Case 8:10-cv-01327-JST -RNB Document 59 Filed 09/19/11 Page 1 of 2 Page ID #:1064

1 Christopher J. Keller Sherrie R. Savett dmitted pro hac vice) admitted pro hac vice) 2 Christopher J. McDonald Barbara A. Podell (admitted pro hac vice) (admitted pro hac vice) 3 LABATON SUCHAROW LLP Douglas M. Risen 140 Broadwa (admitted pro hac vice) 4 New York, Nyew York 10005 Eric Lechtzin (Bar No. 248958) Telephone: (212) 907-0700 BERGER & MONTAGUE, P.C. 5 Facsimile: {{212) 818-0477 1622 Locust Street Email: [email protected] Philadelphia Pennsylvania 19103 6 Telephone: 215) 875-3071 Co-Lead Counsel for Lead Plaintiff and the Facsimile: (215) 875-5715 7 Class Email: [email protected] g Co-Lead Counsel for Lead Plaintiff Mark Labaton (Bar No. 159555) and the Class 9 MOTLEY RICE LLP 1100 Glendon Avenue, 14th Floor 10 Los Angeles, California 90024 Telephone: (310) 500-3488 11 Facsimile: (310) 824.2870 Email: [email protected] 12 Liaison Counsel for the Class 13 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 14 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 15 16 Case No.: 8: X 0-ev-L327-JST (RNBx) 17 IN RE BECKMAN COULTER, INC. DECLARATION OF SECURITIES LITIGATION CHRISTOPHER J. MCDONALD 18 IN SUPPORT OF LEAD PLAINTIFF'S UNOPPOSED 19 MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION 20 SETTLEMENT 21 Judge: Hon. Josephine Staton Tucker Date: Oct. 24, 2011 22 Time: 10:00 a.m. Courtroom: l 0A 23 24 25 26 27 28

DECLARATION OF CHRISTOPHER J. MCDONALD IN SUPPORT OP LEAD PLAINTIFF'S UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT, CASE NO.: 8:16-cv- 1327-JST (RNBx)

Case 8:1 0-cv-01327-JST -RNB Document 59 Filed 09/19/11 Page 2 of 2 Page ID #:1065

1 I, CHRISTOPHER J. MCDONALD, declare as follows pursuant to 28

2 U.S.C.§1746: 3 1. I am a member of the law firm of Labaton Sucharow LLP, court- 4 appointed Lead Counsel, together with Berger & Montague, P.C., for Lead 5 Plaintiff Arkansas Teacher Retirement System and Iron Workers District Council 6 of New England Pension Fund and the Class, and am admitted to practice pro hac 7 vice before this Court. I respectfully submit this Declaration in support of Lead 8 Plaintiff s Unopposed Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement 9 and the Memorandum of Paints and Authorities in support thereof. I have personal 10 knowledge of the matters testified to herein. 11 2. Annexed hereto as Exhibit 1 is a true and correct copy of the 12 Stipulation of Settlement, dated as of September 13, 2011. 13 3. Annexed hereto as Exhibit 2 is a true and correct copy of the firm 14 resume of Labaton Sucharow LLP, Lead Counsel in the Action. 15 4. Annexed hereto as Exhibit 3 is a true and correct copy of the firm 16 resume of Berger & Montague, P.C., Lead Counsel in the Action. 17 5. Annexed hereto as Exhibit 4 is a true and correct copy of material 18 concerning the proposed claims administrator, A.B. Data., Ltd.. 19 I hereby declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and 20 correct.

21 22 Dated: September 16, 2011

23

24 ^- Christopff^. McDonald (admitted pro hac vice) 25

26

27

28

DECLARATION OF CHRISTOPHER J. MCDONALD IN SUPPORT OF LEAD PLAINTIFF'S UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SrTTLEWN'r, CASE No.: 8:10-CV-1327-JST (RNBx) EXHIBIT 1 EXECUTION COPY

1 Christopher J. Keller Sherrie R. Savett 2 (admitted pro hac vice) (admitted pro hac vice) Christopher J. McDonald Barbara A. Podell 3 (admitted pro hac vice) (admitted pro hac vice) LABATON SUCHAROW LLP Douglas M. Risen 4 140 Broadway (admitted pro hac vice) New York, New York 10005 Eric Lechtzin (Bar No. 248958) 5 Telephone: (212) 907-0700 BERGER & MONTAGUE, P.C. Facsimile: (212) 818-0477 1622 Locust Street 6 Email: [email protected] Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103 Telephone: (215) 875-3071 7 Co-Lead Counsel for Lead Plaintiff and the Facsimile: (215) 875-5715 Class Email: [email protected] 8 Co-Lead Counsel for Lead Plaintiff 9 Mark Labaton (Bar No. 159555) and the Class MOTLEY RICE LLP 10 1100 Glendon Avenue, 14th Floor Los Angeles, California 90024 11 Telephone: (310) 500-3488 Facsimile: (310) 824-2870 12 Email: [email protected] 13 Liaison Counsel for the Class 14 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 15 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 16 ) 17 ) Case No.: 8:10-cv-1327-JST (RNBx) ) 18 IN RE BECKMAN COULTER, INC. ) STIPULATION OF SETTLEMENT SECURITIES LITIGATION ) 19 ) ) Hon. Josephine Staton Tucker 20 ) ) 21 ) 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

STIPULATION OF SETTLEMENT Case No.: 8:10-cv-1327-JST (RNBx) 1 This stipulation and agreement of settlement (the “Stipulation” or 2 “Settlement”) is made and entered into by and between Arkansas Teacher 3 Retirement System and Iron Workers District Council of New England Pension 4 Fund (“Lead Plaintiff”), on behalf of itself and the putative Class (defined below), 5 and Beckman Coulter, Inc. (“Beckman” or the “Company”), and the Individual 6 Defendants (defined below, and together with the Company, the “Defendants”). 7 WHEREAS: 8 A. All words or terms used herein that are capitalized shall have the 9 meaning ascribed to those words or terms as set forth herein and in ¶ 1 hereof 10 entitled “Definitions.” 11 B. In September 2010, two proposed class actions were filed against the 12 Defendants in the United States District Court for the Central District of California 13 (the “Court”) captioned, respectively, City of Southfield Fire & Police Ret. System 14 v. Beckman Coulter, Inc., Case No. 8:10-cv-1327 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 3, 2010) and 15 Pinchuck v. Beckman Coulter, Inc., Case No. 8:10 cv-1334 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 7, 16 2010). On December 8, 2010, the Court issued an order consolidating these cases 17 into the present Action and appointing Arkansas Teacher Retirement System and 18 Iron Workers District Council of New England Pension Fund as Lead Plaintiff, 19 permitting Steelworkers Pension Trust to serve as a named Plaintiff (collectively 20 “Plaintiffs”), and appointing Labaton Sucharow LLP and Berger & Montague, P.C. 21 as Lead Counsel for the putative Class. 22 C. Lead Plaintiff filed a Consolidated Class Action Complaint for 23 Violations of Federal Securities Laws (the “Complaint”) on February 7, 2011 24 against the Defendants, asserting claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the 25 Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”) on behalf of any person or 26 entity who purchased or otherwise acquired Beckman common stock between July 27 31, 2009 and July 22, 2010, inclusive, and who were allegedly damaged thereby. 28

STIPULATION OF SETTLEMENT 2 Case No.: 8:10-cv-1327-JST (RNBx) 1 D. On April 22, 2011, Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss, which was 2 currently pending before the Court at the time of this Settlement. 3 E. Lead Plaintiff, through Lead Counsel, states that it conducted a 4 thorough investigation relating to the claims and underlying events and 5 transactions of the Action. This process included reviewing and analyzing: 6 Beckman’s filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”); 7 securities analysts’ reports; public statements by Defendants; media reports about 8 Defendants; court records in multiple actions involving Beckman; trading data; 9 documents obtained from the United States Food and Drug Administration 10 (“FDA”) pursuant to requests made under the Freedom of Information Act; recall 11 notices of Beckman’s products dating back to January 2006; adverse event reports 12 from the FDA’s Manufacturer and User Facility Device Experience database; and 13 product and other information available on Beckman’s website, 14 www.beckmancoulter.com. 15 F. Lead Counsel also states that it interviewed more than 60 former 16 employees of Beckman and consulted with FDA industry experts regarding, among 17 other things, medical devices and radiation producing electronic products, site and 18 plant inspections, good manufacturing practices, quality control, health and safety 19 requirements, and pre-market notification requirements pursuant to Section 510(k) 20 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. § 360(k)), as well as 21 damages experts. 22 G. On June 9, 2011, Lead Plaintiff and the Defendants (collectively, the 23 “Parties”) participated in a mediation regarding potential settlement of the Action 24 facilitated by the Honorable Daniel Weinstein of JAMS. In connection with the 25 mediation process, the Parties exchanged confidential mediation statements and 26 information regarding their respective views of the merits of the claims and of 27 alleged damages. In connection with the mediation process, Lead Plaintiff and 28 Lead Counsel conducted arm’s-length negotiations with counsel for Defendants

STIPULATION OF SETTLEMENT 3 Case No.: 8:10-cv-1327-JST (RNBx) 1 with respect to a potential compromise and settlement of the Action with a view to 2 achieving the best relief possible consistent with the interests of the Class. 3 H. Based upon their investigation and the mediation, Lead Plaintiff and 4 Lead Counsel have concluded that the terms and conditions of this Settlement are 5 fair, reasonable and adequate to Plaintiffs and the Class. Lead Plaintiff believes 6 that the claims asserted in the Action have merit and that evidence developed to 7 date supports the claims asserted. However, Lead Plaintiff and Lead Counsel 8 recognize and acknowledge the expense and length of continued proceedings 9 necessary to prosecute the Action against the Defendants through trial and appeals. 10 Lead Plaintiff and Lead Counsel also have taken into account the uncertain 11 outcome and the risk of any litigation, especially in complex actions such as the 12 Action, and the possibility that the Court could dismiss the Action with prejudice 13 on a ruling on the Defendants’ motion to dismiss or at summary judgment. Lead 14 Counsel are mindful of the inherent problems of proof and the possible defenses to 15 the claims alleged in the Action. Based on their evaluation, Lead Plaintiff and 16 Lead Counsel believe that the Settlement set forth in this Stipulation confers 17 substantial monetary benefits upon the Class and is in the best interests of Plaintiffs 18 and the Class. 19 I. The Defendants have denied and continue to deny any and all liability 20 under the U.S. securities laws. The Defendants have denied and continue to deny 21 each of the claims alleged by Lead Plaintiff on behalf of the Class, including all 22 claims in the Complaint. 23 J. This Stipulation, whether or not consummated, any proceedings 24 relating to any settlement, or any of the terms of any settlement, whether or not 25 consummated, shall in no event be construed as, or deemed to be evidence of, an 26 admission or concession on the part of the Defendants with respect to any claim of 27 any liability or damage whatsoever, or any infirmity in any defense that the 28 Defendants have or could have asserted. The Defendants are entering into this

STIPULATION OF SETTLEMENT 4 Case No.: 8:10-cv-1327-JST (RNBx) 1 Settlement to eliminate the burden, expense, uncertainty, distraction and risk of 2 further litigation. 3 NOW THEREFORE, without any concession by Lead Plaintiff that the 4 Action lacks merit, and without any concession by Defendants of any liability or 5 wrongdoing or lack of merit in their defenses, it is hereby STIPULATED AND 6 AGREED, by and among the Parties to this Stipulation, through their respective 7 attorneys, subject to approval by the Court pursuant to Rule 23(e) of the Federal 8 Rules of Civil Procedure, that, in consideration of the benefits flowing to the 9 Parties hereto, all Released Claims and all Released Defendants’ Claims as against 10 all Released Parties shall be compromised, settled, released and dismissed with 11 prejudice, and without costs, upon and subject to the following terms and 12 conditions: 13 DEFINITIONS 14 1. As used in this Stipulation, the following terms shall have the 15 meanings set forth below: 16 (a) “Action” means In re Beckman Coulter, Inc. Sec. Litig., No. 17 8:10-cv-1327-JST (RNBx) and all consolidated actions pending in the United 18 States District Court for the Central District of California, before the Honorable 19 Josephine Staton Tucker. 20 (b) “Authorized Claimant” means a Class Member who timely 21 submits to the Claims Administrator a valid Proof of Claim and Release form that 22 is approved for payment by the Court. 23 (c) “Alternative Judgment” means a form of final Judgment that 24 may be entered by the Court herein but in a form other than the form of Judgment 25 provided for in this Stipulation and where neither Lead Plaintiff nor Defendants, 26 through their respective counsel, hereto elects to terminate this Settlement by 27 reason of such variance. 28

STIPULATION OF SETTLEMENT 5 Case No.: 8:10-cv-1327-JST (RNBx) 1 (d) “Claims Administrator” means the firm to be retained by Lead 2 Counsel, subject to Court approval, to provide all notices approved by the Court to 3 Class Members, process Proofs of Claim and administer the Settlement. 4 (e) “Class” or “Class Member” means any person or entity who 5 purchased or otherwise acquired Beckman common stock between July 31, 2009 6 and July 22, 2010, inclusive, and who was allegedly damaged thereby. Excluded 7 from the Class are the Defendants; any officer or director of Beckman during the 8 Class Period; members of the immediate families of each of the foregoing and their 9 legal representatives, heirs, successors or assigns; and any entity in which any 10 Defendant has or had (during the Class Period) a controlling interest. Also 11 excluded from the Class are any proposed Class Members who properly exclude 12 themselves by filing a valid and timely request for exclusion in accordance with 13 the requirements set forth in the Notice. 14 (f) “Class Period” means the period between July 31, 2009 and 15 July 22, 2010, inclusive. 16 (g) “Company” means Beckman Coulter, Inc., also referred to 17 herein as “Beckman.” 18 (h) “Court” means the United States District Court for the Central 19 District of California. 20 (i) “Defendants” means Beckman and the Individual Defendants. 21 (j) “Defendants’ Counsel” means the law firm of Latham & 22 Watkins LLP. 23 (k) “Distribution Order” means an order of the Court approving the 24 Claims Administrator’s administrative determinations concerning the acceptance 25 and rejection of the claims submitted and approving any fees and expenses not 26 previously paid, including the fees and expenses of the Claims Administrator and, 27 if the Effective Date has occurred, directing payment of the Net Settlement Fund to 28 Authorized Claimants.

STIPULATION OF SETTLEMENT 6 Case No.: 8:10-cv-1327-JST (RNBx) 1 (l) “Effective Date” means the date upon which the Settlement 2 shall become effective, as set forth in ¶ 41 below. 3 (m) “Escrow Account” means the separate interest-bearing escrow 4 account at a banking institution designated by Lead Counsel into which the 5 Settlement Amount is to be deposited for the benefit of the Class. The Escrow 6 Account shall be controlled solely by the Escrow Agent. 7 (n) “Escrow Agent” means Lead Counsel. 8 (o) “Final,” with respect to the Judgment, means the later of: (i) if 9 there is an appeal from the Judgment, the date of final affirmance on appeal and 10 the expiration of the time for any further judicial review whether by appeal, 11 reconsideration or a petition for a writ of certiorari and, if certiorari is granted, the 12 date of final affirmance of the Judgment following review pursuant to the grant; or 13 (ii) the date of final dismissal of any appeal from the Judgment or the final 14 dismissal of any proceeding on certiorari to review the Judgment; or (iii) the 15 expiration of the time for the filing or noticing of any appeal from the Judgment, 16 which is thirty (30) calendar days after the Judgment is entered on the Court’s 17 docket (or, if the date for taking an appeal or seeking review of the Judgment shall 18 be extended beyond this time by order of the Court, by operation of law or 19 otherwise, or if such extension is requested, the date of expiration of any extension 20 if any appeal or review is not sought). In the event that the Court enters an 21 Alternative Judgment, Final shall mean the date that such Alternative Judgment is 22 no longer subject to appeal or review by certiorari or otherwise, and the time for 23 any petition for reargument, appeal or review, by certiorari or otherwise, has 24 expired. However, any appeal or proceeding seeking subsequent judicial review 25 pertaining solely to the Plan of Allocation of the Net Settlement Fund, or to the 26 Court’s award of attorneys’ fees or expenses, shall not in any way delay or affect 27 the time set forth above for the Judgment or Alternative Judgment to become Final, 28 or otherwise preclude the Judgment or Alternative Judgment from becoming Final.

STIPULATION OF SETTLEMENT 7 Case No.: 8:10-cv-1327-JST (RNBx) 1 (p) “Individual Defendants” means Scott T. Garrett and Charles P. 2 Slacik. 3 (q) “Judgment” means the proposed Final Order and Judgment to 4 be entered approving the Settlement substantially in the form attached hereto as 5 Exhibit B. 6 (r) “Lead Counsel” means the law firms of Labaton Sucharow LLP 7 and Berger & Montague, P.C. 8 (s) “Lead Plaintiff” means Arkansas Teacher Retirement System 9 and Iron Workers District Council of New England Pension Fund. 10 (t) “Net Settlement Fund” means the Settlement Fund less: 11 (i) Court-awarded attorneys’ fees and expenses; (ii) Notice and Administration 12 Expenses in excess of $500,000; (iii) Taxes; and (iv) any other fees or expenses 13 approved by the Court, including any award to Lead Plaintiff for reasonable costs 14 and expenses (including lost wages) pursuant to the Private Securities Litigation 15 Reform Act of 1995, 15 U.S.C. §78u-4 (the “PSLRA”). 16 (u) “Notice” means the Notice of Pendency of Class Action and 17 Proposed Settlement and Motion for Attorneys’ Fees and Expenses, which is to be 18 sent to members of the Class and, subject to approval of the Court, shall be 19 substantially in the form attached hereto as Exhibit A-1 to Exhibit A hereto. 20 (v) “Notice and Administration Expenses” means all fees and 21 expenses incurred in connection with providing notice to the Class and the 22 administration of the Settlement, including but not limited to: (i) providing notice 23 of the proposed Settlement by mail, publication and other means; (ii) receiving and 24 reviewing claims; (iii) applying the Plan of Allocation; (iv) communicating with 25 Persons regarding the proposed Settlement and claims administration process; 26 (v) distributing the proceeds of the Settlement; and (vi) fees related to the Escrow 27 Account and investment of the Settlement Fund. 28

STIPULATION OF SETTLEMENT 8 Case No.: 8:10-cv-1327-JST (RNBx) 1 (w) “Party” or “Parties” means Defendants and Lead Plaintiff, on 2 behalf of themselves and the other Class Members. 3 (x) “Person” means an individual, corporation (including all 4 divisions and subsidiaries), general or limited partnership, association, joint stock 5 company, joint venture, limited liability company, professional corporation, estate, 6 legal representative, trust, unincorporated association, government or any political 7 subdivision or agency thereof, and any other business or legal entity. 8 (y) “Plaintiffs” means Lead Plaintiff and Steelworkers Pension 9 Trust. 10 (z) “Preliminary Approval Order” means the proposed order 11 preliminarily approving the Settlement and directing notice to the Class of the 12 pendency of the Action and of the Settlement, which, subject to the approval of the 13 Court, shall be substantially in the form attached hereto as Exhibit A. 14 (aa) “Proof of Claim” means the Proof of Claim and Release form 15 for submitting a claim, which shall be substantially in the form attached as Exhibit 16 A-2 to Exhibit A hereto. 17 (bb) “Released Claims” means all claims, rights and causes of 18 action, duties, obligations, demands, actions, debts, sums of money, suits, 19 contracts, agreements, promises, damages, and liabilities of every nature and 20 description, whether known or Unknown (as defined below), whether arising under 21 federal, state, common or administrative law, or any other law, that Lead Plaintiff 22 or any other Class Member: (i) have asserted in the Action, including in the 23 Complaint; or (ii) could have asserted in any forum, that arise out of the 24 allegations, transactions, facts, events, occurrences, acts, disclosures, statements, 25 representations or omissions or failures to act involved, set forth, or referred to in 26 the Complaint filed in the Action, and that relate to the purchase or acquisition 27 during the Class Period of Beckman common stock. Released Claims do not 28 include claims: (i) to enforce the Settlement; (ii) to enforce confidentiality

STIPULATION OF SETTLEMENT 9 Case No.: 8:10-cv-1327-JST (RNBx) 1 agreements and obligations concerning information provided in connection with 2 the settlement of the Action; and (iii) asserted derivatively or directly in the action 3 In re Beckman Coulter, Inc. Shareholders Litig., Lead Case No. 30-2010-0040632 4 pending in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Orange. 5 (cc) “Released Defendants’ Claims” means all claims, rights and 6 causes of action, duties, obligations, demands, actions, debts, sums of money, suits, 7 contracts, agreements, promises, damages, and liabilities of every nature and 8 description, whether known or Unknown, whether arising under federal, state, 9 common or administrative law, or any other law, that the Defendants or any other 10 Released Defendant Party asserted, or could have asserted, against any of the 11 Released Plaintiff Parties that arise out of or relate in any way to the 12 commencement, prosecution, settlement or resolution of the Action or the claims 13 against the Released Defendant Parties. “Released Defendants’ Claims” do not 14 include claims: (i) to enforce the Settlement; (ii) to enforce confidentiality 15 agreements and obligations concerning information provided in connection with 16 the settlement of the Action; and (iii) that arise out of or relate in any way to the 17 commencement, prosecution, settlement or resolution of claims asserted 18 derivatively or directly in the action In re Beckman Coulter, Inc. Shareholders 19 Litig., Lead Case No. 30-2010-0040632 pending in the Superior Court of the State 20 of California, County of Orange. 21 (dd) “Released Defendant Parties” means the Defendants and their 22 present or former trustees, officers, directors, principals, employees, agents, 23 partners, insurers, auditors, heirs, executors, administrators, attorneys, accountants, 24 financial advisors, representatives, predecessors, successors or assigns, parents, 25 subsidiaries, divisions, affiliates, associates, joint ventures, general or limited 26 partners or partnerships, limited liability companies and any trust of which any 27 Individual Defendant is the settlor or which is for the benefit of their immediate 28 family members.

STIPULATION OF SETTLEMENT 10 Case No.: 8:10-cv-1327-JST (RNBx) 1 (ee) “Released Parties” means the Released Defendant Parties and 2 the Released Plaintiff Parties collectively. 3 (ff) “Released Plaintiff Parties” means Plaintiffs, each and every 4 Class Member, Lead Counsel, and their respective present or former trustees, 5 officers, directors, principals, employees, agents, partners, insurers, auditors, heirs, 6 executors, administrators, attorneys, accountants, financial advisors, 7 representatives, predecessors, successors or assigns, parents, subsidiaries, 8 divisions, affiliates, associates, joint ventures, general or limited partners or 9 partnerships, limited liability companies and any trust of which Plaintiffs, any 10 Class Member, or Lead Counsel is the settlor or which is for the benefit of their 11 immediate family members. 12 (gg) “Settlement” means the resolution of the Action as against the 13 Defendants in accordance with the terms and provisions of this Stipulation. 14 (hh) “Settlement Amount” means the total principal amount of 15 $5,000,000 in cash. 16 (ii) “Settlement Fund” means: (a) $5,000,000 in cash paid by or on 17 behalf of the Defendants into the Escrow Account (as set forth in ¶ 6 below) and 18 (b) any earnings on any monies held in the Escrow Account. 19 (jj) “Settlement Hearing” means the hearing to be held by the Court 20 to determine whether the proposed Settlement is fair, reasonable and adequate and 21 should be approved. 22 (kk) “Stipulation” means this Stipulation of Settlement. 23 (ll) “Summary Notice” means the Summary Notice of Pendency of 24 Class Action and Proposed Settlement and Motion for Attorneys’ Fees and 25 Expenses for publication, which shall be substantially in the form attached as 26 Exhibit A-3 to Exhibit A hereto. 27 (mm) “Taxes” means all taxes on the income of the Settlement Fund 28 and expenses and costs incurred in connection with the taxation of the Settlement

STIPULATION OF SETTLEMENT 11 Case No.: 8:10-cv-1327-JST (RNBx) 1 Fund (including, without limitation, interest, penalties and the expenses of tax 2 attorneys and accountants). 3 (nn) “Unknown Claims” means any and all Released Claims, which 4 the Lead Plaintiff or any other Class Member does not know or suspect to exist in 5 his, her or its favor at the time of the release of the Released Defendant Parties, and 6 any Released Defendants’ Claims that the Defendants or any other Released 7 Defendant Party does not know or suspect to exist in his, her or its favor at the time 8 of the release of the Released Plaintiff Parties, which if known by him, her or it 9 might have affected his, her or its decision(s) with respect to the Settlement. With 10 respect to any and all Released Claims and Released Defendants’ Claims, the 11 Parties stipulate and agree that, upon the Effective Date, Lead Plaintiff and the 12 Defendants shall expressly, and each other Class Member and each other Released 13 Defendant Party shall be deemed to have, and by operation of the Judgment or 14 Alternative Judgment shall have, expressly waived and relinquished any and all 15 provisions, rights and benefits conferred by any law of any state or territory of the 16 United States, or principle of common law, which is similar, comparable, or 17 equivalent to Cal. Civ. Code § 1542, which provides:

18 A general release does not extend to claims which the creditor does not know or suspect to exist in his or her 19 favor at the time of executing the release, which if known by him or her must have materially affected 20 his or her settlement with the debtor. 21 Lead Plaintiff, the other Class Members, the Defendants or the other Released 22 Defendant Parties may hereafter discover facts in addition to or different from 23 those which he, she, or it now knows or believes to be true with respect to the 24 subject matter of the Released Claims and the Released Defendants’ Claims, but 25 Lead Plaintiff and the Defendants shall expressly, fully, finally and forever settle 26 and release, and each other Class Member and each other Released Defendant 27 Party shall be deemed to have settled and released, and upon the Effective Date 28 and by operation of the Judgment or Alternative Judgment shall have settled and

STIPULATION OF SETTLEMENT 12 Case No.: 8:10-cv-1327-JST (RNBx) 1 released, fully, finally, and forever, any and all Released Claims and Released 2 Defendants’ Claims as applicable, without regard to the subsequent discovery or 3 existence of such different or additional facts. Lead Plaintiff and the Defendants 4 acknowledge, and other Class Members and each other Released Defendant Party 5 by operation of law shall be deemed to have acknowledged, that the inclusion of 6 “Unknown Claims” in the definition of Released Claims and Released Defendants’ 7 Claims was separately bargained for and was a key element of the Settlement. 8 SCOPE AND EFFECT OF SETTLEMENT 9 2. The obligations incurred pursuant to this Stipulation are, subject to 10 approval by the Court and such approval becoming Final, in full and final 11 disposition of the Action with respect to the Released Parties and any and all 12 Released Claims and Released Defendants’ Claims. 13 3. For purposes of this Settlement only, Lead Plaintiff and the 14 Defendants agree to: (i) certification of the Action as a class action, pursuant to 15 Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) and 23(b)(3), on behalf of the Class; (ii) the certification of 16 Lead Plaintiff as Class Representative for the Class; and (iii) the appointment of 17 Lead Counsel as Class Counsel for the Class. 18 4. By operation of the Judgment or Alternative Judgment, as of the 19 Effective Date, Lead Plaintiff and each and every other Released Plaintiff Party, on 20 behalf of themselves and each of their respective heirs, executors, trustees, 21 administrators, predecessors, successors and assigns, shall be deemed to have fully, 22 finally and forever waived, released, discharged and dismissed each and every one 23 of the Released Claims against each and every one of the Released Defendant 24 Parties and shall forever be barred and enjoined from commencing, instituting, 25 prosecuting or maintaining any of the Released Claims against any of the Released 26 Defendant Parties. 27 5. By operation of the Judgment or Alternative Judgment, as of the 28 Effective Date, the Defendants and each of their respective Released Defendant

STIPULATION OF SETTLEMENT 13 Case No.: 8:10-cv-1327-JST (RNBx) 1 Parties, on behalf of themselves and each of their respective heirs, executors, 2 trustees, administrators, predecessors, successors and assigns, shall be deemed to 3 have fully, finally and forever waived, released, discharged and dismissed each and 4 every one of the Released Defendants’ Claims, as against each and every one of 5 the Released Plaintiff Parties and shall forever be barred and enjoined from 6 commencing, instituting, prosecuting or maintaining any of the Released 7 Defendants’ Claims against any of the Released Plaintiff Parties. 8 THE SETTLEMENT CONSIDERATION 9 6. In full settlement of the claims asserted in the Action against the 10 Defendants and in consideration of the releases specified in ¶¶ 4 and 5, above, 11 Beckman shall pay or cause its insurers to pay the sum of $5,000,000 in cash (the 12 “Settlement Amount”). Beckman shall deposit or cause its insurers to deposit the 13 Settlement Amount into the Escrow Account on or before ten (10) business days 14 after the later of (1) entry of the Preliminary Approval Order or (2) receipt by 15 Defendants’ Counsel from Lead Counsel complete and accurate wiring 16 instructions, payment address, and a completed and executed W-9 form. 17 7. With the exception of Beckman’s obligation to pay or cause payment 18 of the Settlement Amount into the Escrow Account, and to pay or reimburse 19 advancements from the Escrow Account for Notice and Administration Expenses 20 up to $500,000 as specified in ¶ 11, the Released Defendant Parties and 21 Defendants’ Counsel shall have no obligation to pay any amount pursuant to this 22 Settlement Agreement, and shall have no obligation or liability whatsoever with 23 respect to the Settlement Amount or Escrow Account, including but not limited to 24 fees, Taxes, investment decisions, maintenance, supervision or distributions. 25 8. The Parties agree to cooperate in expeditiously seeking preliminary 26 and final approval of the Settlement. 27 28

STIPULATION OF SETTLEMENT 14 Case No.: 8:10-cv-1327-JST (RNBx) 1 USE AND TAX TREATMENT OF SETTLEMENT FUND 2 9. The Settlement Fund shall be used: (i) to pay any Taxes; (ii) to 3 advance up to $500,000 for payment of Notice and Administration Expenses, 4 subject to reimbursement by Beckman as set forth in ¶ 11 below; (iii) to pay 5 Notice and Administration Expenses in excess of $500,000; (iv) to pay any 6 attorneys’ fees and expenses awarded by the Court; (v) to pay any costs and 7 expenses allowed by the PSLRA and awarded to Plaintiffs by the Court; and (vi) to 8 pay claims to Authorized Claimants. 9 10. Lead Counsel may withdraw from the Settlement Fund on one or 10 more occasions amounts that are actually and reasonably incurred to pay Notice 11 and Administration Expenses in connection with providing notice to the Class and 12 administering the Settlement, including, but not limited to, locating Class 13 Members, assisting with the filing of claims, administering and distributing the 14 Settlement Fund to Authorized Claimants, and processing Proofs of Claim. 15 11. Beckman shall pay Notice and Administration Expenses actually and 16 reasonably incurred up to a total cumulative cap of $500,000. Lead Counsel shall 17 request payment by Beckman through submission of an expense claim that 18 provides documentation showing the amount, vendor, services and date of Notice 19 and Administration Expenses actually incurred and paid or payable by submitting a 20 copy of each invoice or other valid documentation of the expense (“Expense 21 Claim”) to Beckman to the attention of Jeffrey Linton, Senior Vice President and 22 General Counsel, Beckman Coulter, Inc., 250 S. Kraemer Blvd., Brea, CA 92821, 23 accompanied by a written representation by Lead Counsel that such Expense Claim 24 has been actually and reasonably incurred for purposes of Notice and 25 Administration Expenses. 26 (a) Within ten (10) business days after receipt of an Expense 27 Claim, Beckman shall pay the Expense Claim, according to the payment 28 instructions therein, up to the total cumulative cap of $500,000 in Expense Claims.

STIPULATION OF SETTLEMENT 15 Case No.: 8:10-cv-1327-JST (RNBx) 1 If Lead Counsel has advanced the Expense Claim from the Settlement Fund, 2 Beckman shall reimburse the Settlement Fund by depositing into the Escrow 3 Account the amount of the Expense Claim. 4 (b) There shall be no liability or obligation on the part of any 5 Defendant, or their insurers, or Released Defendant Parties to reimburse the 6 Settlement Fund for any Expense Claim or any Notice and Administration Expense 7 whether or not reflected in an Expense Claim, which exceeds the total cap of 8 $500,000. Any such excess expense shall be paid by the Settlement Fund as 9 provided herein. 10 12. The Net Settlement Fund shall be distributed to Authorized Claimants 11 as provided in ¶¶ 24 through 38 hereof. The Net Settlement Fund shall remain in 12 the Escrow Account prior to the Effective Date. All funds held in the Escrow 13 Account shall be deemed to be in the custody of the Court and shall remain subject 14 to the jurisdiction of the Court until such time as the funds shall be disbursed or 15 returned, pursuant to this Stipulation, and/or further order of the Court. 16 13. The Escrow Agent shall invest the funds held in the Escrow Account 17 in instruments backed by the full faith and credit of the United States Government, 18 or fully insured by the United States Government or an agency thereof, and the 19 proceeds of these instruments shall be reinvested as they mature in similar 20 instruments at the then-current market rates. The Released Defendant Parties and 21 Defendants’ Counsel shall have no responsibility for, interest in, or liability 22 whatsoever with respect to investment decisions or the actions of the Escrow 23 Agent, or any transaction executed by the Escrow Agent. 24 14. After the Settlement Amount has been paid into the Escrow Account 25 in accordance with ¶ 6 above, the Parties agree to treat the Settlement Amount, as a 26 “qualified settlement fund” within the meaning of Treas. Reg. § 1.468B-1. In 27 addition, Lead Counsel shall timely make, or cause to be made, such elections as 28 necessary or advisable to carry out the provisions of this paragraph, including the

STIPULATION OF SETTLEMENT 16 Case No.: 8:10-cv-1327-JST (RNBx) 1 “relation-back election” (as defined in Treas. Reg. § 1.468B-1) back to the earliest 2 permitted date. Such election shall be made in compliance with the procedures and 3 requirements contained in such regulations. It shall be the responsibility of Lead 4 Counsel to timely and properly prepare and deliver, or cause to be prepared and 5 delivered, the necessary documentation for signature by all necessary parties, and 6 thereafter take all such actions as may be necessary or appropriate to cause the 7 appropriate filing to occur. 8 (a) For the purposes of Section 468B of the Internal Revenue Code 9 of 1986, as amended, and Treas. Reg. § 1.468B promulgated thereunder, the 10 “administrator” shall be Lead Counsel or their successors, who shall timely and 11 properly file, or cause to be filed, all informational and other tax returns necessary 12 or advisable with respect to the interest earned on the fund deposited in the Escrow 13 Account (including without limitation the returns described in Treas. Reg. 14 § 1.468B-2(k)). Such returns (as well as the election described above) shall be 15 consistent with this subparagraph and in all events shall reflect that all taxes 16 (including any estimated taxes, interest, or penalties) on the income earned on the 17 funds deposited in the Escrow Account shall be paid out of such funds as provided 18 in subparagraph (c) hereof. 19 (b) All Taxes shall be paid solely out of the Escrow Account. In all 20 events, the Released Defendant Parties and Defendants’ Counsel shall have no 21 liability or responsibility whatsoever for the Taxes or the filing of any tax returns 22 or other documents with the Internal Revenue Service or any other state or local 23 taxing authority. In the event any Taxes are owed by any of the Released 24 Defendant Parties on any interest earned on the funds on deposit in the Escrow 25 Account, such amounts shall also be paid out of the Escrow Account. 26 (c) Taxes shall be treated as, and considered to be, a cost of 27 administration of the Settlement and shall be timely paid, or caused to be paid, by 28 Lead Counsel out of the Escrow Account without prior order from the Court or

STIPULATION OF SETTLEMENT 17 Case No.: 8:10-cv-1327-JST (RNBx) 1 approval by Defendants, and Lead Counsel shall be obligated (notwithstanding 2 anything herein to the contrary) to withhold from distribution to Authorized 3 Claimants any funds necessary to pay such amounts (as well as any amounts that 4 may be required to be withheld under Treas. Reg. § 1.468B-2(1)(2)). The Parties 5 agree to cooperate with Lead Counsel, each other, and their tax attorneys and 6 accountants to the extent reasonably necessary to carry out the provisions of this 7 paragraph. 8 15. This is not a claims-made settlement. As of the Effective Date, 9 Defendants shall not have any right to the return of the Settlement Fund or any 10 portion thereof for any reason. 11 ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND EXPENSES 12 16. Lead Counsel will apply to the Court for an award from the 13 Settlement Fund of (i) attorneys’ fees; and (ii) reimbursement of litigation 14 expenses incurred in prosecuting the Action, in an amount no greater than that set 15 forth in the Notice, plus any interest on such amounts at the same rate and for the 16 same periods as earned by the Settlement Fund (“Fee and Expense Application”). 17 The Defendants will not oppose the Fee and Expense Application. 18 17. The amount of attorneys’ fees and expenses awarded by the Court is 19 within the sole discretion of the Court. Subject to, and in accordance with, court 20 approval of an award of attorneys’ fees and expenses, whatever the amount, 21 attorneys’ fees and costs awarded to Lead Counsel shall be paid solely from the 22 Settlement Fund as maintained in the Escrow Account to Lead Counsel ten (10) 23 business days after entry of any fee and expense award by the Court and entry of 24 the Judgment, notwithstanding the existence of any objections thereto, or potential 25 for appeal therefrom, or collateral attack on the Settlement or request for attorney’s 26 fees or expenses, subject to the joint and several obligation of Lead Counsel to 27 make appropriate refunds or repayments, plus any interest thereon accrued both 28 during the period such funds are held in the Escrow Account and after the payment

STIPULATION OF SETTLEMENT 18 Case No.: 8:10-cv-1327-JST (RNBx) 1 to Lead Counsel, at the rate of interest earned by the Escrow Account, if and when, 2 as a result of any appeal, further proceedings, or remand or successful collateral 3 attack, the attorneys’ fees or expense award is reduced or reversed by final non- 4 appealable order. Lead Counsel shall make any such refunds or repayments within 5 ten (10) business days of entry of such an order. 6 18. With the sole exception of Beckman’s payments into the Escrow 7 Account and reimbursement of the Settlement Fund as provided for in ¶¶ 6 and 11, 8 above, the Defendants and Released Defendant Parties shall have no responsibility 9 for, and no liability whatsoever with respect to, any payment to Lead Plaintiff, the 10 members of the Class, or Lead Counsel that may occur at any time. 11 19. The Released Defendant Parties shall have no responsibility for, and 12 no liability whatsoever with respect to the use of funds in or from the Escrow 13 Account, including the allocation of any attorneys’ fees or expenses to any other 14 Person who may assert some claim thereto, or any fee or expense awards the Court 15 may make in the Action. 16 20. The Released Defendant Parties shall have no responsibility for, and 17 no liability whatsoever with respect to, any attorneys’ fees, costs, or expenses 18 incurred by or on behalf of the Class Members, whether or not paid from the 19 Escrow Account. 20 21. The procedure for and the allowance or disallowance by the Court of 21 any Fee and Expense Application are not part of the Settlement set forth in this 22 Stipulation, and are separate from the Court’s consideration of the fairness, 23 reasonableness and adequacy of the Settlement set forth in the Stipulation, and any 24 order or proceeding relating to any Fee and Expense Application, including an 25 award of attorneys’ fees in an amount less than the amount requested by Lead 26 Counsel, or any appeal from any order relating thereto or reversal or modification 27 thereof, shall not operate to terminate or cancel the Stipulation, or affect or delay 28 the finality of the Judgment or Alternative Judgment approving the Stipulation and

STIPULATION OF SETTLEMENT 19 Case No.: 8:10-cv-1327-JST (RNBx) 1 the Settlement set forth herein, including, but not limited to, the release, discharge, 2 and relinquishment of the Released Claims against the Released Defendant Parties, 3 or any other orders entered pursuant to the Stipulation. 4 NOTICE AND ADMINISTRATION EXPENSES 5 22. Except as otherwise provided herein, the Settlement Fund shall remain 6 in escrow pending: (i) final approval of the Settlement by the Court, (ii) the 7 expiration of all rights of appeal of the Judgment or Alternative Judgment; and 8 (iii) the final denial of any and all appeals or objections or collateral attacks or 9 challenges to the Settlement. 10 23. Lead Counsel may withdraw amounts from the Settlement Fund to 11 pay the Notice and Administration Expenses as provided in ¶¶ 9 and 10, above, 12 without further approval from the Defendants or further order of the Court. 13 DISTRIBUTION TO AUTHORIZED CLAIMANTS 14 24. Lead Counsel will apply to the Court for a Distribution Order, on 15 notice to Defendants’ Counsel, approving the Claims Administrator’s 16 administrative determinations concerning the acceptance and rejection of the 17 claims submitted herein, and, if the Effective Date has occurred, directing the 18 payment of the Net Settlement Fund to Authorized Claimants. 19 25. The Claims Administrator shall administer the Settlement under Lead 20 Counsel’s supervision and subject to the jurisdiction of the Court. Except as stated 21 in ¶¶ 11 and 31 hereof, the Released Defendant Parties and Defendants’ Counsel 22 shall have no responsibility for, interest in, or liability whatsoever with respect to 23 the administration of the Settlement or the actions or decisions of the Claims 24 Administrator, and shall have no liability to the Class in connection with such 25 administration. 26 26. The Claims Administrator shall determine each Authorized 27 Claimant’s pro rata share of the Net Settlement Fund based upon each Authorized 28 Claimant’s Recognized Loss, as defined in the Plan of Allocation of Net

STIPULATION OF SETTLEMENT 20 Case No.: 8:10-cv-1327-JST (RNBx) 1 Settlement Fund (the “Plan of Allocation”) included in the Notice, or in such other 2 plan of allocation as the Court may approve. 3 27. The Defendants will take no position with respect to the Plan of 4 Allocation. The Plan of Allocation is a matter separate and apart from the 5 proposed Settlement between Lead Plaintiff and the Defendants, and any decision 6 by the Court concerning the Plan of Allocation shall not affect the validity or 7 finality of the proposed Settlement. The Plan of Allocation is not a necessary term 8 of this Stipulation and it is not a condition of this Stipulation that any particular 9 plan of allocation be approved by the Court. Lead Plaintiff and Lead Counsel may 10 not cancel or terminate the Stipulation or the Settlement in accordance with ¶ 42 or 11 otherwise based on the Court’s or any appellate court’s ruling with respect to the 12 Plan of Allocation or any plan of allocation in the Action. The Released Defendant 13 Parties and Defendants’ Counsel shall have no responsibility or liability for 14 reviewing or challenging claims, the allocation of the Net Settlement Fund, or the 15 distribution of the Net Settlement Fund. 16 28. If there is any balance remaining in the Net Settlement Fund after six 17 (6) months from the date of distribution of the Net Settlement Fund (whether by 18 reason of tax refunds, uncashed checks or otherwise), Lead Counsel shall, if 19 feasible and economical, reallocate such balance among Authorized Claimants 20 who have cashed their checks in an equitable and economic fashion. Any balance 21 that still remains in the Net Settlement Fund, after payment of Notice and 22 Administration Expenses, Taxes, and the Fee and Expense Award, if any, shall be 23 contributed to non-sectarian not-for-profit charitable organizations serving the 24 public interest, designated by Lead Plaintiff and Lead Counsel. 25 ADMINISTRATION OF THE SETTLEMENT 26 29. Any member of the Class who fails to timely submit a valid Proof of 27 Claim (substantially in the form of Exhibit A-2 to Exhibit A hereto) will not be 28 entitled to receive any of the proceeds from the Net Settlement Fund, except as

STIPULATION OF SETTLEMENT 21 Case No.: 8:10-cv-1327-JST (RNBx) 1 otherwise ordered by the Court, but will otherwise be bound by all of the terms of 2 this Stipulation and the Settlement, including the terms of the Judgment or 3 Alternative Judgment to be entered in the Action and the releases provided for 4 herein, and will be barred from bringing any action against the Released Defendant 5 Parties concerning the Released Claims. 6 30. Lead Counsel shall be responsible for supervising the administration 7 of the Settlement and disbursement of the Net Settlement Fund by the Claims 8 Administrator. Lead Counsel shall have the right, but not the obligation, to advise 9 the Claims Administrator to waive what Lead Counsel deem to be de minimis or 10 formal or technical defects in any Proofs of Claim submitted. 11 31. Within five (5) business days following the Court’s execution of the 12 Preliminary Approval Order approving the Notice of Pendency of Class Action and 13 Proposed Settlement and Motion for Attorneys’ Fees and Expenses, Beckman will 14 make its stock transfer records and shareholder information available to Lead 15 Counsel in electronic searchable form to the extent necessary to identify and give 16 notice to the putative Class. Lead Counsel shall cause the Claims Administrator to 17 provide notice to the Class as ordered by the Court in the Preliminary Approval 18 Order. 19 32. Except for Beckman’s obligations arising under ¶ 11 and Beckman’s 20 obligation to produce the transfer records, the Released Defendant Parties and 21 Defendants’ Counsel shall have no liability, obligation or responsibility for the 22 administration of the Settlement, the allocation of the Net Settlement Fund or 23 reviewing or challenging of claims of members of the Class. Lead Counsel shall 24 be solely responsible for designating the Claims Administrator, subject to approval 25 by the Court. 26 33. For purposes of determining the extent, if any, to which a Class 27 Member shall be entitled to be treated as an Authorized Claimant, the following 28 conditions shall apply:

STIPULATION OF SETTLEMENT 22 Case No.: 8:10-cv-1327-JST (RNBx) 1 (a) Each Class Member shall be required to submit a Proof of 2 Claim, substantially in the form attached hereto as Exhibit A-2 to Exhibit A, 3 supported by such documents as are designated therein, including proof of the 4 claimant’s loss, or such other documents or proof as the Claims Administrator or 5 Lead Counsel, in their discretion, may deem acceptable; 6 (b) All Proofs of Claim must be submitted by the date set by the 7 Court in the Preliminary Approval Order and specified in the Notice, unless such 8 deadline is extended by Lead Counsel in their discretion, or by Order of the Court. 9 Any Class Member who fails to submit a Proof of Claim by such date shall be 10 barred from receiving any distribution from the Net Settlement Fund or payment 11 pursuant to this Stipulation (unless, by Order of the Court or the discretion of Lead 12 Counsel, late-filed Proofs of Claim are accepted), but shall in all other respects be 13 bound by all of the terms of this Stipulation and the Settlement, including the terms 14 of the Judgment and the releases provided for herein, and will be permanently 15 barred and enjoined from bringing any action, claim or other proceeding of any 16 kind against any Released Party concerning any Released Claim or Released 17 Defendants’ Claims. Provided that it is received before the motion for the 18 Distribution Order is filed, a Proof of Claim shall be deemed to be submitted when 19 mailed, if received with a postmark on the envelope and if mailed by first-class or 20 overnight U.S. Mail and addressed in accordance with the instructions thereon. In 21 all other cases, the Proof of Claim shall be deemed to have been submitted when 22 actually received by the Claims Administrator; 23 (c) Each Proof of Claim shall be submitted to and reviewed by the 24 Claims Administrator, under the supervision of Lead Counsel, who shall determine 25 in accordance with this Stipulation the extent, if any, to which each claim shall be 26 allowed, subject to review by the Court pursuant to subparagraph (e) below; 27 (d) Proofs of Claim that do not meet the submission requirements 28 may be rejected. Prior to rejecting a Claim in whole or in part, the Claims

STIPULATION OF SETTLEMENT 23 Case No.: 8:10-cv-1327-JST (RNBx) 1 Administrator shall communicate with the claimant in writing to give the claimant 2 the chance to remedy any curable deficiencies in the Proof of Claim submitted. 3 The Claims Administrator, under supervision of Lead Counsel, shall notify, in a 4 timely fashion and in writing, all claimants whose claims the Claims Administrator 5 proposes to reject in whole or in part for curable deficiencies, setting forth the 6 reasons therefor, and shall indicate in such notice that the claimant whose claim is 7 to be rejected has the right to a review by the Court if the claimant so desires and 8 complies with the requirements of subparagraph (e) below; 9 (e) If any claimant whose claim has been rejected in whole or in 10 part desires to contest such rejection, the claimant must, within twenty (20) 11 calendar days after the date of mailing of the notice required in subparagraph (d) 12 above, serve upon the Claims Administrator a notice and statement of reasons 13 indicating the claimant’s grounds for contesting the rejection along with any 14 supporting documentation, and requesting a review thereof by the Court. If a 15 dispute concerning a Claim cannot be otherwise resolved, Lead Counsel shall 16 thereafter present the request for review to the Court; and 17 (f) The administrative determinations of the Claims Administrator 18 accepting and rejecting disputed claims shall be presented to the Court, on notice 19 to Defendants’ Counsel, for approval by the Court in the Distribution Order. 20 34. Each claimant who submits a Proof of Claim shall be deemed to have 21 submitted to the jurisdiction of the Court with respect to the claimant’s claim, and 22 the claim will be subject to investigation and discovery under the Federal Rules of 23 Civil Procedure, provided that such investigation and discovery shall be limited to 24 the claimant’s status as a Class Member and the validity and amount of the 25 claimant’s claim. In connection with processing the Proofs of Claim, no discovery 26 shall be allowed on the merits of the Action or the Settlement. 27 35. Payment pursuant to the Distribution Order shall be deemed final and 28 conclusive against all Class Members. All Class Members whose claims are not

STIPULATION OF SETTLEMENT 24 Case No.: 8:10-cv-1327-JST (RNBx) 1 approved by the Court shall be barred from participating in distributions from the 2 Net Settlement Fund, but otherwise shall be bound by all of the terms of this 3 Stipulation and the Settlement, including the terms of the Judgment or Alternative 4 Judgment to be entered in the Action and the releases provided for herein, and will 5 be barred from bringing any action against the Released Defendant Parties 6 concerning the Released Claims. 7 36. All proceedings with respect to the administration, processing and 8 determination of claims described by ¶¶ 24 through 35 of this Stipulation and the 9 determination of all controversies relating thereto, including disputed questions of 10 law and fact with respect to the validity of claims, shall be subject to the 11 jurisdiction of the Court, but shall not in any event delay or affect the finality of the 12 Judgment or Alternative Judgment. 13 37. No Person shall have any claim of any kind against the Released 14 Defendant Parties or their counsel with respect to the matters set forth in this 15 Section or any of its subsections. 16 38. No Person shall have any claim against Lead Plaintiff or Lead 17 Counsel, or the Claims Administrator, or other agent designated by Lead Counsel, 18 based on the distributions made substantially in accordance with this Stipulation 19 and the Settlement contained herein, the Plan of Allocation, or further order(s) of 20 the Court. 21 TERMS OF THE PRELIMINARY APPROVAL ORDER 22 39. Concurrently with their application for preliminary Court approval of 23 the Settlement contemplated by this Stipulation and promptly after execution of 24 this Stipulation, Lead Counsel and Defendants’ Counsel shall jointly apply to the 25 Court for entry of the Preliminary Approval Order, which shall be substantially in 26 the form annexed hereto as Exhibit A. The Preliminary Approval Order will, inter 27 alia, set the date for the Settlement Hearing and prescribe the method for giving 28 notice of the Settlement to the Class.

STIPULATION OF SETTLEMENT 25 Case No.: 8:10-cv-1327-JST (RNBx) 1 TERMS OF THE JUDGMENT 2 40. If the Settlement contemplated by this Stipulation is approved by the 3 Court, Lead Counsel and Defendants’ Counsel shall jointly request that the Court 4 enter a Judgment substantially in the form annexed hereto as Exhibit B. 5 EFFECTIVE DATE OF SETTLEMENT, WAIVER OR TERMINATION 6 41. The Effective Date of this Settlement shall be the date when all of the 7 following shall have occurred: 8 (a) entry by the Court of the Preliminary Approval Order, which 9 shall be in all material respects substantially in the form set forth in Exhibit A 10 annexed hereto; 11 (b) payment of the Settlement Amount into the Escrow Account; 12 (c) approval by the Court of the Settlement, following notice to the 13 Class and a hearing, as prescribed by Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil 14 Procedure; 15 (d) entry by the Court of a Judgment, which shall be in all material 16 respects substantially in the form set forth in Exhibit B annexed hereto, or entry by 17 the Court of an Alternative Judgment; and 18 (e) the Judgment or Alternative Judgment has become Final. 19 42. Beckman or Lead Plaintiff, through their respective counsel, each 20 shall have the right to terminate the Settlement and this Stipulation by providing 21 written notice of their election to do so (“Termination Notice”) to all Parties hereto 22 within thirty (30) calendar days of: (a) the Court’s final refusal to enter the 23 Preliminary Approval Order in any material respect; (b) the Court’s final refusal to 24 approve this Stipulation or any material part of it; (c) the Court’s final refusal to 25 enter the Judgment in any material respect or an Alternative Judgment; or (d) the 26 date upon which the Judgment or Alternative Judgment is modified or reversed in 27 any material respect by the United States Court of Appeals or the Supreme Court 28 of the United States.

STIPULATION OF SETTLEMENT 26 Case No.: 8:10-cv-1327-JST (RNBx) 1 43. Simultaneously herewith, Lead Plaintiff and Beckman, through their 2 respective counsel, are executing a Supplemental Agreement Regarding Requests 3 for Exclusion (“Supplemental Agreement”). The Supplemental Agreement sets 4 forth certain conditions under which Beckman, in its sole and absolute discretion, 5 has the option to terminate the Settlement and render this Stipulation null and void 6 in the event that requests for exclusion from the Class exceed certain agreed-upon 7 criteria (the “Opt-Out Threshold”). Lead Plaintiff shall also have the right to seek 8 a retraction of any Request for Exclusion pursuant to the Supplemental Agreement. 9 Copies of all Requests for Exclusion received, together with copies of all written 10 revocations of Requests for Exclusion, shall be delivered to Defendants’ Counsel 11 as soon as possible after receipt by the Lead Plaintiff or Lead Counsel but in any 12 event no later than ten (10) calendar days before the Settlement Hearing. 13 44. The Parties agree to maintain the confidentiality of the Opt-Out 14 Threshold in the Supplemental Agreement, which shall not be filed with the Court 15 unless a dispute arises as to its terms, or as otherwise ordered by the Court. The 16 Supplemental Agreement shall not otherwise be disclosed unless required by the 17 Court. If submission of the Supplemental Agreement is required for resolution of a 18 dispute or is otherwise ordered by the Court, the Parties will undertake to have the 19 Opt-Out Threshold submitted to the Court in camera. 20 45. In the event of a termination of this Settlement pursuant to the 21 Supplemental Agreement, ¶ 42, or ¶ 46, this Stipulation shall become null and void 22 and of no further force and effect, with the exception of the provisions of ¶¶ 48 and 23 49 which shall continue to apply. 24 46. In addition to all of the rights and remedies that Lead Plaintiff and 25 Lead Counsel have under the terms of this Stipulation, they shall also have the 26 right to terminate the Settlement in the event that the Defendants do not pay, or 27 cause to be paid, the Settlement Amount as provided in ¶ 6 above and, thereafter, 28

STIPULATION OF SETTLEMENT 27 Case No.: 8:10-cv-1327-JST (RNBx) 1 the Defendants do not pay or cause to be paid the Settlement Amount within 2 fourteen (14) calendar days of such written notice. 3 47. If an option to withdraw from and terminate this Stipulation and 4 Settlement arises under any of ¶¶ 42 through 46 above: (i) neither the Defendants 5 nor Lead Plaintiff will be required for any reason or under any circumstance to 6 exercise that option; and (ii) any exercise of that option shall be made in good 7 faith, but in the sole and unfettered discretion of the Defendants or Lead Plaintiff, 8 as applicable. 9 48. Except as otherwise provided herein, in the event the Settlement is 10 terminated or fails to become effective for any reason, then: the Settlement shall be 11 without prejudice, and none of its terms, including, but not limited to, the 12 certification of the Class, shall be effective or enforceable except as specifically 13 provided herein; the Parties to this Stipulation shall be deemed to have reverted to 14 their respective litigation positions in the Action on June 9, 2011 and, except as 15 otherwise expressly provided, the Parties in the Action shall proceed in all respects 16 as if this Stipulation and any related orders had not been entered. In such event, 17 the fact and terms of the agreement in principle, this Stipulation or any aspect of 18 the negotiations leading to this Stipulation, shall not be admissible in this Action 19 and shall not be used by Lead Plaintiff against the Defendants or by the Defendants 20 against Lead Plaintiff in any court filings, depositions, at trial or otherwise. 21 49. If the Settlement fails to become effective as defined herein or is 22 terminated pursuant to the provisions of ¶¶ 42 through 46 above, the Escrow Agent 23 will cause the Settlement Amount, together with any interest earned thereon, less 24 any Taxes paid or due, less Notice and Administration Expenses actually incurred 25 and paid or payable from the Settlement Amount, to be returned directly to the 26 entities that funded the Settlement Amount within ten (10) business days after 27 written notification of such event. If any portion of the Settlement Amount has 28 been disbursed for attorney’s fees or expenses pursuant to the provisions of ¶¶ 16

STIPULATION OF SETTLEMENT 28 Case No.: 8:10-cv-1327-JST (RNBx) 1 through 17 above, Lead Counsel shall be jointly and severally obligated and liable 2 for repayment of any such amount within the time specified in this paragraph or set 3 forth in ¶ 17, whichever is earlier. At the request of Defendants’ Counsel, the 4 Escrow Agent or its designee shall apply for any tax refund owed on the amounts 5 in the Escrow Account and pay the proceeds, after any deduction of any fees or 6 expenses incurred in connection with such application(s), for refund to the 7 Defendants. 8 NO ADMISSION OF WRONGDOING 9 50. Except as set forth in ¶ 51 below, this Stipulation, whether or not 10 consummated, and any negotiations, proceedings or agreements relating to the 11 Stipulation, the Settlement, and any matters arising in connection with settlement 12 negotiations, proceedings, or agreements, shall not be offered or received against 13 the Defendants for any purpose, and in particular: 14 (a) do not constitute, and shall not be offered or received against 15 the Defendants as evidence of, or construed as, or deemed to be evidence of any 16 presumption, concession or admission by the Defendants with respect to the truth 17 of any fact alleged by Lead Plaintiff and the Class or the validity of any claim that 18 has been or could have been asserted in the Action or in any litigation, including 19 but not limited to the Released Claims, or of any liability, damages, negligence, 20 fault or wrongdoing of the Defendants; 21 (b) do not constitute, and shall not be offered or received against 22 the Defendants as evidence of a presumption, concession or admission of any fault, 23 misrepresentation or omission with respect to any statement or written document 24 approved or made by the Defendants, or against Lead Plaintiff, or any other 25 members of the Class as evidence of any infirmity in the claims of Lead Plaintiff or 26 the other members of the Class; 27 (c) do not constitute, and shall not be offered or received against 28 the Defendants or against Lead Plaintiff, or any other members of the Class, as

STIPULATION OF SETTLEMENT 29 Case No.: 8:10-cv-1327-JST (RNBx) 1 evidence of a presumption, concession or admission with respect to any liability, 2 damages, negligence, fault, infirmity or wrongdoing, or in any way referred to for 3 any other reason against any of the Parties to this Stipulation, in any other civil, 4 criminal or administrative action or proceeding, other than such proceedings as 5 may be necessary to effectuate the provisions of this Stipulation; 6 (d) do not constitute, and shall not be construed against the 7 Defendants, Lead Plaintiff, or any other members of the Class, as an admission or 8 concession that the consideration to be given hereunder represents the amount 9 which could be or would have been recovered after trial; 10 (e) do not constitute, and shall not be construed as or received in 11 evidence as, an admission, concession or presumption against Lead Plaintiff, or 12 any other members of the Class or any of them that any of their claims are without 13 merit or infirm or that damages recoverable under the Complaint would not have 14 exceeded the Settlement Amount. 15 51. The Defendants may file this Stipulation and/or the Judgment or 16 Alternative Judgment in any action that may be brought against them in order to 17 support a defense or counterclaim based on principles of res judicata, collateral 18 estoppel, release, good-faith settlement, judgment bar or reduction, or any theory 19 of claim preclusion or issue preclusion or similar defense or counterclaim, or to 20 effectuate the liability protection granted them under any applicable insurance 21 policies. The Parties may file this Stipulation and/or the Judgment or Alternative 22 Judgment in any action that may be brought to enforce the terms of this Stipulation 23 and/or the Judgment or Alternative Judgment. All Parties submit to the jurisdiction 24 of the Court for purposes of implementing and enforcing the Settlement. 25 MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS 26 52. All of the exhibits to the Stipulation, except any Plan of Allocation, to 27 the extent incorporated in those exhibits, are material and integral parts hereof and 28 are fully incorporated herein by this reference.

