DCN Dana Cp

The law firm of Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman LLP announces that a class action lawsuit was filed on October 4, 2005, on behalf of purchasers of the securities of Dana Corporation ("Dana" or the "Company") (NYSE: DCN) between March 23, 2005 to September 14, 2005, inclusive (the "Class Period"), seeking to pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act"). The action, numbered 3:05cv7388, is pending in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, against defendants Dana, Michael J. Burns (CEO, Chairman) and Robert C. Richter (CFO). A copy of the complaint filed in this action is available from the Court, or can be viewed on Milberg Weiss's website at: http://www.milbergweiss.com If you bought the securities of Dana between March 23, 2005 to September 14, 2005, inclusive, and sustained damages, you may, no later than December 5, 2005, request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. A lead plaintiff is a representative party that acts on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. In order to be appointed lead plaintiff, the Court must determine that the class member's claim is typical of the claims of other class members, and that the class member will adequately represent the class. Under certain circumstances, one or more class members may together serve as "lead plaintiff." Your ability to share in any recovery is not, however, affected by the decision whether or not to serve as a lead plaintiff. You may retain Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman LLP, or other counsel of your choice, to serve as your counsel in this action. The Complaint alleges that by the beginning of the Class Period, Dana's profits were being negatively impacted by an increase in the price of raw materials - steel, in particular - which was disconcerting to investors. In order to assure the market that the Company's business was performing according to plan, and would continue to perform well even if steel prices did not decline materially, defendants artificially inflated Dana's net income through improper accounting and, in addition, issued earnings guidance that lacked any reasonable basis given the Company's true performance and prospects, which were known to defendants but not the investing public. In particular, defendants' Class Period representations regarding Dana's historical financial performance and condition and its expected 2005 earnings were materially false and misleading because: (a) the Company had improperly accounted for price increases, which materially artificially inflated its second quarter of 2005 income; (b) the Individual Defendants' assurances, made in written certifications filed with the SEC, that the second quarter Form 10-Q was free from misstatements and fairly presented the Company's financial condition and results of operations was patently false; (c) the Company's apparent success was the result of improper accounting, did not reflect the reality of its business and deceived investors; and (d) in light of these facts, which were known to defendants, defendants' guidance lacked any rational basis and could not be met without a material drop in raw material prices, contrary to defendants' repeated assurances to the contrary. On September 15, 2005, before the open of ordinary trading, Dana issued a press release announcing that it would likely restate second quarter 2005 financial results and that it had dramatically lowered its 2005 earnings guidance, to $0.60 to $0.70 per share from $1.30 to $1.45, a more than 100% reduction. Because of the expected earnings shortfall, the Company may have to write down its U.S. deferred tax assets and may be in violation of covenants contained in a loan agreement, according to the press release. A main reason given for the halving of the 2005 guidance was high steel costs, a factor that defendants repeatedly assured the market was already considered, and accounted for, in the guidance. In reaction to this announcement, the price of Dana stock fell dramatically, from $12.78 per share on September 14, 2005 to $9.86 per share on September 15, 2005, a one-day drop of 22.8% on unusually heavy trading volume. Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman LLP (http://www.milbergweiss.com) is a firm with over 100 lawyers with offices in New York City, Los Angeles, Boca Raton, Delaware and Washington, D.C. and is active in major litigations pending in federal and state courts throughout the United States. Milberg Weiss has taken a leading role in many important actions on behalf of defrauded investors, consumers, and others for nearly 40 years. Please contact the Milberg Weiss website for more information about the firm. If you wish to discuss this action with us, or have any questions concerning this notice or your rights and interests with regard to the case, please contact the following attorneys: -0- *T Steven G. Schulman Peter E. Seidman Andrei V. Rado One Pennsylvania Plaza, 49th fl. New York, NY, 10119-0165 Phone number: (800) 320-5081 Email: sfeerick@milbergweiss.com Website: http://www.milbergweiss.com *T