inc. ("First Solar" or the "Company") (Nasdaq:FSLR - News) and certain of its officers. The notice issued on March 16, 2012 incorrectly stated that the deadline for filing for Lead Plaintiff was May 14, 2012. The correct deadline for filing for Lead Plaintiff is May 15, 2012.

The class action, (Smilovits v. First Solar, Inc. et al. 12-cv-00555), filed in the United States District Court, District of Arizona, is on behalf of a class consisting of all persons or entities who purchased First Solar securities between April 30, 2008 and February 28, 2012, inclusive (the "Class Period"). This class action is brought under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C. Sections 78j(b) and 78t(a); and SEC Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by the SEC, 17 C.F.R. Section 240.10b-5.

If you are a shareholder who purchased First Solar securities during the Class Period, you have until May 15, 2012 to ask the Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class. A copy of the complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com. To discuss this action, contact Rachelle R. Boyle at rrboyle@pomlaw.com or 888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll free, x237. Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their mailing address and telephone number.

First Solar designs and manufactures solar modules. The Company uses a thin film semiconductor technology to manufacture electricity-producing solar modules.

The Complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose: (1) the full impact of certain manufacturing flaws on the Company's earnings; (2) the Company was improperly recognizing revenue concerning certain products in its systems business; (3) the Company lacked adequate internal and financial controls; and (4) as a result of the foregoing, the Company's statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.