STIPULATION OF SETTLEMENT 30 Case No.: 8:10-cv-1327-JST (RNBx) 1 53. The Parties to this Stipulation intend the Settlement of the Action to 2 be the full, final and complete resolution of all claims asserted or which could have 3 been asserted by the Parties with respect to the Released Claims and Released 4 Defendants’ Claims. Accordingly, Lead Plaintiff and the Defendants agree not to 5 assert in any forum that the Action was brought, prosecuted or defended in bad 6 faith or without a reasonable basis. The Parties agree that each has complied fully 7 with Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure in connection with the 8 maintenance, prosecution, defense and settlement of the Action. The Defendants 9 and Lead Plaintiff agree that the amount paid and the other terms of the Settlement 10 were negotiated at arm’s length in good faith by the Defendants and Lead Plaintiff, 11 and their respective counsel, and reflect a settlement that was reached voluntarily 12 based upon adequate information and after consultation with experienced legal 13 counsel. 14 54. This Stipulation may not be modified or amended, nor may any of its 15 provisions be waived, except by a writing signed by all Parties hereto or their 16 successors. 17 55. The headings herein are used for the purpose of convenience only and 18 are not meant to have legal effect. 19 56. The administration and consummation of the Settlement as embodied 20 in this Stipulation shall be under the authority of the Court, and the Court shall 21 retain jurisdiction for the purpose of entering orders providing for awards of 22 attorneys’ fees and any expenses and implementing and enforcing the terms of this 23 Stipulation. 24 57. Unless ordered by a Court, no Party or counsel shall disseminate, refer 25 to, or otherwise distribute to any third party any information regarding the 26 negotiation of the Settlement between the Parties, or any information or documents 27 they obtained from another Party in connection with the Settlement, except as 28 necessary in connection with this Stipulation or Court approval of the Settlement,

STIPULATION OF SETTLEMENT 31 Case No.: 8:10-cv-1327-JST (RNBx) 1 or as the Parties may otherwise agree, or as may be required by applicable 2 securities or other law. 3 58. The waiver by one Party of any breach of this Stipulation by any other 4 Party shall not be deemed a waiver of any other prior or subsequent breach of this 5 Stipulation. 6 59. This Stipulation, its exhibits and the Supplemental Agreement 7 constitute the entire agreement among the Parties hereto concerning the Settlement 8 of the Action as against the Defendants, and no representations, warranties, or 9 inducements have been made by any party hereto concerning this Stipulation and 10 its exhibits other than those contained and memorialized in such documents. 11 60. Nothing in the Stipulation, or the negotiations relating thereto, is 12 intended to or shall be deemed to constitute a waiver of any applicable privilege or 13 immunity, including, without limitation, attorney-client privilege, joint defense 14 privilege, or work product protection. 15 61. This Stipulation may be executed in one or more counterparts. All 16 executed counterparts and each of them shall be deemed to be one and the same 17 instrument provided that counsel for the Parties to this Stipulation shall exchange 18 among themselves original signed counterparts. Signatures sent by facsimile or as 19 a pdf via email shall be deemed originals. 20 62. This Stipulation shall be binding when signed, but the Settlement shall 21 be effective only on the condition that the Effective Date occurs. 22 63. This Stipulation shall be binding upon, and inure to the benefit of, the 23 successors and assigns of the Parties hereto. 24 64. The construction, interpretation, operation, effect and validity of this 25 Stipulation, and all documents necessary to effectuate it, shall be governed by the 26 internal laws of the State of California without regard to conflicts of laws, except 27 to the extent that federal law requires that federal law govern. 28

STIPULATION OF SETTLEMENT 32 Case No.: 8:10-cv-1327-JST (RNBx) 1 65. This Stipulation shall not be construed more strictly against one Party 2 than another merely by virtue of the fact that it, or any part of it, may have been 3 prepared by counsel for one of the Parties, it being recognized that it is the result of 4 arm’s-length negotiations among the Parties, and all Parties have contributed 5 substantially and materially to the preparation of this Stipulation. 6 66. Lead Counsel, on behalf of the Class Members, warrants and 7 represents that it is expressly authorized by Lead Plaintiff to take all appropriate 8 action required or permitted to be taken by the Class Members pursuant to the 9 Stipulation to effectuate its terms and also is expressly authorized by Lead Plaintiff 10 to enter into any modifications or amendments to the Stipulation on behalf of the 11 Class Members that it deems appropriate. 12 67. All counsel and any other person executing this Stipulation and any of 13 the exhibits hereto, or any related settlement documents, warrant and represent that 14 they have the full authority to do so, and that they have the authority to take 15 appropriate action required or permitted to be taken pursuant to the Stipulation to 16 effectuate its terms. 17 68. Lead Counsel and Defendants’ Counsel agree to cooperate fully with 18 one another in seeking Court approval of the Preliminarily Approval Order, the 19 Stipulation and the Settlement and in consummating the Settlement in accordance 20 with its terms, and to promptly agree upon and execute all such other 21 documentation as reasonably may be required to obtain final approval by the Court 22 of the Settlement. 23 69. Subject to the Court’s continuing jurisdiction relating to the 24 Settlement of the Action, the Parties agree to mediate before Judge Weinstein any 25 dispute that arises between the Parties relating to the terms of the Settlement or 26 documentation thereof. 27 70. Except as otherwise provided herein, each party shall bear its own 28 costs.

STIPULATION OF SETTLEMENT 33 Case No.: 8:10-cv-1327-JST (RNBx)

EXHIBIT A 1 Christopher J. Keller Sherrie R. Savett (admitted pro hac vice) (admitted pro hac vice) 2 Christopher J. McDonald Barbara A. Podell (admitted pro hac vice) (admitted pro hac vice) 3 LABATON SUCHAROW LLP Douglas M. Risen 140 Broadway (admitted pro hac vice) 4 New York, New York 10005 Eric Lechtzin (Bar No. 248958) Telephone: (212) 907-0700 BERGER & MONTAGUE, P.C. 5 Facsimile: (212) 818-0477 1622 Locust Street Email: [email protected] Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103 6 Telephone: (215) 875-3071 Co-Lead Counsel for Lead Plaintiff and the Facsimile: (215) 875-5715 7 Class Email: [email protected] 8 Co-Lead Counsel for Lead Plaintiff Mark Labaton (Bar No. 159555) and the Class 9 MOTLEY RICE LLP 1100 Glendon Avenue, 14th Floor 10 Los Angeles, California 90024 Telephone: (310) 500-3488 11 Facsimile: (310) 824-2870 Email: [email protected] 12 Liaison Counsel for the Class 13 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 14 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 15 ) 16 ) Case No.: 8:10-cv-1327-JST (RNBx) ) 17 IN RE BECKMAN COULTER, INC. ) SECURITIES LITIGATION ) [PROPOSED] PRELIMINARY 18 ) APPROVAL ORDER PROVIDING ) FOR NOTICE AND HEARING IN 19 ) CONNECTION WITH PROPOSED ) CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT 20 ) Hon. Josephine Staton Tucker 21 22 WHEREAS, on September 13, 2011, Arkansas Teacher Retirement System 23 and Iron Workers District Council of New England Pension Fund (“Lead 24 Plaintiff”), on behalf of itself and the Class, and Beckman Coulter, Inc. 25 (“Beckman” or the “Company”), Scott T. Garrett and Charles P. Slacik 26 (collectively, the “Defendants”) entered into a Stipulation of Settlement (the 27 “Stipulation”) in the above-titled litigation (the “Action”), which is subject to 28 review under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and which, together

[PROPOSED] PRELIMINARY APPROVAL ORDER PROVIDING FOR NOTICE AND HEARING IN CONNECTION WITH PROPOSED CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT CASE NO.: 8:10-CV-1327-JST (RNBX) 1 with the exhibits thereto, sets forth the terms and conditions of the proposed 2 settlement of the claims alleged in the Consolidated Class Action Complaint for 3 Violations of Federal Securities Laws (the “Complaint”) against the Defendants on 4 the merits and with prejudice (the “Settlement”); and the Court having read and 5 considered the Stipulation and the accompanying exhibits; and the Parties to the 6 Stipulation having consented to the entry of this Order; and all capitalized terms 7 used in this Order that are not otherwise defined herein having the meanings 8 defined in the Stipulation; 9 NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, this ______day of 10 ______, 2011 that: 11 1. The Court has reviewed the Stipulation and preliminarily finds the 12 Settlement set forth therein to be fair, reasonable and adequate, subject to further 13 consideration at the Settlement Hearing described below. 14 2. Pursuant to Rules 23(a) and (b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil 15 Procedure, the Court hereby preliminarily certifies, for the purposes of the 16 Settlement only, the Action as a class action on behalf of any person or entity who 17 purchased or otherwise acquired Beckman common stock between July 31, 2009 18 and July 22, 2010, inclusive (the “Class Period”), and who was allegedly damaged 19 thereby (the “Class”). Excluded from the Class are the Defendants; any officer or 20 director of Beckman during the Class Period; members of the immediate families 21 of each of the foregoing and their legal representatives, heirs, successors or 22 assigns; and any entity in which any Defendant has or had (during the Class 23 Period) a controlling interest. Also excluded from the Class are any proposed 24 Class Members who properly exclude themselves by filing a valid and timely 25 request for exclusion in accordance with the requirements set forth in the Notice. 26 3. The Court finds and concludes that the prerequisites of class action 27 certification under Rules 23(a) and 23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil 28

[PROPOSED] PRELIMINARY APPROVAL ORDER PROVIDING FOR NOTICE AND HEARING 2 IN CONNECTION WITH PROPOSED CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT CASE NO.: 8:10-CV-1327-JST (RNBX) 1 Procedures have been satisfied for the Class defined herein and for the purposes of 2 the Settlement only, in that: 3 (a) the members of the Class are so numerous that joinder of all 4 Class Members is impracticable; 5 (b) there are questions of law and fact common to the Class 6 Members; 7 (c) the claims of Lead Plaintiff are typical of the Class’s claims; 8 (d) Lead Plaintiff and Lead Counsel have fairly and adequately 9 represented and protected the interests of the Class; 10 (e) the questions of law and fact common to Class Members 11 predominate over any individual questions; and 12 (f) a class action is superior to other available methods for the fair 13 and efficient adjudication of the controversy, considering that the claims of Class 14 Members in the Action are substantially similar and would, if tried, involve 15 substantially identical proofs and may therefore be efficiently litigated and 16 resolved on an aggregate basis as a class action; the amounts of the claims of many 17 of the Class Members are too small to justify the expense of individual actions; and 18 it does not appear that there is any interest among Class Members in individually 19 controlling the litigation of their claims. 20 4. Pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and for 21 the purposes of the Settlement only, Lead Plaintiff is certified as Class 22 Representative for the Class. The law firms of Labaton Sucharow LLP and Berger 23 & Montague, P.C. are appointed Class Counsel for the Class. 24 5. A hearing (the “Settlement Hearing”) pursuant to Rule 23(e) of the 25 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure is hereby scheduled to be held before the Court 26 on ______, 2011, at ___:______.m. for the following purposes: 27 (a) to determine whether the proposed Settlement is fair, 28 reasonable and adequate, and should be approved by the Court;

[PROPOSED] PRELIMINARY APPROVAL ORDER PROVIDING FOR NOTICE AND HEARING 3 IN CONNECTION WITH PROPOSED CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT CASE NO.: 8:10-CV-1327-JST (RNBX) 1 (b) to determine whether the proposed Final Order and Judgment 2 (“Judgment”) as provided under the Stipulation should be entered, and to 3 determine whether the release by the Class of the Released Claims, as set forth in 4 the Stipulation, should be provided to the Released Defendant Parties; 5 (c) to determine, for purposes of the Settlement only, whether the 6 Class should be finally certified; whether Lead Plaintiff should be finally certified 7 as Class Representative for the Class; and whether the law firms of Labaton 8 Sucharow LLP and Berger & Montague, P.C. should be finally appointed as Class 9 Counsel for the Class; 10 (d) to determine whether the proposed Plan of Allocation for the 11 proceeds of the Settlement is fair and reasonable and should be approved by the 12 Court; 13 (e) to consider Lead Counsel’s application for an award of 14 attorneys’ fees and reimbursement of expenses (which may include an application 15 for an award to Lead Plaintiff for reimbursement of its reasonable costs and 16 expenses directly related to its representations of the Class, pursuant to the Private 17 Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (“PSLRA”)); and 18 (f) to rule upon such other matters as the Court may deem 19 appropriate. 20 6. The Court reserves the right to approve the Settlement with or without 21 modification and with or without further notice of any kind. The Court further 22 reserves the right to enter the Judgment approving the Settlement regardless of 23 whether it has approved the Plan of Allocation or awarded attorneys’ fees and/or 24 expenses. The Court may also adjourn the Settlement Hearing or modify any of 25 the dates herein without further notice to members of the Class. 26 7. The Court approves the form, substance and requirements of the 27 Notice of Pendency of Class Action and Proposed Settlement and Motion for 28 Attorneys’ Fees and Expenses (the “Notice”) and the Proof of Claim and Release

[PROPOSED] PRELIMINARY APPROVAL ORDER PROVIDING FOR NOTICE AND HEARING 4 IN CONNECTION WITH PROPOSED CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT CASE NO.: 8:10-CV-1327-JST (RNBX) 1 Form (“Proof of Claim”), substantially in the forms annexed hereto as Exhibits 1 2 and 2, respectively. 3 8. The Court approves the retention of A.B. Data, Ltd. as the Claims 4 Administrator. The Claims Administrator shall cause the Notice and the Proof of 5 Claim, substantially in the forms annexed hereto, to be mailed, by first-class mail, 6 postage prepaid, on or before ten (10) business days after the date of entry of this 7 Order (“Notice Date”), to all Class Members who can be identified with reasonable 8 effort. Beckman, to the extent it has not already done so, shall provide to Lead 9 Counsel, or the Claims Administrator a list, in electronic searchable form, of the 10 name and last known address of all persons and entities who were shareholders of 11 record during the Class Period, no later than five (5) business days after entry of 12 this Order. 13 9. The Claims Administrator shall use reasonable efforts to give notice 14 to nominee purchasers such as brokerage firms and other persons or entities who 15 purchased or otherwise acquired Beckman common stock during the Class Period 16 as record owners but not as beneficial owners. Such nominee purchasers are 17 directed, within seven (7) calendar days of their receipt of the Notice, to either 18 (i) provide the Claims Administrator with lists of the names and last known 19 addresses of the beneficial owners, and the Claims Administrator is ordered to send 20 the Notice and Proof of Claim promptly to such identified beneficial owners by 21 first-class mail, or (ii) request additional copies of the Notice and Proof of Claim, 22 and within seven (7) calendar days of receipt of such copies send them by first- 23 class mail directly to the beneficial owners. Record holders who elect to send the 24 Notice and Proof of Claim to their beneficial owners shall also send a statement to 25 the Claims Administrator confirming that the mailing was made as directed. 26 Additional copies of the Notice shall be made available to any record holder 27 requesting such Notice for the purpose of distribution to beneficial owners, and 28 such record holders shall be reimbursed from the Settlement Fund, after receipt by

[PROPOSED] PRELIMINARY APPROVAL ORDER PROVIDING FOR NOTICE AND HEARING 5 IN CONNECTION WITH PROPOSED CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT CASE NO.: 8:10-CV-1327-JST (RNBX) 1 the Claims Administrator of proper documentation, for their reasonable expenses 2 actually incurred in sending the Notices and Proofs of Claim to beneficial owners. 3 10. Lead Counsel shall, before the Settlement Hearing, file with the Court 4 proof of mailing of the Notice and Proof of Claim and an affidavit or declaration 5 describing the efforts taken to comply with the notice requirements of this Order. 6 11. The Court approves the form of the Summary Notice of Pendency of 7 Class Action and Proposed Settlement and Motion for Attorneys’ Fees and 8 Expenses (“Summary Notice”) substantially in the form annexed hereto as Exhibit 9 3, and directs that Lead Counsel shall cause the Summary Notice to be published in 10 Investor’s Business Daily and transmitted over PRNewswire within fourteen (14) 11 calendar days of the Notice Date. Lead Counsel shall, at or before the Settlement 12 Hearing, file with the Court proof of publication of the Summary Notice. 13 12. The form and content of the notice program described herein, and the 14 methods set forth herein of notifying the Class of the Settlement and its terms and 15 conditions, meet the requirements of Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil 16 Procedure, Section 21D(a)(7) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. § 17 78u-4(a)(7), as amended by the PSLRA, and due process, constitute the best notice 18 practicable under the circumstances, and shall constitute due and sufficient notice 19 to all persons and entities entitled thereto. 20 13. In order to be eligible to receive a distribution from the Net Settlement 21 Fund, in the event the Settlement becomes effective in accordance with the terms 22 and conditions set forth in the Stipulation, each Class Member shall take the 23 following actions and be subject to the following conditions: 24 (a) A properly executed Proof of Claim, substantially in the form 25 annexed hereto as Exhibit 2, must be submitted to the Claims Administrator, at the 26 address indicated in the Notice, postmarked no later than 120 calendar days after 27 the Notice Date. Such deadline may be further extended by Court Order or by 28 Lead Counsel in their discretion. Each Proof of Claim shall be deemed to have

[PROPOSED] PRELIMINARY APPROVAL ORDER PROVIDING FOR NOTICE AND HEARING 6 IN CONNECTION WITH PROPOSED CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT CASE NO.: 8:10-CV-1327-JST (RNBX) 1 been submitted when postmarked (if properly addressed and mailed by first-class 2 mail, postage prepaid) provided such Proof of Claim is actually received prior to 3 the motion for an order of the Court approving distribution of the Net Settlement 4 Fund. Any Proof of Claim submitted in any other manner shall be deemed to have 5 been submitted when it was actually received at the address designated in the 6 Notice. Any Class Member who does not timely submit a Proof of Claim within 7 the time provided for shall be barred from sharing in the distribution of the Net 8 Settlement Fund, unless otherwise ordered by the Court. 9 (b) The Proof of Claim submitted by each Class Member must 10 satisfy the following conditions, unless otherwise ordered by the Court: (i) it must 11 be properly completed, signed and submitted in a timely manner in accordance 12 with the provisions of the preceding subparagraph; (ii) it must be accompanied by 13 adequate supporting documentation for the transactions reported therein, in the 14 form of broker confirmation slips, broker account statements, an authorized 15 statement from the broker containing the transactional information found in a 16 broker confirmation slip, or such other documentation as is deemed adequate by 17 Lead Counsel; (iii) if the person executing the Proof of Claim is acting in a 18 representative capacity, a certification of her current authority to act on behalf of 19 the Class Member must be included in the Proof of Claim; and (iv) the Proof of 20 Claim must be complete and contain no material deletions or modifications of any 21 of the printed matter contained therein and must be signed under penalty of 22 perjury. 23 (c) As part of the Proof of Claim, each Class Member shall submit 24 to the jurisdiction of the Court with respect to the claim submitted. 25 14. Class Members shall be bound by all orders, determinations and 26 judgments in this Action, whether favorable or unfavorable, unless such Persons 27 request exclusion from the Class in a timely and proper manner, as hereinafter 28 provided. A Class Member wishing to make such an exclusion request shall mail

[PROPOSED] PRELIMINARY APPROVAL ORDER PROVIDING FOR NOTICE AND HEARING 7 IN CONNECTION WITH PROPOSED CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT CASE NO.: 8:10-CV-1327-JST (RNBX) 1 the request in written form by first-class mail to the address designated in the 2 Notice for such exclusions, such that it is postmarked no later than twenty-one (21) 3 calendar days prior to the Settlement Hearing. Such request for exclusion must 4 state the name, address and telephone number of the person seeking exclusion, that 5 the sender requests to be “excluded from the Class in In re Beckman Coulter, Inc. 6 Sec. Litig., 8:10-cv-1327-JST (RNBx) (C.D.Cal.)” and must be signed by such 7 person. Such persons requesting exclusion are also directed to state: the date(s), 8 price(s), and number(s) of shares of all purchases, acquisitions and sales of the 9 Beckman common stock during the Class Period. The request for exclusion shall 10 not be effective unless it provides the required information and is made within the 11 time stated above, or the exclusion is otherwise accepted by the Court. 12 15. Class Members who submit a valid and timely request for exclusion 13 from the Class shall not be eligible to receive any payment out of the Net 14 Settlement Fund as described in the Stipulation and Notice. Lead Counsel and the 15 Claims Administrator shall notify Defendants’ Counsel of any retraction or 16 withdrawal of a Request for Exclusion, and provide copies thereof promptly and in 17 no event later than two (2) calendar days prior to the Settlement Hearing. To 18 retract or withdraw a Request for Exclusion, a member of the Class must file a 19 written notice with the Court prior to the Settlement Hearing (provided however 20 that such filing may be effected by Lead Counsel) stating the person’s or entity’s 21 desire to retract or withdraw his, her, or its Request for Exclusion and that person’s 22 or entity’s desire to be bound by any judgment or settlement in this Action. 23 16. The Court will consider any Class Member’s objection to the 24 Settlement, the Plan of Allocation, and/or the application for an award of 25 attorneys’ fees or reimbursement of expenses only if such Class Member has 26 served by hand or by mail his, her or its written objection and supporting papers 27 such that they are received or postmarked on or before twenty-one (21) calendar 28 days before the Settlement Hearing, upon Lead Counsel, Labaton Sucharow LLP,

[PROPOSED] PRELIMINARY APPROVAL ORDER PROVIDING FOR NOTICE AND HEARING 8 IN CONNECTION WITH PROPOSED CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT CASE NO.: 8:10-CV-1327-JST (RNBX) 1 Christopher J. McDonald, 140 Broadway, New York, NY 10005 and Defendants’ 2 Counsel, Pamela S. Palmer, Latham & Watkins LLP, 650 Town Center Drive, 3 Suite 2000, Costa Mesa, California 92626, and has filed said objections and 4 supporting papers with the Clerk of the Court, United States District Court for the 5 Central District of California in the Santa Ana Courthouse, 411 West Fourth Street, 6 Santa Ana, CA 92701. Any Class Member who does not make his, her or its 7 objection in the manner provided for in the Notice shall be deemed to have waived 8 such objection and shall forever be foreclosed from making any objection to any 9 aspect of the Settlement, to the Plan of Allocation, or to the request for attorneys’ 10 fees and expenses, unless otherwise ordered by the Court, but shall otherwise be 11 bound by the Judgment to be entered and the releases to be given. Attendance at 12 the hearing is not necessary; however, persons wishing to be heard orally in 13 opposition to the approval of the Settlement, the Plan of Allocation, and/or the 14 application for an award of attorneys’ fees and other expenses are required to 15 indicate in their written objection their intention to appear at the hearing. Persons 16 who intend to object to the Settlement, the Plan of Allocation, and/or the 17 application for an award of attorneys’ fees and expenses and desire to present 18 evidence at the Settlement Hearing must include in their written objections the 19 identity of any witnesses they may call to testify and exhibits they intend to 20 introduce into evidence at the Settlement Hearing. Class Members do not need to 21 appear at the hearing or take any other action to indicate their approval. 22 17. Pending final determination of whether the Settlement should be 23 approved, Lead Plaintiff, all Class Members, and each of them, and anyone who 24 acts or purports to act on their behalf, shall not institute, commence or prosecute 25 any action which asserts Released Claims against the Released Defendant Parties. 26 18. As provided in the Stipulation, Lead Counsel may pay the Claims 27 Administrator the reasonable fees and costs incurred in giving notice to the Class 28 and the review of claims and administration of the Settlement out of the Settlement

[PROPOSED] PRELIMINARY APPROVAL ORDER PROVIDING FOR NOTICE AND HEARING 9 IN CONNECTION WITH PROPOSED CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT CASE NO.: 8:10-CV-1327-JST (RNBX) 1 Fund without further approval from the Defendants and without further order of 2 the Court. 3 19. All papers in support of the Settlement, Plan of Allocation, and Lead 4 Counsel’s request for an award of attorneys’ fees and expenses shall be filed with 5 the Court and served on or before twenty-eight (28) calendar days prior to the date 6 set herein for the Settlement Hearing. If reply papers are necessary, they are to be 7 filed with the Court and served no later than seven (7) calendar days prior to the 8 Settlement Hearing. 9 20. The passage of title and ownership of the Settlement Fund and the 10 Notice and Administration Fund to the Escrow Agent in accordance with the terms 11 and obligations of the Stipulation is approved. No person who is not a Class 12 Member or Lead Counsel shall have any right to any portion of, or to any 13 distribution of, the Net Settlement Fund unless otherwise ordered by the Court or 14 otherwise provided in the Stipulation. 15 21. All funds held in escrow shall be deemed and considered to be in 16 custodia legis of the Court, and shall remain subject to the jurisdiction of the Court 17 until such time as such funds shall be disbursed pursuant to the Stipulation and/or 18 further order of the Court. 19 22. If the Effective Date, as defined in the Stipulation, is not reached or 20 the Settlement is terminated, then, in any such event, the Stipulation, including any 21 amendment(s) thereof, except as expressly provided in the Stipulation, and this 22 Preliminary Approval Order shall be null and void, of no further force or effect, 23 and without prejudice to any Settling Party, and may not be introduced as evidence 24 or used in any actions or proceedings by any person or entity against the Parties, 25 and the Parties shall be deemed to have reverted to their respective litigation 26 positions in the Action as of June 9, 2011. 27 23. The Court retains exclusive jurisdiction over the Action to consider all 28 further matters arising out of or connected with the Settlement.

[PROPOSED] PRELIMINARY APPROVAL ORDER PROVIDING FOR NOTICE AND HEARING 10 IN CONNECTION WITH PROPOSED CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT CASE NO.: 8:10-CV-1327-JST (RNBX) 1 2 3 Dated: ______, 2011 4 5 ______Honorable Josephine Staton Tucker 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

[PROPOSED] PRELIMINARY APPROVAL ORDER PROVIDING FOR NOTICE AND HEARING 11 IN CONNECTION WITH PROPOSED CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT CASE NO.: 8:10-CV-1327-JST (RNBX) EXHIBIT A-1 1 Christopher J. Keller Sherrie R. Savett (admitted pro hac vice) (admitted pro hac vice) 2 Christopher J. McDonald Barbara A. Podell (admitted pro hac vice) (admitted pro hac vice) 3 LABATON SUCHAROW LLP Douglas M. Risen 140 Broadway (admitted pro hac vice) 4 New York, New York 10005 Eric Lechtzin (Bar No. 248958) Telephone: (212) 907-0700 BERGER & MONTAGUE, P.C. 5 Facsimile: (212) 818-0477 1622 Locust Street Email: [email protected] Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103 6 Telephone: (215) 875-3071 Co-Lead Counsel for Lead Plaintiff and the Facsimile: (215) 875-5715 7 Class Email: [email protected] 8 Co-Lead Counsel for Lead Plaintiff Mark Labaton (Bar No. 159555) and the Class 9 MOTLEY RICE LLP 1100 Glendon Avenue, 14th Floor 10 Los Angeles, California 90024 Telephone: (310) 500-3488 11 Facsimile: (310) 824-2870 Email: [email protected] 12 Liaison Counsel for the Class 13 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 14 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 15 ) 16 ) Case No.: 8:10-cv-1327-JST (RNBx) ) 17 IN RE BECKMAN COULTER, INC. ) NOTICE OF PENDENCY OF SECURITIES LITIGATION ) CLASS ACTION AND PROPOSED 18 ) SETTLEMENT AND MOTION ) FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND 19 ) EXPENSES ) 20 ) Hon. Josephine Staton Tucker 21 22 IF YOU PURCHASED OR OTHERWISE ACQUIRED THE COMMON STOCK OF BECKMAN COULTER, INC. (“BECKMAN” OR THE 23 “COMPANY”) BETWEEN JULY 31, 2009 AND JULY 22, 2010, INCLUSIVE (THE “CLASS PERIOD”), YOU MAY BE ELIGIBLE FOR A 24 PAYMENT FROM A CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT 25 A Federal Court authorized this Notice. This is not a solicitation from a lawyer. 26  Court-appointed lead plaintiff, Arkansas Teacher Retirement System and 27 Iron Workers District Council of New England Pension Fund (“Lead Plaintiff”), on behalf of itself and the Class (as defined below), has 28 reached a proposed settlement in the amount of $5,000,000 in cash, plus

NOTICE OF PENDENCY OF CLASS ACTION AND PROPOSED SETTLEMENT Case No.: 8:10-cv-1327-JST (RNBx) 1 payment of actual Notice and Administration Expenses up to a cumulative cap of $500,000 (the “Settlement”), which will resolve all claims against 2 Beckman and the Individual Defendants, Scott T. Garrett and Charles P. 3 Slacik (collectively, the “Defendants”), in this proposed class action (the “Action”). 4 5  The Settlement resolves class action litigation over claims alleging that 6 the Defendants allegedly misled investors about Beckman’s business performance; avoids the costs and risks of continuing the Action, pays 7 money to investors like you, and releases the Defendants from liability. 8 .  This Notice explains important rights you may have, including your 9 possible receipt of cash from the Settlement. Your legal rights will be 10 affected whether or not you act. Please read this Notice carefully!

11  The Court in charge of the Action has not yet decided whether to approve 12 the Settlement. Payments to qualified Class Members will be made if the Court approves the Settlement and after any appeals are resolved. Please 13 be patient. 14 YOUR LEGAL RIGHTS AND OPTIONS IN THE SETTLEMENT: 15 ACTIONS YOU MAY EFFECT OF TAKING THIS 16 TAKE ACTION SUBMIT A CLAIM FORM This is the only way to get a payment. 17 POSTMARKED NO LATER THAN______, 2011. 18 EXCLUDE YOURSELF Get no payment. This is the only option that 19 FROM THE CLASS BY allows you to ever be part of any other lawsuit SUBMITTING A WRITTEN against the Defendants concerning the claims 20 REQUEST FOR that were, or could have been, asserted in this EXCLUSION case. It is also the only way for Class 21 POSTMARKED NO LATER Members to remove themselves from the THAN ______, 2011. Class. 22 OBJECT TO THE Write to the Court and explain why you do not 23 SETTLEMENT BY like the Settlement, the proposed Plan of SUBMITTING A WRITTEN Allocation, and/or the request for attorneys’ 24 OBJECTION fees and reimbursement of expenses. You POSTMARKED NO LATER cannot object if you are not a Class Member or 25 THAN ______, 2011. if you exclude yourself. 26 27 28 NOTICE OF PENDENCY OF CLASS ACTION AND PROPOSED SETTLEMENT 2 Case No.: 8:10-cv-1327-JST (RNBx) 1 GO TO THE HEARING ON Ask to speak in Court about the fairness of the ______, 2011 AT Settlement, the proposed Plan of Allocation, or 2 _:__ _.M., AND FILE A the request for attorneys’ fees and NOTICE OF INTENTION reimbursement of expenses. 3 TO APPEAR SO THAT IT IS POSTMARKED NO 4 LATER THAN ______, 2011. 5 DO NOTHING Get no payment. Remain a Class Member. Give up your rights. 6

7 SUMMARY OF THIS NOTICE 8 I. Description of the Action and the Class 9 This Notice relates to the proposed Settlement of a securities class action 10 lawsuit. As explained in more detail below, the proposed Settlement, if approved 11 by the Court, will settle the claim of any person or entity who purchased or 12 otherwise acquired Beckman common stock between July 31, 2009 and July 22, 13 2010, inclusive, and who was allegedly damaged thereby (the “Class”). 14 II. Statement of the Plaintiffs’ Recovery 15 Subject to Court approval, and as described more fully in on page [ ] below, 16 Lead Plaintiff, on behalf of the proposed Class, has agreed to settle all claims 17 related to the purchase or acquisition of Beckman common stock during the Class 18 Period that were or could have been asserted against the Defendants in the Action, 19 in exchange for a payment of $5,000,000 in cash (the “Settlement Amount”) to be 20 deposited into an interest-bearing escrow account (the “Settlement Fund”), plus 21 payment of the costs of Settlement Notice and Administration Expenses in an 22 amount not to exceed a total cumulative cap of $500,000. Based on Lead 23 Plaintiff’s consulting damages expert’s estimate of the amount of Beckman 24 common stock that may have been damaged as a result of the alleged 25 misstatements and omissions by the Defendants, and assuming that all those shares 26 participate in the Settlement, Lead Counsel estimates that the average recovery 27 28 NOTICE OF PENDENCY OF CLASS ACTION AND PROPOSED SETTLEMENT 3 Case No.: 8:10-cv-1327-JST (RNBx) 1 would be approximately $0.16 per allegedly damaged share,1 before the deduction 2 of Court-approved attorneys’ fees and expenses, taxes, and notice and 3 administration costs in excess of $500,000, if any. Class Members should note, 4 however, that this is only an estimate based on the overall number of potentially 5 damaged shares in the Class. Some Class Members may recover more or less than 6 this estimated amount depending on, among other factors, when, where, and the 7 prices at which their shares were purchased or sold. The Net Settlement Fund (the 8 Settlement Fund less taxes, notice and administration costs in excess of $500,000, 9 and attorneys’ fees and litigation expenses awarded to Lead Counsel) will be 10 distributed in accordance with a plan of allocation (the “Plan of Allocation”) 11 approved by the Court that will determine how the Net Settlement Fund shall be 12 allocated to the members of the Class. The proposed Plan of Allocation is included 13 in this Notice (see page ___ below). 14 III. Statement of Potential Outcome of the Case 15 The Parties do not agree on the average amount of damages per share that 16 would be recoverable if Lead Plaintiff were to prevail on the claims against the 17 Defendants. The Defendants deny all liability and that any Beckman common 18 stock was damaged as Lead Plaintiff has alleged. The issues on which the Parties 19 disagree include, for example: (1) whether any Defendant made any alleged 20 misrepresentation or omission whatsoever; (i) the amount by which the price of 21 Beckman common stock was artificially inflated, if at all, as a result of the alleged 22 misstatements and omissions by the Defendants; (ii) the amount of alleged 23 damages, if any, suffered by purchasers or acquirers of Beckman common stock; 24 (iii) the appropriate economic models for determining the amounts by which 25 Beckman common stock was allegedly artificially inflated, if at all; and (iv) the 26 1 An allegedly damaged share might have been traded more than once and this 27 average recovery would be the total for all purchasers of that share. This average recovery also assumes that Defendants will pay $500,000 in Notice and 28 Administration Expenses. NOTICE OF PENDENCY OF CLASS ACTION AND PROPOSED SETTLEMENT 4 Case No.: 8:10-cv-1327-JST (RNBx) 1 effect of various market forces influencing the trading prices of Beckman common 2 stock. 3 IV. Statement of Attorneys’ Fees and Litigation Expenses Sought 4 Lead Counsel (as defined on page [ ] below) will apply to the Court for an 5 award of attorneys’ fees from the Settlement Fund in an amount not to exceed 25% 6 of $5,500,000, plus interest at the same rate as is earned by the Settlement Fund. 7 In addition, Lead Counsel also will apply for the reimbursement of litigation 8 expenses paid or incurred in connection with the prosecution and resolution of the 9 Action, in an amount not to exceed $148,000, plus interest from the date of funding 10 at the same rate as earned by the Settlement Fund. Lead Counsel’s overall request 11 for reimbursement of litigation expenses may include a request for an award to 12 Lead Plaintiff Arkansas Teacher Retirement System and Iron Workers District 13 Council of New England Pension Fund for reimbursement of its reasonable costs 14 and expenses directly related to its representation of the Class in an amount not to 15 exceed $40,000. If the Court approves Lead Counsel’s attorneys’ fee application 16 in full, the average amount of fees and expenses will be approximately $0.04 per 17 allegedly damaged share. 18 V. Identification of Attorneys’ Representatives 19 Lead Plaintiff and the Class are being represented by Labaton Sucharow 20 LLP and Berger & Montague, P.C., the Court-appointed Lead Counsel. Any 21 questions regarding the Settlement should be directed to Christopher J. McDonald, 22 Labaton Sucharow LLP, 140 Broadway, New York, NY 10005, Tel: 888-219- 23 6877, www.labaton.com, [email protected]; or [individual], 24 Berger & Montague, P.C., 1622 Locust Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103, 25 tel.: ____, www.bergermontague.com. 26 VI. Reasons for the Settlement 27 For Lead Plaintiff, the principal reason for the Settlement is the immediate 28 benefit of a substantial cash recovery for the Class. This benefit must be compared NOTICE OF PENDENCY OF CLASS ACTION AND PROPOSED SETTLEMENT 5 Case No.: 8:10-cv-1327-JST (RNBx) 1 to the risk that no recovery or a smaller recovery might be achieved if the Court 2 were to grant the Defendants’ pending motion to dismiss the Consolidated Class 3 Action Complaint for Violations of Federal Securities Laws (the “Complaint”); or, 4 if Lead Plaintiff were to avoid dismissal of the Complaint, the further risk that no 5 recovery or a smaller recovery might be achieved after the completion of fact and 6 expert discovery, resolution of any summary judgment motions by the Defendants, 7 and/or the outcome of a contested trial and the resolution of appeals, possibly years 8 into the future. For the Defendants, who deny all allegations of liability and deny 9 that any Class Members were damaged, the principal reason for the Settlement is 10 to eliminate the burden, expense, uncertainty and risk of further litigation. 11 BASIC INFORMATION

12 1. Why did I get this notice package? 13 You or someone in your family may have purchased or otherwise acquired 14 Beckman common stock between July 31, 2009 and July 22, 2010, inclusive. 15 The Court directed that this Notice be sent to Class Members because they 16 have a right to know about the proposed Settlement of this class action lawsuit, and 17 about all of their options, before the Court decides whether to approve the 18 Settlement. If approved, the Settlement will end all of the Class’s claims against 19 the Defendants. The Court will consider whether to approve the Settlement at a 20 Settlement Hearing on ______, 2011 at __:__ _.m. If the Court approves the 21 Settlement, and after any appeals are resolved and the Settlement administration is 22 completed, the claims administrator appointed by the Court will make the 23 payments that the Settlement allows. 24 The Court in charge of the case is the United States District Court for the 25 Central District of California, and the case is known as In re Beckman Coulter, Inc. 26 Sec. Litig., 8:10-cv-1327-JST (RNBx) (C.D.Cal.). This case was assigned to 27 United States District Judge Josephine Staton Tucker. The persons who are suing 28 NOTICE OF PENDENCY OF CLASS ACTION AND PROPOSED SETTLEMENT 6 Case No.: 8:10-cv-1327-JST (RNBx) 1 are called “plaintiffs” and the company and the persons being sued are called 2 “defendants.” 3 This package explains the Action, the Settlement, the Plan of Allocation, 4 your legal rights, what benefits are available, who is eligible for them, and how to 5 receive them.

6 2. What is this lawsuit about and what has happened so far? 7 Beckman is primarily engaged in the development, manufacture and sale of 8 biomedical testing equipment and tests. The Company operates globally and is 9 headquartered in California’s Orange County. The two Individual Defendants are 10 Beckman’s former CEO Scott Garrett and its former CFO Charlie Slacik. In June 11 2011, Beckman was acquired by Danaher Corporation. 12 Lead Plaintiff’s claims in the Action are made on behalf of all alleged Class 13 Members and are stated in the Complaint filed on February 7, 2011. In the 14 Complaint, Lead Plaintiff alleges that Beckman and the Individual Defendants 15 violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the 16 “Exchange Act”) by allegedly making material misstatements and omissions 17 regarding product quality, safety, Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”) 18 regulatory compliance, and the Company’s troponin test, as well as likely customer 19 retention, recurring revenue, business prospects, and earnings forecasts and 20 guidance during the alleged Class Period between July 31, 2009 and July 22, 2010. 21 Lead Plaintiff alleges that Defendants failed to make earlier disclosure of alleged 22 non-compliance with FDA pre-market notification requirements concerning 23 modifications made to the Company’s troponin tests, and failed to make earlier 24 disclosure of the effects of non-compliance on the Company’s operations, 25 products, and prospects. 26 Lead Plaintiff alleges that on March 22, 2010, May 14, 2010, and July 22, 27 2010, Defendants made corrective disclosures which negatively impacted 28 NOTICE OF PENDENCY OF CLASS ACTION AND PROPOSED SETTLEMENT 7 Case No.: 8:10-cv-1327-JST (RNBx) 1 Beckman’s common stock price. On March 22, 2010, the Company disclosed that 2 the FDA had taken the position that certain modifications to the troponin test kit 3 had been made without obtaining appropriate product clearance from the FDA 4 under Section 510(k) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. § 5 360(k)). Beckman’s common stock price declined the next day. Lead Plaintiff 6 alleges that on May 14, 2010, the Company disclosed that, based on information 7 provided by and discussions with the FDA, the Company expected to submit its 8 510(k) submissions for the troponin test kit on two of its testing platforms in the 9 first half of 2011. Beckman’s common stock price declined the same day. Lead 10 Plaintiff alleges that on July 22, 2010, Beckman disclosed remediation plans and 11 efforts to improve product quality and regulatory compliance, disclosed that some 12 of the projects comprising the remediation plans and efforts would continue into 13 2011, and disclosed that because of the remediation plans and efforts, other 14 initiatives would be deferred until the issues requiring the remediation plans and 15 efforts were resolved.. Beckman’s common stock price declined the following 16 day. Lead Plaintiff alleges that these disclosures reflected information that 17 Defendants allegedly knew or should have known and disclosed earlier during the 18 Class Period. Lead Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants knew or reckless 19 disregarded allegedly long-standing and systemic quality, safety, and compliance 20 problems made material misrepresentations and omissions regarding these alleged 21 problems and the likely impacts on the Company’s recurring revenue and earnings. 22 On April 22, 2011, the Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Complaint 23 for failure to state a claim under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act. 24 Defendants have denied and continue to deny the claims and contentions alleged 25 by Lead Plaintiff in this Action. Defendants deny that any of them made any of the 26 alleged misrepresentations or omissions whatsoever, and assert that Beckman 27 truthfully disclosed to investors material information as it became known regarding 28 the toponin test, FDA challenges to regulatory compliance, and the Company’s NOTICE OF PENDENCY OF CLASS ACTION AND PROPOSED SETTLEMENT 8 Case No.: 8:10-cv-1327-JST (RNBx) 1 performance with respect to customer retention, recurring revenue, earnings and 2 forecasts. Defendants deny any liability and maintain that they have meritorious 3 defenses to all claims that were raised or that could have been raised in the Action. 4 Procedurally, this Action began in September 2010 with the filing of two 5 proposed class actions against the Defendants. On December 8, 2010, the Court 6 issued an order consolidating these cases into the present Action and appointing 7 Arkansas Teacher Retirement System and Iron Workers District Counsel of New 8 England Pension Fund as Lead Plaintiff and Labaton Sucharow LLP and Berger & 9 Montague, P.C. as Lead Counsel for the putative Class. 10 Lead Plaintiff filed the Complaint on February 7, 2011. On April 22, 2011, 11 Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss, which was pending before the Court at the 12 time of this Settlement. 13 On June 9, 2011, Lead Plaintiff and the Defendants (collectively, the 14 “Parties”) met with the Honorable Daniel Weinstein of JAMS for a lengthy 15 mediation session discussing a potential settlement of the Action. This Settlement 16 was reached at the conclusion of the negotiations on June 9, 2011, when the Parties 17 agreed to a settlement. 18 The Parties entered into the Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement (the 19 “Stipulation”) on ___, 2011. On ______, 2011, the Court preliminarily 20 approved the Settlement, authorized this Notice to be sent to potential Class 21 Members, and scheduled the Settlement Hearing to consider whether to grant final 22 approval to the Settlement.

23 3. Why is this a class action? 24 In a class action, one or more people called class representatives (in this case 25 the Lead Plaintiff on behalf of the Class) sue on behalf of people or entities, known 26 as “Class Members,” who have similar claims. A class action allows one court to 27 resolve in a single case many similar claims that, if brought separately by 28 NOTICE OF PENDENCY OF CLASS ACTION AND PROPOSED SETTLEMENT 9 Case No.: 8:10-cv-1327-JST (RNBx) 1 individuals, might be economically so small that they would never be brought. 2 One court resolves the issues for all class members, except for those who exclude 3 themselves, or “opt out,” from the Class (see page ___ below).

4 4. Why is there a settlement? 5 The Court did not decide in favor of Lead Plaintiff or the Defendants. 6 Instead, both sides agreed to the Settlement. The Settlement permits both sides to 7 avoid the uncertainties and costs of further litigation and any future trial. Affected 8 investors will be eligible to get compensation immediately. 9 As explained below, Lead Plaintiff and their attorneys believe that the 10 Settlement is the best outcome for Class Members after conducting months of 11 investigation regarding the claims, defenses and underlying events and transactions 12 relating to the Action. This investigation included, among other things, reviewing 13 and analyzing: Beckman’s filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission 14 (the “SEC”); securities analysts’ reports; public statements by Defendants; media 15 reports relevant to the allegations in the Complaint,; court records in other 16 contemporaneous actions involving Beckman; officer and director trading data; 17 documents obtained from the United States Food and Drug Administration 18 (“FDA”) pursuant to requests made under the Freedom of Information Act; recall 19 notices of Beckman’s products dating back to January 2006; adverse event reports 20 shown in the FDA’s Manufacturer and User Facility Device Experience database, 21 and; product and other information available on Beckman’s website, 22 www.beckmancoulter.com. 23 Lead Counsel also represent that they located and contacted more than 140 24 former employees of Beckman and conducted interviews of more than 60 of these 25 former employees. Lead Counsel consulted with experts with extensive experience 26 with the FDA or within the relevant biomedical device and testing industries, FDA 27 site and plant inspections, good manufacturing practices, quality control, health 28 NOTICE OF PENDENCY OF CLASS ACTION AND PROPOSED SETTLEMENT 10 Case No.: 8:10-cv-1327-JST (RNBx) 1 and safety requirements, and pre-market notification requirements pursuant to 2 Section 510(k) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, as well as damages 3 experts. Further, Lead Counsel and Lead Plaintiff participated in arm’s-length 4 negotiations and a mediation before an experienced mediator before entering into 5 the Settlement. In light of the investigation, and taking into account the mediation 6 and Defendants’ positions adverse to the alleged claims, Lead Plaintiff and their 7 attorneys believe that the Settlement is the best outcome for Class Members 8 WHO IS IN THE SETTLEMENT 9 10 5. How do I know if I am part of the Settlement? 11 The Court determined, for the purposes of the Settlement only, that everyone 12 who fits the following description, and is not excluded by definition from the Class 13 (see Question [6] below), is a member of the Class, or a “Class Member,” unless 14 they take steps to exclude themselves: any person or entity who purchased or otherwise 15 acquired Beckman common stock between July 31, 2009 and July 22, 2010, inclusive, and who was allegedly 16 damaged thereby. 17 Receipt of this Notice does not mean that you are a Class Member. Please check 18 your records or contact your broker to see if you purchased or otherwise acquired 19 Beckman common stock during the Class Period as described above. 20 6. Are there exceptions to being included in the Class? 21 There are some people who are excluded from the Class by definition. 22 Excluded from the Class are the Defendants; any officer or director of Beckman 23 during the Class Period; members of the immediate families of each of the 24 foregoing and their legal representatives, heirs, successors or assigns; and any 25 entity in which any Defendant has or had (during the Class Period) a controlling 26 interest. 27 28 NOTICE OF PENDENCY OF CLASS ACTION AND PROPOSED SETTLEMENT 11 Case No.: 8:10-cv-1327-JST (RNBx) 1 Also excluded from the Class are any proposed Class Members who 2 properly exclude themselves by filing a valid and timely request for exclusion in 3 accordance with the requirements set forth in this Notice. If you do not want to be 4 a Class Member - for example if you want to continue with or bring your own 5 lawsuit against the Defendants at your own expense for the claims that are being 6 released as part of the Settlement - you must exclude yourself by submitting a 7 request for exclusion in accordance with the requirements explained in Question 8 [13] below.

9 7. What if I am still not sure if I am included? 10 If you are still not sure whether you are included, you can ask for free help 11 by writing to or calling the Claims Administrator: In re Beckman Coulter, Inc. Sec. 12 Litig., Claims Administrator, c/o [______], [address], 800-[__], 13 www.[__].com. Or you can fill out and return the Proof of Claim and Release 14 form (“Proof of Claim”) described in Question [10], to see if you qualify. 15 THE SETTLEMENT BENEFITS—WHAT YOU MAY RECEIVE 16 17 8. What does the Settlement provide? 18 In the Settlement, Beckman has agreed to pay (or cause its insurance carriers 19 to pay) $5,000,000 in cash, which will be deposited in an interest-bearing escrow 20 account (the “Settlement Fund”), and further agreed to pay the actual and 21 reasonable expenses of notice and administration of the Settlement not to exceed a 22 total cumulative cap of $500,000. Notice and Administration Expenses greater 23 than this amount, if any, will be paid from the Settlement Fund. The Settlement 24 Fund will be divided, after deduction of Taxes, Court-awarded attorneys’ fees and 25 expenses, and additional Notice and Administration Expenses, among all Class 26 Members who timely submit valid Proofs of Claim that are approved for payment 27 by the Court (“Authorized Claimants”). 28 NOTICE OF PENDENCY OF CLASS ACTION AND PROPOSED SETTLEMENT 12 Case No.: 8:10-cv-1327-JST (RNBx) 1 9. How much will my payment be? 2 The Plan of Allocation, discussed on pages [____] below, explains how 3 claimants’ “Recognized Losses” will be calculated. Your share of the Net 4 Settlement Fund will depend on several things, including: (i) the number of shares 5 of Beckman common stock that you bought; (ii) how much you paid for the 6 common stock; (iii) when you bought shares; (iv) whether or when you sold shares 7 (and, if so, for how much you sold them); and (v) the amount of Recognized 8 Losses of other Authorized Claimants. 9 It is unlikely that you will get a payment for your entire Recognized Loss, 10 given the number of potential Class Members. After all Class Members have sent 11 in their Proofs of Claim, the payment any Authorized Claimant will get will be 12 their pro rata share of the Net Settlement Fund. An Authorized Claimant’s share 13 will be his, her or its Recognized Loss divided by the total of all Authorized 14 Claimants’ Recognized Losses and then multiplied by the total amount in the Net 15 Settlement Fund. See the Plan of Allocation beginning on page [___] for more 16 information. 17 Once all the Proofs of Claim are processed and claims are calculated, Lead 18 Counsel, without further notice to the Class, will apply to the Court for an order 19 authorizing distribution of the Net Settlement Fund to the Authorized Claimants. 20 Lead Counsel will also ask the Court to approve payment of the Claims 21 Administrator’s fees and expenses incurred in connection with administering the 22 Settlement that have not already been reimbursed. 23 24 HOW YOU GET A PAYMENT—SUBMITTING A PROOF OF CLAIM 25 10. How can I get a payment? 26 To qualify for a payment, you must timely send in a valid Proof of Claim 27 with supporting documents (DO NOT SEND ORIGINALS of your supporting 28 documents). A Proof of Claim is enclosed with this Notice. You may also get NOTICE OF PENDENCY OF CLASS ACTION AND PROPOSED SETTLEMENT 13 Case No.: 8:10-cv-1327-JST (RNBx) 1 copies of the Proof of Claim on the Internet at the websites for the Claims 2 Administrator: www.[__].com, or Lead Counsel: www.labaton.com. Please read 3 the instructions carefully, fill out the Proof of Claim, include all the documents the 4 form asks for, sign it, and mail it to the Claims Administrator by First-Class Mail, 5 postmarked on or before ______, 2011. The Claims Administrator needs all 6 of the information requested in the Proof of Claim in order to determine if you are 7 eligible to receive a distribution from the Net Settlement Fund.

8 11. When will I get my payment? 9 The Court will hold a hearing on ______, 2011 at __:__ _.m., to 10 decide whether to, among other things, approve the Settlement and the proposed 11 Plan of Allocation. All Proofs of Claim must be submitted to the Claims 12 Administrator, postmarked on or before ______, 2011. If the Court 13 approves the Settlement, there may still be appeals which would delay payment, 14 perhaps for more than a year. It also takes time for all the Proofs of Claim to be 15 processed. Please be patient. 16 12. What am I giving up by staying in the Class? 17 Unless you exclude yourself, you will stay in the Class, which means that as 18 of the date that the Settlement becomes effective under the terms of the Stipulation 19 (the “Effective Date”), you will forever give up and release all “Released Claims” 20 (as defined below) against the “Released Defendant Parties” (as defined below). 21 You will not in the future be able to bring a case asserting any Released Claim 22 against the Released Defendant Parties. 23 “Released Claims” means all claims, rights and causes of action, duties, 24 obligations, demands, actions, debts, sums of money, suits, contracts, agreements, 25 promises, damages, and liabilities of every nature and description, whether known 26 or Unknown (as defined below), whether arising under federal, state, common or 27 administrative law, or any other law, that Lead Plaintiff or any other Class 28 NOTICE OF PENDENCY OF CLASS ACTION AND PROPOSED SETTLEMENT 14 Case No.: 8:10-cv-1327-JST (RNBx) 1 Member: (i) have asserted in the Action, including in the Complaint; or (ii) could 2 have asserted in any forum, that arise out of the allegations, transactions, facts, 3 events, occurrences, acts, disclosures, statements, representations or omissions or 4 failures to act involved, set forth, or referred to in the Complaint filed in the 5 Action, and that relate to the purchase or acquisition during the Class Period of 6 Beckman common stock. Released Claims do not include claims: (i) to enforce the 7 Settlement; (ii) to enforce confidentiality agreements and obligations concerning 8 information provided in connection with the settlement of the Action; and (iii) 9 asserted derivatively or directly in the action In re Beckman Coulter, Inc. 10 Shareholders Litig., Lead Case No. 30-2010-0040632 pending in the Superior 11 Court of the State of California, County of Orange. 12 “Released Defendants’ Claims” means all claims, rights and causes of 13 action, duties, obligations, demands, actions, debts, sums of money, suits, 14 contracts, agreements, promises, damages, and liabilities of every nature and 15 description, whether known or Unknown, whether arising under federal, state, 16 common or administrative law, or any other law, that the Defendants or any other 17 Released Defendant Party asserted, or could have asserted, against any of the 18 Released Plaintiff Parties that arise out of or relate in any way to the 19 commencement, prosecution, settlement or resolution of the Action or the claims 20 against the Released Defendant Parties. “Released Defendants’ Claims” do not 21 include claims: (i) to enforce the Settlement; (ii) to enforce confidentiality 22 agreements and obligations concerning information provided in connection with 23 the settlement of the Action; and (iii) that arise out of or relate in any way to the 24 commencement, prosecution, settlement or resolution of claims asserted 25 derivatively or directly in the action In re Beckman Coulter, Inc. Shareholders 26 Litig., Lead Case No. 30-2010-0040632 pending in the Superior Court of the State 27 of California, County of Orange. 28 NOTICE OF PENDENCY OF CLASS ACTION AND PROPOSED SETTLEMENT 15 Case No.: 8:10-cv-1327-JST (RNBx) 1 “Released Defendant Parties” means the Defendants and their present or 2 former trustees, officers, directors, principals, employees, agents, partners, 3 insurers, auditors, heirs, executors, administrators, attorneys, accountants, financial 4 advisors, representatives, predecessors, successors or assigns, parents, subsidiaries, 5 divisions, affiliates, associates, joint ventures, general or limited partners or 6 partnerships, limited liability companies and any trust of which any Individual 7 Defendant is the settlor or which is for the benefit of their immediate family 8 members. 9 “Unknown Claims” means any and all Released Claims, which the Lead 10 Plaintiff or any other Class Member does not know or suspect to exist in his, her or 11 its favor at the time of the release of the Released Defendant Parties, and any 12 Released Defendants’ Claims that the Defendants or any other Released Defendant 13 Party does not know or suspect to exist in his, her or its favor at the time of the 14 release of the Released Plaintiff Parties, which if known by him, her or it might 15 have affected his, her or its decision(s) with respect to the Settlement. With 16 respect to any and all Released Claims and Released Defendants’ Claims, the 17 Parties stipulate and agree that, upon the Effective Date, Lead Plaintiff and the 18 Defendants shall expressly, and each other Class Member and each other Released 19 Defendant Party shall be deemed to have, and by operation of the Judgment or 20 Alternative Judgment shall have, expressly waived and relinquished any and all 21 provisions, rights and benefits conferred by any law of any state or territory of the 22 United States, or principle of common law, which is similar, comparable, or 23 equivalent to Cal. Civ. Code § 1542, which provides: 24 A general release does not extend to claims which the creditor does not know or suspect to exist in his or her favor at the time of 25 executing the release, which if known by him or her must have 26 materially affected his or her settlement with the debtor. Lead Plaintiff, the other Class Members, the Defendants or the other 27 Released Defendant Parties may hereafter discover facts in addition to or different 28 NOTICE OF PENDENCY OF CLASS ACTION AND PROPOSED SETTLEMENT 16 Case No.: 8:10-cv-1327-JST (RNBx) 1 from those which he, she, or it now knows or believes to be true with respect to the 2 subject matter of the Released Claims and the Released Defendants’ Claims, but 3 Lead Plaintiff and the Defendants shall expressly, fully, finally and forever settle 4 and release, and each other Class Member and each other Released Defendant 5 Party shall be deemed to have settled and released, and upon the Effective Date 6 and by operation of the Judgment or Alternative Judgment shall have settled and 7 released, fully, finally, and forever, any and all Released Claims and Released 8 Defendants’ Claims as applicable, without regard to the subsequent discovery or 9 existence of such different or additional facts. Lead Plaintiff and the Defendants 10 acknowledge, and other Class Members and each other Released Defendant Party 11 by operation of law shall be deemed to have acknowledged, that the inclusion of 12 “Unknown Claims” in the definition of Released Claims and Released Defendants’ 13 Claims was separately bargained for and was a key element of the Settlement. 14 .EXCLUDING YOURSELF FROM THE SETTLEMENT 15 If you want to keep any right you may have to sue or continue to sue the 16 Released Defendant Parties on your own about the Released Claims, then you must 17 take steps to exclude yourself from the Class. Excluding yourself is known as 18 “opting out” of the Class. The Defendants may withdraw from and terminate the 19 Settlement if potential Class Members who purchased in excess of a certain 20 amount of Beckman common stock opt out from the Class.

21 13. How do I “opt out” (exclude myself) from the proposed Settlement? 22 To “opt out” (exclude yourself) from the Class, you must deliver or mail a 23 signed letter by First-Class Mail stating that you “request exclusion from the Class 24 in In re Beckman Coulter, Inc. Sec. Litig., 8:10-cv-1327-JST (RNBx) (C.D.Cal.).” 25 Your letter must state the date(s), price(s) and number of shares of all your 26 purchases, acquisitions and sales of Beckman common stock during the Class 27 Period. This information is needed to determine whether you are a Class Member. 28 NOTICE OF PENDENCY OF CLASS ACTION AND PROPOSED SETTLEMENT 17 Case No.: 8:10-cv-1327-JST (RNBx) 1 In addition, you must include your name, address, telephone number, and your 2 signature. You must submit your request for exclusion addressed to In re Beckman 3 Coulter, Inc. Sec. Litig., - EXCLUSIONS, c/o [name of Claims Administrator], 4 [address]. The request for exclusion must be delivered or postmarked on or 5 before ______, 2011. You cannot exclude yourself or opt out by 6 telephone or by email. Your request for exclusion must comply with these 7 requirements in order to be valid. If you are excluded, you will not be eligible to 8 get any payment from the Settlement proceeds and you cannot object to the 9 Settlement, the proposed Plan of Allocation or the application for attorneys’ fees 10 and reimbursement of expenses.

11 14. If I do not exclude myself, can I sue the Defendants and the other Released 12 Defendant Parties for the same thing later? 13 No. Unless you exclude yourself, you give up any rights to sue the 14 Defendants and the other Released Defendant Parties for all Released Claims. If 15 you have a pending lawsuit, speak to your lawyer in that case immediately. You 16 must exclude yourself from this Class to continue your own lawsuit. Remember, 17 the exclusion deadline is ______, 2011. 18 15. If I exclude myself, can I get money from the proposed Settlement? 19 No. If you exclude yourself, do not send in a Proof of Claim to ask for any 20 money. But you may exercise any right you may have to sue, continue to sue or be 21 part of a different lawsuit against the Defendants and the other Released Defendant 22 Parties. 23 THE LAWYERS REPRESENTING YOU 24 16. Do I have a lawyer in this case? 25 The law firms of Labaton Sucharow and Berger & Montague, P.C. were 26 appointed to represent all Class Members. These lawyers are called Lead Counsel. 27 You will not be separately charged for these lawyers. The Court will determine the 28 NOTICE OF PENDENCY OF CLASS ACTION AND PROPOSED SETTLEMENT 18 Case No.: 8:10-cv-1327-JST (RNBx) 1 amount of Lead Counsel’s fees and expenses. Any fees and expenses awarded by 2 the Court will be paid from the Settlement Fund. If you want to be represented by 3 your own lawyer, you may hire one at your own expense.

4 17. How will the lawyers be paid? 5 Lead Counsel has not received any payment for their services in pursuing 6 the claims against the Defendants on behalf of the Class, nor have they been 7 reimbursed for their litigation expenses. At the Settlement Hearing described 8 below, or at such other time as the Court may order, Lead Counsel will ask the 9 Court to award them, from the Settlement Fund, attorneys’ fees of no more than 10 25% of $5,500,000, plus interest at the same rate as is earned by the Settlement 11 Fund, and to reimburse them for their litigation expenses, such as the cost of 12 experts, that they have incurred in pursuing the Action. The request for 13 reimbursement of expenses will not exceed $148,000, plus interest on the expenses 14 from the date of funding at the same rate as may be earned by the Settlement Fund. 15 Lead Counsel’s overall request for reimbursement of litigation expenses may 16 include a request for an award to Lead Plaintiff for reimbursement of its reasonable 17 costs and expenses, in an amount that will not exceed $40,000, directly related to 18 their representation of the Class, pursuant to the Private Securities Litigation 19 Reform Act of 1995. 20 21 OBJECTING TO THE SETTLEMENT 22 18. How do I tell the Court that I do not like something about the proposed 23 Settlement? 24 If you are a Class Member and do not “opt out,” you can object to any part 25 of the Settlement, the proposed Plan of Allocation, and/or the application by Lead 26 Counsel for attorneys’ fees and reimbursement of expenses. You must write to the 27 28 NOTICE OF PENDENCY OF CLASS ACTION AND PROPOSED SETTLEMENT 19 Case No.: 8:10-cv-1327-JST (RNBx) 1 Court setting out your objection, giving reasons why you think the Court should 2 not approve any part or all of the Settlement. 3 To object, you must send a signed letter stating that you object to the 4 proposed Settlement in the case known as “In re Beckman Coulter, Inc. Sec. Litig., 5 8:10-cv-1327-JST (RNBx) (C.D.Cal.).” You must include your name, address, 6 telephone number and your signature; identify the date(s), price(s) and number of 7 shares of all purchases, acquisitions and sales of Beckman common stock during 8 the Class Period; and state the reasons why you object to the Settlement. This 9 information is needed to demonstrate your membership in the Class. 10 Unless otherwise ordered by the Court, any Class Member who does not 11 object in the manner described in this Notice will be deemed to have waived any 12 objection and will not be able to make any objection to the Settlement, the 13 proposed Plan of Allocation, and/or the application for attorneys’ fees and 14 reimbursement of expenses in the future. 15 Your objection must be filed with the United States District Court for the 16 Central District of California by hand or by mail such that it is received or 17 postmarked on or before ______, 2011 at the address set forth below. You 18 must also serve the papers on Lead Counsel and Defendants’ Counsel at the 19 addresses set forth below so that the papers are received or postmarked on or 20 before ______, 2011. 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 NOTICE OF PENDENCY OF CLASS ACTION AND PROPOSED SETTLEMENT 20 Case No.: 8:10-cv-1327-JST (RNBx) 1 COURT: LEAD COUNSEL: 2 CLERK OF THE COURT LABATON SUCHAROW LLP United States District Court for the Christopher J. McDonald, Esq. 3 Central District of California 140 Broadway Santa Ana Courthouse New York, New York 10005 4 411 West Fourth Street Santa Ana, CA 92701 5 6 COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANTS: 7 LATHAM & WATKINS LLP 8 Pamela Palmer, Esq. 650 Town Center Drive, Suite 2000 9 Costa Mesa, California 92626 10 11 19. What is the difference between objecting and requesting exclusion? 12 Objecting is simply telling the Court that you do not like something about 13 the proposed Settlement. You can still recover from the Settlement. You can 14 object only if you stay in the Class. Excluding yourself is telling the Court that 15 you do not want to be part of the Class. If you exclude yourself, you have no basis 16 to object because the case no longer affects you.

