ANNAPOLIS, MARYLAND, February 6, 2008 ‑ Sonex Research, Inc. (“Sonex” or the “Company”) has learned that on January 31, 2008, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania granted the Company’s Motion to Dismiss a lawsuit filed by investors seeking the return of $175,000 in equity investments made in Sonex during 2004.  The Court ruled that the Plaintiffs failed to state any of their claims as a matter of law.  The Court dismissed the claims in their entirety with prejudice, meaning that the Plaintiffs would be barred from making such claims in the future; however, the Plaintiffs have 30 days in which to file an appeal.  This lawsuit, originally filed in February 2005, was re-filed after initially being dismissed in July 2006.

The original Complaint alleging federal and state securities fraud was filed by Bruce W. Majer of Plymouth Meeting, PA, Allen W. Fortna of Whitehall, PA, and the Hermitage Partnership of Philadelphia, PA (together, referred to as the “Investors” or the “Plaintiffs”) seeking the return of $175,000 in equity investments made in Sonex during a private placement in 2004, plus unspecified compensatory and punitive damages.  The Investors believed they were induced to purchase securities based on a series of alleged misrepresentations and omissions, and was filed against Sonex, its former President, CEO and director Roger D. Posey, former director Jim Z.I. Williams, current CFO, Secretary and director George E. Ponticas, and Dr. Andrew A. Pouring, current Sonex Chairman of the Board, CEO and President.  Mr. Majer is a former colleague of Mr. Posey, while Mr. Fortna is Mr. Majer’s brother-in law.

Sonex management always has maintained that the claims are without merit, that many of the allegations in the Complaint contained factual inaccuracies, and that documents supplied to the Plaintiffs fully disclosed the risks of an investment in Sonex.  It is the opinion of management that the Plaintiffs attempted to orchestrate a securities fraud claim to escape what they had come to perceive as a downside investment.  Prior to investing in Sonex in 2004, each of the Investors executed subscription agreements in which they attested that they had read Company filings, including the December 31, 2003 Annual Report, which fully and clearly disclosed the poor financial condition of Sonex at the time.  The Investors specifically attested that they understood that an investment in Sonex was speculative and involved a high degree of risk, yet their Complaint claims the Company’s financial condition was misrepresented. 

In March 2005 the Company filed a Motion to Dismiss the Complaint.  In July 2006 the Court granted the Company’s Motion to Dismiss, ruling that the Plaintiffs failed to state any of their claims as a matter of law.  In August 2006, the Investors amended and re-filed their Complaint by adding more details to their allegations.  In September 2006 the Company filed a Motion to Dismiss the Amended Complaint.  In November 2006 the Plaintiffs filed an Opposition to the Company’s Motion to Dismiss, and in early December 2006 the Company filed its Reply in Support of its Motion to Dismiss.  No action was taken by the Court until the dismissal of the Amended Complaint on January 31, 2008. 

As explained in the Memorandum and Order of Dismissal, the Court found that the additional details in the Amended Complaint failed to give merit to the original claims.  In essence, the Amended Complaint collapsed under the weight of the total mix of information and cautionary statements available at the time of the investments.  The Court noted that “Sonex disclosed its true nature to the [Plaintiffs] in the written materials they were given prior to investing. … The Plaintiffs decided to invest despite these warnings, and their economic losses are theirs to bear.”  The Investors will maintain ownership of the 700,000 shares of Sonex common stock they acquired in the private placement in 2004. 

Although Sonex has prevailed in this matter, the Company has had to divert resources towards defending the legal action brought by Mr. Majer and his co-investors.  Beginning in late 2004 when the Plaintiffs first demanded return of their investments followed by the filing of the Complaint in February 2005, management has had to devote a significant amount of time to respond, and the Company has incurred legal fees of approximately $108,500, with additional legal fees to be incurred in closing the case.   The diversion of resources to respond to this action was a contributing factor in the Company’s inability to maintain its filings with the SEC, eventually leading to the loss of public trading of Sonex stock.  Dr. Andrew A. Pouring, Chairman of the Board, CEO and President of Sonex, stated “It is unfortunate this small group of investors attempted to position themselves ahead of all other investors by seeking recovery of their investments through the legal system rather than through support of the Company to help the stock held by all shareholders realize significant value.”

Contact: George E. Ponticas, CFO, Sonex Research, Inc., tel: 410-266-5556, email: george.ponticas@sonex-na.com, website: www.sonexresearch.com.

About Sonex

Sonex Research, Inc., a leader in the field of combustion technology, is developing its patented Sonex Combustion System (SCS) technology designed to increase fuel mileage and reduce emissions of internal combustion engines. The SCS achieves in-cylinder control of ignition and combustion through chemical/turbulent enhancement using patented combustion chamber designs.  Sonex plans to complete development, commercialize and market its piston-based Sonex Controlled Auto Ignition (SCAI) combustion process to the automotive industry to improve fuel efficiency of gasoline powered vehicles.  Other SCS designs are being used to convert gasoline engines of various sizes to operate on safer, diesel-type “heavy fuels” for use in military and commercial applications requiring light weight and safe handling and storage of fuel, such as in UAVs (unmanned aerial vehicles).  Sonex has licensed the SCS heavy fuel engine (HFE) technology applicable to UAVs with HFEs that are twenty horsepower or less to Insitu, Inc. (www.insitu.com), a pioneer developer of long-range, unmanned, autonomous aircraft for military and commercial activities.  Insitu has developed the long endurance, low cost ScanEagle® UAV in partnership with The Boeing Company.  (ScanEagle® is a registered trademark of The Boeing Company.)  ScanEagle has been used to provide services for the U.S. Marine Corps, U.S. Navy, and Australian Army in the Middle East.

CAUTION REGARDING FORWARD‑LOOKING STATEMENTS

“Forward‑looking” statements contained in this report, as well as all publicly disseminated material about the Company, are made pursuant to the “safe harbor” provisions of the Private Securities Litigation Act.  Such statements are based on current expectations, estimates, projections and assumptions by management with respect to matters such as commercial acceptance of the SCS technology, the impact of competition, and the Company's financial condition or results of operations.  Readers are cautioned that such statements are not guarantees of future performance and involve risks and uncertainties that could cause actual results to differ materially from those expressed in any such forward‑looking statements.