17 THE COURT’S SETTLEMENT HEARING 18 19 20. When and where will the Court decide whether to approve the proposed Settlement? 20 The Court will hold a Settlement Hearing at ___ _.m. on ______, 2011, 21 in Courtroom 10A of the United States District Court for the Central District of 22 California, Santa Ana Courthouse, 411 West Fourth Street, Santa Ana, CA 92701. 23 At this hearing, the Court will consider whether the Settlement is fair, reasonable 24 and adequate. The Court also will consider the proposed Plan of Allocation for the 25 proceeds of the Settlement and the applications for attorneys’ fees and 26 reimbursement of expenses. The Court will take into consideration any written 27 objections filed in accordance with the instructions set out above in the answer to 28 NOTICE OF PENDENCY OF CLASS ACTION AND PROPOSED SETTLEMENT 21 Case No.: 8:10-cv-1327-JST (RNBx) 1 Question [18]. We do not know how long it will take the Court to make these 2 decisions. 3 You should also be aware that the Court may change the date and time of the 4 Settlement Hearing without another notice being sent to Class Members. If you 5 want to come to the hearing, you should check with Lead Counsel before coming 6 to be sure that the date and/or time has not changed.

7 21. Do I have to come to the hearing? 8 No. Lead Counsel will answer any questions the Court may have. But, you 9 are welcome to come at your own expense. If you validly submit an objection, it 10 will be considered by the Court. You do not have to come to Court to talk about it. 11 22. May I speak at the hearing and submit additional evidence? 12 If you file an objection, you may ask the Court for permission to speak at the 13 Settlement Hearing. To do so, you must include with your objection (see Question 14 18 above) a statement that it is your “notice of intention to appear in In re 15 Beckman Coulter, Inc. Sec. Litig., 8:10-cv-1327-JST (RNBx) (C.D.Cal.).” Persons 16 who object and want to present evidence at the Settlement Hearing must also 17 include in their written objection the identity of any witness they may call to testify 18 and exhibits they intend to introduce at the Settlement Hearing. You cannot speak 19 at the hearing if you excluded yourself from the Class or if you have not provided 20 written notice of your intention to speak at the Settlement Hearing according to the 21 procedures described above and in the answer to Question 18. 22 23 IF YOU DO NOTHING 24 25 23. What happens if I do nothing at all? 26 If you do nothing, you will receive no money from this Settlement and you 27 will not be able to start a lawsuit, continue with a lawsuit, or be part of any other 28 lawsuit against the Defendants and the Released Defendant Parties about the NOTICE OF PENDENCY OF CLASS ACTION AND PROPOSED SETTLEMENT 22 Case No.: 8:10-cv-1327-JST (RNBx) 1 Released Claims in this case. To be eligible to share in the Net Settlement Fund 2 you must submit a Proof of Claim (see Question 10). To start, continue or be a 3 part of any other lawsuit against the Defendants and the other Released Defendant 4 Parties about the Released Claims in this case you must exclude yourself from this 5 Class (see Question 13). 6 GETTING MORE INFORMATION 7

8 24. Are there more details about the proposed Settlement and the lawsuit? 9 This Notice summarizes the proposed Settlement. More details are in the 10 Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement, dated as of __, 2011 (the “Stipulation”). 11 You may review the Stipulation filed with the Court and all documents filed in the 12 Action during business hours at the Office of the Clerk of the United States District 13 Court for the Central District of California, Santa Ana Courthouse, 411 West 14 Fourth Street, Santa Ana, CA 92701. 15 You also can call the Claims Administrator toll free at 800-[___]; call Lead 16 Counsel: Labaton Sucharow at 888-219-6877; write to In re Beckman Coulter, Inc. 17 Sec. Litig., 8:10-cv-1327-JST (RNBx) (C.D.Cal.), c/o [___], [__]; or visit the 18 websites www.[__].com and www.labaton.com, where you can download copies 19 of this Notice and the Proof of Claim. Please Do Not Call the Court or Beckman 20 With Questions About the Settlement. 21

22 PLAN OF ALLOCATION OF NET SETTLEMENT FUND 23 AMONG CLASS MEMBERS 24 I. GENERAL PROVISIONS 25 The Net Settlement Fund shall be distributed to each Class Member who 26 timely submits a valid Proof of Claim to the Claims Administrator that is accepted 27 for payment by the Court (“Authorized Claimant”). The Net Settlement Fund will 28 not be distributed to Authorized Claimants until the Court has approved the NOTICE OF PENDENCY OF CLASS ACTION AND PROPOSED SETTLEMENT 23 Case No.: 8:10-cv-1327-JST (RNBx) 1 Settlement and a plan of allocation, and the time for any petition for rehearing, 2 appeal or review, whether by certiorari or otherwise, of the order(s) approving the 3 Settlement and the plan of allocation has expired. The Defendants are not entitled 4 to get back any portion of the Settlement Fund once the Effective Date of the 5 Settlement has occurred. 6 The Plan of Allocation set forth herein is the plan that is being proposed by 7 Lead Plaintiff and Lead Counsel to the Court for approval. The Court may 8 approve this plan as proposed or it may modify the Plan of Allocation without 9 further notice to the Class. Any orders regarding a modification of the Plan of 10 Allocation will be posted on the settlement website, www.[___]. 11 Payment pursuant to the Plan of Allocation approved by the Court shall be 12 conclusive against all Authorized Claimants. No person shall have any claim 13 against Lead Plaintiff, Lead Counsel, the Claims Administrator, or any other agent 14 designated by Lead Counsel, arising from distributions made substantially in 15 accordance with the Stipulation, the Plan of Allocation, or further orders of the 16 Court. Lead Plaintiff, the Defendants, their respective counsel, Lead Plaintiff’s 17 consulting damages expert, and all other Released Parties shall have no 18 responsibility or liability whatsoever for the investment or distribution of the 19 Settlement Fund consistent with the terms of the Stipulation, the Plan of 20 Allocation, or the determination, administration, calculation, or payment of any 21 Proof of Claim or nonperformance of the Claims Administrator, the payment or 22 withholding of taxes owed by the Settlement Fund, or any losses incurred in 23 connection therewith. 24 A “Recognized Loss” will be calculated for each purchase or other 25 acquisition of Beckman common stock during the Class Period that are listed in the 26 Proof of Claim, and for which adequate documentation is provided. The 27 calculation of Recognized Loss will depend upon several factors, including when 28 the shares were purchased or otherwise acquired and when they were sold. NOTICE OF PENDENCY OF CLASS ACTION AND PROPOSED SETTLEMENT 24 Case No.: 8:10-cv-1327-JST (RNBx) 1 The Recognized Loss formulas set forth below are not intended to be an 2 estimate of the amount that a Class Member might have been able to recover after 3 a trial, nor is it an estimate of the amount that will be paid to Authorized Claimants 4 pursuant to the Settlement. The Recognized Loss formulas are the basis upon 5 which the Net Settlement Fund will be proportionately allocated to Authorized 6 Claimants. 7 The objective of the Plan of Allocation is to equitably distribute the 8 settlement proceeds to those Class Members who suffered economic losses as a 9 result of the alleged misrepresentations and omissions of the Defendants during the 10 Class Period. Under the federal securities laws, persons who purchased Beckman 11 common stock may recover, in general, only for losses proximately caused by 12 disclosures correcting Defendants’ prior misleading statements, and may not 13 recover for any price declines caused by general market factors or by disclosures of 14 other negative information not alleged to have corrected prior misstatements. 15 Similarly, persons who both purchased and sold Beckman common stock prior to a 16 corrective disclosure or between corrective disclosures may not have recoverable 17 damages resulting from those transactions. Recognized Loss amounts are based on 18 the level of alleged artificial inflation in the price of Beckman common stock at the 19 time of purchase or other acquisition. The Plan of Allocation reflects the 20 determination of potentially recoverable losses based on Lead Counsel and Lead 21 Plaintiff’s consulting damages expert’s analysis. This analysis included a review 22 of publicly available information regarding Beckman and statistical analyses of the 23 price movements of Beckman common stock. 24 Based on Beckman’s public disclosures during the Class Period and an 25 analysis of the associated movement in Beckman’s common stock price, Lead 26 Counsel has identified three allegedly corrective disclosure dates (the “Disclosure 27 Dates”) for which Lead Plaintiff contends the disclosure of previously 28 NOTICE OF PENDENCY OF CLASS ACTION AND PROPOSED SETTLEMENT 25 Case No.: 8:10-cv-1327-JST (RNBx) 1 misrepresented and omitted facts caused statistically significant price movement. 2 The Disclosure Dates are as follows: 3 (a) March 22, 2010: After the market closed on March 22, 2010, 4 Beckman announced that the FDA indicated that it believed that Beckman had 5 made certain modifications to its troponin test kits without obtaining appropriate 6 product clearances from the FDA; that further FDA restrictions on the use of 7 troponin DxI test kits were expected; that the Company was evaluating its internal 8 processes and procedures regarding product quality and regulatory systems; and 9 that more of its products (in addition to the troponin test kits) could be affected and 10 that the actions required could adversely affect operating results. Counsel for Lead 11 Plaintiff has determined that in reaction to these disclosures, the price of 12 Beckman’s common stock declined by $4.88 per share on March 23, 2010. 13 (b) May 14, 2010: On May 14, 2010, Beckman announced that the 14 FDA had given guidance on the requirements for FDA clearance of Beckman's 15 troponin test kits, which included conducting a clinical trial whose results would 16 not be available until the first half of 2011. Counsel for Lead Plaintiff has 17 determined that $1.37 of the decline in the price per share of Beckman’s common 18 stock on that day can be attributed to a reaction to these disclosures. 19 (c) July 22, 2010: After the market closed on July 22, 2010, Beckman 20 announced both its results for the second quarter of 2010 and reduced its guidance 21 for earnings in the second half of 2010 due to several factors, including additional 22 expenses for the Beckman's remediation plans for its compliance and quality 23 challenges, as well as reduced earnings in several divisions unrelated to its 24 troponin test kits. Counsel for Lead Plaintiff has determined that $8.45 of the 25 decline in the price per share of Beckman’s common stock on July 23, 2010 can be 26 attributed to a reaction to these disclosures. 27 28 II. RECOGNIZED LOSS FORMULAS NOTICE OF PENDENCY OF CLASS ACTION AND PROPOSED SETTLEMENT 26 Case No.: 8:10-cv-1327-JST (RNBx) 1 1. For All Shares of Beckman Common Stock Purchased or Acquired 2 During the July 31, 2009 through July 22, 2010 Class Period: 3 (a) To the extent a claimant had a market gain from his, her, or its overall 4 transactions in Beckman common stock during the Class Period, including any 5 market gains made on shares purchased in the Class Period that were sold after the 6 Class Period or held past February 4, 2011 (the date prior to the announcement that 7 Danaher Corporation offered to acquire Beckman for $83.50 per Beckman share), 8 the value of the claim will be zero. Such claimants will, in any event, be bound by 9 the Settlement. To the extent that a claimant suffered an overall market loss on his, 10 her, or its overall transactions in Beckman common stock during the Class Period, 11 but that market loss was less than the total Recognized Losses as calculated in 12 paragraphs (b) through (d) and in sections 2 through 4 below, then the Claimant’s 13 Recognized Losses will be limited to the amount of the actual market loss. 14 (b) If such shares were sold at a gain at anytime during the period from 15 July 31, 2009 through February 4, 2011, the “Recognized Loss” is zero.(c) If 16 such shares were held unsold after the close of trading on February 4, 2011, the 17 “Recognized Loss” is zero. 18 (d) If such shares were sold at a loss during the July 31, 2009 through 19 July 22, 2010 Class Period or thereafter, see sections 2 through 4 below. 20 2. For Any Shares of Beckman Common Stock Purchased or Acquired on 21 or After July 31, 2009 through and including March 22, 2010 and Sold 22 at a Loss: 23 (a) If such shares were sold at a loss on or before March 22, 2010, the 24 “Recognized Loss” is zero. This determination was made because the sale 25 occurred before any allegedly corrective disclosure was made. Thus, any losses 26 were not related to the alleged misrepresentations or omissions and are not 27 compensable through this Action for violation of the securities laws. 28 NOTICE OF PENDENCY OF CLASS ACTION AND PROPOSED SETTLEMENT 27 Case No.: 8:10-cv-1327-JST (RNBx) 1 (b) If such shares were sold at a loss on or after March 23, 2010 through 2 and including May 13, 2010, the “Recognized Loss” is the lesser of: (i) the 3 purchase price minus the sales price; (ii) $4.88; or (iii) the purchase price minus 4 $64.22 (the closing price on March 23, 2010). 5 (c) If such shares were sold at a loss on or after May 14, 2010 through 6 and including July 22, 2010, the “Recognized Loss” is the lesser of: (i) the 7 purchase price minus the sales price; (ii) $6.25; or (iii) the purchase price minus 8 $59.72 (the closing price on May 13, 2010, less the $1.37 portion of the decline on 9 May 14, 2010 recognized in this Plan of Allocation). 10 (d) If such shares were sold at a loss on or after July 23, 2010 through and 11 including February 4, 2011, the “Recognized Loss” is the lesser of: (i) the purchase 12 price minus the sales price; (ii) $14.70; or (iii) the purchase price minus $51.45 13 (the closing price on July 22, 2010, less the $8.45 portion of the decline on July 23, 14 2010 recognized in this Plan of Allocation). 15 3. For Any Shares of Beckman Common Stock Purchased or Acquired on 16 or After March 23, 2010 through and Including May 13, 2010 and Sold 17 at a Loss: 18 (a) If such shares were sold at a loss on or before May 13, 2010, the 19 “Recognized Loss” is zero. This determination was made because the sale 20 occurred before any allegedly corrective disclosure was made. Thus, any losses 21 were not related to the alleged misrepresentations or omissions and are not 22 compensable through this Action for violation of the securities laws. 23 (b) If such shares were sold at a loss on or after May 14, 2010 through 24 and including July 22, 2010, the “Recognized Loss” is the lesser of: (i) the 25 purchase price minus the sales price; (ii) $1.37; or (iii) the purchase price minus 26 $59.72 (the closing price on May 13, 2010, less the $1.37 portion of the decline on 27 May 14, 2010 recognized in this Plan of Allocation). 28 NOTICE OF PENDENCY OF CLASS ACTION AND PROPOSED SETTLEMENT 28 Case No.: 8:10-cv-1327-JST (RNBx) 1 (c) If such shares were sold at a loss on or after July 23, 2010 through and 2 including February 4, 2011, the “Recognized Loss” is the lesser of: (i) the purchase 3 price minus the sales price; (ii) $9.82; or (iii) the purchase price minus $51.45 (the 4 closing price on July 22, 2010, less the $8.45 portion of the decline on July 23, 5 2010 recognized in this Plan of Allocation). 6 4. For Any Shares of Beckman Common Stock Purchased on or after May 7 14, 2010 through and including July 22, 2010 and Sold at a Loss: 8 (a) If such shares were sold at a loss on or before July 22, 2010, the 9 “Recognized Loss” is zero. This determination was made because the sale 10 occurred before any allegedly corrective disclosure was made. Thus, any losses 11 were not related to the alleged misrepresentations or omissions and are not 12 compensable through this Action for violation of the securities laws. 13 (b) If such shares were sold at a loss on or after July 23, 2010 through and 14 including February 4, 2011, the “Recognized Loss” is the lesser of: (i) the purchase 15 price minus the sales price; (ii) $8.45; or (iii) the purchase price minus $51.45 (the 16 closing price on July 22, 2010, less the $8.45 portion of the decline on July 23, 17 2010 recognized in this Plan of Allocation). 18 19 III. ADDITIONAL PROVISIONS 20 In order to determine the existence and amount of a potential loss on the 21 purchase or acquisition of Beckman common stock during the Class Period, the 22 following procedures will be used. 23 In processing claims, first-in, first-out (“FIFO”) accounting will be applied 24 to holdings at the beginning of the Class Period and any purchases and sales during 25 the relevant period. For example, FIFO will be used to match the first shares of 26 Beckman common stock sold against any shares held as of July 30, 2009 (the day 27 prior to the start of the Class Period), and then against additional 28 NOTICE OF PENDENCY OF CLASS ACTION AND PROPOSED SETTLEMENT 29 Case No.: 8:10-cv-1327-JST (RNBx) 1 purchases/acquisitions in chronological order, beginning with the earliest 2 purchase/acquisition made during the Class Period. Sales matched to Beckman 3 common stock held at the beginning of the Class Period will be excluded from the 4 calculation of Recognized Loss. 5 Purchases or acquisitions and sales of Beckman securities will be deemed to 6 have occurred on the “contract” or “trade” date as opposed to the “settlement” or 7 “payment” date. The amount paid or received for Beckman common stock shall 8 exclude all commissions, taxes and fees. 9 The receipt or grant by gift, inheritance or operation of law of Beckman 10 common stock during the Class Period will not be deemed a purchase, acquisition 11 or sale of these securities for the calculation of an Authorized Claimant’s 12 Recognized Loss Amount for these securities nor will the receipt or grant be 13 deemed an assignment of any claim relating to the purchase/acquisition of such 14 securities unless: (i) the donor or decedent purchased or otherwise acquired such 15 shares of Beckman common stock during the Class Period; (ii) no Proof of Claim 16 was submitted by or on behalf of the donor, on behalf of the decedent, or by 17 anyone else with respect to such securities; and (iii) the assignment is specifically 18 provided for in the instrument of gift or assignment. 19 The restrictions on computing Recognized Losses set out in the three bullet 20 points below apply to all claims. As a practical matter, however, they apply 21 primarily to certain transactions engaged in by sophisticated traders, employees of 22 Beckman or certain corporate or institutional claimants: 23 24 ● “Short” sales will not be recognized for any amount of loss on the 25 “cover” or purchase transaction, and no Recognized Loss will be computed 26 for any such covering purchase transaction. 27 ● Option contracts are not securities eligible to participate in the 28 Settlement. As a result: NOTICE OF PENDENCY OF CLASS ACTION AND PROPOSED SETTLEMENT 30 Case No.: 8:10-cv-1327-JST (RNBx) 1 o With respect to shares of Beckman common stock 2 purchased, acquired or sold through the exercise of or assignment of 3 an option, the purchase/acquisition/sale date is the date of the exercise 4 of or assignment of the option and the purchase/acquisition/sale price 5 of the Beckman common shares is the exercise price or strike price of 6 the option. 7 o Similarly, for Class Members who acquired publicly 8 traded Beckman common stock by exercising employee stock options 9 granted by Beckman, the purchase/acquisition date will be the date of 10 exercise of the option, and the purchase/acquisition price will be the 11 exercise price that the Class Member actually paid for the shares. 12 ● If the shares of Beckman common stock that were purchased or 13 acquired were not publicly-registered shares or were restricted from trading, 14 the Recognized Loss is zero. 15 Shares of the common stock of Beckman, Inc. “transferred into,” “delivered 16 into” or “received into” the claimant’s account, will not be considered a purchase 17 or acquisition of shares unless the claimant submits documentation demonstrating 18 that the original purchase or acquisition of these shares occurred during the Class 19 Period. Also, shares purchased or acquired and subsequently “transferred out” of 20 the claimant’s account will not be considered part of the claimant’s claim, as the 21 right to file for those shares belongs to the person or party receiving the shares. 22 23 Each Authorized Claimant will recover his, her, or its pro rata share of the 24 Net Settlement Fund. If the prorated claim calculates to less than $10.00, it will be 25 removed from the calculation and it will not be paid. 26 Distributions will be made to Authorized Claimants after all claims have 27 been processed and after the Court has finally approved the Settlement. Following 28 an initial distribution of the Net Settlement Fund, if Lead Counsel, in consultation NOTICE OF PENDENCY OF CLASS ACTION AND PROPOSED SETTLEMENT 31 Case No.: 8:10-cv-1327-JST (RNBx) 1 with the Claims Administrator, determines that it is cost-effective to do so, the 2 Claims Administrator will conduct a redistribution of any funds remaining in the 3 Net Settlement Fund by reason of returned or uncashed checks or otherwise, to 4 Authorized Claimants who have cashed their initial distribution checks, after 5 payment from the Net Settlement Fund of any unpaid Taxes and costs or fees 6 incurred in administering the funds, including for such redistribution. Additional 7 redistributions may occur thereafter to Authorized Claimants if Lead Counsel, in 8 consultation with the Claims Administrator, determines that additional 9 redistribution is cost-effective. If it is determined that the redistribution of funds 10 remaining in the Net Settlement Fund is not cost-effective, the remaining balance 11 of the Net Settlement Fund will be contributed to a non-sectarian, not-for-profit 12 organization. 13 Each Claimant is deemed to have submitted to the jurisdiction of the United 14 States District Court for the Central District of California with respect to his, her or 15 its Proof of Claim. 16 You can call the Claims Administrator toll-free at 1-800-xxx-xxxx to find 17 answers to common questions about the Plan of Allocation. 18 19 SPECIAL NOTICE TO SECURITIES BROKERS AND OTHER NOMINEES 20 If you purchased or otherwise acquired Beckman common stock during the 21 Class Period for the beneficial interest of a person or organization other than 22 yourself, the Court has directed that, WITHIN SEVEN (7) CALENDAR DAYS 23 OF YOUR RECEIPT OF THIS NOTICE, you either: (a) provide to the Claims 24 Administrator the name and last known address of each person or organization for 25 whom or which you purchased or otherwise acquired Beckman common stock 26 during such time period (preferably in an MS Excel data table, setting forth 27 (i) title/registration, (ii) street address, (iii) city/state/zip; or electronically in MS 28 NOTICE OF PENDENCY OF CLASS ACTION AND PROPOSED SETTLEMENT 32 Case No.: 8:10-cv-1327-JST (RNBx) 1 Word or WordPerfect files; or on computer-generated mailing labels) or; 2 (b) request additional copies of this Notice and the Proof of Claim form, which will 3 be provided to you free of charge, and within seven (7) calendar days of receipt of 4 such copies send them by First-Class directly to the beneficial owners of those 5 Beckman securities. 6 If you choose to follow alternative procedure (b), the Court has directed that, 7 upon such mailing, you must send a statement to the Claims Administrator 8 confirming that the mailing was made as directed. You are entitled to 9 reimbursement from the Settlement Fund of your reasonable expenses actually 10 incurred in connection with the foregoing, including reimbursement of postage 11 expense and the cost of ascertaining the names and addresses of beneficial owners. 12 Those expenses will be paid after request and submission of appropriate supporting 13 documentation. All communications concerning the foregoing should be 14 addressed to the Claims Administrator: 15 16 In re Beckman Coulter, Inc. Sec. Litig. Claims Administrator 17 c/o: [Name of Claims Administrator] [___] 18 [___] Phone: [__]; Fax: [__] 19 [__]@[__].com [__].com 20 21 Dated: ______, 2011 22 BY ORDER OF THE COURT 23 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 24 25 26 27 28 NOTICE OF PENDENCY OF CLASS ACTION AND PROPOSED SETTLEMENT 33 Case No.: 8:10-cv-1327-JST (RNBx) EXHIBIT A-2 1 Christopher J. Keller Sherrie R. Savett (admitted pro hac vice) (admitted pro hac vice) 2 Christopher J. McDonald Barbara A. Podell (admitted pro hac vice) (admitted pro hac vice) 3 LABATON SUCHAROW LLP Douglas M. Risen 140 Broadway (admitted pro hac vice) 4 New York, New York 10005 Eric Lechtzin (Bar No. 248958) Telephone: (212) 907-0700 BERGER & MONTAGUE, P.C. 5 Facsimile: (212) 818-0477 1622 Locust Street Email: [email protected] Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103 6 Telephone: (215) 875-3071 Co-Lead Counsel for Lead Plaintiff and the Facsimile: (215) 875-5715 7 Class Email: [email protected] 8 Co-Lead Counsel for Lead Plaintiff Mark Labaton (Bar No. 159555) and the Class 9 MOTLEY RICE LLP 1100 Glendon Avenue, 14th Floor 10 Los Angeles, California 90024 Telephone: (310) 500-3488 11 Facsimile: (310) 824-2870 Email: [email protected] 12 Liaison Counsel for the Class 13 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 14 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 15 ) 16 ) Case No.: 8:10-cv-1327-JST (RNBx) ) 17 IN RE BECKMAN COULTER, INC. ) PROOF OF CLAIM AND SECURITIES LITIGATION ) RELEASE 18 ) ) Hon. Josephine Staton Tucker 19 ) ) 20 ) 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

PROOF OF CLAIM AND RELEASE 1 Case No.: 8:10-cv-1327-JST (RNBx) 1 TO HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO RECEIVE A SHARE OF THE 2 SETTLEMENT FUND, YOU MUST COMPLETE AND SIGN THIS PROOF OF 3 PROOF OF CLAIM, AND RETURN IT TO: 4 IN RE BECKMAN COULTER, INC. SEC. LITIG. 5 CLAIMS ADMINISTRATOR 6 C/O ______7 P.O. BOX ______, ______8 9 MAIL THIS FORM BY PREPAID, FIRST-CLASS MAIL, POSTMARKED NO 10 LATER THAN ______, 2011. FAILURE TO SUBMIT YOUR CLAIM 11 BY ______, 2011 WILL SUBJECT YOUR CLAIM TO REJECTION 12 AND PRECLUDE YOU FROM RECEIVING ANY MONEY IN CONNECTION 13 WITH THE SETTLEMENT OF THIS LITIGATION. 14 15 DO NOT MAIL OR DELIVER YOUR PROOF OF CLAIM TO THE COURT, 16 THE PARTIES OR THEIR COUNSEL. ANY SUCH CLAIM WILL BE 17 DEEMED NOT TO HAVE BEEN SUBMITTED. SUBMIT YOUR CLAIM 18 ONLY TO THE CLAIMS ADMINISTRATOR. 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

PROOF OF CLAIM AND RELEASE 2 Case No.: 8:10-cv-1327-JST (RNBx) 1 PART I – CLAIMANT INFORMATION 2 Last Name (Claimant) First Name (Claimant) 3 4 5 Last Name (Beneficial Owner if Different First Name From Claimant) (Beneficial Owner) 6 7

8 Last Name (Co-Beneficial Owner) First Name 9 (Co-Beneficial Owner) 10 11 Company/Other Entity (If Claimant Is Contact Person (If Claimant Not An Individual) is Not An Individual) 12 13 14 Trustee/Nominee/Other 15

16 Account Number (If Claimant Is Trust/Other Date 17 Not an Individual) (If Applicable) 18 19 Address Line 1 20

21 Address Line 2 (If Applicable) 22

23 City State Zip Code 24 25 Foreign Province Country Foreign Zip Code 26 27 Telephone Number (Day) Telephone Number (Night) 28

PROOF OF CLAIM AND RELEASE 3 Case No.: 8:10-cv-1327-JST (RNBx) 1 Beneficial Owner’s Employer Identification Number or Social Security Number1 2 3 Email Address (Email address is not required, but if you provide it you authorize the Claims Administrator to use it in providing you with information relevant to 4 this claim.) 5

6 IDENTITY OF CLAIMANT (check only one box): 7 [ ] Individual [ ] Joint Owners [ ] Estate [ ] Corporation [ ] Trust [ ] Partnership 8 [ ] Private Pension Fund [ ] IRA, Keogh, or other type of individual 9 [ ] Legal Representative retirement plan (indicate type of plan, mailing [ ] Other (specify, describe address, and name of current custodian) 10 on separate sheet) ______11 ______12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

27 1 The taxpayer identification number (TIN), consisting of a valid Social Security number (SSN) for individuals or employer identification number (EIN) for 28 business entities, trusts, estates, etc., and telephone number of the beneficial owner(s) may be used in verifying this claim. PROOF OF CLAIM AND RELEASE 4 Case No.: 8:10-cv-1327-JST (RNBx) 1 PART II - GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS

2 1. It is important that you completely read the Notice of Pendency of 3 Class Action and Proposed Settlement and Motion for Attorneys’ Fees and 4 Expenses (the “Notice”) that accompanies this Proof of Claim and Release (“Proof 5 of Claim”), and the Plan of Allocation included in the Notice. The Notice contains 6 the definitions of many of the defined terms (which are indicated by initial capital 7 letters) used in this Proof of Claim. By signing and submitting this Proof of Claim, 8 you will be certifying that you have read the Notice, including the terms of the 9 releases described therein and provided for herein. 10 2. This Proof of Claim is directed to any person or entity who purchased 11 or otherwise acquired Beckman Coulter, Inc. (“Beckman”) common stock between 12 July 31, 2009 and July 22, 2010, inclusive, (the “Class Period”) and who was 13 allegedly damaged thereby (the “Class”). 14 3. IF YOU ARE NOT A CLASS MEMBER, OR IF YOU, OR 15 SOMEONE ACTING ON YOUR BEHALF, FILED A REQUEST FOR 16 EXCLUSION FROM THE CLASS, DO NOT SUBMIT A PROOF OF CLAIM. 17 YOU MAY NOT, DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY, PARTICIPATE IN THE 18 SETTLEMENT IF YOU ARE NOT A CLASS MEMBER. THUS, IF YOU FILE 19 A VALID REQUEST FOR EXCLUSION IN A TIMELY MANNER, ANY 20 PROOF OF CLAIM THAT YOU SUBMIT, OR THAT MAY BE SUBMITTED 21 ON YOUR BEHALF, WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED. 22 4. You may only participate in the distribution of the Net Settlement 23 Fund if you are a member of the Class and if you complete and return this form as 24 specified below. If you fail to file a timely, properly addressed, and completed 25 Proof of Claim, your claim may be rejected and you may be precluded from 26 receiving any distribution from the Net Settlement Fund. 27 5. Submission of this Proof of Claim does not guarantee that you will 28 share in the Net Settlement Fund. The distribution of the Net Settlement Fund

PROOF OF CLAIM AND RELEASE 5 Case No.: 8:10-cv-1327-JST (RNBx) 1 will be governed by the Plan of Allocation set forth in the Notice, if approved by 2 the Court, or such other plan of allocation as the Court approves. 3 6. Use Part III of this Proof of Claim entitled “SCHEDULE OF 4 TRANSACTIONS IN BECKMAN COMMON STOCK DURING THE CLASS 5 PERIOD” to supply all required details of your transaction(s) in Beckman common 6 stock during the Class Period. On the schedule, provide all the requested 7 information with respect to all purchases, acquisitions and sales of Beckman 8 common stock during the Class Period. 9 7. You are required to submit genuine and sufficient documentation for 10 all your transactions in and holdings of Beckman common stock during the Class 11 Period as set forth in the Schedule of Transactions in Part III. Documentation may 12 consist of copies of brokerage confirmations or monthly statements. IF SUCH 13 DOCUMENTS ARE NOT IN YOUR POSSESSION, PLEASE OBTAIN COPIES 14 OR EQUIVALENT CONTEMPORANEOUS DOCUMENTS FROM YOUR 15 BROKER. FAILURE TO SUPPLY THIS DOCUMENTATION MAY RESULT 16 IN REJECTION OF YOUR CLAIM. DO NOT SEND ORIGINAL 17 DOCUMENTS. Please keep a copy of all documents that you send to the Claims 18 Administrator. 19 8. Separate Proofs of Claim should be submitted for each legal entity 20 that has a claim. For example, if one joint owner also has an individual claim, two 21 Proofs of Claim should be submitted. However, each Proof of Claim should 22 include all transactions made by that entity, even if the transactions were in 23 different accounts. 24 9. All joint beneficial owners must each sign this Proof of Claim. If you 25 purchased or acquired Beckman common stock during the Class Period and held 26 the securities in your name, you are the beneficial owner as well as the record 27 owner. If, however, you purchased or acquired Beckman common stock during the 28 Class Period and the securities were registered in the name of a third party, such as

PROOF OF CLAIM AND RELEASE 6 Case No.: 8:10-cv-1327-JST (RNBx) 1 a nominee or brokerage firm, you are the beneficial owner of these securities, but 2 the third party is the record owner. 3 10. Agents, executors, administrators, guardians, and trustees must 4 complete and sign the Proof of Claim on behalf of persons represented by them, 5 and they must: 6 7 (a) expressly state the capacity in which they are acting; 8 (b) identify the name, account number, Social Security number (or 9 taxpayer identification number), address and telephone number of the 10 beneficial owner of (or other person or entity on whose behalf they are 11 acting with respect to) Beckman common stock during the Class Period; and 12 (c) furnish herewith evidence of their authority to bind the person 13 or entity on whose behalf they are acting. (Authority to complete and sign a 14 Proof of Claim cannot be established by stockbrokers demonstrating only 15 that they have discretionary authority to trade stock in another person’s 16 accounts.) 17 11. NOTICE REGARDING ELECTRONIC FILES: To obtain the 18 mandatory electronic filing requirements and file layout, visit the website at 19 www.[_____] or email the Claims Administrator at ______.com. 20 12. If you have questions concerning the Proof of Claim, or need 21 additional copies of the Proof of Claim or the Notice, you may contact the Claims 22 Administrator, ______, at the above address or by toll-free phone at 1- 23 ______-____, or you may download the documents from www.[_____]. 24 25 26 27 28

PROOF OF CLAIM AND RELEASE 7 Case No.: 8:10-cv-1327-JST (RNBx) 1 PART III – SCHEDULE OF TRANSACTIONS IN BECKMAN COMMON STOCK DURING THE CLASS PERIOD 2 A. BEGINNING HOLDINGS OF COMMON STOCK: 3 State the total number of shares of Beckman common IF NONE, 4 CHECK HERE stock held as of the close of trading on July 30, 2009. 5 ○ ______6 7 B. PURCHASES OF BECKMAN COMMON STOCK: 8 Separately list each and every purchase of Beckman IF NONE, 9 CHECK HERE common stock during the Class Period. 10 ○ Purchase 11 Date(s) of Price Per Share Purchase(s) 12 (excluding Proof of (List Number of commissions, purchase Chronologically) 13 Month/Day/Year Shares Purchased taxes & fees) enclosed 14 ○Y ○N ___/___/______$______15 ___/___/______$______○Y ○N 16 ___/___/______$______○Y ○N 17 ___/___/______$______○Y ○N 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

PROOF OF CLAIM AND RELEASE 8 Case No.: 8:10-cv-1327-JST (RNBx) 1 C. SALES OF BECKMAN COMMON STOCK: 2 Separately list each and every sale of Beckman common IF NONE, 3 CHECK HERE stock during the Class Period. 4 ○ Sale Price per 5 Share Date(s) of Sale(s) 6 (excluding (List Number of commissions, Proof of sale Chronologically) 7 Month/Day/Year Shares Sold taxes & fees) enclosed 8 ___/___/______$______○Y ○N 9 ___/___/______$______○Y ○N 10 ___/___/______$______○Y ○N 11 ___/___/______$______○Y ○N 12 13 D. ENDING HOLDINGS OF COMMON STOCK State the total number of shares of Beckman common IF NONE, 14 CHECK HERE 15 stock held as of the close of trading on July 22, ○ 16 2010.______17

18 (IF YOU REQUIRE ADDITIONAL SPACE, ATTACH EXTRA SCHEDULES 19 IN THE SAME FORMAT AS ABOVE. PRINT THE BENEFICIAL OWNER’S 20 FULL NAME AND TAXPAYER IDENTIFICATION NUMBER ON EACH 21 ADDITIONAL PAGE.) 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

PROOF OF CLAIM AND RELEASE 9 Case No.: 8:10-cv-1327-JST (RNBx) 1 PART IV - CERTIFICATION 2 YOU MUST SIGN ON PAGE ____ OF THIS PROOF OF CLAIM 3 I (we) hereby acknowledge that as of the Effective Date, I (we) shall: (i) have and 4 be deemed to have fully, finally and forever waived, released, discharged and 5 dismissed each and every one of the Released Defendant Parties from any and all 6 of the Released Claims; (ii) have and be deemed to have covenanted not to sue any 7 of the Released Defendant Parties with respect to any and all of the Released 8 Claims; and (iii) forever be barred and enjoined from commencing, instituting, 9 prosecuting or maintaining any of the Released Claims against any of the Released 10 Defendant Parties. 11 By signing and submitting this Proof of Claim, the claimant(s) or the person(s) 12 who represents the claimant(s) certifies, as follows: 13 1. that I (we) have read the Notice, the Plan of Allocation and the Proof of 14 Claim, including the releases provided for in the Settlement; 15 2. that the claimant(s) is (are) Class Member(s), as defined in the Notice, and is 16 (are) not excluded from the Class; 17 3. that the claimant(s) has (have) not submitted a request for exclusion from the 18 Class; 19 4. that the claimant(s) owns(ed) the Beckman common stock identified in the 20 Proof of Claim during the Class Period and has (have) not assigned the claim 21 against the Released Defendant Parties to another, or that, in signing and 22 submitting this Proof of Claim, the claimant(s) has (have) the authority to act 23 on behalf of the owner(s) thereof; 24 5. that the claimant(s) has (have) not submitted any other claim covering the 25 same purchases, sales, or holdings of Beckman common stock during the 26 Class Period and knows of no other person having done so on 27 his/her/its/their behalf; 28

PROOF OF CLAIM AND RELEASE 10 Case No.: 8:10-cv-1327-JST (RNBx) 1 6. that the claimant(s) submits (submit) to the jurisdiction of the Court with 2 respect to his/her/its/their claim and for purposes of enforcing the releases 3 set forth herein; 4 7. that I (we) agree to furnish such additional information with respect to this 5 Proof of Claim as the Claims Administrator or the Court may require; 6 8. that the claimant(s) waives (waive) the right to trial by jury, to the extent it 7 exists, and agrees (agree) to the Court’s summary disposition of the 8 determination of the validity or amount of the claim made by this Proof of 9 Claim; and 10 9. that I (we) acknowledge that the claimant(s) will be bound by and subject to 11 the terms of any judgment that may be entered in the Litigation; 12 UNDER THE PENALTIES OF PERJURY, I (WE) CERTIFY THAT ALL OF 13 THE INFORMATION PROVIDED BY ME (US) ON THIS FORM IS TRUE, 14 CORRECT, AND COMPLETE, AND THAT THE DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED 15 HEREWITH ARE TRUE AND CORRECT COPIES OF WHAT THEY 16 PURPORT TO BE. 17 18 Signature of Claimant

19 Print Name of Claimant Date 20 21 Signature of Joint Claimant, if any

22 Print Name of Joint Claimant Date 23 24 THIS PROOF OF CLAIM MUST BE MAILED TO THE CLAIMS 25 ADMINISTRATOR BY FIRST-CLASS MAIL, POSTAGE PREPAID, 26 POSTMARKED BY ______, ADDRESSED AS 27 FOLLOWS: 28

PROOF OF CLAIM AND RELEASE 11 Case No.: 8:10-cv-1327-JST (RNBx) 1 IN RE BECKMAN COULTER, INC. SEC. LITIG. Claims Administrator 2 c/o: [Name of Claims Administrator] [Address] 3 You should be aware that it will take a significant amount of time to fully 4 process all of the Proofs of Claim. Please notify the Claims Administrator of any 5 change of address. 6 REMINDER CHECKLIST 7 1. Please sign the above release and certification. If this Proof of Claim is 8 being made on behalf of joint claimants, then both must sign. 9 2. Remember to attach only copies of supporting documentation. 10 3. Please do not highlight any portion of the Proof of Claim or any supporting 11 documents. 12 4. Do not send original stock certificates or documentation. These items cannot 13 be returned to you by the Claims Administrator. 14 5. Keep copies of the completed Proof of Claim and documentation for your 15 own records. 16 6. The Claims Administrator will acknowledge receipt of your Proof of Claim 17 by mail, within 60 days. Your claim is not deemed filed until you receive an 18 acknowledgement postcard. If you do not receive an acknowledgement 19 postcard within 60 days, please call the Claims Administrator toll free at 20 ______. 21 7. If your address changes in the future, or if this Proof of Claim was sent to an 22 old or incorrect address, please send the Claims Administrator written 23 notification of your new address. If you change your name, please inform 24 the Claims Administrator. 25 8. If you have any questions or concerns regarding your claim, please contact 26 the Claims Administrator at the above address or at ______, or 27 visit www.______.com. 28

PROOF OF CLAIM AND RELEASE 12 Case No.: 8:10-cv-1327-JST (RNBx) EXHIBIT A-3 1 Christopher J. Keller Sherrie R. Savett (admitted pro hac vice) (admitted pro hac vice) 2 Christopher J. McDonald Barbara A. Podell (admitted pro hac vice) (admitted pro hac vice) 3 LABATON SUCHAROW LLP Douglas M. Risen 140 Broadway (admitted pro hac vice) 4 New York, New York 10005 Eric Lechtzin (Bar No. 248958) Telephone: (212) 907-0700 BERGER & MONTAGUE, P.C. 5 Facsimile: (212) 818-0477 1622 Locust Street Email: [email protected] Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103 6 Telephone: (215) 875-3071 Co-Lead Counsel for Lead Plaintiff and the Facsimile: (215) 875-5715 7 Class Email: [email protected] 8 Co-Lead Counsel for Lead Plaintiff Mark Labaton (Bar No. 159555) and the Class 9 MOTLEY RICE LLP 1100 Glendon Avenue, 14th Floor 10 Los Angeles, California 90024 Telephone: (310) 500-3488 11 Facsimile: (310) 824-2870 Email: [email protected] 12 Liaison Counsel for the Class 13 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 14 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 15 ) 16 ) Case No.: 8:10-cv-1327-JST (RNBx) ) 17 IN RE BECKMAN COULTER, INC. ) SUMMARY NOTICE OF SECURITIES LITIGATION ) PENDENCY OF CLASS ACTION 18 ) AND PROPOSED SETTLEMENT ) AND MOTION FOR 19 ) ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND ) EXPENSES 20 ) Hon. Josephine Staton Tucker 21 22 23 TO: ALL PERSONS OR ENTITIES WHO PURCHASED OR 24 OTHERWISE ACQUIRED THE COMMON STOCK OF BECKMAN 25 COULTER, INC. (“BECKMAN” OR THE “COMPANY”) BETWEEN 26 JULY 31, 2009 AND JULY 22, 2010, INCLUSIVE, AND WHO WERE 27 ALLEGEDLY DAMAGED THEREBY (THE “CLASS”). 28

SUMMARY NOTICE OF PENDENCY OF CLASS ACTION AND PROPOSED SETTLEMENT CASE NO: 8:10-CV-1327-JST (RNBX) 1 2 YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal 3 Rules of Civil Procedure and an Order of the Court, that the above-captioned 4 litigation (“Action”) has been preliminarily certified as a class action for the 5 purposes of settlement only and that a settlement with Beckman, Scott T. Garrett 6 and Charles P. Slacik (collectively, the “Defendants”), in the amount of $5,000,000 7 in cash, plus payment of Notice and Administration Expenses not to exceed a total 8 cumulative cap of $500,000, has been proposed by the Parties. 9 A hearing will be held before the Honorable Josephine Staton Tucker of the 10 United States District Court for the Central District of California in the Santa Ana 11 Courthouse, 411 West Fourth Street, Courtroom 10A, Santa Ana, CA 92701 at 12 __:___ _.m., on ______, 2011 to, among other things: determine whether the 13 proposed Settlement should be approved by the Court as fair, reasonable, and 14 adequate; determine whether the proposed Plan of Allocation for distribution of the 15 settlement proceeds should be approved as fair and reasonable; and consider the 16 application of Lead Counsel for an award of attorneys’ fees and reimbursement of 17 litigation expenses. The Court may change the date of the hearing without 18 providing another notice. 19 IF YOU ARE A MEMBER OF THE CLASS DESCRIBED ABOVE, 20 YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE AFFECTED BY THE PENDING LITIGATION AND 21 THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT AND YOU MAY BE ENTITLED TO SHARE 22 IN THE NET SETTLEMENT FUND. If you have not yet received the full printed 23 Notice of Pendency of Class Action and Proposed Settlement and Motion for 24 Attorneys’ Fees and Expenses (“Notice”) and a Proof of Claim and Release Form 25 (“Proof of Claim”), you may obtain copies of these documents by contacting the 26 Claims Administrator: 27 In re Beckman Coulter, Inc. Sec. Litig. 28 Claims Administrator

SUMMARY NOTICE OF PENDENCY OF CLASS ACTION AND PROPOSED SETTLEMENT 2 CASE NO: 8:10-CV-1327-JST (RNBX) 1 c/o [Insert name of Claims Administrator] 2 [_____] 3 [_____] 4 800-[_____] 5 www.[_____].com 6 Inquiries, other than requests for information about the status of a claim, may also 7 be made to Lead Counsel. 8 LABATON SUCHAROW LLP 9 Christopher J. McDonald, Esq. 10 140 Broadway 11 New York, New York 10005 12 888-219-6877 13 www.labaton.com 14 If you are a Class Member, to be eligible to share in the distribution of the 15 Settlement proceeds, you must submit a Proof of Claim postmarked no later than 16 ______, 2011. To exclude yourself from the Class, you must submit a written 17 request for exclusion in accordance with the instructions set forth in the Notice 18 such that it is received or postmarked no later than ______, 2011. If you are a 19 Class Member and do not exclude yourself from the Class, you will be bound by 20 the Final Order and Judgment of the Court. Any objections to the proposed 21 Settlement, Plan of Allocation, and/or application for attorneys’ fee and 22 reimbursement of expenses must be filed with the Court and served on counsel for 23 the Parties in accordance with the instructions set forth in the Notice, such that they 24 are received or postmarked no later than ______, 2011. If you are a Class 25 Member and do not timely submit a valid Proof of Claim, you will not be eligible 26 to share in the Net Settlement Fund, but you nevertheless will be bound by the 27 Final Order and Judgment of the Court. 28

SUMMARY NOTICE OF PENDENCY OF CLASS ACTION AND PROPOSED SETTLEMENT 3 CASE NO: 8:10-CV-1327-JST (RNBX) 1 DATED: ______BY ORDER OF THE COURT UNITED STATES CENTRAL DISTRICT 2 OF CALIFORNIA 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

SUMMARY NOTICE OF PENDENCY OF CLASS ACTION AND PROPOSED SETTLEMENT 4 CASE NO: 8:10-CV-1327-JST (RNBX) EXHIBIT B 1 Christopher J. Keller Sherrie R. Savett (admitted pro hac vice) (admitted pro hac vice) 2 Christopher J. McDonald Barbara A. Podell (admitted pro hac vice) (admitted pro hac vice) 3 LABATON SUCHAROW LLP Douglas M. Risen 140 Broadway (admitted pro hac vice) 4 New York, New York 10005 Eric Lechtzin (Bar No. 248958) Telephone: (212) 907-0700 BERGER & MONTAGUE, P.C. 5 Facsimile: (212) 818-0477 1622 Locust Street Email: [email protected] Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103 6 Telephone: (215) 875-3071 Co-Lead Counsel for Lead Plaintiff and the Facsimile: (215) 875-5715 7 Class Email: [email protected] 8 Co-Lead Counsel for Lead Plaintiff Mark Labaton (Bar No. 159555) and the Class 9 MOTLEY RICE LLP 1100 Glendon Avenue, 14th Floor 10 Los Angeles, California 90024 Telephone: (310) 500-3488 11 Facsimile: (310) 824-2870 Email: [email protected] 12 Liaison Counsel for the Class 13 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 14 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 15 ) 16 ) Case No.: 8:10-cv-1327-JST (RNBx) ) 17 IN RE BECKMAN COULTER, INC. ) [PROPOSED] FINAL ORDER AND SECURITIES LITIGATION ) JUDGMENT 18 ) ) Hon. Josephine Staton Tucker 19 ) ) 20 ) 21 WHEREAS: 22 A. On ______2011, Arkansas Teacher Retirement System and 23 Iron Workers District Council of New England Pension Funds (“Lead Plaintiff”), 24 on behalf of itself and the Class, and Beckman Coulter, Inc. (“Beckman” or the 25 “Company”), Scott T. Garrett, and Charles P. Slacik (collectively, “Defendants”) 26 entered into a Stipulation of Settlement (the “Stipulation”) in the above-titled 27 litigation (the “Action”). 28

[PROPOSED] FINAL ORDER AND JUDGMENT CASE NO.: 8:10-CV-1327-JST (RNBX) 1 B. Pursuant to the Preliminary Approval Order Providing for Notice and 2 Hearing in Connection With Proposed Class Action Settlement, entered 3 ______, 2011 (the “Preliminary Approval Order”), the Court scheduled 4 a hearing for ______, 2011, at ______.m. (the “Settlement Hearing”) 5 to, among other things: (i) determine whether the proposed Settlement of the 6 Action on the terms and conditions provided for in the Stipulation is fair, 7 reasonable and adequate, and should be approved by the Court; and (ii) determine 8 whether a judgment as provided for in the Stipulation should be entered. The 9 Court ordered that the Parties mail the Notice of Pendency of Class Action and 10 Proposed Settlement and Motion for Attorneys’ Fees and Expenses (the “Notice”) 11 and Proof of Claim and Release Form (“Proof of Claim”) to potential Class 12 Members and publish the Summary Notice of Pendency of Class Action and 13 Proposed Settlement and Motion for Attorneys’ Fees and Expenses (the “Summary 14 Notice”), substantially in the forms attached to the Preliminary Approval Order as 15 Exhibits 1, 2 and 3. 16 C. On ______, 2011, Lead Plaintiff moved for final 17 approval of the Settlement, as set forth in the Preliminary Approval Order. On 18 ______, 2011, this Court held a Settlement Hearing to determine: (a) whether 19 the above-captioned federal securities class action (the “Action”) satisfies the 20 applicable prerequisites for class action treatment under Rule 23 of the Federal 21 Rules of Civil Procedure; (b) whether the terms of the proposed settlement 22 (“Settlement”) described in the Stipulation of Settlement (the “Stipulation”), are 23 fair, reasonable and adequate, and should be approved by the Court; (c) whether 24 the proposed allocation of the Settlement fund (the “Plan of Allocation”) is fair and 25 reasonable and should be approved by the Court; (d) whether the Final Order and 26 Judgment as provided under the Stipulation should be entered, dismissing the 27 Action on the merits and with prejudice, and to determine whether the release of 28 the Released Claims as against the Released Parties, as set forth in the Stipulation,

[PROPOSED] FINAL ORDER AND JUDGMENT 2 CASE NO.: 8:10-CV-1327-JST (RNBX) 1 should be ordered; (e) whether the application of Lead Counsel for an award of 2 attorneys’ fees and reimbursement of expenses should be approved; and (f) such 3 other matters as the Court might deem appropriate. 4 D. It has been shown that the Notice substantially in the form approved 5 by the Preliminary Approval Order dated ______, 2011 was mailed to all 6 persons and entities reasonably identifiable who purchased or acquired the 7 securities that are the subject of the Action during the Class Period. 8 E. It has been shown that the Summary Notice substantially in the form 9 approved by the Court in the Preliminary Approval Order was published pursuant 10 to the specifications of the Court. 11 F. At the Settlement Hearing, all interested Persons were afforded the 12 opportunity to be heard. 13 G. This Court has duly considered Lead Plaintiff’s motion, the affidavits, 14 declarations and memorandum of law submitted in support thereof, and all of the 15 submissions and arguments presented with respect to the proposed Settlement. 16 NOW, THEREFORE, after due deliberation, IT IS ORDERED, 17 ADJUDGED AND DECREED as follows: 18 1. This Judgment incorporates by reference the definitions in the 19 Stipulation, and all capitalized terms used in this Judgment that are not otherwise 20 defined herein shall have the same meanings as set forth in the Stipulation. 21 2. This Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of the Action and 22 over all Parties to the Action, including all members of the Class. 23 3. The Court hereby affirms its determinations in the Preliminary 24 Approval Order and finally certifies, for the purposes of the Settlement only, the 25 Action as a class action pursuant to Rules 23(a) and (b)(3) of the Federal Rules of 26 Civil Procedure on behalf of any person or entity who purchased or otherwise 27 acquired Beckman common stock between July 31, 2009 and July 22, 2010, 28 inclusive (the “Class Period”), and who was allegedly damaged thereby (the

[PROPOSED] FINAL ORDER AND JUDGMENT 3 CASE NO.: 8:10-CV-1327-JST (RNBX) 1 “Class”). The Court finds that the prerequisites for a class action under Rule 23(a) 2 and (b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure have been satisfied in that: 3 (a) the number of Class Members is so numerous that joinder of all members 4 thereof is impracticable; (b) there are questions of law and fact common to the 5 Class; (c) the claims of the Lead Plaintiff are typical of the claims of the Class he 6 seeks to represent; (d) Lead Plaintiff fairly and adequately represents the interests 7 of the Class; (e) the questions of law and fact common to the members of the Class 8 predominate over any questions affecting only individual members of the Class; 9 and (f) a class action is superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient 10 adjudication of the controversy. 11 4. Excluded from the Class are the Defendants; any officer or director of 12 Beckman during the Class Period; members of the immediate families of each of 13 the foregoing and their legal representatives, heirs, successors or assigns; and any 14 entity in which any Defendant has or had (during the Class Period) a controlling 15 interest. Also excluded from the Class are those proposed Class Members who 16 properly excluded themselves by filing a valid and timely request for exclusion in 17 accordance with the requirements set forth in the Notice. (See Exhibit A annexed 18 hereto). 19 5. Pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and for 20 the purposes of the Settlement only, the Court hereby affirms its determinations in 21 the Preliminary Approval Order and finally certifies Lead Plaintiff Arkansas 22 Teacher Retirement System and Iron Workers District Council of New England 23 Pension Funds as Class Representative for the Class; and finally appoints Labaton 24 Sucharow LLP and Berger Montague P.C. as Class Counsel for the Class. 25 6. The notification provided for and given to the Class was in 26 compliance with the Preliminary Approval Order, and provided the best notice 27 practicable under the circumstances in full compliance with the notice 28 requirements of Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Section 21D(a)(7)

[PROPOSED] FINAL ORDER AND JUDGMENT 4 CASE NO.: 8:10-CV-1327-JST (RNBX) 1 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. § 78u-4(a)(7), as amended by 2 the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (the “PSLRA”), and due 3 process. 4 7. The proposed Settlement of the Action on the terms and conditions set 5 forth in the Stipulation is in all respects fair, reasonable and adequate, in light of 6 the benefits to the Class, the complexity, expense and possible duration of further 7 litigation against the Defendants and the risks of establishing liability and damages 8 and the costs of continued litigation. This Court further finds the Settlement set 9 forth in the Stipulation is the result of arm’s-length negotiations between 10 experienced counsel representing the interests of Lead Plaintiff, the Class and the 11 Defendants. 12 8. The Stipulation and the proposed Settlement are hereby approved as 13 fair, reasonable, adequate, and in the best interests of the Class Members, and shall 14 be consummated in accordance with the terms and provisions of the Stipulation. 15 To the extent there were objections to the Settlement, those objections are 16 overruled. 17 9. The Consolidated Class Action Complaint for Violations of Federal 18 Securities Laws (the “Complaint”), filed February 7, 2011, is hereby dismissed in 19 its entirety as to the Defendants, with prejudice, and without costs to any Party, 20 except as otherwise provided in the Stipulation. 21 10. Upon the Effective Date, Lead Plaintiff, each and every other Class 22 Member, and every other Released Plaintiff Party, on behalf of themselves and 23 each of their respective heirs, executors, trustees, administrators, predecessors, 24 successors and assigns, shall be deemed to have fully, finally and forever waived, 25 released, discharged and dismissed each and every one of the Released Claims, 26 including Unknown Claims, as against each and every one of the Released 27 Defendant Parties and shall forever be barred and enjoined from commencing, 28

[PROPOSED] FINAL ORDER AND JUDGMENT 5 CASE NO.: 8:10-CV-1327-JST (RNBX) 1 instituting, prosecuting or maintaining any of the Released Claims against any of 2 the Released Defendant Parties. 3 (a) As set forth in the Stipulation, “Released Claims” means all 4 claims, rights and causes of action, duties, obligations, demands, actions, debts, 5 sums of money, suits, contracts, agreements, promises, damages, and liabilities of 6 every nature and description, whether known or Unknown (as defined below), 7 whether arising under federal, state, common or administrative law, or any other 8 law, that Lead Plaintiff or any other Class Member: (i) have asserted in the Action, 9 including in the Complaint; or (ii) could have asserted in any forum, that arise out 10 of the allegations, transactions, facts, events, occurrences, acts, disclosures, 11 statements, representations or omissions or failures to act involved, set forth, or 12 referred to in the Complaint filed in the Action, and that relate to the purchase or 13 acquisition during the Class Period of Beckman common stock. Released Claims 14 do not include claims: (i) to enforce the Settlement; (ii) to enforce confidentiality 15 agreements and obligations concerning information provided in connection with 16 the settlement of the Action; and (iii) asserted derivatively or directly in the action 17 In re Beckman Coulter, Inc. Shareholders Litig., Lead Case No. 30-2010-0040632 18 pending in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Orange. 19 (b) As set forth in the Stipulation, “Released Defendant Parties” 20 means the Defendants and their present or former trustees, officers, directors, 21 principals, employees, agents, partners, insurers, auditors, heirs, executors, 22 administrators, attorneys, accountants, financial advisors, representatives, 23 predecessors, successors or assigns, parents, subsidiaries, divisions, affiliates, 24 associates, joint ventures, general or limited partners or partnerships, limited 25 liability companies and any trust of which any Individual Defendant is the settlor 26 or which is for the benefit of their immediate family members. 27 11. Upon the Effective Date, the Defendants and each of their respective 28 Released Defendant Parties, on behalf of themselves and each of their respective

[PROPOSED] FINAL ORDER AND JUDGMENT 6 CASE NO.: 8:10-CV-1327-JST (RNBX) 1 heirs, executors, trustees, administrators, predecessors, successors and assigns, 2 shall be deemed to have fully, finally and forever waived, released, discharged and 3 dismissed each and every one of the Released Defendants’ Claims as against each 4 and every one of the Released Plaintiff Parties and shall forever be barred and 5 enjoined from commencing, instituting, prosecuting or maintaining any of the 6 Released Defendants’ Claims against any of the Released Plaintiff Parties. 7 (a) “Released Defendants’ Claims” means all claims, rights and 8 causes of action, duties, obligations, demands, actions, debts, sums of money, suits, 9 contracts, agreements, promises, damages, and liabilities of every nature and 10 description, whether known or Unknown, whether arising under federal, state, 11 common or administrative law, or any other law, that the Defendants or any other 12 Released Defendant Party asserted, or could have asserted, against any of the 13 Released Plaintiff Parties that arise out of or relate in any way to the 14 commencement, prosecution, settlement or resolution of the Action or the claims 15 against the Released Defendant Parties. “Released Defendants’ Claims” do not 16 include claims: (i) to enforce the Settlement; (ii) to enforce confidentiality 17 agreements and obligations concerning information provided in connection with 18 the settlement of the Action; and (iii) that arise out of or relate in any way to the 19 commencement, prosecution, settlement or resolution of claims asserted 20 derivatively or directly in the action In re Beckman Coulter, Inc. Shareholders 21 Litig., Lead Case No. 30-2010-0040632 pending in the Superior Court of the State 22 of California, County of Orange. 23 (b) As set forth in the Stipulation, “Released Plaintiff Parties” 24 means Plaintiffs, each and every Class Member, Lead Counsel, and their respective 25 present or former trustees, officers, directors, principals, employees, agents, 26 partners, insurers, auditors, heirs, executors, administrators, attorneys, accountants, 27 financial advisors, representatives, predecessors, successors or assigns, parents, 28 subsidiaries, divisions, affiliates, associates, joint ventures, general or limited

[PROPOSED] FINAL ORDER AND JUDGMENT 7 CASE NO.: 8:10-CV-1327-JST (RNBX) 1 partners or partnerships, limited liability companies and any trust of which 2 Plaintiffs, any Class Member, or Lead Counsel is the settlor or which is for the 3 benefit of their immediate family members. 4 12. Each Class Member, whether or not such Class Member executes and 5 delivers a Proof of Claim, is bound by this Judgment, including, without limitation, 6 the release of claims as set forth in the Stipulation. 7 13. This Judgment and the Stipulation, whether or not consummated, and 8 any negotiations, proceedings or agreements relating to the Stipulation, the 9 Settlement, and any matters arising in connection with settlement negotiations, 10 proceedings, or agreements, shall not be offered or received against the Defendants 11 or Lead Plaintiff for any purpose, and in particular: 12 (a) do not constitute, and shall not be offered or received against 13 the Defendants as evidence of, or construed as, or deemed to be evidence of any 14 presumption, concession or admission by the Defendants with respect to the truth 15 of any fact alleged by Lead Plaintiff and the Class or the validity of any claim that 16 has been or could have been asserted in the Action or in any litigation, including 17 but not limited to the Released Claims, or of any liability, damages, negligence, 18 fault or wrongdoing of the Defendants; 19 (b) do not constitute, and shall not be offered or received against 20 the Defendants as evidence of a presumption, concession or admission of any fault, 21 misrepresentation or omission with respect to any statement or written document 22 approved or made by the Defendants, or against Lead Plaintiff, or any other 23 members of the Class as evidence of any infirmity in the claims of Lead Plaintiff or 24 the other members of the Class; provided, however, that the Released Parties may 25 refer to or otherwise file this Final Order and Judgment, and/or the Stipulation, to 26 effectuate the liability protection granted them hereunder including to support a 27 defense or counterclaim based on the principles of res judicata, collateral estoppel, 28

[PROPOSED] FINAL ORDER AND JUDGMENT 8 CASE NO.: 8:10-CV-1327-JST (RNBX) 1 release, good faith settlement, judgment bar or reduction or any other theory of 2 claim preclusion or issue preclusion or similar defense or counterclaim; 3 (c) do not constitute, and shall not be offered or received against 4 the Defendants, Released Defendant Parties or against Lead Plaintiff, Class 5 Members, or Released Plaintiff Parties, as evidence of a presumption, concession 6 or admission with respect to any liability, damages, negligence, fault, infirmity or 7 wrongdoing, or in any way referred to for any other reason against any of the 8 Parties to this Stipulation, in any other civil, criminal or administrative action or 9 proceeding, other than such proceedings as may be necessary to effectuate the 10 provisions of this Stipulation; 11 (d) do not constitute, and shall not be construed against the 12 Defendants, Lead Plaintiff, or any other members of the Class, as an admission or 13 concession that the consideration to be given hereunder represents the amount 14 which could be or would have been recovered after trial; 15 (e) do not constitute, and shall not be construed as or received in 16 evidence as, an admission, concession or presumption against Lead Plaintiff, or 17 any other members of the Class, or any of them that any of their claims are without 18 merit or infirm or that damages recoverable under the Complaint would not have 19 exceeded the Settlement Amount. 20 14. The Court further finds that during the course of the Action, the 21 Parties and their respective counsel at all times complied with the requirements of 22 Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 23 15. The administration of the Settlement, and the decision of all disputed 24 questions of law and fact with respect to the validity of any claim or right of any 25 Person to participate in the distribution of the Net Settlement Fund, shall remain 26 under the authority of this Court. 27 16. In the event that the Settlement does not become effective in 28 accordance with the terms of the Stipulation, then this Judgment shall be rendered

[PROPOSED] FINAL ORDER AND JUDGMENT 9 CASE NO.: 8:10-CV-1327-JST (RNBX) 1 null and void to the extent provided by and in accordance with the Stipulation and 2 shall be vacated, and in such event, all orders entered and releases delivered in 3 connection herewith shall be null and void to the extent provided by and in 4 accordance with the Stipulation. 5 17. Without further order of the Court, the Parties may agree to 6 reasonable extensions of time to carry out any of the provisions of the Stipulation. 7 18. The Parties are hereby directed to consummate the Stipulation and to 8 perform its terms. 9 19. A separate order shall be entered regarding Lead Counsel’s 10 application for attorneys’ fees and reimbursement of expenses as allowed by the 11 Court. A separate order shall be entered regarding the proposed Plan of Allocation 12 for the Net Settlement Fund. Such orders shall in no way disturb or affect this 13 Judgment and shall be considered separate from this Judgment. 14 20. Without affecting the finality of this Judgment in any way, this Court 15 hereby retains continuing jurisdiction over: (i) implementation of the Settlement; 16 (ii) the allowance, disallowance or adjustment of any Class Member’s claim on 17 equitable grounds and any award or distribution of the Settlement Fund; (iii) 18 disposition of the Settlement Fund; (iv) hearing and determining applications for 19 attorneys’ fees, costs, interest and reimbursement of expenses in the Action; (v) all 20 Parties for the purpose of construing, enforcing and administering the Settlement 21 and this Judgment; and (vi) other matters related or ancillary to the foregoing. 22 There is no just reason for delay in the entry of this Judgment and immediate entry 23 by the Clerk of the Court is expressly directed. 24 Dated: ______, 2011 25 26 Honorable Josephine Staton Tucker 27 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 28

[PROPOSED] FINAL ORDER AND JUDGMENT 10 CASE NO.: 8:10-CV-1327-JST (RNBX) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

[PROPOSED] FINAL ORDER AND JUDGMENT 11 CASE NO.: 8:10-CV-1327-JST (RNBX) 1 EXHIBIT A 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

[PROPOSED] FINAL ORDER AND JUDGMENT EXHIBIT A CASE NO.: 8:10-CV-1327-JST (RNBX) Case 8:10-cv-01327-JST -RNB Document 59-2 Filed 09/19/11 Page 1 of 65 Page ID #:1180

EXHIBIT 2 Case 8:10-cv-01327-JST -RNB Document 59-2 Filed 09/19/11 Page 2 of 65 Page ID #:1181 Labaton S ucha row

LABATON SUCHAROW LLP

INVESTOR PROTECTION LITIGATION

Labaton Sucharow LLP 140 Broadway, New York, NY 10005 212 907 0700 main 212 818 0477 fax www.labaton.com Case 8:10-cv-01327-JST -RNB Document 59-2 Filed 09/19/11 Page 3 of 65 Page ID #:1182

THE FIRM AND ITS ACHIEVEMENTS

Table of Contents

OVERVIEW 1

CORPORATE GOVERNANCE 2

NOTABLE LEAD COUNSEL APPOINTMENTS 6

TRIAL EXPERIENCE 7

NOTABLE SUCCESSES 8

COMMENTS ABOUT OUR FIRM BY THE COURTS 20

PRO BONO ACTIVITIES 21

WOMEN’S INITIATIVE AND MINORITY SCHOLARSHIP 21

ATTORNEYS 22 LAWRENCE A. SUCHAROW, CHAIRMAN 22 MARTIS ALEX, PARTNER 25 MARK S. ARISOHN, PARTNER 26 CHRISTINE S. AZAR, PARTNER 28 ERIC J. BELFI, PARTNER 28 JOEL H. BERNSTEIN, PARTNER 30 JAVIER BLEICHMAR, PARTNER 31 THOMAS A. DUBBS, PARTNER 32 JOSEPH A. FONTI, PARTNER 34 JONATHAN GARDNER, PARTNER 35 DAVID J. GOLDSMITH, PARTNER 37 LOUIS GOTTLIEB, PARTNER 38 JAMES W. JOHNSON, PARTNER 39 CHRISTOPHER J. KELLER, PARTNER 41 EDWARD LABATON, PARTNER 42 CHRISTOPHER J. MCDONALD, PARTNER 44

-i- Case 8:10-cv-01327-JST -RNB Document 59-2 Filed 09/19/11 Page 4 of 65 Page ID #:1183

JONATHAN M. PLASSE, PARTNER 46 HOLLIS SALZMAN, PARTNER 47 IRA A. SCHOCHET, PARTNER 48 MICHAEL W. STOCKER, PARTNER 50 JORDAN A. THOMAS, PARTNER 52 RICHARD T. JOFFE, SENIOR COUNSEL 53 JOSEPH V. S TERNBERG, SENIOR COUNSEL 55 DOMINIC J. AULD, OF COUNSEL 55 MARK S. GOLDMAN, OF COUNSEL 56 TERRI GOLDSTONE, OF COUNSEL 57 BARRY M. OKUN, OF COUNSEL 58 BRIAN D. PENNY, OF COUNSEL 59 PAUL SCARLATO, OF COUNSEL 60 NICOLE M. ZEISS, OF COUNSEL 60

-ii- Case 8:10-cv-01327-JST -RNB Document 59-2 Filed 09/19/11 Page 5 of 65 Page ID #:1184

Founded in 1963, Labaton Sucharow LLP (“Labaton Sucharow”) is

an internationally respected law firm with offices in New York, New York and Wilmington, Delaware and has relationships throughout the

U.S., Europe and the world. The Firm consists of more than 60

attorneys and a professional support staff that includes certified public accountants, licensed private investigators, resident securities

analysts and 16 paralegals. The Firm prosecutes major complex

litigation in the United States, and has successfully conducted a wide array of representative actions (principally class, mass and derivative)

in the areas of securities, antitrust, merger/ acquisition, limited partnership, ERISA, product liability, and consumer litigation. Labaton Sucharow’s Securities Litigation Group offers

comprehensive services for our institutional investor clients and has

recovered, through trial and settlement, more than $4 billion for the benefit of investors who have been victimized by such diverse

schemes as stock price manipulation, mismanagement, and fraudulent

offerings of securities. Through its efforts, the litigation group has

also obtained meaningful corporate governance reforms to minimize the likelihood of repetitive wrongful conduct. Visit our website at

www.labaton.com for more information about our dynamic firm. Case 8:10-cv-01327-JST -RNB Document 59-2 Filed 09/19/11 Page 6 of 65 Page ID #:1185

CORPORATE GOVERNANCE

Labaton Sucharow is committed to corporate governance reform. Through its leadership

of membership organizations which seek to advance the interests of shareholders and consumers,

Labaton Sucharow seeks to strengthen corporate governance and support legislative reforms

which improve and preserve shareholder and consumer rights.

The Firm is a patron of the John L. Weinberg Center for Corporate Governance of the

University of Delaware (“The Center”). The Center provides a forum for business leaders,

directors of corporate boards, the legal community, academics, practitioners, graduate and

undergraduate students, and others interested in corporate governance issues to meet and

exchange ideas. One of Labaton Sucharow’s partners, Edward Labaton, is a member of the

Advisory Committee of The Center. Additionally, Mr. Labaton has served for more than 10

years as a member of the Program Planning Committee for the annual ALI-ABA Corporate

Governance Institute, and serves on the Task Force on the Role of Lawyers in Corporate

Governance of the Association of the Bar of the City of New York.

On April 1, 2009, Partner Ira Schochet began his two-year term as President of the

National Association of Shareholder and Consumer Attorneys (NASCAT), a membership

organization of approximately 100 law firms that practice class action and complex civil

litigation. Through the aegis of NASCAT and other organizations, the Firm continues to

advocate against those who would seek to weaken shareholder and consumer rights through ill-

conceived legislative or regulatory action. Continuing its spirit of service, Mr. Schochet follows

the path of Chairman Lawrence Sucharow who was privileged to be selected by his peers to

serve as President of NASCAT in 2003-2005.

-2- Case 8:10-cv-01327-JST -RNB Document 59-2 Filed 09/19/11 Page 7 of 65 Page ID #:1186

On behalf of its institutional and individual investor clients, Labaton Sucharow has

achieved some of the largest precedent-setting settlements since the enactment of the Private

Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (“PSLRA”), and has helped avert future instances of

securities fraud by negotiating substantial corporate governance reforms as conditions of many

of its largest settlements.

Because of the depth of their experience and deep commitment to the principles of

corporate governance, many Labaton Sucharow partners have served as featured speakers on

topics relating to corporate governance and reform at various symposia and lectures.

As a result of Labaton Sucharow’s extensive experience and commitment to corporate

governance reform, the Firm’s clients have secured meaningful reforms, in addition to

substantial monetary recoveries, in significant settlements such as:

• In re Waste Management, Inc. Securities Litigation, Civ. No. H-99-2183

(S.D. Tex.): Labaton Sucharow, acting as Lead Counsel for the State of

Connecticut Retirement Plans & Trust Funds, caused the Company to present a

binding resolution to declassify its board of directors, which was approved by its

shareholders. As a consequence of Labaton Sucharow’s efforts, the Company

further agreed to amend its Audit Committee charter, which led to its enhanced

effectiveness.

• In re Vesta Insurance Group Securities Litigation, Civ. No. CV-98-W-

1407-S (N.D. Ala.): Labaton Sucharow, acting as Lead Counsel for the Florida

State Board of Administration, caused the Company to adopt provisions requiring

that: (i) a majority of its Board members be independent; (ii) at least one

independent director be experienced in corporate governance; (iii) the audit,

-3- Case 8:10-cv-01327-JST -RNB Document 59-2 Filed 09/19/11 Page 8 of 65 Page ID #:1187

nominating and compensation committees be comprised entirely of independent

directors; and (iv) the audit committee comply with the recommendations of the

Blue Ribbon Panel on the effectiveness of audit committees.

• In re Orbital Sciences Corporation Securities Litigation, Civ. No. 99-197-A

(E.D. Va.): Labaton Sucharow, acting as Lead Counsel for the New York City

Pension Funds, negotiated the implementation of measures concerning the

Company’s quarterly review of its financial results, the composition, role and

responsibilities of its Audit and Finance committee, and the adoption of a Board

resolution providing guidelines regarding senior executives’ exercise and sale of

vested stock options.

• In re Bristol-Myers Squibb Securities Litigation, Civ. No. 00-1990 (D.N.J.):

Labaton Sucharow, acting as Lead Counsel for the LongView Collective

Investment Fund of the Amalgamated Bank, negotiated noteworthy corporate

governance reforms. Bristol-Myers Squibb (“BMS”) agreed to publicly disclose

the following information concerning all of its drugs marketed for at least one

indication: a description of the clinical study design and methodology; results of

the clinical trials; and safety results, including the reporting of adverse events

seen during the clinical trials. The disclosures are posted on BMS’s website,

www.BMS.com , as well as an industry website, www.clinicalstudyresults.org .

BMS agreed to post these disclosures for a 10-year period following approval of

the settlement, and has further agreed that any modifications to the disclosure

protocol must be approved by the Court, at the request of Labaton Sucharow as

Lead Counsel, unless the modifications increase the scope of the disclosures. The

-4- Case 8:10-cv-01327-JST -RNB Document 59-2 Filed 09/19/11 Page 9 of 65 Page ID #:1188

corporate reform measures obtained in this case exceed the scope of reforms

obtained by the New York State Attorney General’s office in the settlement of an

action against GlaxoSmithKline (“GSK”) arising from the sale of Paxil, an

antidepressant. The Paxil settlement is limited to drugs sold in the United States,

whereas as a result of the BMS settlement, the company must post the clinical

trial results of drugs marketed in any country throughout the world.

• The Boeing Company, Civ. No. 03 CH 15039 and Civ. No. 03 CH 16301

(Cook Co., Ill, Ch. Div.): In 2006, Labaton Sucharow, acting as Lead Counsel for

Plaintiffs in a derivative class action against the directors of The Boeing Company

(“Boeing”), achieved a landmark settlement establishing unique and far-reaching

corporate governance standards relating to ethics compliance, provisions that

obligated Boeing to contribute significant funds over and above base compliance

spending to implement the various prescribed initiatives. The terms were well

designed to provide for early detection and prevention of corporate misconduct.

They were comprehensive and integrated, enhancing effectiveness by providing

for top-down oversight, direction and planning; and buttressed by extensive and

coordinated bottom-up and horizontal reporting. In addition, the reforms were

also designed to enhance Board independence and effectiveness and, by creating a

direct reporting role to the Board, the independence of the management level

oversight functions.

• In re Take-Two Interactive Securities Litigation, No. 06-CV-803-RJS

(S.D.N.Y.): In 2009, Labaton Sucharow, acting as Lead Counsel for Lead

Plaintiffs New York City Employees’ Retirement System, New York City Police

-5- Case 8:10-cv-01327-JST -RNB Document 59-2 Filed 09/19/11 Page 10 of 65 Page ID #:1189

Pension Fund and New York City Fire Department Pension Fund in a securities

class action against Take-Two Interactive Software, Inc. (“Take-Two”) and its

officers and directors, achieved significant corporate governance reforms. Take-

Two was required to adopt a policy, commonly referred to as “clawback”

provision, providing for the recovery of bonus or incentive compensation paid to

senior executives in the event that such compensation was awarded based on

financial results later determined to have been erroneously reported as a result of

fraud or other knowing misconduct by the executive. The Company was also

required to adopt a policy requiring that its Board of Directors submit any

stockholder rights plan (also commonly known as a “poison pill”) that is greater

than 12 months in duration to a vote of stockholders. Finally, Take-Two was

required to adopt a bylaw providing that no business may be properly brought

before an annual meeting of stockholders by a person other than a stockholder

unless such matter has been included in the proxy solicitation materials issued by

the Company.

NOTABLE LEAD COUNSEL APPOINTMENTS

Labaton Sucharow’s institutional and individual investor clients are regularly appointed

by federal courts to serve as lead plaintiffs in prominent securities litigations brought under the

PSLRA. Since January 2003, dozens of state, city and county public pension funds and union

funds have selected Labaton Sucharow to represent them in federal securities class actions and

advise them as securities litigation/investigation counsel. Listed below are several of our current

notable Lead and Co-Lead Counsel appointments.

-6- Case 8:10-cv-01327-JST -RNB Document 59-2 Filed 09/19/11 Page 11 of 65 Page ID #:1190

IN RE THE BEAR STEARNS COMPANIES INC. SECURITIES, DERIVATIVE AND EMPLOYEE RETIREMENT INCOME SECURITY A CT (ERISA) LITIGATION NO. CV:08-MD-01963-RWS(S.D.N.Y.) Representing Michigan Retirement Systems as Co-Lead Plaintiff

CITY OF NEW ORLEANS EMPLOYEES’ RETIREMENT SYSTEM V. PRIVATEBANCORP, INC., ET AL NO.1:10-CV-06826 (N.D. ILL.) Representing the State-Boston Retirement System as Co-Lead Plaintiff

IN RE GOLDMAN SACHS GROUP INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION NO. 1:10-CV-03461(S.D.N.Y.) Representing the Arkansas Teacher Retirement System as Co-Lead Plaintiff

TRIAL EXPERIENCE

Few securities class action cases go to trial. But when it is in the best interests of its

clients and the class, Labaton Sucharow repeatedly has demonstrated its willingness and ability

to try these complex securities cases before a jury. Labaton Sucharow’s recognized willingness

and ability to bring cases to trial significantly increases the ultimate settlement value for

shareholders.

In the first financial-crisis-related securities class action case to go to jury verdict, the

Firm, as Co-Lead Counsel on behalf of State-Boston Retirement System and the class, obtained a

jury verdict against BankAtlantic Bancorp, Inc. and two senior officers for securities fraud after

they lied about and failed to disclose the extent of risk in the company’s troubled loan portfolio

in 2007. The case was only the tenth securities fraud class action to go to trial since passage of

the PSLRA, and only the second successful plaintiff’s verdict in a case brought on behalf of a

public pension fund.

-7- Case 8:10-cv-01327-JST -RNB Document 59-2 Filed 09/19/11 Page 12 of 65 Page ID #:1191

In addition, in In re Real Estate Associates Limited Partnership Litigation, when

defendants were unwilling to settle for an amount Labaton Sucharow and its clients viewed as

fair, we tried the case with co-counsel for six weeks and obtained a landmark $184 million jury

verdict in November 2002. The jury supported plaintiffs’ position that defendants knowingly

violated the federal securities laws, and that the general partner had breached his fiduciary duties

to plaintiffs. The $184 million award was one of the largest jury verdicts returned in any PSLRA

action and one in which the plaintiff class, consisting of 18,000 investors, recovered 100% of

their damages.

NOTABLE SUCCESSES

Labaton Sucharow has achieved notable successes in major securities litigations on

behalf of its clients and certified investor classes.

• Labaton Sucharow served as Co-Lead Counsel in In re HealthSouth Securities

Litigation, Civ. No CV-03-BE-1500-S (N.D. Ala.), a case stemming from the

largest fraud ever perpetrated in the healthcare industry. In early 2006, Lead

Plaintiffs negotiated a settlement of $445 million with defendant HealthSouth.

This partial settlement, comprised of cash and HealthSouth securities to be

distributed to the class, is one of the largest in history. On June 12, 2009, the

Court also granted final approval to a $109 million settlement with defendant

Ernst & Young LLP (“E&Y”) believed to be the eighth largest securities fraud

class action settlement with an auditor. In addition, on July 26, 2010, the Court

granted final approval to a $117 million partial settlement with the remaining

principal defendants in the case, UB S AG, UB S Warburg LLC, Howard Capek,

-8- Case 8:10-cv-01327-JST -RNB Document 59-2 Filed 09/19/11 Page 13 of 65 Page ID #:1192

Benjamin Lorello and William McGahan (the “UBS Defendants”). The total

value of the settlements for Healthsouth stockholders and Healthsouth

bondholders, who were represented by separate counsel, is $804.5 million.

• In In re American International Group, Inc. Securities Litigation, Master

File No. 04 Civ. 8141 (JES) (AJP) (S.D.N.Y.), Lead Counsel Labaton Sucharow

represents Lead Plaintiff Ohio Public Employees Retirement System, State

Teachers Retirement System of Ohio, and Ohio Police & Fire Pension Fund,

along with the Attorney General of the State of Ohio. On October 3, 2008, a

$97.5 million settlement between the Lead Plaintiff and PricewaterhouseCoopers

LLP was announced. The settlement, which still must be approved by the Court,

was the eighth largest at the time by an accounting firm to settle a securities fraud

class action. On July 16, 2010, an agreement on the terms of a proposed $725

million settlement was announced, which, if approved by the Court, would

resolve the Ohio Funds’ claims against AIG and certain individual AIG directors

and officers.

• On behalf of the New York State Common Retirement Fund and five New York

City public pension funds, Labaton Sucharow served as Lead Counsel in In re

Countrywide Financial Corporation Securities Litigation, No. CV 07-05295

MRP (MANx) (C.D. Cal.), for claims alleging that Countrywide, one of the

nation’s largest mortgage lenders, and other defendants violated the federal

securities laws by making misstatements and omitting material facts about

Countrywide’s policies and procedures for underwriting loans that entailed

greater risk than disclosed. The parties have agreed to a Settlement whereby

-9- Case 8:10-cv-01327-JST -RNB Document 59-2 Filed 09/19/11 Page 14 of 65 Page ID #:1193

Countrywide and its auditing firm, KPMG LLP, together have paid $624 million

in cash, with a portion set aside for up to two years to satisfy certain opt-out

claims. This recovery is among the largest securities fraud settlements since the

enactment of the PSLRA. On March 10, 2011, the Settlement was granted final

approval.

• In re Waste Management, Inc. Securities Litigation, Civ. No. H-99-2183

(S.D. Tex.). In 2002, Judge Melinda Harmon approved an extraordinary

settlement that provided for recovery of $457 million in cash, plus an array of far-

reaching corporate governance measures. At that time, this settlement was the

largest common fund settlement of a securities action achieved in any court within

the Fifth Circuit and the third-largest achieved in any federal court in the nation.

Judge Harmon noted, among other things, that Labaton Sucharow “obtained an

outstanding result by virtue of the quality of the work and vigorous representation

of the Class.”

• In In re General Motors Corp. Securities Litigation, No. 06-1749, (E.D.

Mich.), Co-Lead Counsel Labaton Sucharow represented Lead Plaintiffs Deka

Investment GmbH and Deka International S.A. Luxembourg in claims alleging

that General Motors, and certain of GM’s officers and directors (including CEO

Rick Wagoner), issued a series of false and misleading statements to investors

about the auto maker’s financial health going back to 2000. On July 21, 2008, a

settlement was reached whereby GM made a cash payment of $277 million and

Defendant Deloitte & Touche LLP, which served as GM’s outside auditor during

-10- Case 8:10-cv-01327-JST -RNB Document 59-2 Filed 09/19/11 Page 15 of 65 Page ID #:1194

the period covered by the action, agreed to contribute an additional $26 million in

cash.

• In In re PaineWebber Limited Partnerships Litigation, Master File No. 94

Civ. 832/7 (SHS) (S.D.N.Y.), Judge Sidney H. Stein approved a settlement valued

at $200 million and found “that Class Counsel’s representation of the Class has

been of high caliber in conferences, in oral arguments and in work product.”

• Eastwood Enterprises, LLC v. Farha et al., 8:07-cv-1940-T-33EAJ (M.D.

Fla.). On behalf of The New Mexico State Investment Council and the Public

Employees Retirement Association of New Mexico, Co-Lead Counsel for the

Class, Labaton Sucharow LLP, negotiated a $200 million settlement over

allegations that WellCare Health Plans, Inc., a Florida-based managed healthcare

service provider, disguised its profitability by overcharging state Medicaid

programs. Under the terms of the settlement, which is still subject to approval by

the Court, WellCare agreed to pay an additional $25 million in cash if, at any time

in the next three years, WellCare is acquired or otherwise experiences a change in

control at a share price of $30 or more after adjustments for dilution or stock

splits.

• In In re El Paso Corporation Securities Litigation, Civ. No. H-02-2717 (S.D.

Tex.), Labaton Sucharow secured a $285 million class action settlement against the

El Paso Corporation. The case involved a securities fraud stemming from the

Company’s inflated earnings statements, which cost shareholders hundreds of

millions of dollars during a four-year span. The settlement was approved by the

Court on March 6, 2007.

-11- Case 8:10-cv-01327-JST -RNB Document 59-2 Filed 09/19/11 Page 16 of 65 Page ID #:1195

• In re Bristol-Myers Squibb Securities Litigation, Civ. No. 00-1990 (D.N.J.).

After prosecuting securities fraud claims against BMS for more than five years,

Labaton Sucharow reached an agreement to settle the claims for $185 million and

significant corporate governance reforms. This settlement is the second largest

recovery against a pharmaceutical company, and it is the largest recovery ever

obtained against a pharmaceutical company in a securities fraud case involving

the development of a new drug. Moreover, the settlement is the largest ever

obtained against a pharmaceutical company in a securities fraud case that did not

involve a restatement of financial results.

• On behalf of Lead Plaintiff New Mexico State Investment Council, Labaton

Sucharow served as Lead Counsel in In re Broadcom Corp. Securities

Litigation, No. CV-05036-R (C.D. Cal.), a case stemming from Broadcom Corp.’s

$2.2 billion restatement of its historic financial statements for 1998-2005 - the

largest restatement in history due to options backdating. In December 2009, New

Mexico reached an agreement-in-principle with Broadcom and two individual

defendants to resolve this matter for $160.5 million, the second largest up-front

cash settlement ever recovered from a company accused of options backdating.

• In In re Mercury Interactive Corp. Securities Litigation, Civ. No. 5:05-CV-

3395 (N.D. Cal.), Labaton Sucharow reached an agreement to settle for $117.5

million, a figure representing one of the largest known settlements in a securities

fraud litigation based upon options backdating. The allegations in Mercury

concern backdated option grants used to compensate employees and officers of the

Company. Mercury’s former CEO, CFO, and General Counsel actively

-12- Case 8:10-cv-01327-JST -RNB Document 59-2 Filed 09/19/11 Page 17 of 65 Page ID #:1196

participated in and benefited from the options backdating scheme, which came at

the expense of Mercury shareholders and the investing public. Labaton Sucharow

and Hewlett-Packard’s counsel executed a Stipulation of Settlement and the Court

granted preliminary approval of the settlement on June 2, 2008. On September 25,

2008, the Court granted final approval of the settlement.

• In the well-known In re Prudential Securities Inc. Limited Partnership

Litigation, Civ. No. M-21-67 (S.D.N.Y.), the late Judge Milton Pollack cited the

“Herculean” efforts of Labaton Sucharow and its Co-Lead Counsel and, in

approving a $110 million partial settlement, stated that “this case represents a

unique recovery – a recovery that does honor to every one of the lawyers on your

side of the case.”

• In re Vesta Insurance Group, Inc. Securities Litigation, Civ. No. CV-98-

AR-1407 (N.D. Ala.). After years of protracted litigation, Labaton Sucharow

secured a settlement of $78 million on the eve of trial.

• In re St. Paul Traveler’s II Securities Litigation, Civ. No. 04-4697

(JRT/FLN) (D. Minn.), the second of two cases filed against St. Paul Travelers by

Labaton Sucharow, arose from the industry-wide insurance scandal involving

American International Group, Marsh McClennan, the St. Paul Companies and

numerous other insurance providers and brokers. On July 23, 2008, the Court

granted final approval of the $77 million settlement and certified the settlement

Class.

• In In re St. Paul Travelers Securities Litigation, 04-CV-3801 (D. Minn.),

Labaton Sucharow was able to successfully negotiate the creation of an all cash

-13- Case 8:10-cv-01327-JST -RNB Document 59-2 Filed 09/19/11 Page 18 of 65 Page ID #:1197

settlement fund to compensate investors in the amount of $67.5 million in

November 2005. This settlement is one of the largest securities class action

settlements in the Eighth Circuit.

• In In re Monster Worldwide, Inc. Securities Litigation, No. 07-CV-02237

(S.D.N.Y.), Labaton Sucharow represented Middlesex County Retirement System

in claims alleging that Defendants engaged in a long-running scheme to backdate

Monster’s stock option grants to attract and retain employees without recording the

resulting compensation expenses. On November 25, 2008, the Court granted final

approval of the $47.5 million settlement.

• In Abrams v. VanKampen Funds, Inc., 01 C 7538 (N.D. Ill.), in January 2006

Labaton Sucharow obtained final approval of a $31.5 million settlement in an

innovative class action concerning VanKampen’s senior loan mutual fund,

alleging that the fund overpriced certain senior loan interests where market

quotations were readily available. The gross settlement fund constitutes a

recovery of about 70% of the class’s damages as determined by plaintiffs’

counsel.

• In Desert Orchid Partners, L.L. C. v. Transactions Systems Architects, Inc.,

Civ. No. 02 CV 533 (D. Neb.), Labaton Sucharow represented the Genesee

Employees’ Retirement System as Lead Plaintiff in claims alleging violations of

the federal securities laws. On March 2, 2007, the Court granted final approval to

the settlement of this action for $24.5 million in cash.

• In re Orbital Sciences Corp. Securities Litigation, Civ. No. 99-197-A (E.D.

Va.). After cross-motions for summary judgment were fully briefed, defendants

-14- Case 8:10-cv-01327-JST -RNB Document 59-2 Filed 09/19/11 Page 19 of 65 Page ID #:1198

(and Orbital’s auditor in a related proceeding) agreed to a $23.5 million cash

settlement, warrants, and substantial corporate governance measures.

• On September 9, 2008, the Court granted final approval of the $20 million

settlement in In re International Business Machines Corp. Securities

Litigation, Civ. No. 1:05-cv-6279 (AKH) (S.D.N.Y.), in which Labaton

Sucharow served as Lead Counsel. The action alleged that that International

Business Machines Corp. (“IBM”), and its Chief Financial Officer, Mark

Loughridge, made material misrepresentations and omissions concerning IBM’s

expected 2005 first quarter earnings, IBM’s expected 2005 first quarter

operational performance, and the financial impact of IBM’s decision to begin

expensing stock options on its 2005 first quarter financial statements.

• In In re Just for Feet Noteholder Litigation, Civ. No. CV-00-C- 1404-S (N.D.

Ala.), Labaton Sucharow, as Lead Counsel, represented Lead Plaintiff Delaware

Management and the Aid Association for Lutherans with respect to claims

brought on behalf of noteholders. On October 21, 2005, Chief Judge Clemon of

the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama preliminarily

approved Plaintiffs’ settlement with Banc of America Securities LLC, the sole

remaining defendant in the case, for $17.75 million. During the course of the

litigation, Labaton Sucharow obtained certification for a class of corporate bond

purchasers in a ground-breaking decision, AAL High Yield Bond Fund v.

Ruttenberg, 229 F.R.D. 676 (N.D. Ala. 2005), which is the first decision by a

federal court to explicitly hold that the market for high-yield bonds such as those

at issue in the action was efficient.

-15- Case 8:10-cv-01327-JST -RNB Document 59-2 Filed 09/19/11 Page 20 of 65 Page ID #:1199

• In In re American Tower Corporation Securities Litigation, Civ. No. 06 CV

10933 (MLW) (D. Mass.), Labaton Sucharow represented the Steamship Trade

Association-International Longshoreman’s Association Pension Fund (STA-ILA)

in claims alleging that certain of American Tower Corporation’s current and

former officers and directors improperly backdated the Company’s stock option

grants and made materially false and misleading statements to the public

concerning the Company’s financial results, option grant policies and accounting,

causing damages to investors. On June 11, 2008, the Court granted final approval

of the $14 million settlement.

• In In re CapRock Communications Corp. Securities Litigation, Civ. No. 3-

00-CV-1613-R (N.D. Tex.), Labaton Sucharow represented a prominent

Louisiana-based investment adviser in claims alleging violations of the federal

securities laws. The case settled for $11 million in 2003.

• In In re SupportSoft Securities Litigation, Civ. No. C 04-5222 SI (N.D. Cal.),

Labaton Sucharow secured a $10.7 million settlement on October 2, 2007 against

SupportSoft, Inc. The action alleged that the defendants had artificially inflated the

price of the Company’s securities by re-working previously entered into license

agreements for the Company’s software in order to accelerate the recognition of

revenue from those contracts.

• In In re InterMune Securities Litigation, Master File No. 03-2454 SI (N.D.

Cal. 2005), Labaton Sucharow commenced an action on behalf of its client, a

substantial investor, against InterMune, a biopharmaceutical firm, and certain of

its officers, alleging securities fraud in connection with InterMune’s sales and

-16- Case 8:10-cv-01327-JST -RNB Document 59-2 Filed 09/19/11 Page 21 of 65 Page ID #:1200

marketing of a drug for off-label purposes. Notwithstanding higher pleading and

proof standards in the jurisdiction in which the action had been filed, Labaton

Sucharow utilized its substantial investigative resources and creative alternative

theories of liability to successfully obtain an early, pre-discovery settlement of

$10.4 million. The Court complimented Labaton Sucharow on its ability to obtain

a substantial benefit for the Class in such an effective manner.

• Labaton Sucharow served as Lead Counsel in In re HCC Insurance Holdings,

Inc. Securities Litigation, Civ. No. 4:07-cv-801 (S.D. Tex.), a case alleging that

certain of HCC’s current and former officers and directors improperly backdated

the Company’s stock option grants and made materially false and misleading

statements to the public concerning the Company’s financial results, option grant

policies and accounting, causing damages to investors. On June 17, 2008, the

Court granted final approval of the $10 million settlement.

• In In re Adelphia Communications Corp. Securities & Derivative

Litigation, Civ. No. 03 MD 1529 (LMM) (S.D.N.Y.), Labaton Sucharow

represents the New York City Employees’ Retirement System (and certain other

New York City pension funds) and the Division of Investment of the New Jersey

Department of the Treasury in separate individual actions against Adelphia’s

officers, auditors, underwriters, and lawyers. To date, Labaton Sucharow has

fully resolved certain of the claims brought by New Jersey and New York City for

amounts that significantly exceed the percentage of damages recovered by the

Class. New Jersey and New York City continue to prosecute their claims against

the remaining defendants.

-17- Case 8:10-cv-01327-JST -RNB Document 59-2 Filed 09/19/11 Page 22 of 65 Page ID #:1201

• In STI Classic Funds v. Bollinger Industries, Inc., No. 96-CV-0823-R (N.D.

Tex.), Labaton Sucharow commenced related suits in both state and federal courts

in Texas on behalf of STI Classic Funds and STI Classic Sunbelt Equity Fund,

affiliates of the SunTrust Bank. As a result of Labaton Sucharow’s efforts, the

class of Bollinger Industries, Inc. investors on whose behalf the bank sued

obtained the maximum recovery possible from the individual defendants and a

substantial recovery from the underwriter defendants. Notwithstanding a strongly

unfavorable trend in the law in the State of Texas, and strong opposition by the

remaining accountant firm defendant, Labaton Sucharow has obtained class

certification and continues to prosecute the case against that firm.

• In Rosengarten v. International Telephone & Telegraph Corp., Civ. No.

76-1249 (N.D.N.Y.), Judge Morris Lasker noted that the Firm “served the

corporation and its stockholders with professional competence as well as

admirable intelligence, imagination and tenacity.”

• In In re Prudential-Bache Energy Income Partnerships Securities

Litigation, MDL No. 888, an action in which Labaton Sucharow served on the

Executive Committee of Plaintiffs’ Counsel, Judge Marcel Livaudais, Jr., of the

United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, observed that:

Counsel were all experienced, possessed high professional reputations and were known for their abilities. Their cooperative effort in efficiently bringing this litigation to a successful conclusion is the best indicator of their experience and ability ....

The Executive Committee is comprised of law firms with national reputations in the prosecution of securities class action and derivative litigation. The biographical summaries submitted by each member of the Executive Committee attest to the

-18- Case 8:10-cv-01327-JST -RNB Document 59-2 Filed 09/19/11 Page 23 of 65 Page ID #:1202

accumulated experience and record of success these firms have compiled.

Among the institutional investor clients Labaton Sucharow represents and advises are:

Arkansas Teacher Retirement System Baltimore County Retirement System Bristol County Retirement Board California Public Employees’ Retirement System City of New Orleans Employees’ Retirement System Connecticut Retirement Plans & Trust Funds Division of Investment of the New Jersey Department of the Treasury Doubloon Capital LLC Genesee County Employees’ Retirement System Illinois Municipal Retirement Fund Louisiana Municipal Police Employees’ Retirement System Teachers’ Retirement System of Louisiana Macomb County Employees Retirement System Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority Michigan Retirement Systems Middlesex Retirement Board Mississippi Public Employees’ Retirement System New York City Pension Funds New York State Common Retirement Fund Norfolk County Retirement System Office of the Ohio Attorney General and several of its Retirement Systems Oklahoma Firefighters Pension and Retirement System Plymouth County Retirement System Office of the New Mexico Attorney General and several of its Retirement Systems Rhode Island State Investment Commission San Francisco Employees’ Retirement System State of Oregon Public Employees’ Retirement System State of Wisconsin Investment Board State-Boston Retirement System

-19- Case 8:10-cv-01327-JST -RNB Document 59-2 Filed 09/19/11 Page 24 of 65 Page ID #:1203

Steamship Trade Association/International Longshoremen’s Association Virginia Retirement Systems

COMMENTS ABOUT OUR FIRM BY THE COURTS

Many federal judges have commented favorably on the Firm’s expertise and results

achieved in securities class action litigation. Judge John E. Sprizzo complimented the Firm’s

work in In re Revlon Pension Plan Litigation, Civ. No. 91-4996 (JES) (S.D.N.Y.). In granting

final approval to the settlement, Judge Sprizzo stated that “[t]he recovery is all they could have

gotten if they had been successful. I have probably never seen a better result for the class than

you have gotten here.”

Labaton Sucharow was a member of the Executive Committee of Plaintiffs’ Counsel in

In re PaineWebber Limited Partnerships Litigation, Master File No. 94 Civ. 8547 (SHS). In

approving a class-wide settlement valued at $200 million, Judge Sidney H. Stein of the Southern

District of New York stated:

The Court, having had the opportunity to observe first hand the quality of Class Counsel’s representation during this litigation, finds that Class Counsel’s representation of the Class has been of high caliber in conferences, in oral arguments and in work product.

Judge Lechner, presiding over the $15 million settlement in In re Computron Software

Inc. Securities Class Action Litigation, Civ. No. 96-1911 (AJL) (D.N.J.), where Labaton

Sucharow served as Co-Lead Counsel, commented that

I think it’s a terrific effort in all of the parties involved ..., and the co-lead firms ... I think just did a terrific job.

You [co-lead counsel and] Mr. Plasse, just did terrific work in the case, in putting it all together ....

-20- Case 8:10-cv-01327-JST -RNB Document 59-2 Filed 09/19/11 Page 25 of 65 Page ID #:1204

In Middlesex County Retirement System v. Monster Worldwide, Inc., No. 07-cv-2237

(S.D.N.Y.), Judge Rakoff appointed Labaton Sucharow as Lead Counsel, stating that “the

Labaton firm is very well known to courts for the excellence of its representation.”

In addition, Judge Rakoff commented during a final approval hearing that “the quality of

the representation was superb” and “[this case is a] good example of how [the] securities class

action device serves laudatory public purposes.”

During a fairness hearing in the In re American Tower Corporation Securities Litigation,

No. 06-CV-10933 (MLW) (D. Mass.), Chief Judge Mark L. Wolf stated:

“[t]he attorneys have brought to this case considerable experience and skill as well as energy. Mr. Goldsmith has reminded me of that with his performance today and he maybe educated me to understand it better.”

PRO BONO ACTIVITIES

Our attorneys devote substantial time to pro bono activities. Many of our attorneys

participated in the Election Protection Program sponsored in 2004 by the Lawyers Committee

for Civil Rights Under the Law to ensure that every voter could vote and every vote would count.

In addition, the Firm’s attorneys devote their time to pro bono activities in the fields of the arts,

foundations, education, and health and welfare issues.

WOMEN’S INITIATIVE AND MINORITY SCHOLARSHIP

Labaton Sucharow founded a Women’s Initiative to reflect the Firm’s commitment to the

advancement of women professionals. The goal of the initiative is to bring professional women

together to collectively advance women’s influence in business. Each event showcases a

successful woman role model as a guest speaker. We actively discuss our respective business

initiatives and hear the guest speaker’s strategies for success. Labaton Sucharow mentors and

-21- Case 8:10-cv-01327-JST -RNB Document 59-2 Filed 09/19/11 Page 26 of 65 Page ID #:1205

promotes the professional achievements of the young women in our ranks and others who join us

for events. The Firm also is a member of the National Association of Women Lawyers

(NAWL). For more information regarding Labaton Sucharow’s Women’s Initiative, please visit

http://www.labaton.com/en/about/women/Womens-Initiative.cfm

Further, as part of an effort to increase attorney diversity, the Firm has established an

annual scholarship program at Brooklyn Law School that provides a $5,000 scholarship and a

summer associate position at the Firm to a member of a minority group. Currently, there are two

minority associates employed by Labaton Sucharow who were recipients of this scholarship.

ATTORNEYS

Among the attorneys at Labaton Sucharow who are involved in the prosecution of

securities actions are partners Edward Labaton, Lawrence A. Sucharow, Martis Alex, Mark S.

Arisohn, Christine S. Azar, Eric J. Belfi, Joel H. Bernstein, Javier Bleichmar, Thomas A. Dubbs,

Joseph A. Fonti, Jonathan Gardner, David J. Goldsmith, Louis Gottlieb, James W. Johnson,

Christopher J. Keller, Christopher J. McDonald, Jonathan M. Plasse, Hollis L. Salzman, Ira A.

Schochet, Michael W. Stocker and Jordan A. Thomas; senior counsel Richard T. Joffe and

Joseph V. Sternberg; and of counsel attorneys Dominic J. Auld, Mark S. Goldman, Terri

Goldstone, Barry M. Okun, Brian D. Penny, Paul Scarlato, and Nicole M. Zeiss. A short

description of the qualifications and accomplishments of each follows.

LAWRENCE A. SUCHAROW, CHAIRMAN [email protected]

Lawrence A. Sucharow, a nationally recognized leader of the securities class action bar,

is the chairman of Labaton Sucharow. In this capacity, he participates in developing the

-22- Case 8:10-cv-01327-JST -RNB Document 59-2 Filed 09/19/11 Page 27 of 65 Page ID #:1206

litigation and settlement strategies for many of the class action cases Labaton Sucharow

prosecutes.

For more than three decades, Mr. Sucharow has devoted his practice to counseling clients

and prosecuting cases on complex issues involving securities, antitrust, business transaction,

product liability, and other class actions. Mr. Sucharow has successfully recovered more than

$1 billion on behalf of institutional investors such as state, city, county and union pension funds,

shareholders of public companies, bondholders, purchasers of limited partnership interests,

purchasers of consumer products and individual investors.

Mr. Sucharow obtained $225 million in savings for the class of In re CNL Resorts, Inc.

Securities Litigation. In other recently settled actions, Mr. Sucharow undertook a lead role in

obtaining benefits for class members of $200 million (In re Paine Webber Incorporated Limited

Partnerships Litigation); $110 million partial settlement (In re Prudential Securities

Incorporated Limited Partnerships Litigation); $91 million (In re Prudential Bache Energy

Income Partnerships Securities Litigation); and more than $92 million (Shea v. New York Life

Insurance Company). In approving the Prudential settlement, Judge Milton Pollack referred to

the efforts of plaintiffs’ counsel as “Herculean,” stating: “...this case represents a unique

recovery – a recovery that does honor to every one of the lawyers on your side of the case.”

In addition, in 2002 Mr. Sucharow served as Co-Trial Counsel in a six-week trial of a

federal securities law claim on behalf of 18,000 passive investors in the Real Estate Associates

limited partnerships. That trial resulted in an unprecedented $182 million jury verdict.

Mr. Sucharow is the author of “Schapiro Takes Right Path On Market Reform, But

Auditors, Lawyers and Shareholders Need Better Tools,” Pensions & Investments, June 1, 2009.

He is the co-author of “How Courts Analyze Guilty Pleas and Government Investigations When

-23- Case 8:10-cv-01327-JST -RNB Document 59-2 Filed 09/19/11 Page 28 of 65 Page ID #:1207

Considering the Plausibility of an Antitrust Conspiracy After Twombly,” BNA’s Class Action

Litigation Report, March 26, 2010; “Death of the Worldwide Class?,” BNA’s Securities

Regulation & Law Report, June 22, 2009, and “Executive Compensation: Despite reforms, pay is

less transparent and shareholder-friendly than in the past,” New York Law Journal, March 20,

2008.

Mr. Sucharow is a member of the Federal Bar Council’s Committee on Second Circuit

Courts, and the Federal Courts Committee of the New York County Lawyers’ Association. He is

also a member of the Securities Law Committee of the New Jersey State Bar Association and

was the founding chairman of the Class Action Committee of the Commercial and Federal

Litigation Section of the New York State Bar Association from 1988-1994. He was honored by

his peers by his election to serve a two-year term as President of the National Association of

Shareholder and Consumer Attorneys (NASCAT), a membership organization of approximately

100 law firms which practice complex civil litigation including class actions.

Mr. Sucharow earned a B.B.A., cum laude, from Baruch School of the City College of

the City University of New York in 1971 and a J.D., cum laude, from Brooklyn Law School in

1975.

Mr. Sucharow is admitted to practice in New York, New Jersey, and Arizona, as well as

before the United States District Courts for the Southern and Eastern Districts of New York, the

District of New Jersey, the District of Arizona, the United States Court of Appeals for the

Second Circuit, and the United States Supreme Court.

As a result of his career accomplishments, Mr. Sucharow is one of only four plaintiff’s

securities lawyers in the United States independently selected by Chambers and Partners USA to

be in its highest category, Band 1, (Plaintiffs Securities Class Actions). In August 2010, he was

-24- Case 8:10-cv-01327-JST -RNB Document 59-2 Filed 09/19/11 Page 29 of 65 Page ID #:1208

recognized by Law360 as one the ten Most Admired Securities Attorneys in the United States.

Mr. Sucharow has received a rating of AV from the publishers of the Martindale-Hubbell

directory.

MARTIS ALEX, PARTNER [email protected]

Martis Alex concentrates her practice on prosecuting complex securities fraud cases on

behalf of institutional investors. She has extensive experience managing complex nationwide

litigation, including securities class actions as well as product liability and consumer fraud

litigation. She has successfully represented investors and consumers in cases that achieved

cumulative recoveries of hundreds of millions of dollars for plaintiffs.

Ms. Alex was an integral part of the team that successfully litigated In re Bristol Myers

Squibb Securities Litigation, where Labaton Sucharow was able to secure a $185 million

settlement on behalf of investors, as well as meaningful corporate governance reforms that will

affect future consumers and investors alike. She is currently litigating In re American

International Group, Inc. Securities Litigation, a major securities class action brought by Lead

Plaintiff Ohio (comprised of several of Ohio’s retirement systems). Ms. Alex was Lead Trial

Counsel and Chair of the Executive Committee in Zenith Laboratories Securities Litigation, a

federal securities fraud class action which settled during trial, and achieved a significant recovery

for investors. She also was Chair of the Plaintiffs’ Steering Committee in Napp Technologies

Litigation, where Labaton Sucharow won substantial recoveries for families and firefighters

injured in a chemical plant explosion.

Ms. Alex served as Co-Lead Counsel or in a leadership role in several securities class

actions that achieved substantial awards for investors, including Cadence Design Securities

Litigation, Halsey Drug Securities Litigation, Slavin v. Morgan Stanley, Lubliner v. Maxtor

-25- Case 8:10-cv-01327-JST -RNB Document 59-2 Filed 09/19/11 Page 30 of 65 Page ID #:1209

Corp. and Baden v. Northwestern Steel and Wire. She also served on the Executive Committee

or in other leadership roles in national product liability actions against the manufacturers of

breast implants, orthopedic bone screws, and atrial pacemakers, and was a member of the

Plaintiffs’ Legal Committee in the national litigation against the tobacco companies.

Ms. Alex is the author of “Women in the Law: Many Mentors, Many Lessons: A Baby

Boomer’s Perspective,” New York Law Journal, November 8, 2010; and the co-author of “Role

of the Event Study in Loss Causation Analysis,” New York Law Journal, August 20, 2009.

Prior to entering private practice, Ms. Alex was a trial lawyer with the Sacramento,

California District Attorney’s Office. She is a frequent speaker at national conferences on

product liability and securities fraud litigation, and is a recipient of the American College of

Trial Lawyers’ Award for Excellence in Advocacy.

Ms. Alex earned a J.D. from McGeorge Law School and a Masters Degree in Psychology

from California State College. She is admitted to practice in New York, California, the United

States Supreme Court, and in Federal Courts in several jurisdictions.

MARK S. ARISOHN, PARTNER [email protected]

Mark S. Arisohn concentrates his practice on prosecuting complex securities fraud cases

on behalf of institutional investors.

For the past 33 years, Mr. Arisohn specialized in complex criminal and civil litigation

with an emphasis on white collar criminal matters. He has appeared in the state and federal

courts nationwide, and appeared before the United States Supreme Court in the landmark insider

trading case of Chiarella v. United States.

Mr. Arisohn brings his extensive trial experience to the prosecution of securities class

actions. He has defended individuals and corporations accused of bank fraud, mail and wire

-26- Case 8:10-cv-01327-JST -RNB Document 59-2 Filed 09/19/11 Page 31 of 65 Page ID #:1210

fraud, securities fraud and RICO violations. He has represented public officials, individuals and

companies in the construction and securities industries as well as professionals accused of

regulatory offenses and professional misconduct. He also has appeared as trial counsel for both

plaintiffs and defendants in civil fraud matters and corporate and business commercial matters,

including shareholder litigation, breach of contract claims, and cases involving such business

torts as unfair competition and misappropriation of trade secrets.

A prominent trial lawyer, Mr. Arisohn has also authored numerous articles including

“Electronic Eavesdropping,” New York Criminal Practice, LEXIS - Matthew Bender, 2005;

“Criminal Evidence,” New York Criminal Practice, Matthew Bender, 1986; and “Evidence,”

New York Criminal Practice, Matthew Bender, 1987. He was a contributing author of Business

Crime, Matthew Bender, 1981.

Mr. Arisohn is an active member of the Association of the Bar of the City of New York

and has served on its Judiciary Committee, the Committee on Criminal Courts, Law and

Procedure, the Committee on Superior Courts and the Committee on Professional Discipline. He

serves as a mediator for the Complaint Mediation Panel of the Association of the Bar of the City

of New York and as a hearing examiner for the New York State Commission on Judicial

Conduct.

He earned his B.S. and M.S. degrees from Cornell University in 1968 and 1969 and

received his J.D. from Columbia University School of Law in 1972.

Mr. Arisohn is admitted to practice in New York and the District of Columbia as well as

before the United States District Courts for the Southern, Eastern and Northern Districts of New

York; the Northern District of Texas; the Northern District of California; the United States Court

of Appeals for the Second Circuit; and the United States Supreme Court.

-27- Case 8:10-cv-01327-JST -RNB Document 59-2 Filed 09/19/11 Page 32 of 65 Page ID #:1211

Mr. Arisohn has received a rating of AV from the publishers of the Martindale-Hubbell

directory.

CHRISTINE S. AZAR, PARTNER [email protected]

A seasoned litigator of investor rights, Christine S. Azar is the partner in charge of

Labaton Sucharow LLP’s Delaware office.

Prior to joining Labaton Sucharow, Ms. Azar practiced corporate litigation at Blank

Rome LLP with a primary focus on corporate governance, shareholders’ rights and other

disputes in courts nationwide as well as in the Delaware Court of Chancery.

Ms. Azar began her career at Grant & Eisenhofer, P.A., where she specialized in the

representation of institutional investors in complex federal and state securities and corporate

governance actions.

Ms. Azar is the co-author of the following articles: “M&A on the rise - and litigation may

well follow,” The National Law Journal, April 4, 2011; “Running on Empty,” The Deal

Magazine, February 18, 2011; “Appointment of Lead Plaintiff Under the Private Securities

Litigation Reform Act: Update 2001”, 1269 PLI/Corp 689 (September 2001); and “Appointment

of Lead Plaintiff Under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act: Update 2000”, 199

PLI/Corp 455 (September 2000).

Ms. Azar earned a B.S., cum laude, from James Madison University in 1988. She earned

a J.D., cum laude, from the University of Notre Dame Law School in 1991.

Ms. Azar is admitted to practice in Delaware, New Jersey and Pennsylvania.

ERIC J. BELFI, PARTNER [email protected]

Eric J. Belfi is an accomplished litigator in a broad range of commercial matters. He

concentrates his practice in the investigation and initiation of securities and shareholder class

-28- Case 8:10-cv-01327-JST -RNB Document 59-2 Filed 09/19/11 Page 33 of 65 Page ID #:1212

actions, with an emphasis on the representation of major international and domestic pension

funds and other institutional investors.

Prior to entering private practice, Mr. Belfi served as an Assistant Attorney General for

the State of New York and an Assistant District Attorney for the County of Westchester. As a

prosecutor, Mr. Belfi investigated and prosecuted numerous white-collar criminal cases,

including securities law violations and environmental crimes. In this capacity, he presented

hundreds of cases to the grand jury and obtained numerous felony convictions after jury trials.

Mr. Belfi is a regular speaker and author on issues involving shareholder litigation,

particularly as it relates to international institutional investors. He co-authored The

Proportionate Trading Model: Real Science or Junk Science? 52 Cleveland St. L. Rev. 391

(2004-05) and “International Strategic Partnerships to Prosecute Securities Class Actions,”

Investment & Pensions Europe. Over the last several years, Mr. Belfi has served as a panelist at

programs on U.S. class actions in numerous European countries. He also participated in a panel

discussion regarding socially responsible investments for public pension funds during the New

England Public Employees’ Retirement Systems Forum.

Mr. Belfi received a B.A. from Georgetown University in 1992 and a J.D. from St. John’s

University School of Law in 1995. He is an associate prosecutor for the Village of New Hyde

Park, and is also a member of the Federal Bar Council and the Association of the Bar of the City

of New York.

Mr. Belfi is admitted to practice in New York as well as before the United States District

Courts for the Southern and Eastern Districts of New York, the Eastern District of Michigan, the

District of Colorado, the District of Nebraska, and the Eastern District of Wisconsin.

-29- Case 8:10-cv-01327-JST -RNB Document 59-2 Filed 09/19/11 Page 34 of 65 Page ID #:1213

JOEL H. BERNSTEIN, PARTNER [email protected]

With more than 30 years’ experience in the area of complex litigation, Joel H. Bernstein

concentrates his practice in the protection of investors who have been victimized by securities

fraud and breach of fiduciary duty. His expertise in the area of shareholder litigation has resulted

in the recovery of hundred of millions of dollars in damages to wronged investors.

Mr. Bernstein advises numerous large public pension funds, hedge funds, other

institutional investors and individual investors with respect to securities litigation in the federal

and state courts as well as in arbitration proceedings before the New York Stock Exchange, the

National Association of Securities Dealers and other self-regulatory organizations.

Mr. Bernstein has played a central role in numerous high profile cases, including In re

Paine Webber Incorporated Limited Partnerships Litigation, $200 million settlement; In re

Prudential Securities Incorporated Limited Partnerships Litigation, $130 million settlement; In

re Prudential Bache Energy Income Partnerships Securities Litigation, $91 million settlement;

Shea v. New York Life Insurance Company, $92 million settlement; and, Saunders et al. v.

Gardner, $10 million -- then the largest punitive damage award in the history of the NASD.

Most recently, Mr. Bernstein was instrumental in securing a $117.5 million settlement in In re

Mercury Interactive Securities Litigation, a figure representing one of the largest known

settlements or judgments in a securities fraud litigation based upon options backdating.

A leading figure in his area of practice, Mr. Bernstein is frequently sought out by the

press to comment on securities law and also has authored numerous articles on related issues,

including “Stand Up to Your Stockbroker, Your Rights As An Investor.” He is a member of the

American Bar Association and the New York County Lawyers’ Association.

Mr. Bernstein earned a J.D. from Brooklyn Law School in 1975 and received his

undergraduate degree from Queens College in 1971.

-30- Case 8:10-cv-01327-JST -RNB Document 59-2 Filed 09/19/11 Page 35 of 65 Page ID #:1214

He is admitted to practice in New York as well as before the United States District Courts

for the Southern and Eastern Districts of New York, and the United States Courts of Appeals for

the Second and Third Circuits. He is a member of the American Bar Association and the New

York County Lawyers’ Association.

Mr. Bernstein has received a rating of AV from the publishers of the Martindale-Hubbell

directory.

JA VIER BLEICHMAR, PARTNER [email protected]

Javier Bleichmar concentrates his practice on prosecuting complex securities fraud cases

on behalf of institutional investors. Since joining Labaton Sucharow, Mr. Bleichmar was

instrumental in securing a $77 million settlement in the In re St. Paul Travelers Securities

Litigation II on behalf of the Lead Plaintiff, the Educational Retirement Board of New Mexico.

Most recently, he has been a member of the team prosecuting securities class actions against

British Petroleum and The Bear Stearns Companies, Inc.

Mr. Bleichmar is very active in educating European institutional investors on developing

trends in the law, particularly the ability of international investors to participate in securities

class actions in the United States. Through these efforts, many of Mr. Bleichmar’s European

clients were able to join the Foundation representing investors in the first securities class action

settlement under a recently enacted Dutch statute against Royal Dutch Shell.

Prior to joining Labaton Sucharow, Mr. Bleichmar practiced securities litigation at

Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP, where he prosecuted securities actions on behalf

of institutional investors. He was actively involved in the In re Williams Securities Litigation,

which resulted in a $311 million settlement, as well as securities cases involving Lucent

Technologies, Inc., Conseco, Inc. and Biovail Corp.

-31- Case 8:10-cv-01327-JST -RNB Document 59-2 Filed 09/19/11 Page 36 of 65 Page ID #:1215

Mr. Bleichmar graduated from Phillips Academy, Andover in 1988, earned a B.A. from

the University of Pennsylvania in 1992 and a J.D. from Columbia University Law School in

1998. He was a managing editor of the Journal of Law and Social Problems. Additionally, he

was a Harlan Fiske Stone Scholar. As a law student, Mr. Bleichmar served as a law clerk to the

Honorable Denny Chin, United States District Court Judge for the Southern District of New

York.

After law school, Mr. Bleichmar authored the article “Deportation As Punishment: A

Historical Analysis of the British Practice of Banishment and Its Impact on Modern

Constitutional Law,” 14 Georgetown Immigration Law Journal 115 (1999).

Mr. Bleichmar is admitted to practice in New York as well as before the following United

States District Courts: the Southern and Eastern Districts of New York, the Northern District of

Oklahoma, the Western District of Washington, the Southern District of Florida, the Eastern

District of Missouri, and the Northern District of Illinois. He also is admitted to practice before

the United States Court of Appeals for the Second, Eighth and Ninth Circuits.

Mr. Bleichmar is a native Spanish speaker and fluent in French.

THOMAS A. D UBBS, PARTNER [email protected]

Thomas A. Dubbs specializes in the representation of institutional investors including

pension funds in securities fraud and other types of litigation. A recognized leader in the field,

Mr. Dubbs represented the first major private institutional investor to become a lead plaintiff in a

class action under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act.

Mr. Dubbs currently serves as Lead or Co-Lead Counsel in federal securities class actions

against AIG, Wellcare and Bear Stearns, among others.

-32- Case 8:10-cv-01327-JST -RNB Document 59-2 Filed 09/19/11 Page 37 of 65 Page ID #:1216

Most recently, Mr. Dubbs has played a central role in numerous high profile cases,

including In re HealthSouth Securities Litigation, $804.5 million settlement; In re Broadcom

Corp. Securities Litigation, $160.5 million settlement; In re Vesta Insurance Group, Inc.

Securities Litigation, $79 million settlement; and In re St. Paul Travelers II Securities Litigation,

$77 million settlement.

Representing an affiliate of the Amalgamated Bank, the largest labor-owned bank in the

United States, a Labaton Sucharow team led by Mr. Dubbs successfully litigated a class action

against Bristol-Myers Squibb, which resulted in a settlement of $185 million and major corporate

governance reforms.

Mr. Dubbs is the author of “Shortsighted?,” Investment Dealers’ Digest, May 29, 2009;

“A Scotch Verdict on ‘Circularity’ and Other Issues,” 2009 Wis. L. Rev. 455 n.2 (2009); and

several columns in UK-wide pensions publications focusing on securities class actions and

corporate governance. He also is the co-author of the following articles: “In Debt Crisis, An

Arbitration Alternative,” The National Law Journal, March 16, 2009; “The Impact of the

LaPerriere Decision: Parent Companies Face Liability,” Directors Monthly, February 1, 2009;

“Auditor Liability in the Wake of the Subprime Meltdown,” BNA’s Accounting Policy &

Practice Report, November 14, 2009; and “US Focus: Time for Action,” Legal Week, April 17,

2008.

Mr. Dubbs frequently lectures to institutional investors and other groups such as the

Government Finance Officers Association, the National Conference on Public Employee

Retirement Systems and the Council of Institutional Investors.

Prior to joining Labaton Sucharow, Mr. Dubbs was Senior Vice President & Senior

Litigation Counsel for Kidder, Peabody & Co. Incorporated where he represented the firm in

-33- Case 8:10-cv-01327-JST -RNB Document 59-2 Filed 09/19/11 Page 38 of 65 Page ID #:1217

many class actions, including the First Executive and Orange County litigations. Before joining

Kidder, Mr. Dubbs was head of the litigation department at Hall, McNicol, Hamilton & Clark,

where he was the principal partner representing Thomson McKinnon Securities Inc. in litigation

matters including class actions such as the Petro Lewis and Baldwin United litigations.

Mr. Dubbs earned a B.A. and a J.D. from the University of Wisconsin-Madison in 1969

and 1974, respectively. He received an M.A. from the Fletcher School of Law & Diplomacy,

Tufts University in 1971.

Mr. Dubbs is admitted to practice in New York as well as before the United States

District Court for the Southern District of New York; the United States Courts of Appeals for the

Second, Ninth and Eleventh Circuits; and the United States Supreme Court. He is a member of

the New York State Bar Association, the Association of the Bar of the City of New York, and the

American Society of International Law.

Mr. Dubbs has been recognized by The National Law Journal, Chambers and Partners

USA and the Lawdragon 500. Mr. Dubbs has received a rating of AV from the publishers of the

Martindale-Hubbell directory.

JOSEPH A. FONTI, PARTNER [email protected]

Joseph A. Fonti concentrates his practice on prosecuting complex securities fraud cases

on behalf of institutional investors. Currently, Mr. Fonti is actively involved in prosecuting In re

HealthSouth Securities Litigation, In re Broadcom Corp. Securities Litigation, In re Celestica

Inc. Securities Litigation and Caisse de Depot du Quebec v. Vivendi et al.

Mr. Fonti has successfully litigated complex civil and regulatory securities matters,

including obtaining a favorable judgment after trial. Prior to joining Labaton Sucharow, Mr.

Fonti was an attorney at Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP, where he prosecuted

-34- Case 8:10-cv-01327-JST -RNB Document 59-2 Filed 09/19/11 Page 39 of 65 Page ID #:1218

securities class actions on behalf of institutional investors, including class actions involving

WorldCom, Bristol-Myers, Omnicom, Biovail, and the mutual fund industry scandal. Mr.

Fonti’s work on these cases contributed to historic recoveries for shareholders, including the

$6.15 billion recovery in the WorldCom litigation and the $300 million recovery in the Bristol-

Myers litigation, alleging accounting fraud and improper inventory practices.

Mr. Fonti began his legal career at Sullivan & Cromwell, where he represented several

Fortune 500 corporations, focusing on securities matters and domestic and international

commercial law. Mr. Fonti also represented clients in complex investigations conducted by

federal regulators, including the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. Over the past

several years, he has represented victims of domestic violence in affiliation with inMotion, an

organization that provides pro bono legal services to indigent women.

Mr. Fonti earned a B.A., cum laude, from New York University in 1996 and a J.D. from

New York University School of Law in 1999, where he was active in the Marden Moot Court

Competition and served as a Student Senator-at-Large of the NYU Senate. As a law student, he

served as a law clerk to the Honorable David Trager, United States District Court Judge for the

Eastern District of New York.

Mr. Fonti is admitted to practice in New York, as well as before the United States District

Courts for the Southern and Eastern Districts of New York, the United States Courts of Appeals

for the Ninth and Eleventh Circuits and the United States Supreme Court.

JONATHAN GARDNER, PARTNER [email protected]

Jonathan Gardner concentrates his practice on prosecuting complex securities fraud cases

on behalf of institutional investors. Mr. Gardner has participated in many of the Firm’s

significant matters including In re MF Global Securities Litigation, which resulted in a recovery

-35- Case 8:10-cv-01327-JST -RNB Document 59-2 Filed 09/19/11 Page 40 of 65 Page ID #:1219

of $90 million for investors. Mr. Gardner also represented the Successor Liquidating Trustee of

Lipper Convertibles, a convertible bond hedge fund, in an action against the Fund’s former

independent auditor and a member of the Fund’s general partner as well as numerous former

limited partners who received excess distributions. He has successfully recovered over $5.2

million for the Successor Liquidating Trustee from overwithdrawn limited partners and $29.9

million from the former auditor.

Mr. Gardner has been responsible for prosecuting several of the Firm’s options

backdating cases, including In re Monster Worldwide, Inc. Securities Litigation ($47.5 million

settlement), In re SafeNet, Inc. Securities Litigation ($25 million settlement), and In re Semtech

Securities Litigation ($20 million settlement). He also was involved in In re Mercury Interactive

Corp. Securities Litigation, which settled for $117.5 million, a figure representing one of the

largest known settlements or judgments in a securities fraud litigation based upon options

backdating.

In 2005, Mr. Gardner litigated claims of securities fraud, common law fraud, breach of

contract, defamation, and civil RICO violations against CFI Mortgage Inc. and its principals in

federal court. Following a five-day jury trial, Mr. Gardner secured a verdict of over $50 million.

Prior to practicing securities litigation, Mr. Gardner was actively involved in litigating all

aspects of commercial and business disputes from pre-dispute investigation and settlement to

trials and appeals before state and federal courts, as well as arbitration and mediation forums.

Mr. Gardner is the co-author of “Pre-Confirmation Remedies to Assure Collection of

Arbitration Rewards,” New York Law Journal, October 12, 2010.

Mr. Gardner earned a B.S.B.A. from American University in 1987 and a J.D. from St.

John’s University Law School in 1990.

-36- Case 8:10-cv-01327-JST -RNB Document 59-2 Filed 09/19/11 Page 41 of 65 Page ID #:1220

Mr. Gardner is admitted to practice in New York as well as before the United States

District Courts for the Southern and Eastern Districts of New York, the Eastern District of

Wisconsin, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. He is a member of the

New York State Bar Association and the Association of the Bar of the City of New York.

DAVID J. GOLDSMITH, PARTNER [email protected]

David J. Goldsmith has more than ten years of experience representing institutional and

individual investors in securities litigation.

Most recently, Mr. Goldsmith was an integral member of the team representing the New

York State Common Retirement Fund and the New York City Pension Funds as lead plaintiffs in

In re Countrywide Financial Corporation Securities Litigation. The $624 million settlement is

one of the largest securities fraud settlements in U.S. history.

Mr. Goldsmith also represents the Genesee County (Mich.) Employees' Retirement

System as a lead plaintiff in several securities matters including actions against Spectranetics

Corporation, Merck & Co., and CBeyond, Inc., and previously against Transaction Systems

Architects, Inc. He was instrumental in achieving a significant settlement in an action alleging

stock option backdating at American Tower Corporation, and was a member of the team

representing the Connecticut Retirement Plans and Trust Funds in an action against Waste

Management, Inc. that resulted in one of the largest securities class action settlements ever

achieved up to that time.

Mr. Goldsmith played a key role in a series of cases alleging that mutual funds sold by

Van Kampen, Morgan Stanley and Eaton Vance defrauded investors by overpricing senior loan

interests. Mr. Goldsmith obtained a decision in one of these actions excluding before trial

certain opinions of a nationally recognized economist who regularly serves as a defense expert in

-37- Case 8:10-cv-01327-JST -RNB Document 59-2 Filed 09/19/11 Page 42 of 65 Page ID #:1221

such cases. In 2001, Mr. Goldsmith obtained one of the earliest decisions finding that a class

action had been improperly removed under the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act of

1998.

Mr. Goldsmith has lectured frequently on class actions and securities litigation for

continuing legal education programs and investment symposia.

Mr. Goldsmith earned B.A. and M.A. degrees from the University of Pennsylvania. He

received a J.D. from the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law, where he was managing editor of

the Cardozo Arts & Entertainment Law Journal. Mr. Goldsmith served as a judicial intern to the

Honorable Michael B. Mukasey, then a United States District Judge for the Southern District of

New York.

He is admitted to practice in New York and New Jersey as well as before the United

States District Courts for the Southern and Eastern Districts of New York; the District of New

Jersey; the District of Colorado, the Western District of Michigan; and the United States Courts

of Appeals for the First, Second, Fifth, Eighth and Ninth Circuits.

LOUIS GOTTLIEB, PARTNER [email protected]

Lou Gottlieb has successfully represented institutional and individual investors in

numerous securities and consumer class action cases, resulting in cumulative settlements well in

excess of $500 million.

Mr. Gottlieb was an integral part of the Firm’s representation of the Connecticut

Retirement Plans and Trust Funds in In re Waste Management, Inc. Securities Litigation, which

resulted in a $457 million settlement, one of the largest settlements ever achieved in a securities

class action. The settlement also included corporate governance enhancements, including an

agreement by management to support a campaign to obtain shareholder approval of a resolution

-38- Case 8:10-cv-01327-JST -RNB Document 59-2 Filed 09/19/11 Page 43 of 65 Page ID #:1222

to declassify its board of directors, and a resolution to encourage and safeguard whistleblowers

among the company’s employees.

Mr. Gottlieb has led litigation teams in the Metromedia Fiber Networks, Maxim

Pharmaceuticals, and PriceSmart securities fraud class action litigations as well as a consumer

breach of contract class action against New York Life Annuities. He is also helping to lead

major class action cases against the company and related defendants in In re American

International Group Inc. Securities Litigation, In re Royal Bank of Scotland Group plc Securities

Litigation, and in In re Satyam Computer Services, Ltd. Securities Litigation.

Mr. Gottlieb has made presentations on punitive damages at Federal Bar Association

meetings and has often spoken on securities class actions for institutional investors.

Mr. Gottlieb graduated first in his class from St. John’s School of Law. Prior to joining

Labaton Sucharow, he clerked for the Hon. Leonard B. Wexler of the Eastern District of New

York, and he was a litigation associate with Skadden Arps Slate Meagher & Flom. He has also

enjoyed a successful career as a public school teacher and as a restaurateur.

Mr. Gottlieb is admitted to practice in New York and Connecticut as well as before the

United States District Courts for the Southern and Eastern Districts of New York, and the United

States Courts of Appeals for the Fifth and Seventh Circuits.

JAMES W. JOHNSON, PARTNER [email protected]

James W. Johnson specializes in complex litigation, with primary emphasis on class

actions involving securities fraud.

Mr. Johnson has successfully litigated a number of high profile securities and RICO class

actions, including: In re Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. Securities Litigation, in which the Court, after

approving a settlement of $185 million coupled with significant corporate governance reforms,

-39- Case 8:10-cv-01327-JST -RNB Document 59-2 Filed 09/19/11 Page 44 of 65 Page ID #:1223

recognized plaintiffs’ counsel as “extremely skilled and efficient”; In re HealthSouth Corp.

Securities Litigation, which resulted in a total settlement of $804.5 million; In re Vesta Insurance

Group, Inc. Securities Litigation, which resulted in a recovery of almost $80 million for the

plaintiff class; and Murphy v. Perelman, which, along with a companion federal action, In re

National Health Laboratories, Inc. Securities Litigation, brought by Co-Counsel, resulted in a

recovery of $80 million. In County of Suffolk v. Long Island Lightning Co., Mr. Johnson

represented the plaintiff in a RICO class action, securing a jury verdict after a two-month trial,

which resulted in a $400 million settlement. The Second Circuit, in awarding attorneys’ fees to

Plaintiff, quoted the trial judge, Honorable Jack B. Weinstein, as stating “counsel [has] done a

superb job [and] tried this case as well as I have ever seen any case tried.”

Mr. Johnson also assisted in prosecuting environmental damage claims on behalf of

Native Americans resulting from the Exxon Valdez oil spill.

He is the co-author of “The Impact of the LaPerriere Decision: Parent Companies Face

Liability,” Directors Monthly, February 2009.

Mr. Johnson received a B.A. from Fairfield University in 1977 and a J.D. from New York

University School of Law in 1980.

He is admitted to practice in New York and Illinois as well as before the United States

District Courts for the Southern, Eastern and Northern Districts of New York; the Northern

District of Illinois; the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the Second, Third, Fourth, Fifth, Seventh and

Eleventh Circuits; and the United States Supreme Court.

He is a member of the American Bar Association and the Association of the Bar of the

City of New York, where he served on the Federal Courts Committee.

-40- Case 8:10-cv-01327-JST -RNB Document 59-2 Filed 09/19/11 Page 45 of 65 Page ID #:1224

Mr. Johnson has received a rating of AV from the publishers of the Martindale-Hubbell

directory.

CHRISTOPHER J. KELLER, PARTNER [email protected]

Christopher J. Keller concentrates his practice in sophisticated securities class action

litigation in federal courts throughout the country.

Mr. Keller has served as lead counsel in over a dozen options backdating class actions

filed under the federal securities laws. He was instrumental in securing a $117.5 million

settlement in In re Mercury Interactive Securities Litigation, which is one of the largest

settlements to date in an options backdating class action. He also serves as Co-Lead Counsel in

In re Satyam Computer Services, Ltd. Securities Litigation.

Mr. Keller was a member of the trial team that successfully litigated the In re Real Estate

Associates Limited Partnership Litigation in the United States District Court for the Central

District of California. The six-week jury trial resulted in a landmark $184 million plaintiffs’

verdict, which is one of the largest jury verdicts since the passage of the Private Securities

Litigation Reform Act of 1995.

Mr. Keller is very active in investigating and initiating securities and shareholder class

actions. He also concentrates his efforts on educating institutional investors on developing

trends in the law and new case theories. Mr. Keller is a regular speaker at institutional investor

gatherings as well as a frequent speaker at continuing legal education seminars relating to

securities class action litigation.

Mr. Keller is the co-author of the following articles: “SEC Contemplating Governance

Reforms,” Executive Counsel, December 2010; “Is the Shield Beginning to Crack?,” New York

Law Journal, November 15, 2010; “Say What? Pay What? Real World Approaches to Executive

-41- Case 8:10-cv-01327-JST -RNB Document 59-2 Filed 09/19/11 Page 46 of 65 Page ID #:1225

Compensation Reform,” Corporate Counsel, August 5, 2010; “Reining in the Credit Ratings

Industry,” New York Law Journal, January 11, 2010; “Japan’s Past Recession Provides a

Cautionary Tale,” The National Law Journal, April 13, 2009; “Balancing the Scales: The Use of

Confidential Witnesses in Securities Class Actions,” BNA’s Securities Regulation & Law

Report, January 19, 2009; “Eyeing Executive Compensation,” The National Law Journal,

November 17, 2008; and “Tellabs: PSLRA Pleading Test Comparative, Not Absolute,” New

York Law Journal, October 3, 2007.

Mr. Keller earned a B.S. from Adelphi University in 1993 and a J.D. from St. John’s

University School of Law in 1997.

He is admitted to practice in New York as well as before the United States District Courts

for the Southern and Eastern Districts of New York, the Eastern District of Wisconsin, the

District of Colorado and the United States Supreme Court. Mr. Keller is a member of several

professional groups, including the New York State Bar Association and the New York County

Lawyers’ Association.

EDWARD LABATON, PARTNER [email protected]

An accomplished trial lawyer and Partner with the Firm, Edward Labaton has devoted his

50 years of practice to representing a full range of clients in class action and complex litigation

matters in state and federal court. Mr. Labaton has played a lead role as plaintiffs’ class counsel

in a number of successfully prosecuted high profile cases, involving companies such as PepsiCo,

Dun & Bradstreet, Financial Corporation of America, ZZZZ Best, Revlon, GAF Co., American

Brands, Petro Lewis and Jim Walter, as well as several Big Eight (now Four) accounting firms.

He has also argued appeals in state and federal courts, achieving results with important

precedential value.

-42- Case 8:10-cv-01327-JST -RNB Document 59-2 Filed 09/19/11 Page 47 of 65 Page ID #:1226

Mr. Labaton has been President of the Institute for Law and Economic Policy since its

founding in 1996. The Institute co-sponsors at least one annual symposium with a major law

school dealing with issues relating to the civil justice system. In 2010 he was appointed to the

newly formed Advisory Board of George Washington University’s Center for Law, Economics,

& Finance (C-LEAF), a think tank within the Law School, for the study and debate of major

issues in economic and financial law confronting the United States and the globe. Mr. Labaton is

also a member of the Advisory Committee of the Weinberg Center for Corporate Governance of

the University of Delaware, a Director of the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights under Law, a

member of the American Law Institute, and a life member of the ABA Foundation. In addition,

he has served on the Executive Committee and has been an officer of the Ovarian Cancer

Research Fund since its inception in 1996.

Mr. Labaton is the past Chairman of the Federal Courts Committee of the New York

County Lawyers Association, and was a member of the Board of Directors of that organization.

He is an active member of the Association of the Bar of the City of New York, where he was

Chair of the Senior Lawyers’ Committee and served on its Task Force on the Role of Lawyers in

Corporate Governance. He has also served on its Federal Courts, Federal Legislation, Securities

Regulation, International Human Rights and Corporation Law Committees. He also served as

Chair of the Legal Referral Service Committee, a joint committee of the New York County

Lawyers’ Association and the Association of the Bar of the City of New York. He has been an

active member of the American Bar Association, the Federal Bar Council and the New York

State Bar Association, where he has served as a member of the House of Delegates.

-43- Case 8:10-cv-01327-JST -RNB Document 59-2 Filed 09/19/11 Page 48 of 65 Page ID #:1227

Mr. Labaton is the co-author of “It’s Time to Resuscitate the Shareholder Derivative

Action,” The Panic of 2008: Causes, Consequences, and Implications for Reform, Lawrence

Mitchell and Arthur Wilmarth, Jr., eds, (Edward Elgar, 2010).

For more than 30 years, he has lectured in the areas of federal civil litigation, securities

litigation and corporate governance. Mr. Labaton graduated cum laude with a B.B.A. from

Baruch College, City College of New York in 1952 and earned his LL.B. from Yale University

in 1955.

He is admitted to practice in New York as well as before the United States District Courts

for the Southern and Eastern Districts of New York; the Central District of Illinois; the United

States Courts of Appeals for the Second, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, Ninth, Tenth and Eleventh

Circuits; and the United States Supreme Court.

Mr. Labaton has received a rating of AV from the publishers of the Martindale-Hubbell

directory.

CHRISTOPHER J. MCDONALD, PARTNER [email protected]

Christopher J. McDonald, a member of the Firm’s Antitrust Practice Group, represents

businesses, associations and individuals injured by anticompetitive activities. Mr. McDonald’s

practice also involves prosecuting complex securities fraud cases on behalf of institutional

investors.

In the antitrust field, Mr. McDonald currently represents end-payors (e.g., union health

and welfare funds and consumers) of the prescription drug TriCor® in the In re TriCor Indirect

Purchaser Antitrust Litigation. The drug’s manufacturer and U. S. marketer are alleged to have

unlawfully impeded the introduction of lower-priced generic alternatives in violation of federal

and state antitrust laws. The case is set to go to trial in early November 2008.

-44- Case 8:10-cv-01327-JST -RNB Document 59-2 Filed 09/19/11 Page 49 of 65 Page ID #:1228

In the securities field, Mr. McDonald is currently prosecuting In re Schering-Plough

Corporation/ENHANCE Securities Litigation to recover losses investors suffered after the

disclosure of negative clinical trial data for Vytorin®, a fixed-dose combination pill comprised

of ezitimibe (Schering-Plough’s Zetia®) and simvastatin (Merck & Co., Inc.’s Zocor®). He was

also part of the team that litigated In re Bristol-Myers Squibb Securities Litigation, where

Labaton Sucharow was able to secure a $185 million settlement and meaningful corporate

governance reforms on behalf of Bristol-Myers Squibb shareholders following negative

disclosures about omapatrilat, an experimental hypertension drug. The settlement with BMS is

the largest ever obtained against a pharmaceutical company in a securities fraud case that did not

involve a restatement of financial results.

A litigator for most of his career, Mr. McDonald also has in-house and regulatory

experience. As a senior attorney with a telecommunications company he regularly addressed

legal, economic and public policy issues before state public utility commissions.

Mr. McDonald received his undergraduate degree, cum laude, from Manhattan College in

1985, and a J.D. from Fordham University School of Law in 1992, where he was on the Law

Review.

Mr. McDonald is admitted to practice in New York as well as before the United States

District Courts for the Southern and Eastern Districts of New York; the Western District of

Michigan; and the United States Courts of Appeals for the Second, Third and Federal Circuits.

He is a member of the New York State Bar Association and the Association of the Bar of the

City of New York.

-45- Case 8:10-cv-01327-JST -RNB Document 59-2 Filed 09/19/11 Page 50 of 65 Page ID #:1229

JONATHAN M. PLASSE, PARTNER [email protected]

An accomplished litigator, Jonathan M. Plasse has devoted over 30 years of his practice

to the prosecution of complex cases involving securities class action, derivative, transactional,

and consumer litigation. Currently, he is prosecuting securities class actions against Shering-

Plough, Fannie Mae and Morgan Stanley.

Most recently, Mr. Plasse was an integral member of the team representing the New York

State Common Retirement Fund and the New York City Pension Funds as lead plaintiffs in In re

Countrywide Financial Corporation Securities Litigation. The $624 million settlement is one of

the largest securities fraud settlements in U.S. history. His other recent successes include serving

as Co-Lead Counsel in In re General Motors Corp. Securities Litigation ($303 million

settlement) and In re El Paso Corporation Securities Litigation ($285 million settlement). Mr.

Plasse also served as Lead Counsel in In re Waste Management Inc. Securities Litigation, where

he represented the Connecticut Retirement Plans and Trusts Funds, and obtained a settlement of

$457 million.

Mr. Plasse serves as the Chair of the Securities Litigation Committee of the Association

of the Bar of the City of New York. He has also chaired and been a regular speaker at

continuing legal education seminars relating to securities class action litigation.

Mr. Plasse received a B.A. degree, magna cum laude, from the State University of New

York in Binghamton in 1972. He received a J.D. from Brooklyn Law School in 1976, where he

served as a member of the Brooklyn Journal of International Law.

He is admitted to practice in New York as well as before the United States District Courts

for the Southern and Eastern Districts of New York and the United States Court of Appeals for

the Second Circuit.

-46- Case 8:10-cv-01327-JST -RNB Document 59-2 Filed 09/19/11 Page 51 of 65 Page ID #:1230

Mr. Plasse has received a rating of AV from the publishers of the Martindale-Hubbell

directory.

HOLLIS SALZMAN, PARTNER [email protected]

Hollis Salzman is Managing Chair of the Firm's Antitrust Practice Group. She primarily

represents clients in cases involving federal antitrust law violations. Her work in the area of

antitrust law has been recognized in the 2008 Plaintiffs’ Hot List published by The National Law

Journal. She is also involved in the Firm’s securities litigation practice group where she

represents institutional investors in portfolio monitoring and securities litigation. Some of Ms.

Salzman’s clients include MARTA and the City of Macon, Georgia.

Ms. Salzman is actively engaged in the prosecution of major antitrust class actions

pending throughout the United States. She is presently Co-Lead Counsel in many antitrust cases,

including: In re Air Cargo Shipping Services Antitrust Litigation, In re Marine Hoses Antitrust

Litigation, and In re Puerto Rican Cabotage Antitrust Litigation.

She also served as Co-Lead Counsel in several antitrust class actions which resulted in

extraordinary settlements for class members, such as In re Air Cargo Shipping Services Antitrust

Litigation ($85 million partial settlement from certain defendants); In re Abbott Labs Norvir

Antitrust Litigation ($10 million settlement); In re Buspirone Antitrust Litigation ($90 million

settlement); In re Lorazepam & Clorazepate Antitrust Litigation ($135.4 million settlement) and

In re Maltol Antitrust Litigation and Continental Seasonings Inc. v. Pfizer, Inc., et al.,

($18.45 million settlement). Additionally, she was principally responsible for administering a

$65 million settlement with certain brand-name prescription drug manufacturers where their

conduct allegedly caused retail pharmacy customers to overpay for their prescription drugs.

-47- Case 8:10-cv-01327-JST -RNB Document 59-2 Filed 09/19/11 Page 52 of 65 Page ID #:1231

Ms. Salzman is the co-author of the following articles: “Iqbal And The Twombly

Pleading Standard,” CompLaw 360, June 15, 2009; “Analysis of Abbott Laboratories Antitrust

Litigation,” Pharmaceutical Law & Industry Report, June 20, 2008; and “The State of State

Antitrust Enforcement,” NYSBA NYLitigator, Winter 2003, Vol. 8, No. 1.

She is a Co-Chair of the New York State Bar Association, Commercial & Federal

Litigation Section – Antitrust Committee, and a member of the Association of the Bar of the City

of New York Antitrust Committee and Women’s Antitrust Bar Association. Ms. Salzman also

provides pro bono representation to indigent and working-poor women in matrimonial and

family law matters.

Ms. Salzman received a J.D. from Nova University School of Law in 1992 and a B.A. in

Economics from Boston University in 1987.

Ms. Salzman is admitted to practice in New York, New Jersey, and Florida as well as

before the United States District Courts for the Southern and Eastern Districts of New York; the

Southern and Middle Districts of Florida; and the United States Court of Appeals for the

Eleventh Circuit.

IRA A. SCHOCHET, PARTNER [email protected]

Ira A. Schochet has over 20 years of experience in commercial litigation, with primary

emphasis on class actions involving securities fraud.

Mr. Schochet has played a leading role in litigation resulting in multimillion dollar

recoveries for class members in cases such as those against Countrywide Financial Corp.,

Caterpillar, Inc., Spectrum Information Technologies, Inc., InterMune, Inc., and Amkor

Technology, Inc. In Kamarasy v. Coopers & Lybrand, a securities fraud class action, Mr.

Schochet led a team that won a settlement equal to approximately 75% of the highest possible

-48- Case 8:10-cv-01327-JST -RNB Document 59-2 Filed 09/19/11 Page 53 of 65 Page ID #:1232

damages that class members could have recovered. The Court in that case complimented him for

“the superior quality of the representation provided to the class.” In approving the settlement he

achieved in the InterMune litigation, the Court complimented Mr. Schochet’s ability to obtain a

significant cash benefit for the class in a very efficient manner, saving the class from additional

years of time, expense and substantial risk. Mr. Schochet represented one of the first

institutional investors acting as a Lead Plaintiff in a post-Private Securities Litigation Reform

Act case, STI Classic Funds v. Bollinger, Inc., and obtained one of the first rulings interpreting

that statute’s intent provision in a manner favorable to investors.

From 2009-2011, Mr. Schochet served as President of the National Association of

Shareholder and Consumer Attorneys (NASCAT), a membership organization of approximately

100 law firms that practice class action and complex civil litigation.

Since 1996, Mr. Schochet has acted as chairman of the Class Action Committee of the

Commercial and Federal Litigation Section of the New York State Bar Association. In that

capacity, he has served on the Executive Committee of the Section and was the primary author of

articles and reports on a wide variety of issues relating to class action procedure. Such issues

include revisions to that procedure proposed over the years by both houses of the United States

Congress and the Advisory Committee on Civil Procedure of the United States Judicial

Conference. Examples include “Proposed Changes in Federal Class Action Procedure,” “Opting

Out On Opting In,” and “The Interstate Class Action Jurisdiction Act of 1999.” He also has

lectured extensively on securities litigation at continuing legal education seminars.

Mr. Schochet earned a B.A., summa cum laude, from the State University of New York

at Binghamton in 1977, and a J.D. from Duke University School of Law in 1981.

-49- Case 8:10-cv-01327-JST -RNB Document 59-2 Filed 09/19/11 Page 54 of 65 Page ID #:1233

He is admitted to practice in New York as well as before the United States District Courts

for the Southern and Eastern Districts of New York, the Central District of Illinois, the Northern

District of Texas, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

Mr. Schochet has received a rating of AV from the publishers of the Martindale-Hubbell

directory.

MICHAEL W. STOCKER, PARTNER [email protected]

Michael W. Stocker represents institutional investors in commercial litigation,

shareholder advocacy, and corporate governance matters.

Earlier in his career, Mr. Stocker worked as a senior staff attorney with the United States

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, and completed a legal externship with United States

Magistrate Judge (now District Judge) Phyllis J. Hamilton of the Northern District of California.

Mr. Stocker’s recent publications include: “U.S. Changing to Looser Accounting

Standards,” Executive Counsel, August/September 2011; “Government Reliance on Private

Litigants Diverges With Court Trends,” New York Law Journal, September 9, 2011; “Handle

with Care,” Corporate Counsel, July 2011; “Shell Game,” The Deal, June 10, 2011; “Are

Regulators Retreating From Dodd-Frank?,” Institutional Investor, May 24, 2011; “Resolving the

deadlock over credit ratings,” Pensions & Investments, April 4, 2011; “M&A on the rise - and

litigation may well follow,” The National Law Journal, April 4, 2011; “Running on Empty,” The

Deal Magazine, February 18, 2011; “SEC Contemplating Governance Reforms,” Executive

Counsel, December 2010; “SEC paper focuses on proxy voting shortcomings,” The National

Law Journal, November 15, 2010; “Is the Shield Beginning to Crack?,” New York Law Journal,

November 15, 2010; “What Wall Street Can Learn From the BP Spill,” Institutional Investor;

November 1, 2010; “Automated Trading Leaving Retail Investors In The Dust,” (Opinion),

-50- Case 8:10-cv-01327-JST -RNB Document 59-2 Filed 09/19/11 Page 55 of 65 Page ID #:1234

Forbes. com, October 15, 2010; “Toyota Debacle Spurs Reform Questions,” Directorship, August

9, 2010; “Say What? Pay What? Real World Approaches to Executive Compensation Reform,”

Corporate Counsel, August 5, 2010; “SEC Measures To Prevent Flash Crashes Are Sensible,

But Are They Enough?” (Opinion), Forbes. com, May 20, 2010; “A Recall for Toyota’s

Corporate Governance?” (Opinion), Pensions & Investments, April 5, 2010,” Reining in the

Credit Ratings Industry,” New York Law Journal, January 11, 2010; and “It’s Time to

Resuscitate the Shareholder Derivative Action,” The Panic of 2008: Causes, Consequences, and

Implications for Reform, Lawrence Mitchell and Arthur Wilmarth, Jr., eds, (Edward Elgar,

2010).

Mr. Stocker has offered financial commentary and analysis to BBC4 Radio, and on the

Canadian Broadcasting Corporation’s Lang & O’Leary Exchange, and is a frequent speaker and

panelist on topics relating to financial reform.

Mr. Stocker is also the Chief Contributor to “Eyes On Wall Street”

(www.eyesonwallstreet.com), Labaton Sucharow’s blog on economics, corporate governance,

and other issues of interest to investors.

Mr. Stocker earned a B.A. from the University of California, Berkeley, in 1989, a J.D.

from the University of California, Hastings College of Law, in 1995, and a Master of

Criminology degree from the Law Department of the University of Sydney in 2000.

He is admitted to practice in California and New York as well as before the United States

District Courts for the Northern and Central Districts of California, the Southern and Eastern

Districts of New York, and the United States Courts of Appeals for the Second, Eighth and Ninth

Circuits. Mr. Stocker is a member of the National Association of Public Pension Plan Attorneys

(NAPPA).

-51- Case 8:10-cv-01327-JST -RNB Document 59-2 Filed 09/19/11 Page 56 of 65 Page ID #:1235

JORDAN A. THOMAS, PARTNER [email protected]

Jordan A. Thomas exclusively concentrates his practice on investigating and prosecuting

securities fraud on behalf of whistleblowers and institutional clients. As Chair of the Firm’s

Whistleblower Representation practice, Mr. Thomas protects and advocates for whistleblowers

throughout the world who have information about potential violations of the federal securities

laws. He strongly believes that whistleblowers play a critical role in protecting investors and is

deeply committed to helping courageous whistleblowers come forward and report securities

violations to law enforcement authorities without having personal or professional regrets.

A career public servant and seasoned trial lawyer, Mr. Thomas joined Labaton Sucharow

from the Securities and Exchange Commission where he served as an Assistant Director and,

previously, as an Assistant Chief Litigation Counsel in the Division of Enforcement. He had a

leadership role in the development of the Commission’s Whistleblower Program, including

leading fact-finding visits to other federal agencies with whistleblower programs, drafting the

proposed legislation and implementing rules and briefing House and Senate staffs on the

proposed legislation. He is also the principal architect and first National Coordinator of the

Commission’s Cooperation Program, an initiative designed to facilitate and incentivize

individuals and companies to self-report securities violations and participate in its investigations

and related enforcement actions. In recognition of his important contributions to these national

initiatives, while at the Commission, Mr. Thomas was a recipient of the Arthur Mathews Award,

which recognizes “sustained demonstrated creativity in applying the federal securities laws for

the benefit of investors,” and, on two occasions, the Law and Policy Award.

Throughout his tenure at the Commission, Mr. Thomas was assigned to many of the

Commission’s highest-profile matters such as those involving Enron and Fannie Mae. He

successfully investigated, litigated and supervised a wide variety of enforcement matters

-52- Case 8:10-cv-01327-JST -RNB Document 59-2 Filed 09/19/11 Page 57 of 65 Page ID #:1236

involving violations of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, issuer accounting fraud and other

disclosure violations, audit failures, insider trading, market manipulations, offering frauds and

broker-dealer, investment adviser and investment company violations. His cases resulted in

monetary recoveries for harmed investors in excess of $35 billion.

Prior to joining the Commission, Mr. Thomas was a Trial Attorney at the Department of

Justice, where he specialized in complex financial services litigation involving the FDIC and

Office of Thrift Supervision. He began his legal career as a Navy Judge Advocate on active duty

and continues to serve as a senior officer in the Reserve Law Program. Earlier, Mr. Thomas

worked as a stockbroker.

Throughout his career, Mr. Thomas has received numerous awards and honors. At the

Commission, he was the recipient of four Chairman’s Awards, four Division Director’s Awards

and a Letter of Commendation from the United States Attorney for the District of Columbia. He

is also a decorated military officer, who has twice been awarded the Rear Admiral Hugh H.

Howell Award of Excellence—the highest award the Navy can bestow upon a reserve judge

advocate.

Mr. Thomas is a frequent speaker at prominent law schools and legal conferences on

securities enforcement and whistleblower issues.

RICHARD T. JOFFE, SENIOR COUNSEL [email protected]

Richard Joffe’s practice focuses on class action litigation, including securities fraud,

antitrust and consumer fraud cases. Since joining the Firm, Mr. Joffe has represented such

varied clients as institutional purchasers of corporate bonds, Wisconsin dairy farmers, and

consumers who alleged they were defrauded when they purchased annuities. He played a key

-53- Case 8:10-cv-01327-JST -RNB Document 59-2 Filed 09/19/11 Page 58 of 65 Page ID #:1237

role in shareholders obtaining a $303 million settlement of securities claims against General

Motors and its outside auditor.

Prior to joining Labaton Sucharow, Mr. Joffe was an associate at Gibson, Dunn &

Crutcher LLP, where he played a key role in obtaining a dismissal of claims against Merrill

Lynch & Co. and a dozen other of America’s largest investment banks and brokerage firms, who,

in Friedman v. Salomon/Smith Barney, Inc., were alleged to have conspired to fix the prices of

initial public offerings.

Mr. Joffe also worked as an associate at Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson where,

among other things, in a case handled pro bono, he obtained a successful settlement for several

older women who alleged they were victims of age and sex discrimination when they were

selected for termination by New York City’s Health and Hospitals Corporation during a city-

wide reduction in force.

He co-authored “Protection Against Contribution and Indemnification Claims” in

Settlement Agreements in Commercial Disputes (Aspen Law & Business, 2000).

Mr. Joffe earned a B.A., summa cum laude, from Columbia University in 1972, and a

Ph.D. from Harvard University in 1984. He received a J.D. from Columbia Law School in 1993.

Mr. Joffe is admitted to practice in New York as well as before the United States District

Courts for the Southern and Eastern Districts of New York, and the United States Courts of

Appeals for the Second, Third, Ninth and Eleventh Circuits. He is a member of the Association

of the Bar of the City of New York and the American Bar Association.

Long before becoming a lawyer, Mr. Joffe was a founding member of the internationally

famous rock and roll group, Sha Na Na.

-54- Case 8:10-cv-01327-JST -RNB Document 59-2 Filed 09/19/11 Page 59 of 65 Page ID #:1238

JOSEPH V. STERNBERG, SENIOR COUNSEL [email protected]

Joseph V. Sternberg is a trial and appellate lawyer with more than 35 years of experience

in the areas of civil and class action litigation. He has prosecuted cases that have resulted in the

return of hundreds of millions of dollars to class members. Among the numerous landmark cases

in which Mr. Sternberg has participated are Limmer v. Medallion Group, Inc., Koppel v. Wien, In

re Energy Systems Equipment Leasing Securities Litigation, Koppel v. 4987 Corp., Gunter v.

Ridgewood Energy Corp., and In re Real Estate Associates Limited Partnership Litigation.

Mr. Sternberg authored “Using and Protecting Against Rule 12(b) and 9(b) Motions,”

The Practical Litigator, September 1993.

Mr. Sternberg earned a B.A. from Hofstra University in 1963 and a J.D. from New York

University School of Law in 1966.

He is admitted to practice in New York as well as before the United States District Courts

for the Southern and Eastern Districts of New York, and the United States Courts of Appeals for

the Second and Third Circuits.

He has received a rating of AV from the publishers of the Martindale-Hubble Directory.

DOMINIC J. A ULD, OF COUNSEL [email protected]

Dominic J. Auld joined Labaton Sucharow with over seven years of experience in the

area of securities class action litigation. He has also worked in the areas of environmental and

antitrust litigation. Mr. Auld is primarily responsible for working with the client and case

development departments in identifying meritorious securities fraud cases and presenting them to

the institutional investors harmed by the conduct at issue. Mr. Auld focuses on the Firm’s

existing relationships with institutional investors from his home country of Canada, and is also

part of the Firm’s outreach to other institutions worldwide.

-55- Case 8:10-cv-01327-JST -RNB Document 59-2 Filed 09/19/11 Page 60 of 65 Page ID #:1239

Prior to joining Labaton Sucharow, Mr. Auld practiced securities litigation at Bernstein

Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP, where he began his career as a member of the litigation

team responsible for prosecuting the landmark WorldCom action which resulted in a settlement

of over $6 billion. He also has a great deal of experience in working directly with institutional

clients affected by securities fraud and worked extensively with the Ontario Teachers’ Pension

Plan in their actions In re Nortel Networks Corporation Securities Litigation, In re Williams

Securities Litigation, and In re Biovail Corporation Securities Litigation - cases that settled for a

total of over $1.7 billion. In the last two years, Mr. Auld has focused his practice on client

relationships and development, and regularly advises large worldwide institutional investors on

their rights and avenues of recovery available in the U.S. Courts and elsewhere.

He is a regular speaker at law and investment conferences and recently published an

article on executive compensation in Benefits Canada magazine.

Mr. Auld earned a B.A. (hons) from Queen’s University in Kingston, Ontario, Canada in

1992 and a J.D. from Lewis and Clark Law School in Portland, Oregon in 1998 where he was an

annual member of the Dean’s List. As a law student, he served as a founding member of the law

review, Animal Law, which explores legal and environmental issues relating to laws such as the

Endangered Species Act.

Mr. Auld is admitted to practice in New York.

MARK S. GOLDMAN, OF COUNSEL [email protected]

Mark S. Goldman has 22 years’ experience in commercial litigation, primarily litigating

class actions involving securities fraud, consumer fraud, and violations of federal and state

antitrust laws.

-56- Case 8:10-cv-01327-JST -RNB Document 59-2 Filed 09/19/11 Page 61 of 65 Page ID #:1240

Mr. Goldman is currently prosecuting securities fraud claims on behalf of institutional

and individual investors against a pharmaceutical company alleged to have misrepresented the

status of clinical drug trials, hedge funds that misrepresented the net asset value of investors’

shares, and a high tech company that did not disclose declining sales in its initial public offering

materials. In addition, Mr. Goldman is participating in litigation brought against international air

cargo carriers charged with conspiring to fix fuel and security surcharges, and domestic

manufacturers of air filters, OSB, flat glass and chocolate, also charged with price fixing.

Recently, Mr. Goldman successfully litigated a number of consumer fraud cases brought

against insurance companies challenging the manner in which they calculated life insurance

premiums. He also prosecuted a number of insider trading cases brought against company

insiders who, in violation of Section 16(b) of the Securities Exchange Act, engaged in short

swing trading. In addition, Mr. Goldman participated in the prosecution of In re AOL Time

Warner Securities Litigation, a massive securities fraud case that settled for $2.5 billion.

Mr. Goldman earned a B.A. from The Pennsylvania State University in 1981 and a J.D.

from the University of Kansas School of Law in 1986.

He is admitted to practice in Pennsylvania.

Mr. Goldman has received a rating of AV from the publishers of the Martindale-Hubbell

directory.

TERRI GOLDSTONE, OF COUNSEL [email protected]

Terri Goldstone concentrates her practice on prosecuting complex securities litigations on

behalf of institutional investors.

-57- Case 8:10-cv-01327-JST -RNB Document 59-2 Filed 09/19/11 Page 62 of 65 Page ID #:1241

Prior to joining Labaton Sucharow, Ms. Goldstone worked as an associate at Schwartz

Goldstone & Campisi LLP. During her time there, she litigated personal injury cases and was

the liaison to union members injured in the course of their employment.

Ms. Goldstone began her career as an Assistant District Attorney at the Bronx County

District Attorney’s Office.

Ms. Goldstone earned a B.A., cum laude, from American University in 1994. She earned

a J.D. from Emory University School of Law in 1998, where she was a member of the Dean’s

List. During law school, Ms. Goldstone was a member of the International Law Society and was

a semi-finalist in the Emory Appellate Advocacy Competition.

Ms. Goldstone is admitted to practice in New York.

BARRY M. OKUN, OF COUNSEL [email protected]

Barry Michael Okun is a seasoned trial and appellate lawyer with more than 20 years’

experience in a broad range of commercial litigation. Mr. Okun has litigated several leading

commercial law cases, including the first case in which the United States Supreme Court ruled

on issues relating to products liability.

Mr. Okun has argued appeals before the United States Court of Appeals for the Second

Circuit and the Appellate Divisions of three out of the four judicial departments in New York

State. He has appeared in numerous trial courts throughout the country.

Mr. Okun received a B.A. from the State University of New York at Binghamton and is a

cum laude graduate of the Boston University School of Law, where he was Articles Editor of the

Law Review.

-58- Case 8:10-cv-01327-JST -RNB Document 59-2 Filed 09/19/11 Page 63 of 65 Page ID #:1242

He is admitted to practice in New York as well as before the United States District Courts

for the Southern and Eastern Districts of New York, the United States Courts of Appeals for the

First, Second, Seventh and Eleventh Circuits, and the United States Supreme Court.

BRIAN D. PENNY, OF COUNSEL [email protected]

Brian D. Penny concentrates his practice on prosecuting complex securities fraud cases

on behalf of institutional investors.

Mr. Penny is actively involved in prosecuting a number of the firm’s options backdating

cases, as well as other securities fraud cases against public companies. Mr. Penny played

significant roles in prosecuting In re Monster Worldwide, Inc. Securities Litigation ($47.5

million settlement), as well as In re Mercury Interactive Securities Litigation ($117.5 million

settlement), which is one of the largest known settlements in a securities options backdating class

action.

In addition, Mr. Penny participated in the prosecution of In re AOL Time Warner

Securities Litigation, a massive securities fraud case that settled for $2.5 billion, and In re

Broadcom Corporation Securities Litigation, SA CV 01-0275(C.D. Cal.), which was a class

action lawsuit against Broadcom Corp., its CEO, and CFO, alleging defendants violated Section

10(b) of the Exchange Act by using a series of acquisitions to hide expenses and materially

inflate revenue. The case settled in 2005 for $150 million.

Mr. Penny earned a B.A. from Davidson College in 1997, and a J.D. from Dickinson

School of Law of the Pennsylvania State University in 2000. While in law school, he clerked for

the Honorable John T.J. Kelly, Senior Judge on the Pennsylvania Superior Court.

Mr. Penny is admitted to practice in Pennsylvania.

-59- Case 8:10-cv-01327-JST -RNB Document 59-2 Filed 09/19/11 Page 64 of 65 Page ID #:1243

PAUL SCARLA TO, OF COUNSEL [email protected]

Paul Scarlato has over 20 years’ experience litigating complex commercial matters,

primarily in the prosecution of securities fraud and consumer fraud class actions and shareholder

derivative actions.

Mr. Scarlato has litigated numerous cases on behalf of institutional and individual

investors involving companies in a broad range of industries, many of which involved financial

statement manipulation and accounting fraud. Mr. Scarlato was one of three lead attorneys for

the class in Kaufman v. Motorola, Inc., a securities-fraud class action case that recovered $25

million for investors just weeks before trial and, was one of the lead counsel in Seidman v.

American Mobile Systems, Inc., a securities-fraud class action case that resulted in a favorable

settlement for the class on the eve of trail. Mr. Scarlato also served as co-lead counsel in In re:

Corel Corporation Securities Litigation, and as class counsel in In re AOL Time Warner

Securities Litigation, a securities fraud class action that recovered $2.5 billion for investors.

After law school, Mr. Scarlato served as law clerk to Judge Nelson Diaz of the Court of

Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, and Justice James McDermott of the Pennsylvania

Supreme Court. Thereafter, he worked in the tax department of a “big-six” accounting firm prior

to entering private practice.

Mr. Scarlato earned a B.A. in Accounting from Moravian College in 1983 and a J.D.

from Delaware Law School of Widener University in 1986.

He is admitted to practice in Pennsylvania and New Jersey.

NICOLE M. ZEISS, OF COUNSEL [email protected]

Nicole M. Zeiss works principally in the area of securities class action litigation. Before

joining Labaton Sucharow, Ms. Zeiss worked for MFY Legal Services, practicing in the area of

-60- Case 8:10-cv-01327-JST -RNB Document 59-2 Filed 09/19/11 Page 65 of 65 Page ID #:1244

poverty law and at Gaynor & Bass doing general complex civil litigation, particularly

representing the rights of freelance writers seeking copyright enforcement.

Ms. Zeiss was part of the team that successfully litigated In re Bristol-Myers Squibb

Securities Litigation. Labaton Sucharow was able to secure a $185 million settlement on behalf

of investors, as well as meaningful corporate governance reforms that will affect future

consumers and investors alike. She has also litigated on behalf of investors who have been

damaged by fraud in the telecommunications, hedge fund and banking industries.

Ms. Zeiss maintains a commitment to pro bono legal services by continuing to assist

mentally ill clients in a variety of matters—from eviction proceedings to trust administration.

Ms. Zeiss earned a B.A. from Barnard College in 1991 and a J.D. from Benjamin N.

Cardozo School of Law in 1995. She is admitted to practice in New York.

-61- Case 8:10-cv-01327-JST -RNB Document 59-3 Filed 09/19/11 Page 1 of 87 Page ID #:1245

EXHIBIT 3 Case 8:10-cv-01327-JST -RNB Document 59-3 Filed 09/19/11 Page 2 of 87 Page ID #:1246

Berger& Montague, RC. ATTORNEYS AT LAVE!

Dated: September 16, 2011 Case 8:10-cv-01327-JST -RNB Document 59-3 Filed 09/19/11 Page 3 of 87 Page ID #:1247

BERGER & MONTAGUE, P.C.

THE FIRM:

Berger & Montague has been engaged in the practice of complex and class action litigation from its Center City Philadelphia office for 40 years. The firm has been recognized by courts throughout the country for its ability and experience in handling major complex litigation, particularly in the fields of securities, antitrust, mass torts, civil and human rights, qui tam and whistleblower cases, employment, and consumer litigation. In numerous precedent-setting cases, the Berger firm has played a principal or lead role. The firm has achieved the highest possible rating by its peers and opponents as reported in Martindale-Hubbell. Currently, the firm consists of 68 lawyers; 17 paralegals; a professional investigator; and an experienced support staff. Few if any firms in the United States have our breadth of practice and match our successful track record in such a broad array of complex litigation.

The National Law Journal has selected Berger & Montague in seven out of the last eight years (2003-05, 2007-10) to its “Hot List” of top plaintiffs’ oriented litigation firms in the United States with a history of high achievement and significant, groundbreaking cases. Normally 15 or fewer firms are chosen for this honor. The Legal 500, a guide to worldwide legal services providers, has repeatedly cited Berger & Montague’s antitrust practice as “stand[ing] out by virtue of its first-class trial skills.” For four straight years, Berger & Montague has been selected by Chambers and Partners’ USA’s America’s Leading Lawyers for Business as one of Pennsylvania’s top antitrust firms. Chambers USA has specifically noted that Berger & Montague “specializes in plaintiffs’ antitrust class actions, and is noted for its exceptional work in pharmaceutical and financial disputes.” In 2009, Employment Law360 ° named Berger & Montague as one of the top employment plaintiffs’ firms in the U.S. selecting only eight law firms in the country for this honor. Also in 2009, The Public Justice Foundation bestowed its prestigious Trial Lawyer of the Year Award on the Berger & Montague trial team in the Rocky Flats mass environmental tort class action for their “long and hard-fought” victory against “formidable corporate and government defendants,” the second time Berger & Montague has won this honor. The jury verdict in that case was vacated on appeal; appellate proceedings are continuing.

Berger & Montague was founded in 1970 by the late David Berger to concentrate on the representation of plaintiffs in a series of antitrust class actions. David Berger helped pioneer the use of class actions in antitrust litigation and was instrumental in extending the use of the class action procedure to other litigation areas, including securities, employment discrimination, civil and human rights, and mass torts. The firm’s complement of nationally recognized lawyers has represented both plaintiffs and defendants in these and other areas, and has recovered billions of dollars for its clients. In complex litigation, particularly in areas of class action litigation, Berger & Montague has established new law and forged the path for recovery for victims of fraud and other wrongdoing.

1 Case 8:10-cv-01327-JST -RNB Document 59-3 Filed 09/19/11 Page 4 of 87 Page ID #:1248

The firm has been involved in a series of notable cases, some of them among the most important in the last 35 years of civil litigation. For example, the firm was one of the principal counsel for plaintiffs in the Drexel Burnham Lambert/Michael Milken securities and bankruptcy litigation. Claimants in these cases recovered approximately $2 billion in the aftermath of the collapse of the junk bond market and the bankruptcy of Drexel in the late 1980’s. The firm was also among the principal trial counsel in the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill litigation in Anchorage, Alaska, a trial resulting in a record jury award of $5 billion against Exxon, later reduced by U.S. Supreme Court by $507.5 million. Berger & Montague was lead counsel in the School Asbestos Litigation, in which a national class of secondary and elementary schools recovered in excess of $300 million to defray the costs of asbestos abatement. The case was the first mass tort property damage class action certified on a national basis. Berger & Montague was also lead/liaison counsel in the Three Mile Island Litigation arising out of a serious nuclear incident.

In the area of securities litigation, the firm has represented public institutional investors - such as the retirement funds for the States of Pennsylvania, Connecticut, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Louisiana and Ohio, as well as the City of Philadelphia and numerous individual investors and private institutional investors. The firm was co-lead counsel in the Melridge Securities Litigation in the Federal District Court in Oregon, in which an $88.2 million jury verdict was obtained. Berger & Montague has served as lead or co-lead counsel in numerous other major securities class action cases where substantial settlements were achieved on behalf of investors. Examples of prominent settlements are: Merrill Lynch ($475 million), Rite Aid ($334 million), Waste Management ($220 million), Sunbeam ($142 million), IKON ($111 million), Medaphis ($96 million), Fleming Companies ($94 million), Cigna ($93 million), Xcel Energy ($80 million), and Alcatel ($75 million).

Berger & Montague has served as lead or co-lead counsel in 10 of the 100 largest securities class actions settled in the United States since the advent of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (PSLRA).

In antitrust litigation, the firm has served as lead, co-lead or co-trial counsel on many of the most significant civil antitrust cases over the last 30 years, including In re Corrugated Container Antitrust Litigation (recovery in excess of $366 million), the Infant Formula case (recovery of $125 million), and the Brand Name Prescription Drug price fixing case (settlement of more than $700 million) and the State of Connecticut Tobacco Litigation (settlement of $3.6 billion). The firm has also played a leading role in cases in the pharmaceutical arena, especially in cases involving the delayed entry of generic or other rival drug competition, having achieved over $1 billion in settlements in such cases over the past decade. Additionally in the human rights area, the firm, through its membership on the executive committee in the Holocaust Victim Assets Litigation, helped to achieve a $1.25 billion settlement with the largest Swiss banks on behalf of victims of Nazi aggression whose deposits were not returned after the Second World War. The firm has also played an instrumental role in bringing about a $4.37 billion settlement with German industry and government for the use of slave and forced labor during the Holocaust.

2 Case 8:10-cv-01327-JST -RNB Document 59-3 Filed 09/19/11 Page 5 of 87 Page ID #:1249

JUDICIAL PRAISE FOR BERGER & MONTAGUE ATTORNEYS

Berger & Montague’s record of successful prosecution of class actions and other complex litigation has been recognized and commended by judges and arbitrators across the country. Some remarks on the skill, efficiency, and expertise of the firm’s attorneys are excerpted below.

Securities Litigation

In In re Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc. Securities, Derivative & ERISA Litigation, Master File No. 07-cv-9633(JSR)(DFE) (S.D.N.Y.), Judge Jed Rakoff of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York stated that lead plaintiff had made “very full and well-crafted” and “excellent submissions”; that there was a “very fine job done by plaintiffs" counsel in this case”; that the attorney fees requested were “eminently reasonable” and “appropriately modest”; and that this was “surely a very good result under all the facts and circumstances.” Co-lead counsel for the lead plaintiff and the class was Berger & Montague shareholder Lawrence J. Lederer, who was assisted by a team of additional Berger & Montague attorneys including Arthur Stock, Gary Cantor, Robin Switzenbaum and others.

From Chief Justice Steele and Justices Holland, Berger, Jacobs and Ridgely of the Delaware Supreme Court sitting en banc:

Stating that the case was litigated, Chancellor [Chandler] went on to find that:

“All I can tell you, from someone who has only been doing this for roughly 22 years, is that I have yet to see a more fiercely and intensely litigated case than this case. Never in 22 years have I seen counsel going at it, hammer and tong, like they have gone at it in this case. And I think that’s a testimony -- Mr. Valihura correctly says that’s what they are supposed to do. I recognize that; that is their job, and they were doing it professionally.”

Regarding the work of Lawrence Deutsch and Robin Switzenbaum in In re Matter of The Philadelphia Stock Exchange, Inc., 945 A.2d 1123, 1143-44 (Del. 2008).

From Chancellor William Chandler, III of the Court of Chancery of Delaware when awarding counsel’s fee observed:

“Counsel, again, I want to thank you for your extraordinary efforts in obtaining this result for the class.”

Concerning Lawrence Deutsch and Robin Switzenbaum at the Plan of Allocation Approval Hearing in Ginsburg v. Philadelphia Stock Exchange, Inc., C.A. No. 2202 (Del. Ch.) on July 2, 2008.

3 Case 8:10-cv-01327-JST -RNB Document 59-3 Filed 09/19/11 Page 6 of 87 Page ID #:1250

From Judge Michael M. Baylson of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania:

“The Court is aware of and attests to the skill and efficiency of class counsel: they have been diligent in every respect, and their briefs and arguments before the Court were of the highest quality. The firm of Berger & Montague took the lead in the Court proceedings; its attorneys were well prepared, articulate and persuasive.”

Praising the work of Berger & Montague attorneys including Securities Department Chair Sherrie R. Savett and shareholders Carole A. Broderick and Barbara A. Podell in In re CIGNA Corp. Sec. Litig., 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 51089, **17-18 (E.D. Pa. July 13, 2007).

From Judge David S. Doty of the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota:

“ [A] just result without the assistance of a governmental investigation,” plaintiffs’ co-lead counsel Berger & Montague “conducted themselves in an exemplary manner,” “consistently demonstrated considerable skill and cooperation to bring this matter to an amicable conclusion,” and “moved the case along expeditiously”.

Praising the work of Berger & Montague attorneys including Securities Department Chair Sherrie R. Savett in In re Xcel Energy Sec. Deriv. “ERISA ” Litig., 364 F. Supp. 2d 980, 992, 995-96 (D. Minn. 2005).

From Judge Stewart Dalzell of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania:

“Thanks to the nimble class counsel, this sum, which once included securities worth $149.5 million is now all cash. Seizing on an opportunity Rite Aid presented, class counsel first renegotiated what had been stock consideration into Rite Aid Notes and then this year monetized those Notes. Thus, on February 11, 2003, Rite Aid redeemed those Notes from the class, which then received $145,754,922.00. The class also received $14,435,104 in interest on the Notes.

“Co-lead counsel ... here were extraordinarily deft and efficient in handling this most complex matter... they were at least eighteen months ahead of the United States Department of Justice in ferreting out the conduct that ultimately resulted in the write down of over $1.6 billion in previously reported Rite Aid earnings. In short, it would be hard to equal the skill class counsel demonstrated here.”

4 Case 8:10-cv-01327-JST -RNB Document 59-3 Filed 09/19/11 Page 7 of 87 Page ID #:1251

Praising the work of Berger & Montague attorneys including Securities Department Chair Sherrie R. Savett and shareholders Carole Broderick and Robin Switzenbaum in In re Rite Aid Corp. Securities Litigation, 269 F. Supp. 2d 603, 605 (E.D. Pa. 2003).

From Judge Clarence C. Newcomer of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania:

“...[C]ounsel has conducted this litigation with skill, professionalism and extraordinary efficiency.”

Praising the work of Sherrie R. Savett, Securities Department Chair, and Arthur Stock in In Re: Unisys Corporation Securities Litigation, Civil Action No. 99-5333 , 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20160 at *10 (E.D. Pa. Dec. 6, 2001).

From Judge Stewart Dalzell of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania:

“As to ‘the skill and efficiency of the attorneys involved,’ we can only echo what we said about some of the same lawyers in U.S. Bioscience. The results here are outstanding in a litigation that was far ahead of public agencies like the Securities and Exchange Commission and the United States Department of Justice. . . . At the same time, these attorneys have, through the division of their labors, represented the class most efficiently[.]”

Praising the work of Berger & Montague attorneys including Securities Department Chair, Sherrie R. Savett, in achieving settlements of over $190 million in In re Rite Aid Inc. Securities Litigation, 146 F. Supp.2d 706, 735 (E.D. Pa. June 8, 2001).

From Judge Marvin Katz of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania:

“Class counsel did a remarkable job in representing the class interests.”

Commenting on the work of Berger & Montague attorneys Merrill G. Davidoff, Todd S. Collins and Douglas M. Risen, on the partial settlement for $111 million approved May, 2000, In Re: IKON Office Solutions Securities Litigation, 194 F.R.D. 166, 197 (E.D. Pa. 2000).

5 Case 8:10-cv-01327-JST -RNB Document 59-3 Filed 09/19/11 Page 8 of 87 Page ID #:1252

From Judge Wayne R. Andersen of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois:

“...[Y]ou have acted the way lawyers at their best ought to act. And I have had a lot of cases...in 15 years now as a judge and I cannot recall a significant case where I felt people were better represented than they are here ... I would say this has been the best representation that I have seen.”

Praising the work of Sherrie R. Savett , Carole A. Broderick, and Gary E. Cantor at a hearing in In Re: Waste Management, Inc. Securities Litigation, Civil Action No. 97-C 7709 (N.D. Ill. 1999).

From Judge Helen J. Frye, United States District Judge for the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon:

In order to bring about this result [partial settlements then totaling $54.25 million], Class Counsel were required to devote an unusual amount of time and effort over more than eight years of intense legal litigation which included a four- month long jury trial and full briefing and argument of an appeal before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, and which produced one of the most voluminous case files in the history of this District.

* * *

Throughout the course of their representation, the attorneys at Berger & Montague and Stoll, Stoll, Berne, Lokting & Shlachter who have worked on this case have exhibited an unusual degree of skill and diligence, and have had to contend with opposing counsel who also displayed unusual skill and diligence.

Commenting, inter alia, on lead counsel, lead trial counsel and lead appellate counsel Merrill G. Davidoff in awarding fees on April 15, 1996 in In Re Melridge, Inc. Securities Litigation, No. CV 87-1426-FR (D. Ore.).

From Judge Stewart Dalzell of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania:

“The quality of lawyering on both sides, but I am going to stress now on the plaintiffs’ side, simply has not been exceeded in any case, and we have had some marvelous counsel appear before us and make superb arguments, but they really don’t come any better than Mrs. Savett . . . , and the arguments we had on the motion to dismiss [Mrs. Savett argued the motion], both sides were fabulous, but plaintiffs’ counsel were as good as they come. ”

6 Case 8:10-cv-01327-JST -RNB Document 59-3 Filed 09/19/11 Page 9 of 87 Page ID #:1253

Commenting on the settlement of a securities case litigated by Sherrie R. Savett and Carole A. Broderick, In re U.S. Bioscience Securities Litigation, Civil Action No. 92-0678, hearing held April 4, 1994 (E.D. Pa. 1994).

From Judge Joseph F. Anderson, Jr. of the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina:

“I don’t have a problem at all approving the settlement. In light of what you’ve said today and your submission to the Court and I am familiar with the case ... it was a sharply litigated case, with good lawyers on both sides and I think it’s an ideal case for settlement. It’s the largest settlement I’ve been called upon to approve in my eight years as a judge.”

Praising the work of Sherrie R. Savett, Securities Department Chair in achieving a $32 million settlement in In Re: Policy Management Systems Corporation, Civil Action No. 3:93-0807-17 (D.S.C. 1993).

From Judge Harry R. McCue of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California:

“There can be no doubt that the public good was fully served by the attorneys for the plaintiffs in this case, because they invested their own time, their own money, they invested their special skills and knowledge to vindicate the rights and interests of the thousands of investors who invested their money and placed their trust in the integrity of the securities market. . . . I conclude that the achievement of plaintiffs’ counsel under any of those tests was superior. “

Concerning the work of lead attorney Sherrie R. Savett in achieving a $33 million settlement in In re Oak Industries Securities Litigation, 1986 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20942 (S.D. Cal. 1986).

From Judge John F. Keenan of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York:

“The quality of work of plaintiffs’ counsel on this case is also demonstrated by the efficient manner of prosecution. . . . At the settlement hearing, defense counsel conceded that plaintiffs’ counsel constitute the ‘cream of the plaintiffs’ bar.’ The court cannot find fault with that characterization.”

Regarding the work of Sherrie R. Savett in In re Warner Communications Securities Litigation, 618 F. Supp. 735, 749 (S.D.N.Y. 1985).

7 Case 8:10-cv-01327-JST -RNB Document 59-3 Filed 09/19/11 Page 10 of 87 Page ID #:1254

Antitrust Litigation

From Judge William H. Pauley, III of the U.S. District Court of the Southern District of New York:

“Class Counsel did their work on their own with enormous attention to detail and unflagging devotion to the cause. Many of the issues in this litigation . . . were unique and issues of first impression.”

* * *

“Class Counsel provided extraordinarily high-quality representation. This case raised a number of unique and complex legal issues . . . The law firms of Berger & Montague and [another firm] were indefatigable. They represented the Class with a high degree of professionalism, and vigorously litigated every issue against some of the ablest lawyers in the antitrust defense bar.”

Regarding the work of Berger & Montague shareholders Merrill G. Davidoff and Ruthanne Gordon in In re Currency Conversion Fee Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 1409, M21-95, slip op. at 33-34 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 22, 2009)

From Judge Charles P. Kocoras of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois:

“The stakes were high here, with the result that most matters of consequence were contested. There were numerous trips to the courthouse, and the path to the trial court and the Court of Appeals frequently traveled. The efforts of counsel for the class has [sic] produced a substantial recovery, and it is represented that the cash settlement alone is the second largest in the history of class action litigation. . . . There is no question that the results achieved by class counsel were extraordinary[.]”

Regarding the work of Berger & Montague shareholders H. Laddie Montague and Peter R. Kahana, among others, in achieving a more than $700 million settlement with some of the defendants in In Re Brand Name Prescription Drugs Antitrust Litigation, 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1734 at *5-6 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 9, 2000).

From Judge Peter J. Messitte of the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland:

“The experience and ability of the attorneys I have mentioned earlier, in my view in reviewing the documents, which I have no reason to doubt, the plaintiffs’ counsel are at the top of the profession in this regard and certainly have used their

8 Case 8:10-cv-01327-JST -RNB Document 59-3 Filed 09/19/11 Page 1 1 of 87 Page ID #:1255

expertise to craft an extremely favorable settlement for their clients, and to that extent they deserve to be rewarded.”

Concerning the work of senior member, Merrill G. Davidoff, as stated in a Settlement Approval Hearing, Oct. 28, 1994. Spawd, Inc. and General Generics v. Bolar Pharmaceutical Co., Inc., CA No. PJM-92-3624 (D. Md.).

From Judge Donald W. Van Artsdalen of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania:

“As to the quality of the work performed, although that would normally be reflected in the not immodest hourly rates of all attorneys, for which one would expect to obtain excellent quality work at all times, the results of the settlements speak for themselves. Despite the extreme uncertainties of trial, plaintiffs’ counsel were able to negotiate a cash settlement of a not insubstantial sum, and in addition, by way of equitable relief, substantial concessions by the defendants which, subject to various condition, will afford the right, at least, to lessee-dealers to obtain gasoline supply product from major oil companies and suppliers other than from their respective lessors. The additional benefits obtained for the classes by way of equitable relief would, in and of itself, justify some upward adjustment of the lodestar figure.”

Commending the skills of firm then chairman David Berger, shareholder Martin Twersky, and other Berger & Montague attorneys, in Bogosian v. Gulf Oil Corp., 621 F. Supp. 27, 31 (E.D. Pa. 1985).

From Judge Joseph Blumenfeld of the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut:

“The work of the Berger firm showed a high degree of efficiency and imagination, particularly in the maintenance and management of the national class actions.”

Referencing the leadership of managing partner H. Laddie Montague, co-lead counsel, in In re Master Key Antitrust Litigation, 1977 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12948 at *34-35 (Nov. 4, 1977).

Civil/Human Rights Cases

From Deputy Treasury Secretary Stuart E. Eizenstat:

“We must be frank. It was the American lawyers, through the lawsuits they brought in U.S. courts, who placed the long-forgotten wrongs by German companies during the Nazi era on the international agenda. It was their research

9 Case 8:10-cv-01327-JST -RNB Document 59-3 Filed 09/19/11 Page 12 of 87 Page ID #:1256

and their work which highlighted these old injustices and forced us to confront them. Without question, we would not be here without them. . . . For this dedication and commitment to the victims, we should always be grateful to these lawyers.”

In his remarks at the July 17, 2000, signing ceremony for the international agreements which established the German Foundation to act as a funding vehicle for the payment of claims to Holocaust survivors.

Insurance Litigation

From Judge Janet C. Hall, of the U.S. District Court of the District of Connecticut:

Noting the “very significant risk in pursuing this action” given its uniqueness in that “there was no prior investigation to rely on in establishing the facts or a legal basis for the case .... [and] no other prior or even now similar case involving parties like these plaintiffs and a party like these defendants.” Further, “the quality of the representation provided to the plaintiffs . . . in this case has been consistently excellent.... [T]he defendant[s] . . . mounted throughout the course of the five years the case pended, an extremely vigorous defense.... [B]ut for counsel’s outstanding work in this case and substantial effort over five years, no member of the class would have recovered a penny.... [I]t was an extremely complex and substantial class . . . case . . . [with an] outstanding result.”

Regarding the work of Berger & Montague attorneys Peter R. Kahana and Steven L. Bloch, among other co-class counsel, in Spencer, et al. v. The Hartford Financial Services Group, Inc., et al., in the Order approving the $72.5 million final settlement of this action, dated September 21, 2010 (USDC, D. Conn., Case Number 3:05-cv-1681).

Customer/Broker Arbitrations

From Robert E. Conner, Public Arbitrator with the National Association of Securities Dealers, Inc.:

“. . . [H]aving participated over the last 17 years in 400 arbitrations and trials in various settings, . . . the professionalism and the detail and generally the civility of everyone involved has been not just a cause for commentary at the end of these proceedings but between ourselves [the arbitration panel] during the course of them, and . . . the detail and the intellectual rigor that went into the documents was fully reflective of the effort that was made in general. I wanted to make that known to everyone and to express my particular respect and admiration.”

10 Case 8:10-cv-01327-JST -RNB Document 59-3 Filed 09/19/11 Page 13 of 87 Page ID #:1257

About the efforts of Berger & Montague shareholders Merrill G. Davidoff and Eric L. Cramer, who achieved a $1.1 million award for their client, in Steinman v. LMP Hedge Fund, et al., NASD Case No. 98-04152, at Closing Argument, June 13, 2000.

Other

From Stephen M. Feiler, Ph.D., Director of Judicial Education, Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, Administrative Office of Pennsylvania Courts, Mechanicsburg, PA on behalf of the Common Pleas Court Judges (trial judges) of Pennsylvania:

“On behalf of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania and AOPC’s Judicial Education Department, thank you for your extraordinary commitment to the Dealing with Complexities in Civil Litigation symposia. We appreciate the considerable time you spent preparing and delivering this important course across the state. It is no surprise to me that the judges rated this among the best programs they have attended in recent years.”

About the efforts of Berger & Montague attorneys Merrill G. Davidoff, Peter Nordberg and David F. Sorensen in planning and presenting a CLE Program to trial judges in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.

11 Case 8:10-cv-01327-JST -RNB Document 59-3 Filed 09/19/11 Page 14 of 87 Page ID #:1258

PROMINENT JUDGMENTS AND SETTLEMENTS

The firm has a wide breadth of achievement in many significant areas of complex and business- related litigation. The following is a partial list of some of the more notable judgments and settlements from the past few years. For ease of reference, the specific litigation areas can be found as follows:

Securities Litigation Pages 12-15 Individual Securities Action Page 15 Antitrust Litigation Pages 15-18 Environmental/Mass Tort Litigation Pages 18-19 Employee Benefits/ERISA Litigation Page 19 Civil/Human Rights Litigation Pages 19-20 Consumer Litigation Pages 20-22 Commercial Litigation Pages 22-23 Employment Litigation Pages 23-24 Insurance Litigation Pages 24-25 Other Individual Litigation Page 25

Securities Litigation

In re Merrill Lynch Securities Litigation: Berger & Montague, as co-lead counsel, obtained a recovery of $475 million in 2009 for the benefit of the class in one of the largest recoveries among the recent financial crisis cases. (Civil Action No. 07-CV-09633 (S.D.N.Y.)).

In re Sotheby’s Holding, Inc. Securities Litigation: The firm, as lead counsel obtained a $70 million settlement, of which $30 million was contributed, personally, by an individual defendant (No. 00 Civ. 1041 (DLC) (S.D.N.Y.)).

In re KLA Tencor Securities Litigation: The firm, as a member of Plaintiffs’ Counsel’s Executive Committee, obtained a cash settlement of $65 million in 2009 in an action on behalf of investors against KLA-Tencor and certain of its officers and directors. (No. 06-cv-04065 (N.D. Cal.)).

Ginsburg v. Philadelphia Stock Exchange, Inc., et al.: The firm represented certain shareholders of the Philadelphia Stock Exchange in the Delaware Court of Chancery and in 2008, obtained a settlement valued in excess of $99 million settlement. (C.A. No. 2202-CC (Del. Ch.)).

In re Sepracor Inc. Securities Litigation: The firm, as co-lead counsel, obtained a settlement of $52.5 million for the benefit of bond and stock purchaser classes. (Civil Action No. 02-12235- MEL (D. Mass.)).

12 Case 8:10-cv-01327-JST -RNB Document 59-3 Filed 09/19/11 Page 15 of 87 Page ID #:1259

In re CIGNA Corp. Securities Litigation: The firm, as co-lead counsel, obtained a settlement of $93 million for the benefit of the class. (Master File No. 2:02-CV-8088 (E.D. Pa.)).

In re Fleming Companies, Inc. Securities Litigation: The firm, as lead counsel, obtained a class settlement of $94 million for the benefit of the class. (Civil Action No. 5-03-MD-1530 (TJW) (E.D. Tex.)).

In re Xcel Energy Inc. Securities, Derivative & “ERISA” Litigation: The firm, as co-lead counsel in the securities actions, obtained a cash settlement of $80 million on behalf of investors against Xcel Energy and certain of its officers and directors. (Civil Action No. 02-2677 (DSD/FLN) (D. Minn.)).

Brown v. Kinross Gold U.S.A. Inc.: The firm represented lead plaintiffs as co-lead counsel and obtained $29.25 million cash settlement and an additional $6,528,371 in dividends for a gross settlement value of $35,778,371. (No. 02-CV-0605 (D. Nev.))

In re Campbell Soup Co. Securities Litigation: The firm, as co-lead counsel, obtained a settlement of $35 million for the benefit of the class. (Civil Action No. 00 152 (JEI) (D.N.J.)).

In re Premiere Technologies, Inc. Securities Litigation: The firm, as co-lead counsel, obtained a class settlement of over $20 million in combination of cash and common stock. (Civil Action No.1:98-CV-1804-JOF (N.D. Ga.)).

In re: PSINet, Inc., Securities Litigation: The firm, as co-lead counsel, obtained a settlement of $17.83 million on behalf of investors. (Civ. No. 00-1850-A (E.D. Va.)).

In re Safety -Kleen Corp. Securities Litigation : The firm, as co-lead counsel, obtained a class settlement in the amount of $45 million against Safety-Kleen’s outside accounting firm and certain of the Company’s officers and directors. The final settlement was obtained 2 business days before the trial was to commence. (C.A. No. 3:00-CV-736-17 (D.S.C.)).

Emil Rossdeutscher and Dennis Kelly v. Viacom: The firm, as lead counsel, obtained a settlement resulting in a fund of $14.25 million for the class. (C.A. No. 98C-03-091 (JEB) (Del. Super. Ct.)).

Aldridge v. A.T. Cross Corp.: The firm represented a class of investors in a securities fraud class action against the A.T. Cross , and won a significant victory in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit when that Court reversed the dismissal of the complaint and lessened the pleading standard for such cases in the First Circuit, holding that it would not require plaintiffs in a shareholder suit to submit proof of financial restatement in order to prove revenue inflation. See Aldridge v. A.T. Cross Corp., 284 F.3d 72 (1st Cir. 2002). The case ultimately settled for $1.5 million. (Civil Action 00203 ML (D.R.I.)).

13 Case 8:10-cv-01327-JST -RNB Document 59-3 Filed 09/19/11 Page 16 of 87 Page ID #:1260

Silver v. UICI: The firm, as co-lead counsel, obtained a settlement resulting in a fund of $16 million for the class. (No. 3:99 CV 2860-L (N.D. Tex.)).

In re Alcatel Alsthom Securities Litigation: In 2001, the firm, as co-lead counsel, obtained a class settlement for investors of $75 million cash. (MDL Docket No. 1263 (PNB) (E.D. Tex.)).

In re Rite Aid Corp. Securities Litigation: The firm, as co-lead counsel, obtained settlements totaling $334 million against Rite Aid’s outside accounting firm and certain of the company’s former officers. (99 CV 1349 (E.D. Pa.)).

In re Sunbeam Inc. Securities Litigation: As co-lead counsel, the firm obtained a settlement on behalf of investors of $141 million in the action against Sunbeam’s outside accounting firm and Sunbeam’s officers. (98 CV 8258 (S.D. Fla.)).

In re Waste Management, Inc. Securities Litigation: In 1999, the firm, as co-lead counsel, obtained a class settlement for investors of $220 million cash which included a settlement against Waste Management’s outside accountants. (97 CV 7709 (N.D. Ill.)).

In re IKON Office Solutions Inc. Securities Litigation: The firm, serving as both co-lead and liaison counsel, obtained a cash settlement of $111 million in an action on behalf of investors against IKON and certain of its officers. (MDL Dkt. No. 1318 (E.D. Pa.)).

In re Melridge Securities Litigation: The firm served as lead counsel and co-trial counsel for a class of purchasers of Melridge common stock and convertible debentures. A four-month jury trial yielded a verdict in plaintiffs’ favor for $88.2 million, and judgment was entered on RICO claims against certain defendants for $239 million. The court approved settlements totaling $55.4 million. (CV-87-1426 FR (D. Ore.)).

Walco Investments, Inc. et al. v. Kenneth Thenen, et al. (Premium Sales): The firm, as a member of the plaintiffs’ steering committee, obtained settlements of $141 million for investors victimized by a Ponzi scheme. Reported at: 881 F. Supp. 1576 (S.D. Fla. 1995); 168 F.R.D. 315 (S.D. Fla. 1996); 947 F. Supp. 491 (S.D. Fla. 1996)).

In re The Drexel Burnham Lambert Group, Inc.: The firm was appointed co-counsel for a mandatory non-opt-out class consisting of all claimants who had filed billions of dollars in securities litigation-related proofs of claim against The Drexel Burnham Lambert Group, Inc. and/or its subsidiaries. Settlements in excess of $2.0 billion were approved in August 1991 and became effective upon consummation of Drexel’s Plan of Reorganization on April 30, 1992. (90 Civ. 6954 (MP), Chapter 11, Case No. 90 B 10421 (FGC), Jointly Administered, reported at, inter alia, 960 F.2d 285 (2d Cir. 1992), cert. dismissed, 506 U.S. 1088 (1993) (“Drexel I”) and 995 F.2d 1138 (2d Cir. 1993) (“Drexel II”)).

In re Michael Milken and Associates Securities Litigation: As court-appointed liaison counsel, the firm was one of four lead counsel who structured the $1.3 billion “global” settlement of all

14 Case 8:10-cv-01327-JST -RNB Document 59-3 Filed 09/19/11 Page 17 of 87 Page ID #:1261

claims pending against Michael R. Milken, over 200 present and former officers and directors of Drexel Burnham Lambert, and more than 350 Drexel/Milken-related entities. (MDL Dkt. No. 924, M21-62-MP (S.D.N.Y.).

RJR Nabisco Securities Litigation: In this action, Berger & Montague represented individuals who sold RJR Nabisco securities prior to the announcement of a corporate change of control. This securities case settled for $72 million. (88 Civ. 7905 MBM (S.D.N.Y.)).

Individual Securities Actions

New Jersey v. Qwest Communications International: The Berger firm represented the pension funds for public employees in the State of New Jersey seeking to recover losses on their investments in Qwest common stock. The action settled for $45 million. (MER-L-3738-02 (N.J. Super. Ct., Mercer Cty.)).

Pennsylvania Public School Employees’ Retirement System, et al. v. Time Warner, Inc., et al.: The Berger firm represented a group of pension funds seeking to recover for losses on their investments in AOL/Time Warner common stock. The case settled for $23 million. (July 2003, No. 002103 (Pa. Ct. Com . Pl., Phila. Cty.)).

Kelly v. McKesson HBOC, Inc.: The Berger firm represented a group of private shareholders who sold their companies to a large publicly-held corporation in exchange for $103.5 million in stock. The case settled for a confidential sum on the eve of trial for a percentage of plaintiffs’ damages far greater than plaintiffs would have received from a related class action. (C.A. No. 99C-09-265WCC (Del. Super. Ct.)).

Forbes v. GMH: The Berger firm represented a private real estate developer/investor who sold a valuable apartment complex to GMH for cash and publicly-held securities. The case settled for a confidential sum which represented a significant portion of the losses experienced. (C.A. No. 07- cv-00979 (E.D. Pa.)).

Antitrust Litigation

In re Currency Conversion Fee Antitrust Litigation: Berger & Montague spearheaded a class action lawsuit alleging that the major credit cards had conspired to fix prices for foreign currency conversion fees imposed on credit card transactions. After eight years of litigation, a settlement of $336 million was finally approved in October 2009. (MDL No. 1409 (S.D.N.Y)).

In re High Fructose Corn Syrup Antitrust Litigation: Berger & Montague was one of three co- lead counsel in this nationwide class action alleging a conspiracy to allocate volumes and customers and to price-fix among five producers of high fructose corn syrup. After nine years of litigation, including four appeals, the case was settled on the eve of trial for $531 million. (MDL. No. 1087, Master File No. 95-1477 (C.D. Ill.)).

15 Case 8:10-cv-01327-JST -RNB Document 59-3 Filed 09/19/11 Page 18 of 87 Page ID #:1262

In re Linerboard Antitrust Litigation: Berger & Montague was one of a small group of court- appointed executive committee members who led this nationwide class action against producers of linerboard. The complaint alleged that the defendants conspired to reduce production of linerboard in order to increase the price of linerboard and corrugated boxes made therefrom. At the close of discovery, the case was settled for more than $200 million. (98 Civ. 5055 and 99- 1341 (E.D. Pa.)).

In re Terazosin Antitrust Litigation: Berger & Montague was one of a small group of firms alleging that Abbott Laboratories was paying its competitors to refrain from introducing less expensive generic versions of Hytrin. The case settled for a $74.5 million settlement. (Case No. 99-MDL-1317 (S.D. Fla.)).

In re Remeron Antitrust Litigation: Berger & Montague was one of a small group of firms alleging that the manufacturer of this drug was paying its competitors to refrain from introducing less expensive generic versions of Remeron. The case settled for a $75 million settlement. (2:02-CV-02007-FSH (D. N.J.).

In re Tricor Antitrust Litigation: Berger & Montague was one of a small group of firms alleging that the manufacturer of this drug was paying its competitors to refrain from introducing less expensive generic versions of Tricor. The case settled for a $250 million settlement. (No. 05-340 (D. Del.)).

In re Relafen Antitrust Litigation: Berger & Montague was one of a small group of firms who prepared for the trial of this nationwide class action against GlaxoSmithKline, which was alleged to have used fraudulently-procured patents to block competitors from marketing less-expensive generic versions of its popular nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug, Relafen (nabumetone). Just before trial, the case was settled for $175 million. (No. 01-12239-WGY (D. Mass.)).

In re Microcrystalline Antitrust Litigation: Berger & Montague was one of two co-lead counsel in this class action alleging a conspiracy to fix the price of microcrystalline cellulose, used in the manufacture of many pharmaceuticals. The case was settled shortly before trial for a total of $50 million. (MDL No. 1402 (E.D. Pa.)).

In re Graphite Electrodes Antitrust Litigation: Berger & Montague was one of the four co-lead counsel in a nationwide class action price-fixing case. The case eventually settled in excess of $130 million. (02 Civ. 99-482 (E.D. Pa.)).

In re Buspirone Antitrust Litigation: The firm served on the court-appointed steering committee in this class action, representing a class of primarily pharmaceutical wholesalers and resellers. The Buspirone class action alleged that pharmaceutical manufacturer BMS engaged in a pattern of illegal conduct surrounding its popular anti-anxiety medication, Buspar, namely, paying a competitor to refrain from marketing a generic version of Buspar; improperly listing a patent with the FDA; and wrongfully prosecuting patent infringement actions against generic

16 Case 8:10-cv-01327-JST -RNB Document 59-3 Filed 09/19/11 Page 19 of 87 Page ID #:1263

competitors to Buspar. On April 11, 2003, the Court finally approved a $220 million settlement. (MDL No. 1410 (S.D.N.Y.)).

In re Cardizem CD Antitrust Litigation: Berger & Montague served on the Executive Committee of firms appointed to represent the class of direct purchasers of Cardizem CD. The suit charged that Aventis (the brand-name drug manufacturer of Cardizem CD) entered into an illegal agreement to pay Andrx (the maker of a generic substitute to Cardizem CD) millions of dollars to delay the entry of the less expensive generic product. On November 26, 2002, the district court approved a final settlement against both defendants for $110 million. (No. 99-MD- 1278, MDL No. 1278 (E.D. Mich.)).

In re Brand Name Prescription Drugs Antitrust Litigation: The firm served as co-lead counsel in this antitrust price-fixing class action on behalf of a class of purchasers of brand name prescription drugs. Following certification of the class by the district court, settlements exceeded $717 million. (No. 94 C 897 (M.D. Ill.)).

North Shore Hematology-Oncology Assoc., Inc. v. Bristol-Myers Squibb Co.: The firm was one of several prosecuting an action complaining of Bristol Myers’s use of invalid patents to block competitors from marketing more affordable generic versions of its life-saving cancer drug, Platinol (cisplatin). The case settled for $50 million. (No. 1:04CV248 (EGS) (D.D.C.)).

In re Catfish Antitrust Litig. Action: The firm was co-trial counsel in this action which settled with the last defendant a week before trial, for total settlements approximating $27 million. (No. 2:92CV073-D-O, MDL No. 928 (N.D. Miss.)).

In re Carbon Dioxide Antitrust Litigation: The firm was co-trial counsel in this antitrust class action which settled with the last defendant days prior to trial for total settlements approximating $53 million, plus injunctive relief. (MDL No. 940 (M.D. Fla.)).

In re Infant Formula Antitrust Litigation: The firm served as co-lead counsel in an antitrust class action where settlement was achieved two days prior to trial, bringing the total settlement proceeds to $125 million. (MDL No. 878 (N.D. Fla.)).

Red Eagle Resources Corp., Inc., v. Baker Hughes, Inc.: The firm was a member of the plaintiffs’ executive committee in this antitrust class action which yielded a settlement of $52.5 million. (C.A. No. H-91-627 (S.D. Tex.)).

In re Corrugated Container Antitrust Litigation: The firm, led by H. Laddie Montague, was co-trial counsel in an antitrust class action which yielded a settlement of $366 million, plus interest, following a trial. (MDL No. 310 (S.D. Tex.)).

Bogosian v. Gulf Oil Corp.: With Berger & Montague as sole lead counsel, this landmark action on behalf of a national class of more than 100,000 gasoline dealers against 13 major oil

17 Case 8:10-cv-01327-JST -RNB Document 59-3 Filed 09/19/11 Page 20 of 87 Page ID #:1264

companies led to settlements of over $35 million plus equitable relief on the eve of trial. (No. 71-1137 (E.D. Pa.)).

In re Master Key Antitrust Litigation: The firm served as co-lead counsel in an antitrust class action that yielded a settlement of $21 million during trial. (MDL No. 45 (D. Conn.)).

Environmental/Mass Tort Litigation

Cook v. Rockwell International Corporation: In February 2006, the firm won a $554 million jury verdict on behalf of thousands of property owners whose homes were exposed to plutonium or other toxins. Judgment in the case was entered by the court in June 2008 which, with interest, totaled $926 million (with proceedings now continuing on appeal). Recognizing this tremendous achievement, the Public Justice Foundation bestowed its prestigious Trial Lawyer of the Year Award for 2009 on Mr. Davidoff, Mr. Sorensen and the entire trial team for their “long and hard- fought” victory against “formidable corporate and government defendants.” (No. 90-cv-00181- JLK (D. Colo.)). The jury verdict in that case was vacated on appeal; appellate proceedings are continuing.

In re Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Litigation: On September 16, 1994, a jury trial of several months duration resulted in a record punitive damages award of $5 billion against the Exxon defendants as a consequence of one of the largest oil spills in U.S. history. The award was reduced to $507.5 million pursuant to a Supreme Court decision. David Berger was co-chair of the plaintiffs’ discovery committee (appointed by both the federal and state courts). Harold Berger served as a member of the organizing case management committee. H. Laddie Montague was specifically appointed by the federal court as one of the four designated trial counsel. Both Mr. Montague and Peter Kahana shared (with the entire trial team) the 1995 “Trial Lawyer of the Year Award” given by the Trial Lawyers for Public Justice. (No. A89-0095-CVCHRH (D. Alaska)).

In re Ashland Oil Spill Litigation: The firm led by Harold Berger served as co-lead counsel and obtained a $30 million settlement for damages resulting from a very large oil spill. (Master File No. M-14670 (W.D. Pa.)).

State of Connecticut Tobacco Litigation: Berger & Montague was one of three firms to represent the State of Connecticut in a separate action in state court against the tobacco companies. The case was litigated separate from the coordinated nationwide actions. Although eventually Connecticut joined the national settlement, its counsel’s contributions were recognized by being awarded the fifth largest award among the states from the fifty states’ Strategic Contribution Fund.

In re School Asbestos Litigation: As co-lead counsel, the firm successfully litigated a case in which a nationwide class of elementary and secondary schools and school districts suffering property damage as a result of asbestos in their buildings were provided relief. Pursuant to an

18 Case 8:10-cv-01327-JST -RNB Document 59-3 Filed 09/19/11 Page 21 of 87 Page ID #:1265

approved settlement, the class received in excess of $70 million in cash and $145 million in discounts toward replacement building materials. (No. 83-0268 (E.D. Pa.)).

Drayton v. Pilgrim’s Pride Corp.: The firm served as counsel in a consolidation of wrongful death and other catastrophic injury cases brought against two manufacturers of turkey products, arising out of a 2002 outbreak of Listeria Monocytogenes in the Northeastern United States, which resulted in the recall of over 32 million pounds of turkey – the second largest meat recall in U.S. history at that time. A significant opinion issued in the case is Drayton v. Pilgrim’s Pride Corp., 472 F.Supp.2d 638 (E.D. Pa. 2006) (denying the defendants’ motions for summary judgment and applying the alternative liability doctrine). All of the cases settled on confidential terms in 2006. (No. 03-2334 (E.D. Pa.)).

In re SEPTA 30th Street Subway/Elevated Crash Class Action: Berger & Montague represented a class of 220 persons asserting injury in a subway crash. Despite a statutory cap of $1 million on damages recovery from the public carrier, and despite a finding of sole fault of the public carrier in the investigation by the National Highway Transit Safety Administration, Berger & Montague was able to recover an aggregate of $3.03 million for the class. (1990 Master File No. 0001 (Pa. Ct. Com . Pls., Phila. Cty.)).

In re Three Mile Island Litigation: As lead/liaison counsel, the firm successfully litigated the case and reached a settlement in 1981 of $25 million in favor of individuals, corporations and other entities suffering property damage as a result of the nuclear incident involved. (C.A. No. 79-0432 (M.D. Pa.)).

Employee Benefits /ERISA Litigation

In re Unisys Corp. Retiree Medical Benefits: The firm, as co-lead counsel, handled the presentation of over 70 witnesses, 30 depositions, and over 700 trial exhibits in this action that has resulted in partial settlements in 1990 of over $110 million for retirees whose health benefits were terminated. (MDL No. 969 (E.D. Pa.)).

Local 56 U.F. C.W. v. Campbell Soup Co.: The firm represented a class of retired Campbell Soup employees in an ERISA class action to preserve and restore retiree medical benefits. A settlement yielded benefits to the class valued at $114.5 million. (No. 93-MC-276 (SSB) (D.N.J.)).

Civil/Human Rights Litigation

In re Holocaust Victim Assets Litigation: Through membership on the executive committee in cases brought by Holocaust survivors against the three largest Switzerland-based banks, this litigation was settled for $1.25 billion. (105 F. Supp.2d 139 (E.D.N.Y. 2000)).

19 Case 8:10-cv-01327-JST -RNB Document 59-3 Filed 09/19/11 Page 22 of 87 Page ID #:1266

In re Nazi Era Cases Against German Defendants Litigation: Through the firm’s co-lead counsel role, cases against German industry and banks for the use of slave and forced labor during the Nazi era were ultimately settled in the context of international negotiations which created a fund for victims of $4.5 billion. (198 F.R.D. 429 (D.N.J. 2000)).

Consumer Litigation

Countrywide Predatory Lending Enforcement Action: Berger & Montague advised the Ohio Attorney General (and several other state attorneys general) regarding predatory lending in a landmark law enforcement proceeding against Countrywide (and its parent, Bank of America) culminating in 2008 in mortgage-related modifications and other relief for borrowers across the country valued at some $8.6 billion.

In re Pet Foods Product Liability Litigation: The firm is one of plaintiffs’ co-lead counsel in this multidistrict class action suit seeking to redress the harm resulting from the manufacture and sale of contaminated dog and cat food. The case has been settled for $24 million. Many terms of the settlement are unique and highly beneficial to the class, including allowing class members to recover up to 100% of their economic damages without any limitation on the types of economic damages they may recover. (1:07-cv-02867 (D.N.J.), MDL Docket No. 1850 (D.N.J.)). On December 16, 2010, the Third Circuit upheld the settlement as fair, reasonable and adequate in all respects except one. While the settlement establishes a cash fund of $24 million to reimburse claims for all reasonable economic damages, the settlement limits claims for the purchase price of recalled pet food (“Purchase Claims”) to an aggregate maximum of $250,000. This means that if all Purchase Claims total more than $250,000, each Purchase Claim would be reduced to its proportionate share of $250,000. The Appellate Court held that Judge Hillman “lacked the information necessary to determine whether the $250,000 allocated to Purchase Claims was fair, reasonable, and adequate.” The Appellate Court instructed Judge Hillman to reconsider whether the $250,000 allocated to Purchase Claims was fair, reasonable, and adequate and asked the settling parties to “either produce the relevant information or demonstrate that it is unavailable or that producing it would be unfeasible.”

In re TJX Companies Retail Security Breach Litigation: The firm served as co-lead counsel in this multidistrict litigation brought on behalf of individuals whose personal and financial data was compromised in the then-largest theft of personal data in history. The breach involved more than 45 million credit and debit card numbers and 450,000 customers’ driver’s license numbers. The case was settled for benefits valued at over $200 million. Class members whose driver’s license numbers were at risk were entitled to 3 years of credit monitoring and identity theft insurance (a value of $390 per person based on the retail cost for this service), reimbursement of actual identity theft losses, and reimbursement of driver’s license replacement costs. Class members whose credit and debit card numbers were at risk were entitled to cash of $15-$30 or store vouchers of $30-$60. (No. 1:07-cv-10162-WGY, (D. Mass.)).

20 Case 8:10-cv-01327-JST -RNB Document 59-3 Filed 09/19/11 Page 23 of 87 Page ID #:1267

In Re: Heartland Payment Systems, Inc. Customer Data Security Breach Litigation: The firm served on the Executive Committee of this multidistrict litigation and obtained a settlement of cash and injunctive relief for a class of 130 million credit card holders whose credit card information was stolen by computer hackers. The breach was the largest known theft of credit card information in history. The settlement is subject to court approval. (No. 4:09-MD-2046 (S.D. Tex. 2009)).

In re: Countrywide Financial Corp. Customer Data Security Breach Litigation: The firm served on the Executive Committee of this multidistrict litigation and obtained a settlement for a class of 17 million individuals whose personal information was at risk when a rouge employee sold their information to unauthorized third parties. Settlement benefits included: (i) reimbursement of several categories of out-of-pocket costs; (ii) credit monitoring and identity theft insurance for 2 years for consumers who did not accept Countrywide’s prior offer of credit monitoring; and (iii) injunctive relief. The settlement is subject to court approval. (3:08-md- 01998-TBR (W.D. Ky. 2008)).

In re Educational Testing Service Praxis Principles of Learning and Teaching: Grades 7-12 Litigation: The firm served on the plaintiffs’ steering committee and obtained an $11.1 million settlement in 2006 on behalf of persons who were incorrectly scored on a teacher’s licensing exam. (MDL No. 1643 (E.D. La.)).

Vadino, et al. v. American Home Products Corporation, et al.: The firm filed a class complaint different from that filed by any other of the filing firms in the New Jersey State Court “Fen Phen” class action, and the class sought in the firm’s complaint was ultimately certified. It was the only case anywhere in the country to include a claim for medical monitoring. In the midst of trial, the New Jersey case was folded into a national settlement which occurred as the trial was ongoing, and which was structured to include a medical monitoring component worth in excess of $1 billion. (Case Code No. 240 (N.J. Super. Ct.)).

Parker v. American Isuzu Motors, Inc.: The firm served as sole lead counsel and obtained a settlement whereby class members recovered up to $500 each for economic damages resulting from accidents caused by faulty brakes. (Sept. Term 2003, No. 3476 (Pa. Ct. Com . Pl., Phila. Cty.)).

In re: Bridgestone Firestone, Inc. ATX, ATX II and Wilderness Tires Products Liab. Litig.: The firm filed a complaint that was later consolidated into the master multidistrict litigation (MDL). Claims in the MDL were focused on: (1) products liability claims against Bridgestone/Firestone for faulty tires; and (2) diminution in value (DIV) claims against Ford for the falling value of Ford Explorers. B&M was one of three firms on the Discovery Committee. After surviving in part the motion to dismiss, engaging in substantial discovery, and litigating the motion for class certification, the case was settled on a non-class basis. (Master File No. 00-ml- 09374-SEB-JMS (S.D. Ind.), MDL No. 1373).

21 Case 8:10-cv-01327-JST -RNB Document 59-3 Filed 09/19/11 Page 24 of 87 Page ID #:1268

Salvucci v. Volkswagen of America, Inc. d/b/a Audi of America, Inc.: The firm served as co- lead counsel in litigation brought on behalf of a nationwide class alleging that defendants failed to disclose that its vehicles contained defectively designed timing belt tensioners and associated parts and that defendants misrepresented the appropriate service interval for replacement of the timing belt tensioner system. After extensive discovery, a settlement was reached. (Docket No. ATL-1461-03 (N.J. Sup. Ct. 2007)).

Burgo v. Volkswagen of America, Inc. d/b/a Audi of America, Inc.: The firm served as co-lead counsel in litigation brought on behalf of a nationwide class against premised on defendants’ defective tires that were prone to bubbles and bulges. Counsel completed extensive discovery and class certification briefing. A settlement was reached while the decision on class certification was pending. The settlement consisted of remedies including total or partial reimbursement for snow tires, free inspection/replacement of tires for those who experienced sidewall bubbles, blisters, or bulges, and remedies for those class members who incurred other costs related to the tires’ defects. (Docket No. HUD-L-2392-01 (N.J. Sup. Ct. 2001)).

Crawford v. Philadelphia Hotel Operating Co.: The firm served as co-lead counsel and obtained a settlement whereby persons who contracted food poisoning at a business convention recovered $1,500 each. (March Term, 2004, No. 000070 (Pa. Ct. Com . Pl., Phila. Cty.)).

Block v. McDonald’s Corporation: The firm served as co-lead counsel and obtained a settlement of $12.5 million with McDonald’s stemming from its failure to disclose the use of beef fat in its french fries. (No. 01-CH-9137 (Ill. Cir. Ct., Cook Cty.)).

Commercial Litigation

Erie Power Technologies, Inc. v. Aalborg Industries A/S, et al.: Berger & Montague represented a trustee in bankruptcy against officers and directors and the former corporate parent and obtained a very favorable confidential settlement. (No. 04-282E (W.D. Pa.)).

Moglia v. Harris et al.: Berger & Montague represented a liquidating trustee against the officers of U.S. Aggregates, Inc. and obtained a settlement of $4 million. (No. C 04 2663 (CW) (N.D. Cal.)).

Gray v. Gessow et al.: The firm represented a litigation trust and brought two actions, one against the officers and directors of Sunterra Inc. an insolvent company, and the second against Sunterra’s accountants, Arthur Andersen and obtained an aggregate settlement of $4.5 million. (Case No. MJG 02-CV-1853 (D. Md.) and No. 6:02-CV-633-ORL-28JGG (M.D. Fla.)).

Fitz, Inc. v. Ralph Wilson Plastics Co.: The firm served as sole lead counsel and obtained, after 7 years of litigation, in 2000 a settlement whereby fabricator class members could obtain full recoveries for their losses resulting from defendants’ defective contact adhesives. (No. 1-94-CV- 06017 (D.N.J.)).

22 Case 8:10-cv-01327-JST -RNB Document 59-3 Filed 09/19/11 Page 25 of 87 Page ID #:1269

Provident American Corp. and Provident Indemnity Life Insurance Company v. The Loewen Group Inc. and Loewen Group International Inc.: Berger & Montague settled this individual claim, alleging a 10-year oral contract (despite six subsequent writings attempting to reduce terms to writing, each with materially different terms added, all of which were not signed), for a combined payment in cash and stock of the defendant, of $30 Million. (No. 92-1964 (E.D. Pa.)).

Marilou Whitney (Estate of Cornelius Vanderbilt Whitney) v. Turner/Time Warner: Berger & Montague settled this individual claim for a confidential amount, seeking interpretation of the distribution agreement for the movie, Gone with the Wind and undistributed profits for the years 1993-1997, with forward changes in accounting and distribution.

American Hotel Holdings Co., et. al v. Ocean Hospitalities, Inc., et. al.: Berger & Montague defended against a claim for approximately $16 million and imposition of a constructive trust, arising out of the purchase of the Latham Hotel in Philadelphia. Berger & Montague settled the case for less than the cost of the trial that was avoided. (June Term, 1997, No. 2144 (Pa. Ct. Com. Pl., Phila. Cty.))

Creative Dimensions and Management, Inc. v. Thomas Group, Inc.: Berger & Montague defended this case against a claim for $30 million for breach of contract. The jury rendered a verdict in favor of Berger & Montague’s client on the claim (i.e., $0), and a verdict for the full amount of Berger & Montague’s client on the counterclaim against the plaintiff. (No. 96-6318 (E.D. Pa.)).

Robert S. Spencer, et al. v. The Arden Group, Inc., et al.: Berger & Montague represented an owner of limited partnership interests in several commercial real estate partnerships in a lawsuit against the partnerships’ general partner. The terms of the settlement are subject to a confidentiality agreement. (Aug. Term, 2007, No. 02066 (Pa. Ct. Com. Pl., Phila. Cty. - Commerce Program)).

Employment Litigation

Employees Committed for Justice v. Eastman Kodak Company: The firm served as co-lead counsel and obtained a settlement of $21.4 million on behalf of a nationwide class of African American employees of Kodak alleging a pattern and practice of racial discrimination (pending final approval). A significant opinion issued in the case is Employees Committed For Justice v. Eastman Kodak Co., 407 F.Supp.2d 423 (W.D.N.Y. 2005) (denying Kodak’s motion to dismiss). No. 6:04-cv-06098 (W.D.N.Y.)).

Salcido v. Cargill Meat Solutions Corp.: The firm served as co-lead counsel and obtained a settlement of $7.5 million on behalf of a class of thousands of employees of Cargill Meat Solutions Corp. alleging that they were forced to work off-the-clock and during their breaks. This is one of the largest settlements of this type of case involving a single plant in U.S. history. (Civil Action Nos. 1:07-cv-01347-LJO-GSA and 1:08-cv-00605-LJO-GSA (E.D. Cal.)).

23 Case 8:10-cv-01327-JST -RNB Document 59-3 Filed 09/19/11 Page 26 of 87 Page ID #:1270

Miller v. Hygrade Food Products, Inc.: The firm served as lead counsel and obtained a settlement of $3.5 million on behalf of a group of African American employees of Sara Lee Foods Corp. to resolve charges of racial discrimination and retaliation at its Ball Park Franks plant. (No. 99-1087 (E.D. Pa.)).

Chabrier v. Wilmington Finance, Inc.: The firm served as co-lead counsel and obtained a settlement of $2,925,000 on behalf of loan officers who worked in four offices of to resolve claims for unpaid overtime wages. A significant opinion issued in the case is Chabrier v. Wilmington Finance, Inc., 2008 WL 938872 (E.D. Pa. April 04, 2008) (denying the defendant’s motion to decertify the class). (No. 06-4176 (E.D. Pa.)).

Bonnette v. Rochester Gas & Electric Co.: The firm served as co-lead counsel and obtained a settlement of $2 million on behalf of a class of African American employees of Rochester Gas & Electric Co. to resolve charges of racial discrimination in hiring, job assignments, compensation, promotions, discipline, terminations, retaliation, and a hostile work environment. (No. 07-6635 (W.D.N.Y.)).

Confidential. The firm served as lead counsel and obtained a settlement of $6 million on behalf of a group of African American employees of a Fortune 100 company to resolve claims of racial discrimination, as well as injunctive relief which included significant changes to the Company’s employment practices (settled out of court while charges of discrimination were pending with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission).

Insurance Litigation

Spencer v. Hartford Financial Services Group, Inc.: The firm, together with co-counsel, prosecuted this national class action against The Hartford Financial Services Group, Inc. and its affiliates in the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut (Spencer v. Hartford Financial Services Group, Inc., Case No. 05-cv-1681) on behalf of approximately 22,000 claimants, each of whom entered into structured settlements with Hartford property and casualty insurers to settle personal injury and workers' compensation claims. To fund these structured settlements, the Hartford property and casualty insurers purchased annuities from their affiliate, Hartford Life. By purchasing the annuity from Hartford Life, The Hartford companies allegedly were able to retain up to 15% of the structured amount of the settlement in the form of undisclosed costs, commissions and profit - all of which was concealed from the settling claimants. On March 10, 2009, the U.S. District Court certified for trial claims on behalf of two national subclasses for civil RICO and fraud (256 F.R.D. 284 (D. Conn. 2009)). On October 14, 2009, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals denied The Hartford's petition for interlocutory appeal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(f).On September 21, 2010, the U.S. District Court entered judgment granting final approval of a $72.5 million cash settlement.

Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company v. O’Dell: The firm, together with co-counsel, prosecuted this class action against Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company in West Virginia Circuit Court, Roane County (Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company v. O'Dell, Case No. 00-C-

24 Case 8:10-cv-01327-JST -RNB Document 59-3 Filed 09/19/11 Page 27 of 87 Page ID #:1271

37), on behalf of current and former West Virginia automobile insurance policyholders, which arose out of Nationwide's failure, dating back to 1993, to offer policyholders the ability to purchase statutorily-required optional levels of underinsured ("UIM") and uninsured ("UM") motorist coverage in accordance with West Virginia Code 33-6-31. The court certified a trial class seeking monetary damages, alleging that the failure to offer these optional levels of coverage, and the failure to provide increased first party benefits to personal injury claimants, breached Nationwide's insurance policies and its duty of good faith and fair dealing, and violated the West Virginia Unfair Trade Practices Act. On June 25, 2009, the court issued final approval of a settlement that provided a minimum estimated value of $75 million to Nationwide auto policyholders and their passengers who were injured in an accident or who suffered property damage.

Other Individual Litigation

Rita Rappaport v. Samuel Rappaport; Estate of Samuel Rappaport, Deceased: Berger & Montague settled this divorce action involving significant marital real estate holdings for in excess of $20 million for the client.

25 Case 8:10-cv-01327-JST -RNB Document 59-3 Filed 09/19/11 Page 28 of 87 Page ID #:1272

FOUNDING PARTNER:

David Berger (1912-2007)

David Berger was the founder and the Chairman of Berger & Montague. He received his A.B. cum laude in 1932 and his LL.B. cum laude in 1936, both from the University of Pennsylvania. He was a member of The Order of the Coif and was an editor of the University of Pennsylvania Law Review. He had a distinguished scholastic career including being Assistant to Professor Francis H. Bohlen and Dr. William Draper Lewis, Director of the American Law Institute, participating in the drafting of the first Restatement of Torts. He also served as a Special Assistant Dean of the University of Pennsylvania Law School. He was a member of the Board of Overseers of the Law School and Associate Trustee of the University of Pennsylvania. In honor of his many contributions, the Law School established the David Berger Chair of Law for the Improvement of the Administration of Justice.

David Berger was a law clerk for the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. He served as a deputy assistant to Director of Enemy Alien Identification Program of the United States Justice Department during World War II.

Thereafter he was appointed Lt.j.g. in the U.S. Naval Reserve and he served in the South Pacific aboard three aircraft carriers during World War II. He was a survivor of the sinking of the U.S.S. Hornet in the Battle of Santa Cruz, October 26, 1942. After the sinking of the Hornet, Admiral Halsey appointed him a member of his personal staff when the Admiral became Commander of the South Pacific. Mr. Berger was ultimately promoted to Commander. He was awarded the Silver Star and Presidential Unit Citation.

After World War II, he was a law clerk in the United States Court of Appeals. The United States Supreme Court appointed David Berger a member of the committee to draft the Federal Rules of Evidence, the basic evidentiary rules employed in federal courts throughout the United States. David Berger was a fellow of the American College of Trial Lawyers, the International Society of Barristers, and the International Academy of Trial Lawyers, of which he was a former Dean. He was a Life Member of the Judicial Conference of the Third Circuit and the American Law Institute.

A former Chancellor (President) of the Philadelphia Bar Association, he served on numerous committees of the American Bar Association and was a lecturer and author on various legal subjects, particularly in the areas of antitrust, securities litigation, and evidence.

David Berger served as a member of President John F. Kennedy’s committee which designed high speed rail lines between Washington and Boston. He drafted and activated legislation in the Congress of the United States which resulted in the use of federal funds to assure the continuance of freight and passenger lines throughout the United States. When the merger of the

26 Case 8:10-cv-01327-JST -RNB Document 59-3 Filed 09/19/11 Page 29 of 87 Page ID #:1273

Pennsylvania Railroad and the New York Central Railroad, which created the Penn Central Transportation Company, crashed into Chapter 11, David Berger was counsel for Penn Central and a proponent of its reorganization. Through this work, Mr. Berger ensured the survival of the major railroads in the Northeastern section of the United States including Penn Central, New Jersey Central, and others.

Mr. Berger’s private practice included clients in London, Paris, Dusseldorf, as well as in Philadelphia, Washington, New York City, Florida, and other parts of the United States. David Berger instituted the first class action in the antitrust field, and for over 30 years he and the Berger firm were lead counsel and/or co-lead counsel in countless class actions brought to successful conclusions, including antitrust, securities, toxic tort and other cases. He served as one of the chief counsel in the litigation surrounding the demise of Drexel Burnham Lambert, in which over $2.6 billion was recovered for various violations of the securities laws during the 1980s. The recoveries benefitted such federal entities as the FDIC and RTC, as well as thousands of victimized investors.

In addition, Mr. Berger was principal counsel in a case regarding the Three Mile Island accident near Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, achieving the first legal recovery of millions of dollars for economic harm caused by the nation’s most serious nuclear accident. As part of the award in the case, David Berger established a committee of internationally renowned scientists to determine the effects on human beings of emissions of low level radiation.

In addition, as lead counsel in In re Asbestos School Litigation, he brought about settlement of this long and vigorously fought action spanning over 13 years for an amount in excess of $300 million.

David Berger was active in Democratic politics. President Clinton appointed David Berger a member of the United States Holocaust Memorial Council, in which capacity he served from 1994-2004. In addition to his having served for seven years as the chief legal officer of Philadelphia, he was a candidate for District Attorney of Philadelphia, and was a Carter delegate in the Convention which nominated President Carter.

Over his lengthy career David Berger was prominent in a great many philanthropic and charitable enterprises some of which are as follows: He was the Chairman of the David Berger Foundation and a long time honorary member of the National Commission of the Anti-Defamation League. He was on the Board of the Jewish Federation of Philadelphia and, at his last place of residence, Palm Beach, as Honorary Chairman of the American Heart Association, Trustee of the American Cancer Society, a member of the Board of Directors of the American Red Cross, and active in the Jewish Federation of Palm Beach County.

David Berger’s principal hobby was tennis, a sport in which he competed for over 60 years. He was a member of the Board of Directors of the International Tennis Hall of Fame and other related organizations for assisting young people in tennis on a world-wide basis.

27 Case 8:10-cv-01327-JST -RNB Document 59-3 Filed 09/19/11 Page 30 of 87 Page ID #:1274

THE SHAREHOLDERS:

Harold Berger

Harold Berger, a former Judge of the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia, is a graduate of the University of Pennsylvania School of Electrical Engineering (B.S.E.E. 1948) and the University of Pennsylvania Law School (J.D. 1951). He is a senior partner and managing principal of the firm and serves on its Executive Committee.

He currently serves as a member of the Board of Overseers of the School of Engineering and Applied Science of the University of Pennsylvania. He has served as Chair of the Third Circuit Class Action and Complex Litigation Committee of the Federal Bar Association and is past Chair of the FBA’s National Committee on the Federal and State Judiciary. He is the author of numerous law review articles and has lectured extensively before bar associations and at universities. His biography appears in Who’s Who in America, Who’s Who in American Law and Who’s Who in the World. He has been given the highest rating for legal ability as well as the highest rating for ethical standards by the Martindale-Hubbell American legal directory.

Harold Berger has participated in many national litigation and class action matters of a complex nature, including the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Litigation, C.A. No. A89-095 (D. Alaska), which resulted in a record punitive damage award of $5 billion against Exxon after Trial and in which he served on the case management team and as Co-Chair of the national discovery team. He also participated in the In re Three Mile Island Litigation, C.A. No. 79-0432 (M.D. Pa.), where he acted as liaison counsel, and in the nationwide school asbestos property damage class action, In re Asbestos School Litigation, Master File No. 83-0268 (E.D. Pa.), where the firm was co-lead counsel. The case was settled for an amount in excess of $300 million. He also served as co- lead counsel in the Ashland Oil Spill Litigation, Master File No. M-14670 (W.D. Pa.), as co-lead counsel in the Chrysler Motors Corp. Odometer Litigation, MDL Docket No. 740 (E.D. Mo.), and as lead counsel in the Collins & Aikman Product Liability Class Action, C.A. No. 87-2529 (E.D. Pa.).

Harold Berger is a former member of the State and Federal Court Relations Committee of the National Conference of State Trial Judges and is the recipient of numerous awards including a Special American Bar Association Presidential Program Award and Medal and the Special Service Award of the Pennsylvania Conference of State Trial Judges. He is the recipient of the Federal Bar Association’s National Service Award for distinguished service to the Federal and State Judiciary. He is a permanent member of the Judicial Conference of the Third Circuit Court of Appeals and served as National Chair of the FBA’s Alternate Dispute Resolution Committee.

Recipient of the Alumnus of the Year Award of the Thomas McKean Law Club of the University of Pennsylvania Law School, Harold Berger was honored by the University of Pennsylvania School of Engineering and Applied Science by the dedication of the Honorable Harold Berger Annual Lecture and Award to a technical innovator who has made a lasting contribution to the

28 Case 8:10-cv-01327-JST -RNB Document 59-3 Filed 09/19/11 Page 31 of 87 Page ID #:1275

quality of our lives. He was further honored by the University by the dedication of a student award in his name for engineering excellence.

Harold Berger has served as Chair of the International Conferences on Global Interdependence held at Princeton University. He has served as Chair of the Aerospace Law Committees of the American, Federal and Inter-American Bar Associations and, in recognition of the importance and impact of his scholarly work, was elected to the International Academy of Astronautics in Paris. He is active in law and engineering alumni affairs at Penn, serving as a University Overseer and as Chair of the Friends of Biddle Law Library. He is a past President of the Eastern District Chapter of the Federal Bar Association and has served as Chair of the Chapter’s Class Action and Complex Litigation Committees in addition to serving as Chair of the Bench- Bar Liaison Committee.

Long active in diverse, philanthropic, charitable, community and inter-faith endeavors, Harold Berger currently serves as a Trustee of The Federation of Jewish Charities of Greater Philadelphia, as a Director of the National Museum of Jewish History, as a National Director of the Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society (HIAS) in its endeavors to assist refugees and indigent souls of all faiths, as a Charter Fellow of the Foundation of the Federal Bar Association and as a member of the Hamilton Circle of the Philadelphia Bar Foundation. He is the recipient of “The Children of the American Dream” award of HIAS and Council for his leadership in the civic, legal, academic and Jewish communities.

H. Laddie Montague, Jr.

H. Laddie Montague, Jr. is a graduate of the University of Pennsylvania (B.A. 1960) and the Dickinson School of Law (L.L.B. 1963) where he was a member of the Board of Editors of the Dickinson Law Review. He is currently Chairman of the Board of Governors for Dickinson School of Law of Penn State University. He is a member of the Executive Committee of the firm having joined its predecessor David Berger, P.A. at its inception in 1970. He is the President and shareholder of the firm and is Chairman of the Antitrust Department.

In addition to being one of the courtroom trial counsel for plaintiffs in the mandatory punitive damage class action in the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Litigation, Mr. Montague has served as lead or co-lead counsel in many class actions, including In re Infant Formula Antitrust Litigation (1993) and Bogosian v. Gulf Oil Corp., a nationwide class action against thirteen major oil companies (1984). Mr. Montague is co-lead counsel for the State of Connecticut in its litigation against the tobacco industry.

Mr. Montague was one of four co-lead counsel in In re Brand Name Prescription Drugs Antitrust Litigation, M.D.L. 997 (N.D. Ill.) and was one of three co-lead counsel in In Re High Fructose Corn Syrup Antitrust Litigation, M.D.L. No. 1087 (C.D. Ill.). In addition to the Exxon Valdez Litigation, he has tried several complex, protracted cases to jury, including two class actions: In re Master Key Antitrust Litigation, (1977) and In re Corrugated Container Antitrust

29 Case 8:10-cv-01327-JST -RNB Document 59-3 Filed 09/19/11 Page 32 of 87 Page ID #:1276

Litigation (1980). For his work as trial counsel in the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Litigation, Mr. Montague shared the Trial Lawyers for Public Justice 1995 Trial Lawyer of the Year Award.

Mr. Montague has frequently lectured on class action litigation for the Practicing Law Institute, the Pennsylvania Bar Institute and before other associations. He has taught a Complex Litigation Course at Temple University Law School and has been a panelist at the Federal Bench-Bar Conference for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. Mr. Montague was a member of the 1984 faculty of the Columbia Law School Continuing Legal Educational Program entitled “The Trial of an Antitrust Case.” Mr. Montague has testified before Congress with respect to antitrust and business fraud legislation, including the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”). He is currently a member of the Advisory Board of the Antitrust & Trade Regulation Report published by the Bureau of National Affairs.

Sherrie R. Savett

Summary

Sherrie R. Savett, Chair of the Securities Litigation Department, and member of the Management Committee of the law firm of Berger & Montague, has practiced in the area of securities litigation and class actions since 1975. Eight securities class actions in which Ms. Savett served as lead counsel, are among the largest securities class actions settled in the United States since the enactment of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act (“PSLRA”) in 1995. She has advanced investor protection by helping to establish several significant legal precedents. Ms. Savett speaks and writes often on professional topics, and is also a business and community leader.

Securities Litigation

Ms. Savett serves or has served as lead or co-lead counsel or as a member of the executive committee in a large number of important securities and consumer class actions in federal and state courts across the country, including:

Advanced Micro Devices (class settlement of $11.5 million); *Alcatel Alsthom (class settlement of $75 million); BankAmerica (derivative settlement of $39.25 million); Boston Chicken (class settlement of $21.5 million); Bristol-Myers Squibb (class settlement of $20 million); Cephalon (class settlement of $17 million); *Cigna (class settlement of $93 million); Coastal Physician Group (class settlement of $8.15 million); Crocker Bank (class settlement of $35 million); Employee Solutions (class settlement valued at $15 million); Fidelity/Micron (class settlement of $10 million); *Fleming Companies (class settlement of $94 million);

30 Case 8:10-cv-01327-JST -RNB Document 59-3 Filed 09/19/11 Page 33 of 87 Page ID #:1277

Genentech (class settlement of $29 million); Global Crossing (class settlement of $444 million); Home Shopping Network (class settlement of $18.2 million); *KLA-Tencor (class settlement of $65 million); Long Island Lighting (class settlement of $48.5 million); Marconi (class settlement of $7.1 million); *Medaphis/Deloitte & Touche (class settlement of $96.5 million); Micro Warehouse (class settlement valued at $30 million); Motorola (class settlement of $15 million); Oak Industries (class settlement in excess of $35 million); Plains All American Pipeline LP (class settlement of $24.1 million); Policy Management (class settlement of $32 million); Policy Management II (class settlement of $7.75 million); Public Service Company of New Mexico (class and derivative settlements of $33 million); Raychem (class settlement of $19.5 million); *Rite Aid (class settlement of $334 million); Safety-Kleen (class settlement of $44.5 million achieved two days before trial); Sepracor (class settlement of $52.5 million) Shopko Stores (class settlement of $4.9 million); SmithKline Beckman (class settlement of $22 million); *Sotheby’s Holdings (class settlement of $70 million); Summit Technology (class settlement of $10 million); Sunrise Medical (class settlement of $20 million); Subaru (class settlement of $70 million); Synergen (class settlement of $28 million); U.S. Bioscience (class settlement valued at $15.25 million); United HealthCare (class settlement of $20.1 million); United Telecommunications (class settlement of $28 million); Valujet (class settlement of $5 million); W.R. Grace (derivative settlement of $8.5 million); *Waste Management (class settlement of $220 million); and *Xcel Energy (class settlement of $80 million).

* Listed among the largest securities class actions settled in the United States since the enactment of the PSLRA in 1995.

Investor Protection

Ms. Savett has helped establish several significant precedents. Among them is the holding (the first ever in a federal appellate court) that municipalities are subject to the anti-fraud provisions of SEC Rule 1 0b-5 under ‘ 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and that municipalities that issue bonds are not acting as an arm of the state and therefore are not entitled to immunity from suit in the federal courts under the Eleventh Amendment. Sonnenfeld v. City and County of Denver, 100 F.3d 744 (10th Cir.1996)

31 Case 8:10-cv-01327-JST -RNB Document 59-3 Filed 09/19/11 Page 34 of 87 Page ID #:1278

In the U.S. Bioscience securities class action, a biotechnology case where critical discovery was needed from the federal Food and Drug Administration, the court ruled that the FDA may not automatically assert its administrative privilege to block a subpoena and may be subject to discovery depending on the facts of the case. In re U.S. Bioscience Secur. Litig., 150 F.R.D. 80 (E.D. Pa. 1993)

In the CIGNA Corp. Securities Litigation, the Court denied defendants’ motion for summary judgment, holding that a plaintiff has a right to recover for losses on shares held at the time of a corrective disclosure and his gains on a stock should not offset his losses in determining legally recoverable damages. In re CIGNA Corp. Securities Litigation, 459 F. Supp. 2d 338 (E.D. Pa. 2006).

Judicial Praise

From Judge Stewart Dalzell, of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, In re U.S. Bioscience Securities Litigation, Civil Action No. 92-0678, hearing held April 4, 1994 (E.D. Pa. 1994).:

“The quality of lawyering on both sides, but I am going to stress now on the plaintiffs’ side, simply has not been exceeded in any case, and we have had some marvelous counsel appear before us and make superb arguments, but they really don’t come any better than Mrs. Savett . . . , and the arguments we had on the motion to dismiss [Mrs. Savett argued the motion], both sides were fabulous, but plaintiffs’ counsel were as good as they come . ”

From Judge David S. Doty, of the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota, In re Xcel Energy Sec. Deriv. “ERISA ” Litig., 364 F. Supp. 2d 980, 992, 995-96 (D. Minn. 2005):

“ [A] just result without the assistance of a governmental investigation,” plaintiffs’ co-lead counsel Berger & Montague “conducted themselves in an exemplary manner,” “consistently demonstrated considerable skill and cooperation to bring this matter to an amicable conclusion,” and “moved the case along expeditiously”.

From Judge Wayne R. Andersen, of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, In Re: Waste Management, Inc. Securities Litigation, Civil Action No. 97-C 7709 (N.D. Ill. 1999):

“...[Y]ou have acted the way lawyers at their best ought to act. And I have had a lot of cases...in 15 years now as a judge and I cannot recall a significant case where I felt people were better represented than they are here ... I would say this has been the best representation that I have seen.”

32 Case 8:10-cv-01327-JST -RNB Document 59-3 Filed 09/19/11 Page 35 of 87 Page ID #:1279

From Judge Stewart Dalzell, of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, In re Rite Aid Inc. Sec. Litig., 269 F.Supp. 2d 603, 611 (E.D. Pa. 2003):

“This litigation presented layers of factual and legal complexity which assured that, absent a global settlement, these disputes would take on Dickensian dimensions ... In short, it would be hard to equal the skill class counsel demonstrated here  . [T]hey were at least eighteen months ahead of the United States Department of Justice in ferreting out the conduct that ultimately resulted in the write down of over $1.6 billion in previously reported Rite Aid earnings.

From U.S. District Judge Michael M. Baylson, In Re: CIGNA Corp. Sec. Litig., 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 51089, **17-18 (E.D. Pa. July 13, 2007):

“The Court is aware of and attests to the skill and efficiency of class counsel: they have been diligent in every respect, and their briefs and arguments before the Court were of the highest quality. The firm of Berger & Montague took the lead in the Court proceedings; its attorneys were well prepared, articulate and persuasive.”

Professional Leadership

Ms. Savett is active in her profession, and is a frequent author and lecturer on prosecuting shareholder and consumer class actions. She was formerly on the board of the Philadelphia Bar Foundation.

In May 2007, Ms. Savett spoke in Rome, Italy at the conference presented by the Litigation Committee of the Dispute Resolution Section of the International Bar Association and the Section of International Law of the American Bar Association on class certification. Ms. Savett participated in a mock hearing before a United States Court on whether to certify a worldwide class action that includes large numbers of European class members.

She has lectured at the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania and at the Stanford Law School on prosecuting shareholder class actions. She is frequently invited to present and serve as panelist in American Bar Association, American Law Institute/American Bar Association and Practicing Law Institute (PLI) conferences on securities class action litigation and the use of class actions in consumer litigation. She has been a presenter and panelist at PLI’s Securities Litigation and Enforcement Institute annually since 1995. She has also spoken at major institutional investor and insurance industry conferences, and DRI -- the Voice of the Defense Bar. In February 2009, she was a member of a six person panel who presented an analysis of the current state of securities litigation before over 1,000 underwriters and insurance executives at the PLUS (Professional Liability Underwriting Society) Conference in New York City. She has presented at the Cyber-Risk Conference in 2009 and will present at the PLUS Conference in Chicago on November 16, 2009 on the subject of litigation involving security breaches and theft of personal information.

33 Case 8:10-cv-01327-JST -RNB Document 59-3 Filed 09/19/11 Page 36 of 87 Page ID #:1280

Ms. Savett is a member of the Editorial Board of the Securities Litigation Report and has been a contributor to this publication.

She has written numerous articles on securities and complex litigation issues, including:

“Plaintiffs’ Vision of Securities Litigation: Current Trends and Strategies,” 1762 PLI, October 2009

“Plaintiffs’ Vision of Securities Litigation: Trends/Strategies in 2005-2007,” 1620 PLI, September 2007

“Plaintiffs’ Vision of Securities Litigation: Trends/Strategies in 2005-2007,” SM086 ALI ABA, June 7-8, 2007

“Securities Class Actions Since the 1995 Reform Act: A Plaintiff’s Perspective,” 1557 PLI, September 2006

“Securities Class Actions Since the 1995 Reform Act: A Plaintiff’s Perspective,” 1505 PLI, September 2005

“Recent Developments in the Lead Plaintiff and Lead Counsel Provisions of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act (PSLRA),” 1 Securities Litigation Report, (Glasser LegalWorks) December 2004-January 2005

“Primary Liability of ‘Secondary’ Actors under the PSLRA,” 1 Securities Litigation Report, (Glasser) November 2004

“Securities Class Actions Since the 1995 Reform Act: A Plaintiff’s Perspective,” 1442 PLI/Corp. 13, September-October 2004

“Securities Class Actions Since the 1995 Reform Act: A Plaintiff’s Perspective,” SJ084 ALI- ABA 399, May 13-14, 2004

“The ‘Indispensable Tool’ of Shareholder Suits,” Directors & Boards, Vol. 28, February 18, 2004

“Plaintiff’s Perspective on How to Obtain Class Certification in Federal Court in a Non-Federal Question Case”, 679 PLI, August 2002

“Hurdles in Securities Class Actions: The Impact of Sarbanes-Oxley from a Plaintiff’s Perspective,” 9 Securities Litigation and Regulation Reporter (Andrews), December 23, 2003

“Securities Class Actions Since the 1995 Reform Act: A Plaintiff’s Perspective,” SG091 ALI- ABA, May 2-3, 2002

34 Case 8:10-cv-01327-JST -RNB Document 59-3 Filed 09/19/11 Page 37 of 87 Page ID #:1281

“Securities Class Actions Since the 1995 Reform Act: A Plaintiff’s Perspective,” SF86 ALI- ABA 1023, May 10, 2001

“Greetings from the Plaintiffs’ Class Action Bar: We’ll Be Watching,” SE082 ALI-ABA739, May 11, 2000

“Preventing Financial Fraud,” B0-00E3 PLI BO-00E3 April-May 1999

“Shareholders Class Actions in the Post Reform Act Era,” SD79 ALI-ABA 893, April 30, 1999

“What to Plead and How to Plead the Defendant’s State of Mind in a Federal Securities Class Action,” with Arthur Stock, PLI, ALI/ABA 7239, November 1998

“The Merits Matter Most: Observations on a Changing Landscape under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995,” 39 Arizona Law Review 525, 1997

“Everything David Needs to Know to Battle Goliath,” ABA Tort & Insurance Practice Section, The Brief, Vol. 20, No. 3, Spring 1991

“The Derivative Action: An Important Shareholder Vehicle for Insuring Corporate Accountability in Jeopardy,” PLI H4-0528, September 1, 1987

“Prosecution of Derivative Actions: A Plaintiff’s Perspective,” PLI H4-5003, September 1, 1986

Honors

Ms. Savett is widely recognized as a leading litigator and a top female leader in the profession by local and national legal rating organizations.

The Legal Intelligencer and Pennsylvania Law Weekly named her one of the “56 Women Leaders in the Profession” in 2004.

In 2003-2005 and 2007-2009, Berger & Montague was named to the National Law Journal’s “Hot List” of 12-20 law firms nationally “who specialize in plaintiffs’ side litigation and have excelled in their achievements.” Having achieved this designation in 6 out of 7 years, the firm is on the National Law Journal’s “Hall of Fame.” Ms. Savett’s achievements were mentioned, among others, in each year.

Ms. Savett was named a “Pennsylvania Top 50 Female Super Lawyer” and a “Pennsylvania Super Lawyer” from 2004 through 2009 by Philadelphia Magazine after an extensive nomination and polling process among Pennsylvania lawyers.

35 Case 8:10-cv-01327-JST -RNB Document 59-3 Filed 09/19/11 Page 38 of 87 Page ID #:1282

In 2006 and 2007, she was named one of the “500 Leading Litigators” and “500 Leading Plaintiffs’ Litigators” in the United States by Lawdragon. In 2008, Ms. Savett was named as one of the “500 Leading Lawyers in America.” Also in 2008, she was named one of 25 “Women of the Year” in Pennsylvania by The Legal Intelligencer and Pennsylvania Law Weekly which stated on May 19, 2008 in the Women in the Profession in The Legal Intelligencer that she “has been a prominent figure nationally in securities class actions for years, and some of her recent cases have only raised her stature.”

In June 2008, Ms. Savett was named by Lawdragon as one of the “100 Lawyers You Need to Know in Securities Litigation.”

Business and Community Leadership

A business leader, Ms. Savett is a member of The Forum of Executive Women and a member of the Union League of Philadelphia.

Ms. Savett is active in community affairs. She is Vice President of The Jewish Federation of Philadelphia, and has served for decades on the Board of Trustees and its 29 member Executive Committee called the Board of Directors. She is Vice Chairperson of the Board of Directors of the National Liberty Museum, and is Chairperson of the Southeastern Pennsylvania State of Israel Bonds and is a member of the National Cabinet of Israel Bonds. In 2005, she received The Spirit of Jerusalem Medallion, the State of Israel Bonds’ highest honor. She is a former board member of the Philadelphia Chapter of the Weizman Institute, and the American Jewish Committee.

Education

She earned her J.D. from the University of Pennsylvania Law School, and a B.A. summa cum laude from the University of Pennsylvania.

Personal

Ms. Savett and her husband have five children and four grandchildren. In addition to her family, she enjoys tennis, physical training, travel and collecting art, especially glass and sculpture.

Merrill G. Davidoff

Merrill G. Davidoff, a Senior Shareholder in the firm, received a B.A. degree from the University of Pennsylvania, and a J.D. from the University of Pennsylvania Law School ( cum laude). He is admitted to practice law in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, the State of New York, the United States Supreme Court, and numerous federal Courts of Appeal. Mr. Davidoff is Co-Chairman of the Antitrust Department with Mr. Montague, Chairs the Environmental Group, and has litigated and tried a wide range of securities, antitrust, and environmental class actions.

36 Case 8:10-cv-01327-JST -RNB Document 59-3 Filed 09/19/11 Page 39 of 87 Page ID #:1283

In the Rocky Flats Nuclear Weapons Plant class action where Mr. Davidoff is lead counsel, the Court held the United States Department of Energy in contempt of court after a one week trial in November, 1995 (reported at 907 F. Supp. 1460 (D. Colo. 1995)). In 2005-2006, this class action finally went to trial (with Mr. Davidoff as lead trial counsel) and, in February 2006, the jury returned a special verdict for the plaintiffs for $554 million, the largest property damage class action jury verdict ever. The verdict was the third-largest jury verdict of 2006 in the United States, according to The National Law Journal. In 2008, after extensive post-trial motions, the District Court entered a $926 million judgment for plaintiffs in this case. In July, 2009, the trial team led by Mr. Davidoff won the Public Justice “Trial Lawyer of the Year” award for its work on the Rocky Flats case. The jury verdict in that case was vacated on appeal; appellate proceedings are continuing.

In In re Foreign Currency Fee Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 1409, where Mr. Davidoff and Berger & Montague are co-lead counsel, a proposed class action settlement of $336 million with Visa, MasterCard, and a number of their member banks is pending court approval.

In In re Payment Card Interchange Fee and Merchant Discount Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 1720, one of the largest pending antitrust cases in the United States, H. Laddie Montague, Jr., Mr. Davidoff and Berger & Montague are one of the three Court-appointed co-lead counsel.

During his extensive legal career, Mr. Davidoff has represented diverse clients, including Burger King Corporation; John I. Haas, Inc.; Joh. Barth & Sohn, A.G.; Karhu, Inc.; Rexroth Corporation/Rexroth GmbH; ADVO System, Inc.; the LeFrak Organization; Mannesmann A.G.; Championship Auto Racing Teams, Inc.; Cascade Steel Rolling Mills, Inc.; Carpenter Technology Corp.; the State of New Jersey; and the City of Philadelphia. Mr. Davidoff represented the State of New Jersey in the Qwest securities litigation, securing a $45 million “opt-out” settlement, and currently represents the State of New Jersey in “opt-out” litigation against former Lehman Brothers Inc. officers and directors. He has also represented many other large and small companies, sports teams, professional organizations, individuals and professional firms. He has acted as lead counsel and trial counsel in numerous antitrust, commercial, environmental, and securities cases. He represented Championship Auto Racing Teams (“CART”), a major Indy-car race-sanctioning organization, in a series of antitrust cases against Indianapolis Motor Speedway and others. Mr. Davidoff has been a speaker at American Trial Lawyers Association meetings and seminars, and has addressed the Environmental and Toxic Torts Section at the National Convention of ATLA. He is also a member of the Antitrust and Business Law Sections of the American Bar Association, and served on the subcommittee of the American Bar Association Antitrust Section which prepared the 1985 supplement to the “Antitrust Civil Jury Instructions.”

In October, 2007, Mr. Davidoff was on the faculty of a continuing education program for all Pennsylvania Common Pleas (trial court) Judges, and received the following accolade:

On behalf of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania and AOPC’s Judicial Education Department, thank you for your extraordinary commitment to the Dealing with

37 Case 8:10-cv-01327-JST -RNB Document 59-3 Filed 09/19/11 Page 40 of 87 Page ID #:1284

Complexities in Civil Litigation symposia. We appreciate the considerable time you spent preparing and delivering this important course across the state. It is no surprise to me that the judges rated this among the best programs they have attended in recent years.

From: Stephen M. Feiler, Ph.D. Director of Judicial Education

Mr. Davidoff served as co-lead and trial counsel for a plaintiff class in the first mass tort class action trial in federal court which resulted in a precedent-setting settlement for class members, In re Louisville Explosions Litigation. In the Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunications Commission (“CRTC”) Decisions ( Challenge Communications, Ltd. v. Bell Canada), Mr. Davidoff was lead counsel for Applicant (plaintiff) in three evidentiary hearings before the CRTC. The hearings resulted in the first precedent breaking Bell Canada’s monopoly over the telecommunications equipment which was connected to its telephone network. He was lead counsel in the Revco Securities Litigation, an innovative “junk bond” class action, which settled for $36 million. Mr. Davidoff was lead plaintiffs’ counsel and lead trial counsel in In re Melridge Securities Litigation, tried to jury verdicts for $88 million (securities fraud) and $240 million (RICO). He was co-lead counsel for the class in In re Graphite Electrodes Antitrust Litigation, an international price-fixing case which yielded settlements ranging from 18% to 32% of the plaintiffs’ and class’ purchases from the defendants (aggregate settlements totaled $134 million). He was one of co-lead counsel in the Ikon Securities Litigation, in which a settlement of $111 million was obtained. He was co-lead counsel and designated lead trial counsel in the In Re Sunbeam Securities Litigation, where settlements of $142 million were reached. One of his areas of concentration is representation in commodities futures and options matters, and expertise in derivatives. He has represented market-makers on the Philadelphia Stock Exchange, where he owned a member firm in the 1990s, as well as broker-dealers and market-makers on other exchanges.

In 2008, Chambers & Partners highly-regarded Chambers USA Edition rated Berger & Montague’s Antitrust Practice as “the top choice for plaintiff antitrust representation, particularly in complex class actions.” Mr. Davidoff was described as a “giant in the field.”

Daniel Berger

Daniel Berger graduated with honors from Princeton University (Class of 1969) and Columbia Law School (1974) where he was a Harlan Fiske Stone academic scholar. He is presently a senior member and shareholder of the firm, for which he serves as Managing Shareholder. Over the last 15 years, he has been involved in a number of complicated commercial cases including class action securities, antitrust, mass tort and bankruptcy cases. In the antitrust area, he has headed up the firm’s involvement in highly successful litigation against brand and generic prescription drug manufacturers in which the Berger Firm has been co-lead counsel, a member of various executive committees or otherwise played a key role including, inter alia, the following cases: Duane Reade Co. v. Aventis et al. ($110 million settlement involving prescription drug

38 Case 8:10-cv-01327-JST -RNB Document 59-3 Filed 09/19/11 Page 41 of 87 Page ID #:1285

Hytrin); Louisiana Wholesale Drug Co. v. Bristol-Myers Squibb ($220 million settlement involving prescription drug Buspar); Valley Drug Co. v. Abbott Laboratories et al., (pending case involving agreements by brand and generic drug companies to delay generic entry); Louisiana Wholesale Drug Co. v. Schering Plough (pending case involving agreements by brand and generic drug companies to delay generic entry); and Louisiana Wholesale Drug Co. v. Glaxo SmithKline Co. (pending case involving fraud on the U.S. Patent Office and improper FDA listing by a brand prescription drug manufacturer which delayed generic entry. In the civil rights area, he has been counsel in informed consent cases involving biomedical research and human experimentation by federal and state governmental entities.

Daniel Berger also has a background in the study of economics having done graduate level work in applied micro-economics and macro-economic theory, the business cycle and economic history. He has published law review articles in the Yale Law Journal, the Duke University Journal of Law and Contemporary Problems and the New York Law School Law Review and worked with the American Law Institute /American Bar Association program on continuing legal education. He has been affiliated with the Kennedy School of Government through the Shorenstein center of Media and Public Policy at Harvard University.

Mr. Berger has been active in city government in Philadelphia and was a member of the Mayor’s Cultural Advisory Council, advising the Mayor of Philadelphia on arts policy and the Philadelphia Cultural Fund, which is responsible for all city grants to arts organizations. Mr. Berger was also a member of the Pennsylvania Humanities Council, one of the State organizations through which the National Endowment for the Humanities makes grants.

Mr. Berger is also an author and journalist and has published in the Nation magazine and reviewed books for the Philadelphia Inquirer.

Todd S. Collins

Todd S. Collins is a graduate of the University of Pennsylvania (B.A. 1973) and the University of Pennsylvania Law School (J.D. 1978), where he won the 1978 Henry C. Laughlin Prize for Legal Ethics. He is a member of the Pennsylvania and Delaware Bars. Since joining Berger & Montague in 1982, following litigation and corporate experience in Wilmington, Delaware and Philadelphia, he has concentrated on complex class litigation, including cases on behalf of securities purchasers, shareholders, trust beneficiaries, and retirement plan participants and beneficiaries. Mr. Collins serves on the Berger Firm’s Planning Committee.

Mr. Collins has served as lead counsel or co-lead counsel in numerous cases that have achieved significant benefits on behalf of the Class. These cases include: In re AMF Bowling Securities Litigation (S.D.N.Y.) ($20 million recovery, principally against investment banks, where defendants asserted that Class suffered no damages); In re Aero Systems, Inc. Securities Litigation (S.D. Fla.) (settlement equal to 90 percent or more of Class members’ estimated damages); Price v. Wilmington Trust Co. (Del. Ch.) (in litigation against bank trustee for breach of fiduciary duty, settlement equal to 70% of the losses of the Class of trust beneficiaries); In re

39 Case 8:10-cv-01327-JST -RNB Document 59-3 Filed 09/19/11 Page 42 of 87 Page ID #:1286

Telematics International, Inc. Securities Litigation (S.D. Fla.) (settlements achieved, after extensive litigation, following 11 th Circuit reversal of dismissal below); In re Ex-Cell-O Securities Litigation (E.D. Mich.); In re Sequoia Systems, Inc. (D. Mass.); In re Sapiens International, Inc. Securities Litigation (S.D.N.Y.); In re Datastream Securities Litigation (D.S.C.); Copland v. Tolson (Fischer & Porter Corporate Litigation), (C.P. Bucks County, Pa.) (on eve of trial, in case against corporate principals for breach of fiduciary duty, settlement reached that represented 65% or more of claimants’ losses, with settlement funded entirely from individual defendants’ personal funds); and In re IKON Office Solutions, Inc. Securities Litigation (E.D. Pa.). In IKON, where Mr. Collins was co-lead counsel as well as chief spokesman for plaintiffs and the Class before the Court, plaintiffs’ counsel created a fund of $111 million for the benefit of the Class.

In addition, Mr. Collins has served as lead or co-lead counsel in several of the leading cases asserting the ERISA rights of 401(k) plan participants. Mr. Collins has served as co-lead counsel in In re Lucent Technologies, Inc. ERISA Litigation (D.N.J.); In re Nortel Networks Corp. ERISA Litigation (M.D. Tenn.); In re SPX Corporation ERISA Litigation (W.D. N.C.); and King v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. (D. Nev.). In Lucent, Mr. Collins and his team achieved a settlement consisting of $69 million for the benefit of plan participants as well as substantial injunctive relief with respect to the operation of the 401(k) plans.

Mr. Collins is at the forefront of litigation designed to achieve meaningful corporate governance reform. Recently, he brought to a successful conclusion two landmark cases in which corporate therapeutics are at the core of the relief obtained. In Oorbeek v. FPL Group, Inc. (S.D. Fla.), a corporate derivative action brought on behalf of the shareholders of FPL Group, plaintiffs challenged excessive “change of control” payments made to top executives. In settlement, plaintiffs recovered not only a substantial cash amount, but also a range of improvements in FPL’s corporate governance structure intended to promote the independence of the outsider directors.

Similarly, in Ashworth Securities Litigation (S.D. Cal.), a Section 10(b) fraud case, in which Mr. Collins was co-lead counsel, plaintiffs again have been successful in recovering millions of dollars and also securing important governance changes. In this case, the changes focused on strengthening the accounting function and improving revenue recognition practices.

In corporate acquisition cases, Mr. Collins has served as co-lead counsel in cases such as In Re Portec Rail Products, Inc. Shareholders Litig. (tender offer enjoined), Silberman v. USANA Health Sciences, Inc. et, al. (D. Utah) (offer enjoined on plaintiffs’ motion) and Kahn v. Saker, et al. (Sup. Ct. NJ) (consideration to minority shareholders increased by more than 25 percent as a result of settlement).

Eric L. Cramer

Eric L. Cramer is a shareholder with the Philadelphia law firm of Berger & Montague, P.C., where he has practiced since 1995. He has repeatedly been selected by Chambers USA

40 Case 8:10-cv-01327-JST -RNB Document 59-3 Filed 09/19/11 Page 43 of 87 Page ID #:1287

America’s Leading Lawyers for Business as one of Pennsylvania’s top antitrust lawyers; has been deemed a “Super Lawyer” by Philadelphia Magazine; was highlighted in 2011 as one of the top lawyers in the country by the Legal 500 in the field of complex antitrust litigation; and, was selected as a “Rising Star” and “antitrust ace” by Lawdragon. com . Mr. Cramer has focused his practice on complex litigation in the antitrust arena, including prosecuting antitrust class actions in the pharmaceutical and medical device industries. In the last several years, Mr. Cramer and his colleagues have won substantial settlements for their clients and class members from pharmaceutical industry defendants for a combined total of nearly $1 billion.

Among other writings, Mr. Cramer has co-authored Antitrust, Class Certification, and the Politics of Procedure, 17 George Mason Law Review 4 (2010) (http://ssrn.com/abstract--1578459); co-wrote Of Vulnerable Monopolists?: Questionable Innovation in the Standard for Class Certification in Antitrust Cases, to be published in the Rutgers Camden Law Review (Fall 2010) (http://ssrn.com/abstract--1542143); co-authored a Chapter of American Antitrust Institute’s Private International Enforcement Handbook (2010), entitled “ Who May Pursue a Private Claim?”; contributed to a chapter of the American Bar Association’s Pharmaceutical Industry Handbook (July 2009), entitled “Assessing Market Power in the Prescription Pharmaceutical Industry”; and co-authored an article entitled The Superiority of Direct Proof of Monopoly Power and Anticompetitive Effects in Antitrust Cases Involving Delayed Entry of Generic Drugs, 39 U.S.F. Law Rev. 81 (Fall 2004).

He is a summa cum laude graduate of Princeton University (1989), where he was elected to Phi Beta Kappa. He graduated cum laude from Harvard Law School with a J.D. in 1993. He is a Senior Fellow of the American Antitrust Institute, a member of the Advisory Board of the Institute of Consumer & Antitrust Studies at Loyola University Chicago School of Law, a member of the Boards of Public Justice (formerly known as Trial Lawyers for Public Justice) and the Center for Literacy.

Glen L. Abramson

Glen L. Abramson has been a member of Berger & Montague’s Securities Litigation Department since 2003, concentrating his practice in the area of complex securities class action litigation. Prior to joining Berger & Montague, he worked at Dechert LLP in Philadelphia, where he handled complex commercial litigation, product liability, intellectual property, and civil rights disputes. While at Dechert, Mr. Abramson co-chaired a civil rights trial in federal court that led to a six-figure verdict. Mr. Abramson also spent three years as a professional equities trader.

Currently Mr. Abramson represents both public and private institutional investors, as well as high-net-worth individuals, in several high-profile securities fraud class actions. He is actively involved in In re Mutual Funds Investment Litigation, where Berger & Montague is a member of the Steering Committee, and represents the interest of investors who were harmed as a result of the mutual fund industry’s recent market timing and late trading scandal.

41 Case 8:10-cv-01327-JST -RNB Document 59-3 Filed 09/19/11 Page 44 of 87 Page ID #:1288

Mr. Abramson is also active in pursing corporate governance reform on behalf of institutional investors. He is a member of the National Association of Public Pension Attorneys (NAPPA), and had contributed to an article titled “The Indispensable Tool of Shareholder Suits: Private Securities Litigation as a Remedy for Failed Governance” in Directors & Boards magazine (Vol. 28, No. 2, Winter 2004). Mr Abramson has also commented on securities fraud cases for several publications, including The Economist.

In 2006, 2007, and 2008, Mr. Abramson was named as a Pennsylvania Super Lawyer - Rising Star. The designation of “Rising Star” is an honor conferred upon only the top 2.5% of attorneys in Pennsylvania who are 40 or younger.

Mr. Abramson was awarded a B.A. from Cornell University where he was elected to Phi Beta Kappa. He holds a J.D. cum laude from the Harvard Law School, where he was a member of the Harvard Legal Aid Bureau. He is admitted to practice law in Pennsylvania and New Jersey.

Gary L. Azorsky

Gary L. Azorsky joined Berger & Montague, P.C. as a shareholder of the firm in 2002 and concentrates his practice on qui tam litigation in addition to commercial class actions and complex commercial litigation. Previously, Mr. Azorsky had been actively involved in groundbreaking civil rights, commercial and intellectual property litigation, including Internet and software industry-related litigation, as a partner at the Philadelphia firm of Mesirov Gelman Jaffe Cramer & Jamieson, and later as a partner at the Philadelphia firm of Schnader Harrison Segal & Lewis.

Since joining Berger, Mr. Azorsky has focused primarily on qui tam litigation, particularly in the context of the health care industry. He works extensively representing whistleblowers in both state and federal court. A series of False Claims Act cases against drug companies for fraudulent Medicaid and Medicare drug pricing has led to recoveries of over $200 million, including a $150 million settlement with GlaxoSmithKline PLC.

Mr. Azorsky is admitted to the bars in both Pennsylvania and New Jersey.

Mr. Azorsky is a graduate of The University of Pennsylvania (B.A. 1980) and Cornell University Law School (J.D. 1983).

Jonathan D. Berger

Jonathan Berger is a shareholder in the Employment and Commercial Litigation practice groups at Berger & Montague. Mr. Berger concentrates his practice on the prosecution of class actions, collective actions and plaintiff litigation on behalf of employees, consumers, and shareholders across the country.

42 Case 8:10-cv-01327-JST -RNB Document 59-3 Filed 09/19/11 Page 45 of 87 Page ID #:1289

Mr. Berger also serves as counsel for several commercial hydraulic manufacturers and other companies. As counsel, Mr. Berger provides legal services relating to corporate, commercial, employment, and other business activities.

Since joining the firm in September 1987, Mr. Berger has been involved in class actions and complex commercial litigation including the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Litigation; In re Asbestos School Litigation, Master File No. 83-0268 (E.D. Pa); In re Domestic Airlines Antitrust Litigation, 137 F.R.D. 677 (N.D. Ga. 1991); Ford/Firestone MDL Litigation; Unisys ERISA Benefits Litigation;; Commercial Explosives Antitrust Litigation; and Vitamins Antitrust Litigation. Mr. Berger has also prosecuted complex multi-party litigation involving hydraulic engineered systems.

Mr. Berger has recently litigated wage & hours cases in federal and state courts including: Chabrier v. Wilmington Finance, Inc., No. 06-4176 (E.D. Pa.). Mr. Berger obtained a settlement of $2,925,000 on behalf of retail loan officers who worked in four offices of Wilmington Finance, Inc. to resolve claims for unpaid overtime wages and related penalties. A significant opinion issued in the case is Chabrier v. Wilmington Finance, Inc., 2008 WL 938872 (E.D. Pa. April 04, 2008) (denying the defendant’s motion to decertify the class); and Espinosa v. National Beef California, L.P., No. ECU04657 (Cal. Super. Ct.) ($3.35 million settlement).

Steven L. Bloch

Steven L. Bloch concentrates on class action matters involving insurance and related financial products and services – including annuities, securities and other investment vehicles, as well as consumer fraud, ERISA and employee benefits and antitrust. Mr. Bloch also has wide-ranging complex litigation experience, and has handled matters involving commercial and corporate disputes, civil RICO, business torts, real estate, securities, banking and credit card transactions and labor and employment. Mr. Bloch holds the highest peer-review rating, “AV,” in Martindale-Hubbell and previously has been honored as a Pennsylvania Super Lawyer – Rising Star, in the business litigation arena. Mr. Bloch graduated from Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law (J.D. 1992) and the State University of New York at Albany (B.A. 1989).

Representative class action matters as co-lead counsel:

• Settlement on behalf of a certified nationwide class involving claims of civil RICO and fraud against The Hartford Financial Services Group, Inc. and affiliates concerning the Hartford’s structured settlements practices (Spencer v. The Hartford Financial Services Group, Inc. et al., U.S. Dist. Ct., D. Conn., Case No. 05-cv-1681) ($72.5 million) • Settlement on behalf of a certified class of automobile insurance policyholders in West Virginia against Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company for personal injuries and property damage arising out of Nationwide’s failure to offer policyholders the ability to purchase statutorily-required optional levels of

43 Case 8:10-cv-01327-JST -RNB Document 59-3 Filed 09/19/11 Page 46 of 87 Page ID #:1290

underinsured (“UIM”) and uninsured (“UM”) motorist coverage (Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company v. O’Dell, Case No. 00-C-37, West Virginia Circuit Court, Roane County) ($75 million) • Settlement on behalf of a class of policyholders in multiple states against AFLAC, Inc. concerning the improper adjustment of supplemental disability income policies (Becker v. American Family Life Assurance Company of Columbus and AFLAC, Inc., U.S. Dist. Court, D.S.C., Case No. 05-2101) ($7 million) • Certified pending multi-state class action against United American Ins. Co. and certain agents and business affiliates concerning the sale of limited benefit health insurance and related products (Smith v. Collinsworth et al., Circuit Court of Saline County, Arkansas, Case No. CV2004-72-2)

Representative complex commercial and civil litigation matters:

• Prosecution of an action involving the sale of a health-care industry software program, resulting in a seven-figure settlement • Prosecution of an action involving the sale of a hair care business and proprietary information, resulting in a seven-figure verdict and permanent injunction • Successful defense and settlement (for a nominal sum) of an action by a major credit card brand against a card issuing bank, avoiding enforcement of a long- term contract predicated on price fixing and anticompetitive conduct • Prosecution of an action by a card issuing bank against an internet service provider and its merchant bank for improper credit card transactions, resulting in a seven-figure settlement • Successful defense and settlement (for a nominal sum) of an action for preliminary and permanent injunctive relief against a food equipment manufacturer alleging misappropriation of proprietary information and trade secrets as well as unfair competition • Established basis for liability against a clearing bank under UCC Article 8 predicated on collusion in the illicit conduct of a securities broker-dealer in a case of first impression in the State of New York • Successful defense and dismissal of an action against a broker-dealer by a pension fund for alleged fraud and regulatory violations in connection with a so-called “mini” tender offer • Secured writ of mandate - upheld on appeal - on behalf of the Philadelphia City Council against the Mayor of Philadelphia to enforce legislation • Successful defense of an action for a TRO and preliminary injunction seeking to enjoin construction of a multi-million dollar parking garage facility based on claims of interference with easement, real property and contractual rights • Successful prosecution of multiple actions by the Pennsylvania Insurance Commissioner on behalf of insurers in insolvency and liquidation proceedings.

44 Case 8:10-cv-01327-JST -RNB Document 59-3 Filed 09/19/11 Page 47 of 87 Page ID #:1291

Carole A. Broderick

Carole A. Broderick is a graduate of Cornell University where she received a Bachelor of Arts degree. She is a graduate of the University of Pennsylvania Law School, where she was awarded an LL.B. and was a member of the Law Review. She has practiced before the Securities and Exchange Commission and actively participated in the prosecution and trial of complex securities and antitrust litigation. She is admitted to practice law in Pennsylvania, the Courts of Appeal for the Second, Third, Seventh and Ninth Circuits.

She was part of the litigation team in the Waste Management Securities Litigation ($220 million settlement); In re Rite Aid Securities Litigation ($334 million settlement); and CIGNA Securities Litigation ($93 million settlement).

Ms. Broderick won a decision denying an accounting firm's motion to dismiss a claim that it was liable for a company’s false quarterly financial statements, although the misrepresentations were not publicly attributed to it, in Carley Capital Group v. Deloutte & Touche, LLP, 27 F. Supp. 2d 1324 (N.D. Ga. 1998). The case produced a settlement of almost $24 million against the accountant.

Ms. Broderick has successfully litigated a number of cases against biotechnology, drug and related companies as co-lead counsel, including In re Synergen, Inc. Securities Litigation ($28 million settlement); In re US Bioscience Securities Litigation ($15.25 million settlement); In re Cephalon Securities Litigation ($17 million settlement); and In re Cryolife, Inc. Securities Litigation ($23.25 settlement).

In addition, as Lead Counsel, Ms. Broderick was responsible for winning a $5.5 million dollar settlement in In re Feeco Instruments Inc. Secs. Litig, 05-md-01695 (S.D.N.Y.) which was litigated up to the eve of trial. In approving the settlement and award of attorneys’ fees, Judge McMahon commented:

This was a hard-fought battle. It was a well and at times bitterly litigated case. Plaintiffs counsel was tenacious.

I think for the first time since I have gotten on the federal bench I can say that I an1 absolutely comfortable in every way in approving the settlement and also in approving the requested attorney fees award. The class counsel have put in an inm1ense an1ount of time on this action. They deserve every dime they are going to get and probably some that they are not going to get....

I want to thank everybody for all the hard work you put in on the case, they were very interesting and well-done motion papers, for the fascinating experience of the final pretrial conference. I hope it was just as good for you as it was for me. It was one of those very, very intense days, but could say afterward and my law clerks, my then law clerks said afterward that it was an incredibly intense

45 Case 8:10-cv-01327-JST -RNB Document 59-3 Filed 09/19/11 Page 48 of 87 Page ID #:1292

enlightening experience. They were impressed with and commented on the professionalism of everybody involved.

Gary E. Cantor

Gary E. Cantor is a graduate of Rutgers College (B.A., magna cum laude, 1974, with highest distinction in economics) where he was a member of Phi Beta Kappa, and the University of Pennsylvania Law School (J.D. 1977), where he was a member of the Moot Court Board and the author of a law review comment on computer-generated evidence. He was admitted to the Pennsylvania bar in 1977. Since joining the Berger firm in 1977, he has concentrated on complex litigation, particularly securities litigation and securities valuations. Among other cases, Mr. Cantor has served as co-lead counsel in Steiner v. Phillips, et al. (Southmark Securities), Consolidated C.A. No. 3-89-1387-X (N.D. Tex.), which resulted in several payments to the Settlement Fund of $82.5 million, and In re Kenbee Limited Partnerships Litigation, Civil Action No. 91-2174 (GEB), a class action involving 119 separate limited partnerships resulting in cash settlement and debt restructuring (with as much as $100 million in wrap mortgage reductions). In addition, he played a major leadership role in: In re Merrill Lynch Securities Litigation, Civil Action No. 07-cv-09633 (S.D.N.Y.) ($475 million settlement); In Re Kla- Tencor Corp. Securities Litigation, Master File No. C-06-04065-CRB (N.D. Cal.)($65 million class settlement approved September 26, 2008); In re Sepracor Inc. Securities Litigation, Civil Action no. 02-12235-MEL (D. Mass.)($52.5 million settlement approved September 6, 2007); In re Marconi, Plc, Securities Litigation, Civil Action No. 2:01-CV-1259 (W.D. Pa.)($7.1 million settlement approved January 16, 2004); In re Sotheby’s Holding, Inc. Securities Litigation, No. 00 Civ. 1041 (DLC) (S.D.N.Y.)($70 million class settlement); In re Fidelity/Micron Securities Litigation, Civil Action No. 95-12676-RGS (D. Mass.) ($10 million class settlement); In re Tucson Electric Power Company Securities Litigation, C.A. No. 89-1274 PHX (WPC C.D. Ariz.) ($30 million settlement of class and derivative actions). He was also actively involved in the Waste Management Securities Litigation (class settlement of $220 million).

In addition, for over 15 years Mr. Cantor has also concentrated on securities valuations and the preparation of event or damage studies or the supervision of outside damage experts for many of the firm’s securities cases, including the cases listed above as well as many of the firm’s cases listed under Prominent Judgments and Settlements above. Mr. Cantor’s work in this regard has focused on statistical analysis of securities trading patterns and pricing for determining materiality, loss causation and damages as well as aggregate trading models to determine class- wide damages.

Mr. Cantor has been active in numerous community service activities, including serving as treasurer, president and board chairman of a private school.

Shanon J. Carson

Shanon J. Carson is a graduate of the Indiana University of Pennsylvania (B.A. cum laude 1996 - Criminology) and the Dickinson School of Law of the Pennsylvania State University (J.D. 2000).

46 Case 8:10-cv-01327-JST -RNB Document 59-3 Filed 09/19/11 Page 49 of 87 Page ID #:1293

While in law school, Mr. Carson was Senior Editor of the Dickinson Law Review, and also served as a law clerk for the Honorable William W. Caldwell, Senior Judge, United States District Court, Middle District of Pennsylvania. Since joining Berger & Montague in August of 2000, Mr. Carson has concentrated his practice in the areas of employment discrimination, civil rights, products liability and other commercial litigation, and complex class action litigation. Mr. Carson is admitted to practice in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania

Bart D. Cohen

Bart Cohen graduated from the University of Pennsylvania in 1984 with two degrees, from the Wharton School and the School of Engineering and Applied Science. After working as a software developer, he graduated in 1989 from the Georgetown University Law Center, where he was a member of the American Criminal Law Review, and authored the “1987 Computer Crime Update” in the journal’s survey of white collar crime. Since joining the Berger firm in 1991, Mr. Cohen has concentrated on antitrust litigation, including In re Infant Formula Antitrust Litigation, (N.D. Fla. 1993), In re Carbon Dioxide Antitrust Litigation, (M.D. Fla. 1996), and Callahan v. A.E. V., Inc., 182 F.3d 237 (3rd Cir. 1999) (reversing dismissal of antitrust claims of several small beer distributors). He has also represented an automobile dealership in antitrust litigation against its franchisor, Mercedes-Benz, U.S.A. v. Coast Automotive Group, Ltd., (D.N.J.). Mr. Cohen is admitted to practice in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, the Eastern District of Pennsylvania and the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals.

Michael C. Dell’Angelo

Michael C. Dell’Angelo specializes in antitrust, securities and complex litigation. Since joining Berger & Montague, Mr. Dell’Angelo has handled cases in a variety of fields. He has successfully represented public and private institutional investors and high net-worth individuals in securities-related litigation. In antitrust and commercial litigation matters, Mr. Dell’Angelo has represented a wide array of clients, including industrial manufacturers, wholesale purchasers of prescription drug products, and bankruptcy trustees.

Mr. Dell’Angelo has been deemed a Pennsylvania Super Lawyer - Rising Star, a distinction conferred upon him annually since 2007. The designation of “Rising Star” is an honor conferred upon only the top 2.5% of attorneys in Pennsylvania who are 40 or younger. Mr. Dell’Angelo is regularly invited to speak at Continuing Legal Education and other seminars, both locally and abroad. He formerly served as the Third Circuit Editor of the American Bar Association’s quarterly publication, Class Action and Derivative Suits. Mr. Dell’Angelo is a member of the Philadelphia and American Bar Associations.

Prior to joining Berger & Montague, Mr. Dell’Angelo was an associate at Miller Faucher and Cafferty LLP, where he concentrated in antitrust, securities, and complex commercial litigation. While at Miller Faucher, Mr. Dell’Angelo also practiced before the Federal Trade Commission. He devoted a substantial portion of his practice to the prosecution of numerous class action law

47 Case 8:10-cv-01327-JST -RNB Document 59-3 Filed 09/19/11 Page 50 of 87 Page ID #:1294

suits on behalf of survivors of slave labor during the Holocaust. These suits, against German companies, resulted in a $5.2 billion German Foundation to pay Nazi-era claims.

Mr. Dell’Angelo’s pro bono work includes the representation of an Alabama death row inmate. That representation resulted in a reversal of the client’s sentencing by the Sixth Circuit and a grant of a writ of habeas corpus vacating the client’s death sentence.

Mr. Dell’Angelo graduated from Connecticut College (B.A. 1994) and The Catholic University of America, Columbus School of Law (J.D. 1997). At the Columbus School of Law he was a member of the Moot Court Honor Society and Phi Delta Phi.

Lawrence Deutsch

Lawrence Deutsch is a graduate of Boston University (B.A. 1973), George Washington University’s School of Government and Business Administration (M.S.A. 1979), and Temple University’s School of Law (J.D. 1985). He became a member of the Pennsylvania Bar in 1986 and the New Jersey Bar in 1987. He has also been admitted to practice in Eastern District of Pennsylvania, the First Circuit Court of Appeals, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals and the U.S. Court of Federal Claims as well as various jurisdictions across the country for specific cases.

At the Berger firm, Mr. Deutsch has been involved in numerous major shareholder class action cases. He recently served as lead counsel in the Delaware Chancery Court on behalf of Class A shareholders in a corporate governance litigation concerning the rights and valuation of their shareholdings. Defendants in the case were the Philadelphia Stock Exchange, the Exchange’s Board of Trustees, and six major Wall Street investment firms. The case settled for $99 million and also included significant corporate governance provisions. Chancellor Chandler, when approving the settlement allocation and fee awards on July 2, 2008, complimented counsel’s effort and results, stating, “Counsel, again, I want to thank you for your extraordinary efforts in obtaining this result for the class.” The Chancellor had previously described the intensity of the litigation when he had approved the settlement, “All I can tell you, from someone who has only been doing this for roughly 22 years, is that I have yet to see a more fiercely and intensely litigated case than this case. Never in 22 years have I seen counsel going at it, hammer and tong, like they have gone at it in this case.”

Mr. Deutsch currently is court-appointed Lead or a primary attorney in numerous complex litigation cases: As court-appointed lead counsel In Re Revlon, Inc. Securities Litigation (Civil Case No. 1:09-cv-01008-GMS); serving as principal attorney on behalf of a class of former principals of Towers Perrin (principals of TPAS, an entity of Towers Perrin) within the consolidated case Alan H. Dugan et al v. Towers, Perrin, Forster & Crosby, Inc. et al (Civil Case No. 2:09-cv-05099-MSG); serving as court-appointed lead counsel in In Re Inergy LP Unitholder Litigation (Del. Ch. No. 5816-VCP ); one of principal trial counsel for plaintiffs in Fred Potok v. Floorgraphics, Inc., et a.l (Phila Co. CCP 080200944 and Phila Co. CCP

48 Case 8:10-cv-01327-JST -RNB Document 59-3 Filed 09/19/11 Page 51 of 87 Page ID #:1295

090303768); serving on team of lead counsel in In Re: Certainteed Fiber Cement Siding Litigation.

Over the 25 years working in securities litigation, Mr. Deutsch has been a lead attorney on many substantial matters. Mr. Deutsch served as one of lead counsel in the In Re Sunbeam Securities Litigation class action concerning “Chainsaw” Al Dunlap (recovery of over $142 million for the class in 2002). As counsel on behalf of the City of Philadelphia he served on the Executive Committee for the securities litigation regarding Frank A Dusek, et al v. Mattel Inc., et al (recovery of $122 million for the class in 2006).

Mr. Deutsch recently served as lead counsel for a class of investors in Scudder/Deutsche Bank mutual funds in the nationwide Mutual Funds Market Timing cases. Mr. Deutsch served on the Plaintiffs’ Omnibus Steering Committee for the consortium of all cases. These cases recovered over $300 million in 2010 for mutual fund purchasers and holders against various participants in widespread schemes to “market time” and late trade mutual funds, including $14 million recovered for Scudder/Deutsche Bank mutual fund shareholders.

Mr. Deutsch has also represented plaintiffs in numerous matters of broker/dealer arbitrations, consumer fraud, individual securities disputes and construction litigation.

In addition to his litigation work, Mr. Deutsch has been a member of the firm’s Administrative Committee over the past ten years and also manages the firm’s paralegals. He has also regularly represented indigent parties through the Bar Association’s VIP Program, including the Bar’s highly acclaimed representation of homeowners facing mortgage foreclosure.

Prior to joining the Berger firm, Mr. Deutsch served in the Peace Corps from 1973-1976, serving in Costa Rica, the Dominican Republic and Belize. (He presently serves on the Board of Directors of the Friends of the Dominican Republic.) He then worked for ten years at the United States General Services Administration.

Michael T. Fantini

Michael T. Fantini is a graduate of Saint Joseph’s University (B.S. magna cum laude 1986) and George Washington National Law Center (J.D. with honors 1989), where he was a member of the Moot Court Board. Prior to joining the Berger firm, he was a litigation associate in the Washington, D.C. office of Dechert, Price & Rhoads.

Since joining the Berger firm in 1992, Mr. Fantini has concentrated in consumer and securities fraud class action litigation. Some notable consumer cases include: In re Educational Testing Service Praxis Principles of Learning and Teaching: Grade 7-12 Litigation, MDL No. 1643 (E.D. La. 2006) (settlement of $11.1 million on behalf of persons who were incorrectly scored on a teachers’ licensing exam); Block v. McDonald’s Corporation, No: 01CH9137 (Cir. Ct. of Cook County, Ill.) (settlement of $l2.5 million where McDonald’s failed to disclose beef fat in french fries); Fitz, Inc. v. Ralph Wilson Plastics Co., No. 1-94-CV-0601 7 (D. N.J.) (claims-made

49 Case 8:10-cv-01327-JST -RNB Document 59-3 Filed 09/19/11 Page 52 of 87 Page ID #:1296

settlement whereby fabricators fully recovered their losses resulting from defective contact adhesives); Parker, et al. v. American Isuzu Motors, Inc.; No: 3476 (CCP, Philadelphia County) (claims-made settlement whereby class members recovered $500 each for their economic damages caused by faulty brakes); Crawford v. Philadelphia Hotel Operating Co., No: 04030070 (CCP Phila. Cty. 2005) (claims-made settlement whereby persons with food poisoning recovered $1,500 each); Melfi v. The Coco-Cola Company (settlement reached in case involving alleged misleading advertising of Enviga drink); and In re TJX Companies Retail Security Breach Litigation, Master Docket No. 07-10162 (D. Mass) (class action brought on behalf of persons whose personal and financial data were compromised in the largest computer theft of personal data in history. Some notable securities cases include: In re PSINet Securities Litigation, No: 00-1850-A (E.D. Va.) (settlement in excess of $17 million); Ahearn v. Credit Suisse First Boston, LLC, No: 03-10956 (D. Mass.) (settlement of $8 million); and In re Nesco Securities Litigation, 4:0l-CV-0827 (N.D. OkIa.). Finally, Mr. Fantini is currently representing the City of Philadelphia and the City of Chicago in separate suits against certain online travel companies for their failure to pay hotel taxes.

Mr. Fantini is licensed to practice in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and the District of Columbia.

Bret Flaherty

Since joining Berger & Montague in 1992, Mr. Flaherty has specialized in complex commercial litigation involving areas such as consumer protection and products liability class action, breach of contract, employment, international human rights, consumer fraud and lender liability, including Provident American Corp. and Provident Indemnity Life Insurance Company v. The Loewen Group Inc. and Loewen Group International Inc., E.D. PA. ($30 million recovery in a claimed 10-year verbal contract case); In Re: Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc. Tires Product Liability Litigation, MDL No. 1373 (S.D. Ind.)(multijurisdictional litigation relating to Firestone tires and the Ford Explorer); Kiobel, et al v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Company, et al., (S.D.N.Y.) (relating to human rights violations in Nigeria against the Ogoni people) and Unisys ERISA Benefits Litigation (E.D. PA.). Mr. Flaherty has also defended the owner of a landmark hotel in Philadelphia in litigation relating to the acquisition of the hotel. Mr. Flaherty’s practice also includes transactional corporate matters.

Mr. Flaherty is a member and Vice Chair of the Board of Trustees of the Folk Arts - Cultural Treasures Charter School, the first public elementary school to be located in Philadelphia’s Chinatown. Since 1993, Mr. Flaherty has been active in Asian Americans United, a non-profit, community organization which is a leading advocate on public education issues in Philadelphia and a variety of other issues affecting the Asian and immigrant communities in Philadelphia.

Charles P. Goodwin

Mr. Goodwin joined Berger & Montague, following his 1992 graduation cum laude from the University of Pennsylvania Law School, where he was an editor of the University of

50 Case 8:10-cv-01327-JST -RNB Document 59-3 Filed 09/19/11 Page 53 of 87 Page ID #:1297

Pennsylvania Law Review. Prior to attending law school, Mr. Goodwin graduated cum laude from Williams College (where he received the Graves Essay Prize in economics), and enrolled in graduate studies in economics at Stanford University. Mr. Goodwin also has engaged in commercial litigation practice in New York. With Berger & Montague, Mr. Goodwin is concentrating in antitrust and employee benefits litigation. Mr. Goodwin is admitted to practice law in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.

Ruthanne Gordon

Ruthanne Gordon is a graduate of the University of Michigan (B.A. 1974) and the University of Pennsylvania Law School (J.D. 1979). Since joining the Berger firm in 1982, she has concentrated on the litigation of antitrust, securities and environmental class actions, and derivative litigation, including the following complex antitrust cases, among others: In re Microcrystalline Cellulose Antitrust Litigation (E.D. Pa.)(shortly before trial the case was settled for $50 million); In re Currency Conversion Fee Antitrust Litigation ($336 million settlement pending); In re Compact Disc Antitrust Litigation; State of Connecticut v. Philip Morris, Inc., et al., in which the State of Connecticut recovered approximately $3.6 billion from certain manufacturers of tobacco products; and In re Commercial Tissue Antitrust Litigation. She has also played a lead role in litigation involving the following industries: the real estate industry (Lyons v. Calderone, et al. (D.N.J.); Best v. Koger Equity, Inc., et al. (M.D. Fla.)); the computer industry (In re Convex Computer Corporation Securities Litigation (N.D. Tex.); Heideman v. Toreson, et al. (N.D. Cal.)); public utilities (In re Philadelphia Electric Company Derivative Litigation (Phila. C.C.P.); In re PSE&G Derivative Litigation (N.J. Super. Ct. Ch. Div.)); the environmental services industry (Houston Corporation v. Environmental Systems Company, et al. (E.D. Ark.)); the tobacco industry (Friedman v. RJR Nabisco, Inc., et al. (S.D.N.Y.)); the biotechnology industry (In re Biogen Inc. Securities Litigation (D. Mass.)); and the healthcare industry (In re W.R. Grace & Co. Securities Litigation (S.D.N.Y.)), among others.

Ms. Gordon was co-lead counsel in In re PSE&G Derivative Litigation, where she argued complex issues of first impression before the New Jersey Supreme Court. She was also counsel in In re Louisville Explosion Litigation, a class action case alleging property damage, which was prosecuted through a six-week trial and settled at the close of plaintiffs’ case for more than one hundred percent of actual damages.

In addition, Ms. Gordon represented a class of Pennsylvania inmates in a federal civil rights class action, which resulted in the establishment of a statewide treatment program for Pennsylvania inmates suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder as a result of their service in the Vietnam war.

Russ Henkin

Russ Henkin graduated from American University in Washington, D.C. in 1969 with a Bachelor of Science Degree with honors. He graduated from the University of Pennsylvania Law School in 1972. Mr. Henkin was law clerk to Honorable Maurice W. Sporkin in the Pennsylvania Court

51 Case 8:10-cv-01327-JST -RNB Document 59-3 Filed 09/19/11 Page 54 of 87 Page ID #:1298

of Common Pleas for Philadelphia County from 1972 through 1975. From 1973 through 1975, he also worked in a small personal injury firm, trying plaintiffs’ personal injury cases. He worked as an associate with the Berger firm from 1975 through 1980. During that time, he was involved in or tried complex civil litigation matters. His cases included fraud matters, securities matters, breach of contract, restrictive employment covenant litigation, eminent domain litigation, and divorce, among other fields.

From 1980 through 1991, he was associated with another firm, again involved in trials of complex civil litigation matters. His cases involved antitrust, bankruptcy litigation and reorganization, contracts, malpractice, products liability, employment discrimination, commercial disparagement litigation, business separation litigation, emotional distress litigation, claims and defense under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act (“RICO”), stock fraud and foreclosure/workout and other trials. Representative results included confirmation of a $20 million plan of reorganization for a psychiatric hospital company, and successful defense against a $30 million RICO suit.

In June 1991, Mr. Henkin returned to the Berger firm, and is again trying complex civil matters. Those matters involve areas such as stock fraud, class action personal injury, breach of contract and consumer fraud, and lender liability. In one of his cases, he achieved a $30 million recovery in a claimed 10 year verbal contract case.

Mr. Henkin is admitted to practice law in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and the State of Florida.

Peter R. Kahana

Peter R. Kahana is a shareholder in the Insurance and Antitrust practice groups at Berger & Montague. He is a Phi Beta Kappa graduate of Dickinson College (B.A. magna cum laude 1977) with a degree in Philosophy, and graduated from Villanova Law School (J.D. 1980) where he was a member of the Villanova Law Review. He is admitted to practice in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and has clerked at the appellate court level for The Honorable Gwilym A. Price, Jr., of the Superior Court of Pennsylvania. Following his clerkship, Mr. Kahana joined the Berger firm in 1981.

Mr. Kahana has diverse trial and appellate court experience in complex civil and class action litigation, and he has successfully represented plaintiffs in numerous state and federal courts across the country. Mr. Kahana has played a leading role in major antitrust and environmental litigation, including cases such as In re Brand Name Prescription Drugs Antitrust Litigation ($723 million settlement), In re Ashland Oil Spill Litigation ($30 million settlement), and In re The Exxon Valdez ($287 million compensatory damage and $507.5 million punitive damage award). In connection with his work as a member of the litigation team that prosecuted In re The Exxon Valdez, Mr. Kahana was selected to share in 1995 the Trial Lawyer of the Year Award by the Public Justice Foundation.

52 Case 8:10-cv-01327-JST -RNB Document 59-3 Filed 09/19/11 Page 55 of 87 Page ID #:1299

Mr. Kahana has also handled many nationwide, multi-state, and state class action cases involving relief for insurance policyholders, as well as consumers of other types of products or services, who have been victimized by fraudulent conduct or unfair business practices. In 2004, Mr. Kahana, and his co-lead class counsel, were named as the recipients of the Association of Trial Lawyers of America’s Steven J. Sharp Public Service Award for their successful settlement ($20 million) of Bergonzi v. Central States Health and Life Company of Omaha, a case involving an insurer’s refusal to pay for health insurance benefits to thousands of cancer victims for chemotherapy and radiation treatment (Bergonzi v. CSO, U.S.D.C., D.S.D., Case No. C2-4096). The award is presented annually to those attorneys whose cases tell the story of American civil justice and help educate state and national policy makers and the public about the importance of consumers’ rights.

Other significant cases vindicating the rights of insurance policyholders, in which Mr. Kahana was appointed co-lead class counsel, have included settlement in 2010 for $72.5 million of a nationwide civil RICO and fraud class action (certified for trial in 2009) against the Hartford and its affiliates for their alleged deceptive business practices in connection with the use of structured settlements (Spencer, et al. v. The Hartford Financial Services Group, Inc., et al., 256 F.R.D. 284 (D. Conn. 2009)); and settlement in 2009 for $75 million of breach of contract, Unfair Trade Practices Act and insurance bad faith tort claims on behalf of a class of West Virginia policyholders (certified for trial in 2007) alleging that Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company failed to properly offer and provide them with state-required optional levels of uninsured and underinsured motorist coverage (Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company v. O’Dell, et al., Circuit Court of Roane County, W. Va., Civ. Action No. 00-C-37).

In June 2006, Mr. Kahana was selected as a “Pennsylvania Super Lawyer” in a balloting and blue ribbon panel review process designed to identify attorneys in Pennsylvania who have attained a high degree of peer recognition and outstanding professional achievement. Five percent of the lawyers in Pennsylvania are named Super Lawyers.

Michael J. Kane

Michael J. Kane graduated from Rutgers University (B.S. 1991) and Ohio Northern University School of Law, with distinction (1994), where he was a member of the Law Review. Mr. Kane is admitted to practice in Pennsylvania and various Federal Courts.

Mr. Kane joined Berger & Montague’s antitrust practice in 2005. Prior to joining Berger & Montague, Mr. Kane was affiliated with Mager, White & Goldstein, LLP where he represented clients in complex commercial litigation involving alleged unlawful business practices including: violations of federal and state antitrust and securities laws, breach of contract and other unfair and deceptive trade practices. Mr. Kane has served in prominent roles in high profile antitrust, securities, and unfair trade practice cases filed in courts around the country. Recently, Mr. Kane served as co-lead counsel in In re Microsoft Corporation Massachusetts Consumer Protection Litigation (Mass. Super. Ct., Middlesex Cty.), in which plaintiffs alleged that as a result of

53 Case 8:10-cv-01327-JST -RNB Document 59-3 Filed 09/19/11 Page 56 of 87 Page ID #:1300

Microsoft Corporation’s anticompetitive practices, Massachusetts consumers paid more than they should have for Microsoft’s operating systems and software. The case was settled for $34 million. Other cases in which Mr. Kane has had a prominent role include:

In re Currency Conversion Fee Antitrust Litig. (S.D.N.Y.); In re Nasdaq Market Makers Antitrust Litig. (S.D.N.Y); In re Compact Disc Antitrust Litig. (C.D. Cal.); In re WorldCom, Inc. Securities Litig. (S.D.N.Y); In re Lucent Technologies, Inc. Securities Litig. (D.N.J.); City Closets LLC v. Self Storage Assoc., Inc. (S.D.N.Y.); Rolite, Inc. v. Wheelabrator Environmental Sys. Inc., (E.D. Pa.); Amin v. Warren Hospital (N.J. Super.).

Lawrence J. Lederer

Lawrence J. Lederer has concentrated in complex commercial litigation for over 20 years, particularly in the securities field.

Mr. Lederer has substantial experience representing state government entities, public pension funds and other institutional investors in securities litigation. For example, Mr. Lederer was one of three co-lead counsel for lead plaintiff State Teachers Retirement System of Ohio which obtained a $475 million recovery in the securities class action litigation In re Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc. Securities, Derivative and ERISA Litigation, Master File No. 07-cv-9633 (JSR) (DFE) (S.D.N.Y.). This case involved Merrill Lynch’s disclosures and financial exposures concerning asset-backed securities such as collateralized debt obligations and other financial derivative instruments linked to subprime mortgages. During the July 27, 2009 hearing concerning the $475 million settlement, Judge Jed S. Rakoff stated that lead plaintiff had made “very full and well-crafted” and “excellent submissions”; that there was a “very fine job done by plaintiffs’ counsel in this case”; that the attorney fees requested were “eminently reasonable” and “appropriately modest”; and that this was “surely a very good result under all the facts and circumstances.” Other examples of securities cases in which Mr. Lederer presently is or recently was substantially involved include: State of New Jersey, Department of Treasury, Division of Investment v. Fuld, et al.; Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Public School Employees’ Retirement System, et al. v. Time Warner Inc., et al., Case No. 002103, July Term, 2003 (Pa. Common Pleas Ct.-Phila. Cty.); In re Waste Management, Inc. Securities Litigation, 194 F. Supp. 2d 590 (S.D. Tex. 2002); Kelly v. McKesson HBOC, Inc., C.A. No. 99C-09-265 WCC, 2002 Del. Super. LEXIS 39 (Del. Super. Jan. 17, 2002); and In re Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc. Research Reports Securities Litigation, 02 MDL 1484 (JFK), 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 93423 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 20, 2007).

Earlier in his career, Mr. Lederer played a major role in the historic Drexel/Milken/Boesky complex of cases. See, e.g., In re Michael R. Milken and Associates Securities Litigation, MDL

54 Case 8:10-cv-01327-JST -RNB Document 59-3 Filed 09/19/11 Page 57 of 87 Page ID #:1301

Dkt. No. 924, Master File No. M21-62 (MP), 1993 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14242, 1993 WL 413673 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 7, 1993) (approving approximately $1.3 billion overall settlement with Michael R. Milken and related persons and entities); In re The Drexel Burnham Lambert Group Inc., 995 F.2d 1138 (2d Cir. 1993) (affirming $1.3 billion settlement); Presidential Life Insurance Co. v. Milken, et al., 946 F. Supp. 267 (S.D.N.Y. 1996) (approving $50 million settlement in novel “global” class action of all previously unasserted claims against some 500 defendants); In re Ivan F. Boesky Securities Litigation, 948 F.2d 1358 (2d Cir. 1991) (affirming district court approval of “first tier” settlements totaling approximately $29 million against Ivan F. Boesky and others; related “second tier” class, derivative and other settlements subsequently approved totaling in excess of $200 million).

Significantly, Mr. Lederer also has experience in the defense of securities cases. For example, he was one of the firm’s principal attorneys defending a public company which obtained a pre- trial dismissal in full of a proposed securities fraud class action against a mining company based in South Africa. See In re DRDGold Ltd. Securities Litigation, 05-cv-5542 (VM), 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7180 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 31, 2007). He also assisted in the defense of an individual charged with “insider trading” through a criminal jury trial in federal court, and in parallel civil enforcement proceedings brought by the SEC. United States v. Pileggi, No. 97-cr-612-2, 1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8068 (E.D. Pa. June 3, 1998), aff’d, No. 98-1811, 1999 U.S. App. LEXIS 18592 (3d Cir. July 22, 1999).

In bankruptcy litigation, Mr. Lederer helped obtain hundreds of millions of dollars for investors in the complex Chapter 11 proceedings involving Drexel Burnham Lambert, including through appeals before the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit and the United States Supreme Court. See, e.g., In re The Drexel Burnham Lambert Group, Inc., 130 B.R. 910 (Bankr. & S.D.N.Y. Aug. 20, 1991), aff’d, 960 F.2d 285 (2d Cir. 1992), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 1088 (1993). See also Sapir, et al. v. Delphi Ventures, et al., No. 99-cv-8086-JORDAN (S.D. Fla.) (recovery of $3.8 million following extensive bankruptcy and related proceedings).

Mr. Lederer has achieved the highest peer-review rating, “AV,” in Martindale-Hubbell for legal abilities and ethical standards, and has been repeatedly selected as one of the Pennsylvania’s “Super Lawyers” in the category of securities litigation. Mr. Lederer is admitted to practice law in Pennsylvania, the District of Columbia, and several federal courts. Mr. Lederer graduated from Georgetown University Law Center (LL.M. 1988), Western New England College School of Law (J.D. 1987), where he was a member of Western New England Law Review, and the University of Pittsburgh (B.A. 1984), where he was managing editor of The Pitt News, and co- captain (1983) and captain (1984) of the men’s varsity tennis team.

55 Case 8:10-cv-01327-JST -RNB Document 59-3 Filed 09/19/11 Page 58 of 87 Page ID #:1302

Jeanne A. Markey

Jeanne A. Markey is a graduate of Colgate University (B.A. cum laude 1979) and the Cornell Law School (J.D. 1983), where she was on the Moot Court Board. She was admitted to the Pennsylvania bar in 1983. Since joining the Berger firm, she has been actively involved in various complex class action litigations, focusing primarily on securities class action litigation.

Phyllis Maza Parker

Phyllis Maza Parker is a graduate of Yeshiva University (B.A. cum laude 1969), Columbia University (M.A. French Literature 1971), Boston University – Brussels, Belgium (M.S. in Management), and Temple University School of Law (J.D. cum laude 1995), where she was a member of the Temple Law Review and published a Note on the subject of the Federal Sentencing Guidelines. After her first year of law school, Ms. Parker interned with the Honorable Dolores K. Sloviter of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. Following graduation from law school, Ms. Parker served as law clerk to the Honorable Murray C. Goldman of the Court of Common Pleas in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

Since joining the Berger firm in September 1996, Ms. Parker has concentrated in complex securities class action litigation, representing both individual and institutional investors. Among other cases, she has been on the litigation team in In re Xcel Energy, Inc. Securities Litigation ($80 million settlement, listed among the 100 largest securities class action settlements in the United States since the enactment of the 1933-1934 securities acts); In re Reliance Group Holdings, Inc. Securities Litigation ($15 million settlement); In re The Loewen Group, Inc. Securities Litigation ($6 million settlement); In re Feeco Instruments Inc. Securities Litigation ($5.5 million settlement); and In re Nuvelo, Inc. Securities Litigation ($8.9 million settlement). She is admitted to practice in Pennsylvania and New Jersey as well as the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

Russell D. Paul

Russell D. Paul joined Berger & Montague, P.C. in 2006, and concentrates on securities class actions, complex securities litigation matters and derivative suits. Prior to joining Berger & Montague, Mr. Paul was with the firm of Grant & Eisenhofer P.A. in Wilmington, Delaware. Mr. Paul began his legal career in the New York office of Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom, L.L.P.

Mr. Paul has litigated securities class actions against Tyco International Ltd., Baxter Healthcare Corp., ALSTOM S.A., Able Laboratories, Inc., Refco Inc., Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae), Red Robin Gourmet Burgers, Inc. and Toll Brothers. He has also litigated derivative actions in various state courts around the country, including in the Delaware Court of Chancery. He has briefed and argued federal appeals, including arguing before Judges Posner and Easterbrook of the Seventh Circuit. In addition to securities litigation, he has broad

56 Case 8:10-cv-01327-JST -RNB Document 59-3 Filed 09/19/11 Page 59 of 87 Page ID #:1303

corporate law experience, including mergers and acquisitions, venture capital financing, proxy contests and general corporate matters.

Mr. Paul graduated from the Columbia University School of Law in 1989, where he was a Harlen Fiske Stone Scholar and a member of the Moot Court Board. In 1986, Mr. Paul received a dual degree from the University of Pennsylvania, a B.S. in Economics with a concentration in finance, magna cum laude from the Wharton School, and a B.A. in American History, magna cum laude from the College of Arts and Sciences.

Mr. Paul is admitted to the bar in the states of Delaware, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and New York.

Barbara A. Podell

Barbara A. Podell, who joined the Berger firm as a shareholder in the Securities Group in early 2002, holds a Bachelor’s degree from the University of Pennsylvania (B.A. 1972 cum laude with distinction in Art History). She attended the Institute of Fine Arts of New York University, and from 1973 to 1975, was a full-time faculty member at Temple University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, in the Department of Art History. In 1978, Ms. Podell received a Juris Doctor degree (magna cum laude) from the Temple University School of Law, where she was one of the top nine students in the graduating class and was Editor-in-Chief of the Temple Law Quarterly (Volume 51). Prior to joining the Berger firm, Ms. Podell was a founding member of the firm of Savett Frutkin Podell & Ryan, P.C., and before that, a shareholder at Kohn, Savett, Klein & Graf, both in Philadelphia.

Ms. Podell has served as lead or co-lead counsel in numerous securities cases in which hundreds of millions of dollars were recovered for investors. Since joining the firm in 2002, Ms. Podell has served as one of the firm’s senior litigation attorneys in In re CIGNA Corp. Securities Litigation ($93 million settlement); In re CryoLife Securities Litigation ($23.25 million settlement); In re ViroPharma Securities Litigation ($9 million settlement); and Ginsburg v. Philadelphia Stock Exchange ($99 million settlement).

She is admitted to practice before the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, the United States Courts of Appeals for the Second and Third Circuist, and the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. She has achieved an “AV” rating (the highest rating) in Martindale- Hubbell.

Ms. Podell also serves as a volunteer guide at the Philadelphia Museum of Art.

57 Case 8:10-cv-01327-JST -RNB Document 59-3 Filed 09/19/11 Page 60 of 87 Page ID #:1304

Douglas M. Risen

Douglas Risen is a shareholder of the firm and has been a member of Berger & Montague’s Securities Litigation Department since 1998, concentrating his practice in complex class litigation with an emphasis on the private civil prosecution of securities fraud. Mr. Risen’s significant successes in this area include: In re Ikon Office Solutions ($111 million settlement) and In re Safety-Kleen Corp. ($44.5 million settlement). Mr. Risen also handles class cases for consumer fraud, predatory lending, and disability discrimination, among other areas.

Mr. Risen is a graduate of the Pennsylvania State University (B.A. magna cum laude 1994) and the University of Pennsylvania Law School (J.D. 1997). He is admitted to practice in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.

David F. Sorensen

Mr. Sorensen graduated from Duke University (B.A. magna cum laude 1983) and from Yale University (J.D. 1989). He was Law Clerk to the Hon. Norma L. Shapiro (E.D. Pa.), in 1990- 1991. He is admitted to practice law in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, the United States Supreme Court, and numerous federal Courts of Appeal.

Mr. Sorensen practices in the areas of complex mass tort and antitrust class action litigation. He helped try a class action property damage case, Cook v. Rockwell Corp., that resulted in a jury verdict of $554 million on February 14, 2006, after a four-month trial, on behalf of thousands of property owners near the former Rocky Flats nuclear weapons plant located outside Denver, Colorado. The verdict was the third-largest jury verdict of 2006 in the United States, according to The National Law Journal; the largest in Colorado history; and was the first time a jury had awarded damages to property owners living near one of the nation’s nuclear weapons sites. In 2008, the District Court entered a $926 million judgment for plaintiffs. In July 2009, the trial team, including Mr. Sorensen, won the “Trial Lawyer of the Year” award from the Public Justice Foundation, for its work on the Cook case. The jury verdict in that case was vacated on appeal; appellate proceedings are continuing.

Mr. Sorensen also played a major role in the firm’s representation of the State of Connecticut in State of Connecticut v. Philip Morris, Inc., et al., in which Connecticut recovered approximately $3.6 billion from certain manufacturers of tobacco products.

Mr. Sorensen also has played major roles in a number of antitrust cases representing direct purchasers of prescription drugs. These cases have alleged that pharmaceutical manufacturers have wrongfully kept less expensive generic drugs off of the market, in violation of federal antitrust laws. Several of these cases have resulted in substantial cash settlements, including In re Terazosin Hydrochloride Antitrust Litigation, MDL 1317 (S.D. Fla.) ($75 million); and In re Remeron Antitrust Litig. (D.N.J.) ($75 million). Mr. Sorensen also argued and won class certification in In re K-Dur Antitrust Litigation, 2008 WL 2699390 (D.N.J. April 14, 2008), and In re Nifedipine Antitrust Litigation, 246 F.R.D. 365 (D.D.C. 2007); and argued and obtained a

58 Case 8:10-cv-01327-JST -RNB Document 59-3 Filed 09/19/11 Page 61 of 87 Page ID #:1305

precedent-setting victory in In re DDAVP Direct Purchaser Antitrust Litigation, 585 F.3d 679 (2d Cir. 2009), in which the Second Circuit held that direct purchasers had standing to seek antitrust damages relating to Walker Process patent fraud. Most recently, he argued on behalf of direct purchaser plaintiffs in King Drug Co. v. Cephalon, Inc., __ F. Supp. 2d __, 2010 WL 1221793 (E.D. Pa. March 29, 2010), in which the court denied defendants’ motions to dismiss antitrust claims arising from agreements between Cephalon and its generic competitors that, plaintiffs allege, have wrongfully blocked generic competition.

Mr. Sorensen presented at symposia in November 2004, and in September 2009, focusing on antitrust issues in the pharmaceutical industry, at the University of San Francisco School of Law, and co-authored, with one of the school’s law professors, Joshua P. Davis, Chimerical Class Conflicts in Federal Antitrust Litigation: The Fox Guarding the Chicken House in Valley Drug, 39 U.S.F. Law Review 141 (Fall 2004).

In October, 2007, Mr. Sorensen was on the faculty of a continuing education program for all Pennsylvania Common Pleas judges (trial court). He also has been a guest lecturer at the University of Colorado Law School.

Mr. Sorensen has been named as one Pennsylvania’s “SuperLawyers,” every year since 2005 in the Philadelphia Magazine; and has received the highest peer-review rating, “AV,” in Martindale-Hubbell.

Arthur Stock

Arthur Stock’s practice is concentrated in securities litigation. Mr. Stock has litigated numerous significant cases vindicating the rights of investors, including: Safety-Kleen Corp. ($45 million stockholders settlement); Synergen, Inc. ($28 million settlement); UICI ($16 million settlement); Livent, Inc. ($6.45 million settlements); Worldport, Inc. ($5.1 million settlement); Datastream ($5 million cash and stock settlement); Blasband v. Rales (favorable precedent for investors established in Delaware Supreme Court). He worked on the Berger & Montague team in the Merrill Lynch Securities Litigation where the firm served as co-lead counsel and a proposed settlement of $4.75 million has been announced.

Mr. Stock is a graduate of Yale University (B.A. with distinction in economics 1984) and the Duke University School of Law (J.D. with high honors 1990), where he served as Articles Editor of the Duke Law Journal. From 1990 to 1991, Mr. Stock served as a law clerk to the Honorable Jackson L. Kiser, United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia. He joined the Berger Firm in 1991. Mr. Stock is admitted to practice law in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.

Mr. Stock is the co-author with Sherrie R. Savett of What to Plead and How to Plead the Defendant’s State of Mind in a Federal Securities Class Action: The Plaintiff’s Perspective, Practicing Law Institute, 30th Annual Institute of Securities Regulation, Vol. 2, p. 807 (1998), and author of Justice Scalia’s Use of Sources in Statutory and Constitutional Interpretation:

59 Case 8:10-cv-01327-JST -RNB Document 59-3 Filed 09/19/11 Page 62 of 87 Page ID #:1306

How Congress Always Loses, Duke L.J. 160 (1990). He has also written political commentary for Slate. com.

Mr. Stock also serves on the Board of Trustees of Adoptions from the Heart, a non-profit adoption agency.

Robin Switzenbaum

Robin Blumenfeld Switzenbaum is a graduate of Barnard College (B.A. cum laude 1976) and the University of Pennsylvania Law School (J.D. 1985). Before law school, Ms. Switzenbaum was engaged in the development of commercial and residential real estate in Pennsylvania and New Jersey. During that time, Ms. Switzenbaum served on the board of directors of the Home Owners Warranty Council for Southeastern Pennsylvania and the Home Builders Association for Montgomery and Bucks Counties. Before becoming Of Counsel to the Berger firm in October, 1989, Ms. Switzenbaum was an associate with the Philadelphia firm of Saul, Ewing, Remick & Saul specializing in real estate, bankruptcy and zoning matters.

Since joining the Berger firm, Ms. Switzenbaum has concentrated in complex civil and securities litigation. Ms. Switzenbaum was part of the litigation teams in In re Merrill Lynch Securities Litigation, Civil Action No. 07-cv-09633 (S.D.N.Y.) ($475 million settlement); In re Rite Aid Securities Litigation, MDL 1360 (E.D. Pa.) ($334 million settlement), In re Sunbeam Securities Litigation, 98-8258-Civ-Middlebrooks (S.D. Fla.) ($142 million settlement), and In re CMS Energy Securities Litigation, 02 CV 72004 (E.D. Mich.) ($200 million settlement). With Lawrence Deutsch, Ms. Switzenbaum served as lead counsel in Ginsburg v. Philadelphia Stock Exchange, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 2202-CC (Del. Ch.) representing certain shareholders of the Philadelphia Stock Exchange in the Delaware Court of Chancery ($99 million settlement). In another state court action, Ms. Switzenbaum represented a class of holders of a publicly traded common stock who were denied their preemptive rights, Korman v. InKine Pharmaceutical, Case No. 04341 (CCP, Phila. County) ($9 million settlement).

She has also successfully pursued claims on behalf of litigation trusts bringing actions against officers, directors and auditors of insolvent companies, including Sunterra (recovery against director and officers and accountants); and U.S. Aggregates (recovery against officers). Ms. Switzenbaum has participated in several securities class actions including In re Northeast Bancorp, Case No. N-90-24 (D. Conn) ($4.9 million settlement), In re Chase Manhattan Bank, Case No. 90 Civ. 6092 (S.D.N.Y. 1992) ($17.5 million settlement), In re Midlantic, Case No. 90- 1275 (D.N.J.) ($9 million settlement), In re ShopKo Stores, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 01-C-1034 (E.D. Wis.) ($4.9 million settlement), and In re Medi-Hut Co., Inc. Securities Litigation, C.A. No. 02-881 (D.N.J.) ($4.9 million recovery against accountants, plus recovery from company).

Recently, Ms. Switzenbaum was named as one of Pennsylvania’s “Local Litigation Stars” in Complex Civil Litigation and Securities by Benchmark Litigation and as a Pennsylvania “Super Lawyer” by Philadelphia Magazine.

60 Case 8:10-cv-01327-JST -RNB Document 59-3 Filed 09/19/11 Page 63 of 87 Page ID #:1307

Ms. Switzenbaum is a member of the bar in Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Florida, and California. Ms. Switzenbaum also serves as a volunteer guide at the Philadelphia Museum of Art and as a member of the Joint Board of Community Legal Services, Inc. and Philadelphia Legal Assistance. She also recently participated on a panel on 10b-5 litigation pertaining to the financial crisis presented by NERA Economic Research in Washington, D.C.

Susan Schneider Thomas

Susan Schneider Thomas is a graduate of Brandeis University (B.A. magna cum laude 1977) and Temple University School of Law (J.D. cum laude 1980), where she was a staff member and Associate Articles Editor of the Temple Law Quarterly and a judicial intern to the Hon. Edward R. Becker, then on the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. She was admitted to the Pennsylvania Bar in 1980. In 1980-81, she served as a law clerk to the Hon. Dolores K. Sloviter of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. Subsequently she was an associate at Schnader, Harrison, Segal & Lewis, Philadelphia, and Greenfield & Chimicles, in Haverford, Pennsylvania, where she was actively involved in the litigation of complex securities fraud actions.

From 1985 to 1989 as an associate at Berger & Montague, she concentrated her practice in complex securities and derivative actions. Upon leaving the Berger firm, Ms. Thomas joined in establishing the firm of Zlotnick & Thomas and worked there from 1989 through 1995, taking primary responsibility for the litigation of several major class actions including Geist v. New Jersey Turnpike Authority, C.A. No. 92-2377 (D.N.J.), a bond redemption case that settled for $2.25 million and Burstein v. Applied Extrusion Technologies, C.A. No. 92-12166-PBS (D. Mass.), which settled for $3.4 million. Ms. Thomas returned to the Berger firm in 1996, where she has had major responsibilities in many securities and consumer fraud class actions, including In re CryoLife Securities Litigation, C.A. No. 1:02-CV-1868 BBM (N.D.Ga.), which settled in 2005 for $23.25 million and In re First Alliance Mortgage Co., Civ. No. SACV 00-964 (C.D.Cal.), a deceptive mortgage lending action which settled for over $80 million in cooperation with the FTC.

More recently, Ms. Thomas has concentrated her practice in the area of healthcare qui tam litigation. As co-counsel for a whistleblower, she worked extensively with the U.S. Department of Justice and various State Attorney General offices in the prosecution of False Claims Act cases against pharmaceutical manufacturers that recovered nearly $1.5 billion for Medicare and Medicaid programs. She has investigated or is litigating False Claims Act cases involving defense contractors, private busing companies contracting with school districts, purveyors of food supplies to school districts, off-label marketing by drug companies, federal grant fraud, under-value transfers of federal lands, and fraud in connection with for-profit colleges and student loan programs.

61 Case 8:10-cv-01327-JST -RNB Document 59-3 Filed 09/19/11 Page 64 of 87 Page ID #:1308

Martin I. Twersky

Mr. Twersky, a graduate of Yeshiva University (B.A. 1969, M.S. 1973), has practiced Antitrust Law and Complex Litigation at the firm for almost 30 years, during which time he has successfully represented numerous plaintiffs and defendants in both individual and class actions pending in state and federal courts. His practice has involved litigation in the oil and gas, banking, airline, waste hauling, agricultural chemicals and other regulated industries. He is a graduate of the University of Pennsylvania Law School (J.D. 1980). Among other cases, he has played a leading role in the following class action cases: In re: Graphite Antitrust Litigation (E.D. Pa.) (settlements of more than $120 million dollars); In re: Catfish Antitrust Litigation (N.D. Miss.) (as a member of the trial team he helped obtained settlements of more than $27 million dollars); In re: Revco Securities Litigation (N.D. Ohio) (“Junk Bond” class action where settlements of $36 million were reached); Bogosian v. Gulf Oil (E.D. Pa.) (landmark litigation with settlements and injunctive relief on behalf of a nationwide class of gasoline dealers); and Lease Oil Antitrust (S.D. Tex.), where in a significant class action decision, the Fifth Circuit affirmed the granting of an injunction prohibiting settlements in related state court actions ( see 200 F.3d 317 (5th Cir. 2000), cert. denied, 530 U.S. 1263). Mr. Twersky was appointed one of the co-lead counsel in In re: Abrasive Grains Antitrust Litig. (95-cv-7574) (W.D.N.Y.). Mr. Twersky has also played a key role in various non-class action cases, such as Kutner Buick v. America Motors, 848 F.2d 614 (3rd Circuit 1989) (breach of contract) (cited in the Advisory Committee Notes to the 1991 Amendment to Rule 50, Fed. R. Civ. P.), Florham Park v. Chevron (D.N.J. 1988) (Petroleum Marketing Act case), and Frigitemp v. IDT Corp., 638 F. Supp. 916 (S.D. N.Y. 1986) and 76 B.R. 275, 1987 LEXIS 6547 (S.D. N.Y. 1987) (RICO case brought by the Trustee of Frigitemp Corp. against General Dynamics and others involving extortion of kickbacks from Frigitemp officers). Mr. Twersky also served prominently in savings-and-loan related securities and fraud litigation in federal and state courts in Florida, where the firm represented the Resolution Trust Corporation and officers of a failed bank in complex litigation involving securities, RICO and breach of fiduciary duty claims. E.g., Royal Palm v. Rapaport, Civ. No. 88-8510 (S.D. Fla.) and Rapaport v. Burgoon, CL-89-3748 (Palm Beach County).

62 Case 8:10-cv-01327-JST -RNB Document 59-3 Filed 09/19/11 Page 65 of 87 Page ID #:1309

OUR ASSOCIATES:

Zachary D. Caplan

Zachary D. Caplan is a member of Berger & Montague’s antitrust department.

Mr. Caplan is a graduate of New York University’s Stern School of Business (B.S. 2007) and the University of Pennsylvania Law School (J.D. 2011). While in law school, Mr. Caplan was a senior editor of the University of Pennsylvania Journal of Business Law, participated in the Civil Practice Clinic, and interned with the United States Department of Justice Antitrust Division.

Joy P. Clairmont

Joy Clairmont received her B.A. cum laude in international affairs from George Washington University in 1995, and her J.D. from George Washington University Law School in 1998, where she served as a managing editor of The Environmental Lawyer law journal. After graduating from law school, she clerked for The Honorable Richard J. Hodgson of the Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County, Pennsylvania. Ms. Clairmont is a member of the Pennsylvania Bar.

Ms. Clairmont joined Berger & Montague, P.C. in 2000 and focuses her practice on securities class actions and False Claims Act (qui tam) litigation. Her qui tam litigation work principally involves fraud in the pharmaceutical industry.

Ms. Clairmont was a member of the team in the Sunbeam Securities Litigation class action ($142 million settlement). She has also worked extensively representing whistleblowers in qui tam lawsuits in state and federal courts throughout the country. A series of False Claims Act cases against drug companies for fraudulent Medicare and Medicaid drug pricing has led to recoveries to date of over $390 million, including a $150 million settlement with GlaxoSmithKline PLC, and a $190 million settlement with Aventis Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

Neill W. Clark

Neill W. Clark graduated cum laude from Appalachian State University in 1994 (B.A.) and from Temple University School of Law in 1998 (J.D.), where he earned seven “distinguished class performance” awards, an oral advocacy award and a “best paper” award. After graduating from law school, he clerked for Judge Stephen E. Levin, who handled pre-trial proceedings in all class actions filed in the Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County.

Since joining the firm in 1999, Mr. Clark has been significantly involved in prosecuting antitrust class actions on behalf of direct purchasers of brand name drugs and charging pharmaceutical manufacturers with illegally blocking the market entry of less expensive competitors.

63 Case 8:10-cv-01327-JST -RNB Document 59-3 Filed 09/19/11 Page 66 of 87 Page ID #:1310

Six of those cases have resulted in substantial settlements totaling over $700 million: In re Cardizem CD Antitrust Litig. settled in November 2002 for 110 million; In re Buspirone Antitrust Litig. settled in April 2003 for 220 million; In re Relafen Antitrust Litig. settled in February 2004 for $175 million; In re Platinol Antitrust Litig. settled in November 2004 for $50 million; In re Terazosin Antitrust Litig. settled in April 2005 for $75 million; and In re Remeron Antitrust Litig. settled in November 2005 for $75 million.

Mr. Clark was selected as a “Rising Star” by Pennsylvania Super Lawyers and listed as one of the Top Young Lawyers in Pennsylvania in the December 2005 edition of Philadelphia Magazine.

An avid runner, Mr. Clark has won the Lawyer’s Division of the annual Philadelphia Bar Association race seven consecutive times.

Andrew C. Curley

Andrew C. Curley is an associate with Berger & Montague. Mr. Curley received his J.D., cum laude, from the University of Pennsylvania in 2003. In 2000, Mr. Curley received a B.S. in finance and economics, magna cum laude, from the University of Delaware in 2000. Prior to joining Berger & Montague, Mr. Curley practiced in the commercial litigation department of a large Philadelphia law firm.

In 2010 and 2011, Mr. Curley was named as a Pennsylvania Super Lawyer - Rising Star. The designation of “Rising Star” is an honor conferred upon only the top 2.5% of attorneys in Pennsylvania who are 40 or younger.

Mr. Curley is admitted to practice in Pennsylvania, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania and the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.

Candice J. Enders

Candice Enders is a member of Berger & Montague’s antitrust department. She received a B.A. in political science from the University of Delaware in 2000 and earned her J.D. from the University of Pennsylvania in 2003.

While in law school, Ms. Enders served as a senior editor on the Journal of Labor and Employment Law, volunteered as a legal advocate at the Custody and Support Assistance Clinic, and interned at Philadelphia City Council.

Since joining the Berger firm in 2003, she has concentrated entirely on the litigation of antitrust class action cases, including In re Microcrystalline Cellulose Antitrust Litigation (E.D. Pa.) ($50 million settlement achieved shortly before trial); In re Methyl Methacrylate (MMA) Antitrust Litigation (E.D. Pa.) ($15,100,000 settlement pending); In re TFT-LCD (Flat Panel) Antitrust Litigation (N.D. Cal.); and In re Cathode Ray Tube (CRT) Antitrust Litigation (N.D. Cal.).

64 Case 8:10-cv-01327-JST -RNB Document 59-3 Filed 09/19/11 Page 67 of 87 Page ID #:1311

Elizabeth W. Fox

Elizabeth Williams Fox is a graduate of Bryn Mawr College (B.A., cum laude, with honors in Anthropology 1963) and the University of Pennsylvania (M.S. in Education 1972; J.D. 1980). Before attending law school, Ms. Fox taught history and social studies at the Baldwin School where she became Head of the History Department. After law school, Ms. Fox joined Ballard, Spahr, Andrews & Ingersoll as an associate where she practiced employment law and general commercial litigation. In 1985, she joined Hoyle, Morris & Kerr where she specialized in toxic torts and insurance coverage litigation, first as an associate and later as a partner. She joined Berger & Montague in July 2001 where she concentrates in securities litigation.

Since joining Berger & Montague, Ms. Fox has worked on numerous class action that have achieved significant benefits on behalf of the Class. These cases include: In re AMF Bowling Securities Litigation, (S.D.N.Y.) ($20 million recovery, principally against investment banks, where defendants asserted that class suffered no damages); Ashworth Securities Litigation, (S.D. Cal.) ($15.25 million recovery, coupled with substantial corporate therapeutic relief); Oorbeek v. FPL Group, Inc. (S.D. Fla.) (corporate derivative action brought on behalf of the shareholders of FPL Group, in which plaintiffs recovered a substantial cash amount, and improvements in FPL’s corporate governance structure); Eagle International Services, Inc. v. Uni-Marts, LC, (C.P. Luzerne county, PA) (class action by store owners in which owners recovered significant cash amounts and received numerous favorable changes in their contracts with defendant Uni-Marts); In re Adams Golf Securities Litigation, (D. Del.) (class action where shareholders received 24% of their losses as a result of settlement).

Ms. Fox has worked on a number of corporate acquisition cases, including Silberman v. Usana Health Sciences, Inc. (D. Utah) (offer enjoined on plaintiffs’ motion) and Kahn v. Saker, (Sup. Ct. N.J.) (consideration to minority shareholders increased by over 25% as a result of settlement)..

Caitlin Goldwater Coslett

Caitlin Goldwater Coslett is a graduate of Haverford College (B. S. 2005 magna cum laude) and New York University School of Law (J.D. cum laude 2009). While in law school, Ms. Coslett was a Lederman/Milbank Fellow in Law and Economics and an Articles Selection Editor for the NYU Review of Law and Social Change. Since joining Berger & Montague in September 2009, Ms. Coslett has practiced in the antitrust complex litigation area.

Shauna Itri

Shauna Itri concentrates her practice on complex litigation, representing whistleblowers in qui tam or False Claims Act law suits in state and federal courts throughout the United States. Ms. Itri has worked on a series of False Claims Act cases against large drug companies for

65 Case 8:10-cv-01327-JST -RNB Document 59-3 Filed 09/19/11 Page 68 of 87 Page ID #:1312

fraudulent Medicare and Medicaid drug pricing. This litigation has returned well over $1 billion to state and federal governments pursuant to the Federal and State False Claims Acts, including a $150 million settlement with GlaxoSmithKline PLC, and a $190 million settlement with Aventis Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

In addition to representing whistleblowers, Ms. Itri has also represented shareholders in complex securities class action cases, assisting in litigation that recovered millions of dollars in settlements including: In re: Adams Golf Securities Litigation, Civ. Action No. 99-371 (D. Del. 1999) (settled for approximately $17 million); In re: American Business Financial Services, Inc. Noteholders Litigation, No. 05-232 (E.D. Pa.)(settled for approximately $17 million); and Mazur v. Concord Camera et al., Case No. 04-61159 (S.D. Fla. 2004) (settled for approximately $2 million).

Ms. Itri received a B.A. and an M.A. from Stanford University in 2000 and 2001. While attending Stanford University, Ms. Itri captained the Stanford University Women's Soccer Team, was on the Scholar Athlete and Honor Roll and served on the Women's Soccer Pacific Ten Conference All-Academic Team.

Ms. Itri earned her Juris Doctor from the Villanova University School of Law where she was Editor-in-Chief of the Villanova Law School Sports & Entertainment Law Journal and published an article entitled “Maurice Clarett v. N.F.L.: An Analysis of Clarett’s Challenge to the Legality of the NFL’s Draft Eligibility Rule Under Antitrust Laws.”

Ms. Itri is presently an adjunct professor at Villanova University, teaching a white collar crime and corporate deviance course. Ms. Itri was named a "Pennsylvania Super Lawyer Rising Star" in 2010 and 2011 by Philadelphia Magazine after an extensive nomination and polling process among Pennsylvania lawyers. She was placed on Philadelphia's First Judicial District's 2010 Roll of Honor for Pro Bono Service for her service in the community, including acting as a volunteer attorney for the Education Law Center, Veterans Pro Bono Consortium, Philadelphia VIP Mortgage Foreclosure Program, the Homeless Advocacy Project, and HIAS.

Jon J. Lambiras

Jon J. Lambiras, Esq., CPA, CFE is a graduate of Pepperdine University School of Law (J.D. 2003) and Bryant College (B.S. in Accounting, cum laude 1996). Since joining Berger & Montague in 2003, Jon has practiced primarily in the areas of securities fraud and consumer fraud class actions, including data breach/identity theft litigation. Jon is an attorney, Certified Public Accountant, and Certified Fraud Examiner. Prior to law school he practiced accounting for four years as an auditor of public and private corporations. While in law school, Jon was a Lead Articles Editor for the Pepperdine Law Review.

He has published articles including:

66 Case 8:10-cv-01327-JST -RNB Document 59-3 Filed 09/19/11 Page 69 of 87 Page ID #:1313

• Hacked, a case study published in Computer Fraud Casebook: The Bytes That Byte (Wiley Publishing 2008, ISBN #978-0-470-27814-7); • White-Collar Crime: Why the Sentencing Disparity Despite Uniform Guidelines?, 30 PEPP. L. REV. 459 (2003) (named Student Article of the Year by the Pepperdine Law Review – i.e., best student article among all student articles published in Pepperdine Law Review that year); • Inside Job: A Guide to Insider Trading, 17 THE WHITE PAPER 23 (July/Aug. 2003).

Jon has also presented several continuing legal education (CLE) seminars regarding class action litigation to the Philadelphia Chapter of the American Association of Attorney-Certified Public Accountants. He is an officer in that organization.

Jon has had significant involvement in the following securities fraud cases, among others: (i) In re: Bally Total Fitness Securities Litig. (settled for $2 million in 2010); (ii) In re: Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc. Securities Litig. (settled for $475 million in 2009); (iii) In re: Carreker Corp. Securities Litig. (settled for $5.25 million in 2006); (iv) In re: Medi-Hut Co., Inc. Securities Litig. (settled for $5 million in 2006); and (v) In re: Fleming Companies Securities Litig. (settled for $94 million in 2005). Jon has had significant involvement in the following data breach cases, among others: (i) In re: TJX Companies, Inc. Retail Security Breach Litig. (class action for failure to safeguard personal data for more than 45 million consumers - settled in 2008 for various benefits valued at over $200 million); (ii) In re: Countrywide Financial Corp. Customer Data Security Breach Litig. (pending class action for failure to safeguard customer data for 17 million individuals); and (iii) In re: Heartland Payment Systems, Inc. Customer Data Security Breach Litig. (pending class action for failure to safeguard credit card information for 130 million cardholders).

Jon is also involved in various charitable activities. He has run clothing drives, toy drives, blood drives, and a food drive at Berger & Montague.

David A. Langer

David A. Langer is a graduate of Haverford College (B.A. 1991) and Vermont Law School (J.D. cum laude 1999). While in law school, Mr. Langer was a member of the Vermont Law Review and also served as a Managing Editor. He was admitted to the Pennsylvania Bar in 1999. Mr. Langer became associated with Berger & Montague in September 1999 and practices in the antitrust complex litigation area.

Eric Lechtzin

Eric Lechtzin joined the firm in 2008 and concentrates his practice in the areas of securities fraud class actions, shareholder derivative suits, mergers and acquisitions, and consumer fraud cases. Prior to joining Berger & Montague, Mr. Lechtzin worked with two nationally prominent law firms where he represented institutional investors, including public pension funds, as well as

67 Case 8:10-cv-01327-JST -RNB Document 59-3 Filed 09/19/11 Page 70 of 87 Page ID #:1314

individual shareholders, in securities fraud class actions and corporate governance litigation. For the first 9 years of his career, Mr. Lechtzin worked at a large Philadelphia law firm, where his practice focused on labor and employment litigation.

Mr. Lechtzin has helped obtain multi-million dollar settlements in a number of federal securities cases, including the following: In re Transkaryotic Therapies, Inc. Sec. Litig., 2005 WL 3178162 (D. Mass. 2005) ($50 million settlement); In re Global Crossing Access Charge Litig., No. 04- MD-1630 (S.D.N.Y) ($15 million settlement); Taft v. Ackermans, (KPNQwest Sec. Litig.), No. 02-CV-07951 (S.D.N.Y.) ($15 million settlement); In re RenaissanceRe Holdings Ltd. Sec. Litig., No. 1:05-CV-06764 (S.D.N.Y.) ($13.5 million settlement); In re Van der Moolen Holding N.V. Sec. Litig., No. 1:03-CV-8284 (S.D.N.Y.) ($8 million settlement); Scott Tanne v. Autobytel, Inc., et al, No. CV 04-8987 (C.D. Cal.) ($6.75 million settlement); In re Hemispherx Biopharma, Inc. Litig., 09-CV-5262-PD (E.D. Pa.) ($3.6 million settlement achieved after defeating defendants’ motion to dismiss); In re Biolase Technology, Inc. Sec. Litig., No. 8:04-CV-00947 (C.D. Cal.) ($2.95 million settlement). Mr. Lechtzin has also helped obtain significant corporate governance reforms in shareholder derivative actions.

Mr. Lechtzin received his B.A. in Political Science and Economics, magna cum laude, from Temple University, where he was elected to Phi Beta Kappa, in 1988. Mr. Lechtzin received his J.D. from Temple University James E. Beasley School of Law, in 1991.

Patrick F. Madden

Patrick F. Madden is a member of Berger & Montague’s employee rights practice group. Mr. Madden joined Berger & Montague in September 2010 after serving as a summer associate and law clerk at the firm.

Mr. Madden is a graduate of the University of Pennsylvania with a major in urban studies (B.A. 2004, honors) and Temple University, James E. Beasley School of Law (J.D. 2010). While at Temple, Mr. Madden was the Executive Editor of Publications for the Temple Journal of Science, Technology & Environmental Law, and also served as an intern for the Honorable Petrese Tucker, United States District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

Prior to attending law school, Mr. Madden worked at the United States Department of Labor, Office of Labor-Management Standards as an investigator.

Neil F. Mara

Neil F. Mara is a graduate of the College of the Holy Cross (B.A. 1987) and the University of Connecticut (J.D. 1991) where he was a member of the executive board of the Moot Court Honor Society. Mr. Mara was an Assistant District Attorney in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, from 1991- 1997. He was also a Special Assistant United States Attorney for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, 1996-1997, where he prosecuted large narcotics organizations. Since joining the

68 Case 8:10-cv-01327-JST -RNB Document 59-3 Filed 09/19/11 Page 71 of 87 Page ID #:1315

Berger firm, he has concentrated on environmental litigation and securities litigation. Mr. Mara is admitted to practice law in Connecticut, Pennsylvania, and various federal courts.

Yael Mav

Ms. May earned a B.A. with distinction in political science and urban studies from the University of Pennsylvania in 2006 (magna cum laude) and a J.D. from the University of Pennsylvania Law School in 2009. While at Penn Law, Ms. May was a Public International Law Fellow, served as a senior editor of the Journal of Law and Social Change, and worked as a student advocate in the Child Advocacy Clinic as well as the Transnational Legal Clinic. Ms. May received the Wapner, Newman and Wigrizer Award for civil trial advocacy.

Prior to joining Berger & Montague in 2010, Ms. May worked for the Botswana Network on Ethics, Law, and HIV/AIDS (BONELA) while living in Gaborone, Botswana. During her time at BONELA, Ms. May worked on HIV discrimination litigation and produced policy reports on human rights and AIDS.

Yael May is a member of Berger & Montague’s securities department. Ms. May is admitted to practice law in Pennsylvania. She is fluent in Spanish and proficient in Hebrew.

Jennifer MacNaughton

Jennifer MacNaughton is a member of the Berger & Montague’s antitrust department. She received her B.A., summa cum laude, in Political Science and German from Tulane University in 1998, her J.D. from the University of Pennsylvania in 2001, and her M.P.P. from Georgetown Public Policy Institute in 2008. Ms. MacNaughton joined the firm’s antitrust department in 2001 and continued to work for the firm on a contract basis while she completed her graduate studies in Public Policy.

As a member of the trial team in the class action environmental case, Cook v. Rockwell Int’l Corp., Ms. MacNaughton helped secure a $554 million jury verdict on behalf of property owners whose land was contaminated by the former Rocky Flats nuclear weapons facility near Denver, Colorado. (The verdict in that case was vacated on appeal; appellate proceedings are continuing.) She has contributed to the success of numerous other cases, including: In re Puerto Rico Cabotage (settlements pending); In re Currency Conversion Fee ($336 million settlement); and In re Graphite Electrodes ($47.875 settlements with two defendants). Ms. MacNaughton is currently active on a number of cases, including In re Photochromic Lens Antitrust Litigation (M.D. Fla.); Rochester Drug Cooperative, Inc. v. Braintree Labs., Inc. (“Miralax”) (D. Del.); and In re Airline Baggage Fee Antitrust Litigation (N.D. Ga.).

69 Case 8:10-cv-01327-JST -RNB Document 59-3 Filed 09/19/11 Page 72 of 87 Page ID #:1316

Matthew P. McCahill

Matthew P. McCahill is a 2000 graduate of Rutgers College where he received a B.A., summa cum laude, in history and was elected to Phi Beta Kappa. Mr. McCahill is a 2003 graduate of Fordham Law School, where he was a member of the Fordham Urban Law Journal. Before joining Berger & Montague in January 2006, Mr. McCahill was an associate at Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP in New York, practicing primarily in antitrust litigation. Mr. McCahill continues to focus on antitrust litigation at Berger & Montague. Mr. McCahill is admitted to practice in the state courts of New York and Pennsylvania, as well as in the U.S. District Courts for the Southern and Eastern Districts of New York and the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. He is fluent in French and proficient in Spanish.

Ellen T. Noteware

Ms. Noteware earned her undergraduate degree from Cornell University (B.S. 1989) and graduated first in her class from the University of Wisconsin Law School (J.D. 1993) where she served as Associate Editor of the Wisconsin Law Review.

Following graduation, Ms. Noteware clerked for the Honorable J. Calvitt Clarke, Jr. in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. Prior to joining Berger & Montague, Ms. Noteware handled complex commercial litigation, products liability, employment law, ERISA and trade secret disputes as an associate at Arnold & Porter in Washington, D.C. and at Morgan, Lewis & Bockius in Philadelphia. Ms. Noteware continues to handle complex litigation and class action matters as a member of Berger & Montague’s Antitrust Department.

Jeff Osterwise

Jeff Osterwise is a graduate of Duke University (B.A. in Political Science and certificate in Markets & Management, 1999) and the Duke University School of Law (J.D., 2005).

Since joining Berger & Montague, P.C. in August 2005, Mr. Osterwise has practiced primarily in the areas of securities, consumer protection, and commercial litigation.

Mr. Osterwise is actively involved in Berger & Montague’s representation of the City of Philadelphia and the City of Chicago in separate actions against certain online travel companies for their failure to pay hotel taxes. He is also involved in the firm’s representation of former shareholders of a corporation who were harmed by the corporation’s merger with a competitor.

Mr. Osterwise has also been significantly involved in In re Mutual Funds Investment Litigation ($13.966 million settlement on behalf of investors harmed by mutual fund market timing), In re Veeco Instruments Inc. Securities Litigation ($5.5 million settlement on behalf of an investor class), and In re Force Protection, Inc. Derivative Action (shareholder derivative action seeking

70 Case 8:10-cv-01327-JST -RNB Document 59-3 Filed 09/19/11 Page 73 of 87 Page ID #:1317

relief on behalf of the corporation for breaches of fiduciary duty, waste, gross mismanagement and unjust enrichment by current and former Force Protection officers and directors).

Jacob M. Polakoff

Jacob M. Polakoff is a 2006 graduate of the joint JD/MBA program at the University of Miami, where he was the recipient of the Dean’s Certificate of Achievement in Legal Research & Writing, was awarded a Graduate Assistantship, and was honored with the Award for Academic Excellence in Graduate Studies.

Mr. Polakoff holds a 2002 B.S.B.A. from Boston University’s School of Management, where he concentrated in finance.

Since joining Berger & Montague, P.C. in August 2006, Mr. Polakoff has worked in the commercial litigation and class action securities litigation areas. He is admitted to practice law in Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

Mr. Polakoff was selected as a 2010 Pennsylvania Super Lawyer – Rising Star.

Craig Porges

Craig Porges graduated from the University of Tulane in 2006. While at Tulane, Craig also attended John Cabot University in Rome, Italy and Florida Atlantic University, in Florida. Upon graduation from Tulane, Craig then attended law school at Duke University School of Law, and graduated in 2009. While at Duke Law, Craig was a staff editor of the Duke Journal of Comparative and International Law, was a member of the Executive Board of Duke Law’s Bar Association, worked with the Innocence Project, and was a member of Duke Law’s Wrongful Convictions Clinic. Through his work with the Innocence Project and the Wrongful Convictions Clinic, Craig helped to obtain the release of an improperly convicted inmate after 17 years of incarceration.

Since joining Berger & Montague, Craig has focused his work in Insurance Class actions, and Complex litigation.

He is admitted to practice law in Pennsylvania.

Casey M. Preston

Casey M. Preston concentrates on securities fraud and other complex litigation. He has represented plaintiffs and defendants in both class actions and individual litigation involving securities fraud, ERISA, real estate, consumer fraud, mass torts, and commercial disputes.

71 Case 8:10-cv-01327-JST -RNB Document 59-3 Filed 09/19/11 Page 74 of 87 Page ID #:1318

Some of the more significant cases in which Mr. Preston has been involved include: Fleming Cos. Securities Litigation, MDL No. 1530 (E.D. Tex. 2005) ($94 million settlement on behalf of an investor class); CIGNA Securities Litigation, Civ. No. 2:02-8088 (E.D. Pa. 2007) ($93 million settlement on behalf of an investor class); Carreker Corp. Securities Litigation, Civ. No. 3:03-CV-0250-M (N.D. Tex. 2006) ($5.25 million settlement on behalf of an investor class); a $4 million recovery for an investor defrauded through a PIPE transaction; Red Robin Gourmet Burgers Securities Litigation, Civ. No. 05-cv-01563 (D. Colo. 2007) ($1.5 million settlement on behalf of an investor class).

Mr. Preston is originally from Clarks Summit, Pennsylvania. He graduated from the Citadel in 1995 and the Villianova University School of Law in 2000.

Following graduation from law school, Mr. Preston clerked for the Hon. William J. Nealon of the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania and the Hon. Terrence R. Nealon of the Court of Common Pleas of Lackawanna County. Prior to joining Berger & Montague, Mr. Preston also gained substantial experience in litigating complex commercial cases at Stevens & Lee, P.C.

Mr. Preston is a member of the Pennsylvania Bar. He is admitted to practice before the U.S. Supreme Court, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, and the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania.

Shoshana Savett

Shoshana Savett received a B.A. from the University of Pennsylvania in 1999. She graduated from Temple Law School in 2003 and is admitted to practice law in Pennsylvania and New Jersey. Ms. Savett is an associate in the securities department.

Shoshana worked on numerous class action that have achieved significant benefits on behalf of the Class. These cases include: In re Merrill Lynch Securities Litigation, Civil Action No. 07- cv-09633 (S.D.N.Y.) ($475 million settlement); Ginsburg v. Philadelphia Stock Exchange, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 2202-CC (Del. Ch.) representing certain shareholders of the Philadelphia Stock Exchange in the Delaware Court of Chancery ($99 million settlement); In re Sepracor Inc. Securities Litigation, Civil Action no. 02-12235-MEL (D. Mass.)($52.5 million settlement approved September 6, 2007)

Sarah R. Schalman-Bergen

Sarah R. Schalman-Bergen is a member of Berger & Montague’s antitrust department. Ms. Schalman-Bergen is a graduate of Harvard Law School (J.D. cum laude, 2007), where she served as an executive editor of the Harvard Civil Rights-Civil Liberties Law Review. She is also a graduate of Tufts University (B.A. summa cum laude, 2001).

72 Case 8:10-cv-01327-JST -RNB Document 59-3 Filed 09/19/11 Page 75 of 87 Page ID #:1319

Prior to joining Berger & Montague in 2009, Ms. Schalman-Bergen was an associate in the litigation department of WolfBlock LLP. While at WolfBlock, Ms. Schalman-Bergen served as the Shestack Public Interest Fellow, and divided her caseload between general commercial litigation and HIV discrimination litigation on behalf of the AIDS Law Project of Pennsylvania. Ms. Schalman-Bergen is admitted to practice law in Pennsylvania

Daniel Simons

Mr. Simons is a member of Berger & Montague’s Antitrust Department. He received a Bachelor of Arts in Political Science, magna cum laude, from Yeshiva University in l997. In addition to winning the Political Science departmental award two years running, Mr. Simons also garnered three awards for scholastics and student leadership upon graduation.

He earned his J.D. with honors, at Temple Law School in May, 2000, where he headed three student groups, served on Temple Law Review, and interned in the Health Care Fraud Unit of the United States Attorney’s Office. Following graduation, he clerked for the Honorable Berle M. Schiller of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. He has also served as a volunteer in the Philadelphia Reads Program.

Mr. Simons’s practice focuses on complex commercial litigation in the pharmaceutical and health care sectors. He has worked on several highly-watched pieces of litigation, including In re Nifedipine Antitrust Litigation, 246 F.R.D. 365 (D.D.C. 2007); In re DDAVP Direct Purchaser Antitrust Litigation, 585 F.3d 679 (2d Cir. 2009); and King Drug Co. v. Cephalon, Inc., __ F. Supp. 2d __, 2010 WL 1221793 (E.D. Pa. Mar. 29, 2010). He has also co-authored a chapter in The International Handbook on Private Enforcement of Competition Law (2010), entitled “Parties Entitled to Pursue a Claim.”

Mr. Simons is licensed to practice in Pennsylvania and New Jersey, and has been admitted to the bar of the United States Supreme Court, the Courts of Appeal for the Second, Third, Ninth, and D.C. Circuits, as well as the United States District Courts for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania and for the District of New Jersey. He is a member of the American Bar Association and it Antitrust Section. He helped found the Old York Road Revitalization Group – a project aimed at commercial development of a collection of northern Philadelphia suburbs – and serves on its governing board.

Molly Tack-Hooper

Molly Tack-Hooper is a graduate of New York University School of Law (J.D. 2009) and Brown University (A.B. 2002). At NYU School of Law, Ms. Tack-Hooper served on the Moot Court Board and the NYU Review of Law and Social Change, and received an Arthur Garfield Hays Civil Liberties Fellowship and the John Perry Prize for dedication to civil rights. Before joining Berger & Montague in April 2011, Ms. Tack-Hooper clerked for the Honorable Michael H. Dolinger, U.S. Magistrate Judge in the Southern District of New York, and served as a Legal Fellow at the ACLU of Pennsylvania.

73 Case 8:10-cv-01327-JST -RNB Document 59-3 Filed 09/19/11 Page 76 of 87 Page ID #:1320

Eugene R. Tompkins

Gene Tompkins graduated from the United States Merchant Marine Academy (B.S.M.E.) and the New York University Graduate School of Business Administration (M.B.A) and Temple University School of Law (J.D.). Mr. Tompkins concentrates on complex, technically-oriented disputes and business-related matters under antitrust, securities and corporate governance areas of federal and state law. His prior experience in numerous facets of the international transportation and oil and gas industries complements his efforts in many of the areas encountered in increasingly complex litigation.

Nick Urban

Nick Urban joined Berger & Montague’s antitrust department in September, 2009. Mr. Urban is a 2009 graduate of the University of Pennsylvania Law School where he was a Senior Editor for the Journal of Law and Social Change. Mr. Urban graduated from the University of San Diego in 2004 with a B.A. in Sociology.

Lane L. Vines

Lane L. Vines is a graduate of the University of Wisconsin-Madison (B.B.A.-Accounting, Graduated with Distinction, 1988) and Villanova University School of Law (J.D. 1997). During law school, Mr. Vines was a member of the Villanova Law Review and served as a Managing Editor of Outside Works. Prior to joining the Berger firm, Mr. Vines was a law clerk for the Honorable James R. Melinson, Chief U.S. Magistrate Judge for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. He is admitted to practice in Pennsylvania and New Jersey, as well as several federal courts including the Supreme Court of the United States. He is a member of the Villanova Law J. Williard O’Brien American Inn of Court. Mr. Vines joined the Berger firm in 1999 and concentrates his practice in the area of securities and complex commercial litigation.

James A. Wells

Mr. Wells is a senior associate in the Employment Law practice group. Mr. Wells has represented employees working in a variety of fields in wage & hour cases as well as discrimination lawsuits.

Prior to joining the firm, Mr. Wells worked at the Defender Association of Philadelphia as an Assistant Public Defender. In that position, he represented indigent criminal defendants in bench trials and before juries in the Major Trials Unit. Additionally, Mr. Wells spent time as an Associate at Willig, Williams and Davidson, representing individual plaintiffs in sex and age employment discrimination cases and whistleblower actions. While in law school at Temple, Mr. Wells was a staff member and was published in the Temple International and Comparative Law Journal.

74 Case 8:10-cv-01327-JST -RNB Document 59-3 Filed 09/19/11 Page 77 of 87 Page ID #:1321

Mr. Wells is currently representing several classes of employees at meat and poultry processing facilities across the country in actions to recover unpaid wages and overtime for the time spent donning and doffing protective clothing and equipment. He also represents homeowners for damages caused by defective building materials in a nationwide consumer protection action. Mr. Wells has previously represented plaintiffs in disability and race discrimination in employment cases, and various other actions for overtime compensation.

Mr. Wells volunteers his time assisting homeowners facing foreclosure and serving as pro bono counsel to a local bicycle advocacy and service organization.

75 Case 8:10-cv-01327-JST -RNB Document 59-3 Filed 09/19/11 Page 78 of 87 Page ID #:1322

OF COUNSEL:

Carey R. D’Avino

Mr. D’Avino is of counsel to Berger & Montague, P.C. in Philadelphia. He has practiced in the field of international law for more than 20 years and his practice is currently concentrated in international human rights class action litigation. He received a B.A., with honors, from Colgate University and his J.D., with honors, from Emory University Law School, where he served as an Editor, Emory Law Journal. He also earned his L.L.M. in Civil Trial Advocacy from Beasley School of Law at Temple University. He is the inaugural John Henry Hobart Fellow in Ethics and Social Justice at Hobart and William Smith Colleges and he is a member of the Board of Directors of the American Anti-Slavery Group, a Boston based human rights foundation dedicated to the eradication of slavery and forced labor around the world.

Mr. D’Avino is a member of the Bar in New York State and the United States Virgin Islands. He is admitted to practice law in the United States Supreme Court, United States District Court for the astern District of New York, the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, the Virgin Islands District Court, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, and the United States Court of Appeal for the District of Columbia.

He served as class counsel in each of the following Holocaust related class actions: In re Holocaust Victims Assets Litigation, No. 96 CV 4849; Helene Pollack, et al., v. Siemens A.G. et. al., No. 98 CV 5489; Marta Cornell, et. al. v. Assicurazioni Generali S.p.a., et. al., No. 97 CV 2262; Watman et. al. v. Deutsche Bank, Dresdner Bank, Creditanstalt, et al., No. 98 CV 9186; Burger-Fisher, et. al. v Degussa, No. 98 CV 3958; Jack Bressler et. al. v. Phillip Holzmann AG, et. al., No. 98 CV 6335; Anna Gutwillig, et. al. v. Steyer-Daimler-Pusch A.G., 98 CV 6336 and Kluge, et al. v. Raiffeisen Zentral, et, al., 00 CV 2851. He is an individual signatory of the German and Austrian Holocaust settlement agreements including the Joint Statement establishing the terms of the German Foundation “Remembrance, Responsibility and Future” executed on July 17, 2000, the Joint Statement establishing the terms of the Austrian Fund “Reconciliation, Peace and Cooperation” executed on October 24, 2000, and the Joint Statement establishing the terms of the “Austrian General Settlement Fund”, on January 17, 2001.

Daniel R. Miller

Daniel R. Miller concentrates his practice on complex civil litigation, representing whistleblowers in state and federal False Claim Act cases against companies or contractors who have defrauded federal, state, or local governments, and representing individual and class plaintiffs in consumer protection actions.

Prior to joining Berger & Montague, Mr. Miller was a Deputy Attorney General for the Delaware Department of Justice for more than 16 years and tried more than 125 cases to jury verdict. During his time with the government, Mr. Miller served on numerous national

76 Case 8:10-cv-01327-JST -RNB Document 59-3 Filed 09/19/11 Page 79 of 87 Page ID #:1323

negotiation and litigation teams comprised of state and federal prosecutors. Collectively, those whistleblower cases returned more than $2 billion to state and federal treasuries.

Whistleblower (“Qui Tam”) cases are complex matters which often require extensive communication and coordination with the United States Department of Justice, local United States Attorneys Offices, all 50 state Attorneys General Offices, the Food and Drug Administration, the Office of Inspector General, and numerous other federal and state agencies. Now in private practice, Mr. Miller is able to provide his clients with extensive trial experience, unparalleled insight into the personnel, structure, and function of these government entities, and a complete understanding of the investigative sequences utilized by the federal and state prosecutors who lead these cases.

Mr. Miller is the Immediate Past President of the National Association of Medicaid Fraud Control Units (“NAMFCU”), an organization whose members were responsible for securing more than 1,300 criminal convictions and returning more than $1.3 billion to the Medicaid Program last year. As a member of NAMFCU’s Global Case Committee, Mr. Miller routinely worked on large-scale fraud cases. Prior to serving as NAMFCU’s President, Mr. Miller was the co-chair of NAMFCU’s Qui Tam Subcommittee where he coordinated communications and litigation positions for all states which have enacted False Claims Acts. Through these various roles, Mr. Miller helped execute a multi-year plan to increase the level of state involvement in national fraud investigations and prosecutions. For example, Mr. Miller worked to successfully create and implement a national repository for the storage, review, and use of tens of millions of documents received from target companies. Moreover, Mr. Miller helped develop a robust investigation-based training module for fraud prosecutors. Mr. Miller also co-created and implemented a management structure for the evaluation, investigation, prosecution, and closure of national fraud cases.

From 2003 through 2009, Mr. Miller also served as the Director of Delaware’s Medicaid Fraud Control Unit. In that capacity, he often served as team leader in coordinating the investigation and prosecution of health care provider fraud -- including cases involving physician groups, nursing homes and hospitals -- with local, state, and federal authorities. These multi-disciplinary teams of government lawyers, investigators, and data analysts returned many millions of dollars to state and federal treasuries.

Mr. Miller is nationally recognized for his work in whistleblower cases under state and federal False Claims Acts, and he has been a frequent speaker on these and other topics. Some of his more recent speeches and presentations are listed below.

September, 2009 National Association of Medicaid Program Integrity Units – Annual Conference “Use of Medicaid Data in Global Fraud Investigations”

77 Case 8:10-cv-01327-JST -RNB Document 59-3 Filed 09/19/11 Page 80 of 87 Page ID #:1324

July, 2009 6th National Pharmaceutical Company Guide to Off-Label Communications “Identifying Enforcement Trends”

May, 2009 19th Annual ABA National Institute on Health Care Fraud “State and Federal False Claims Act Practice and Procedure” and “State Enforcement and Medicaid Fraud”

11th Annual Medicaid Rebates Conference “The Role of the States in Regulating the Pharmaceutical Industry”

March, 2009 1 st Annual Summit on Disclosure, Transparency, and Aggregate Spend “Assessing Disclosure as a Compliance Tool”

7th Annual Forum on Government Regulation of Prescription Drug Pricing “Pricing-Related Government Enforcement”

Widener Law School Healthcare Compliance Program “False Claims Act Update”

January, 2009 6th Annual Pharmaceutical Compliance Congress “Government Perspective on Scientific Exchange and Drug Promotion”

December, 2008 Annual Winter Meeting, National Association of Attorneys General “The Role of NAMFCU in Global Cases”

October, 2008 9th Annual Pharmaceutical Regulatory Compliance Congress “Post-Settlement Interactions with the Government”

10th Annual Guidelines for Disseminating Off-Label Information “The Role of the States in Off-Label Investigations and Prosecutions”

Creating Compliant Financial Arrangements with Doctors and Hospitals “Recent Cases Stemming from Questionable Financial Agreements”

September, 2008 1 st Annual Forum on Off-Label Therapy “The State Approach to Off-Label Enforcement”

78 Case 8:10-cv-01327-JST -RNB Document 59-3 Filed 09/19/11 Page 81 of 87 Page ID #:1325

June, 2008 7th Annual ABA Institute on Civil False Claims Act and Qui Tam Enforcement “Current and Future State Qui Tam Enforcement”

May, 2008 18th Annual ABA National Institute on Health Care Fraud “Sharing of Information Among Government Prosecutors”

4th USDOJ Conference on Pharmaceutical and Device Fraud “Best Price/Nominal Price Investigations and Prosecutions”

April, 2008 8th Annual National Forum on Fraud and Abuse in the Sale and Marketing of Drugs “Off-Label Promotion: Risk Mitigation and Lessons Learned from Recent Settlements” “Factoring New State Enforcement Priorities in the Fraud and Abuse Analysis”

March, 2008 Symposium on Healthcare Fraud Investigations “Preventing and Defending FCA Violations in Healthcare and Qui Tam Lawsuits”

October, 2007 9th Annual Conference: Guidelines for Disseminating Off-Label Information “Coordination Among Federal and State Agencies in Off-Label Enforcement”

September, 2007 7th Annual Taxpayers Against Fraud Conference “Multi-Jurisdictional Prosecution of Qui TamCases”

May, 2007 State False Claims Summit “The Interplay Between State Attorneys General and Federal Prosecutors”

Prior to serving as Director of the Medicaid Fraud Unit, Mr. Miller was a Deputy Attorney General in the Criminal Division of the Delaware Department of Justice. During that time he managed a large caseload and prosecuted hundreds of violent offenders, including rapists, armed carjackers, and capital murderers.

Before becoming a prosecutor, Mr. Miller served as a judicial clerk for Delaware Superior Court Judge Susan C. Del Pesco.

Mr. Miller graduated with honors from the University of Delaware in 1989, and Temple University Law School in 1992. He is presently an adjunct professor at Temple Law, teaching trial advocacy.

79 Case 8:10-cv-01327-JST -RNB Document 59-3 Filed 09/19/11 Page 82 of 87 Page ID #:1326

Roslyn G. Pollack

Roslyn G. Pollack is Counsel to the firm, concentrating on securities, qui tam, and other complex civil litigation. Ms. Pollack is a graduate of the University of Florida, magna cum laude, where she was elected to Phi Beta Kappa, and of the University of Pennsylvania Law School. She is admitted to practice in both Pennsylvania and Florida as well as the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania and the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.

She was formerly a partner in the Litigation Department of the Philadelphia firm of Cohen, Shapiro, Polisher, Shiekman and Cohen where she specialized in commercial and corporate litigation in such areas as banking, real estate, securities and ERISA. Ms. Pollack also served as Associate General Counsel - Lead Attorney - Litigation for PECO Energy Company. She has extensive trial experience in state and federal courts.

Ms. Pollack has lectured for the Pennsylvania Bar Institute and has written on a variety of legal topics. Formerly a member of the Philadelphia Bar Association Board of Governors and the Pennsylvania Bar Association House of Delegates, Ms. Pollack is active in a number of professional and civic organizations. She serves on the Commercial Panel of the American Arbitration Association and as a judge pro tem for the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas. She is a member of the Forum of Executive Women.

Jay Robert Stiefel

Jay Robert Stiefel studied History at the University of Pennsylvania (B.A. with Distinction 1968, General Honors Program, Dean’s List) and as a graduate student at Oxford University (Christ Church, 1968-69), where he was elected Chairman of the Graduate Common Room, chaired the Shakespeare at Stratford program and was a member of the Christ Church and Oxford University Boat Clubs. His International Relations degree from the University of Pennsylvania (M.A. 1971) was pursuant to an interdisciplinary program including courses in International Law at the Law School and Economics at the Wharton School of Business. He was elected a member of the Executive Committee of the International Relations Program of the Graduate School of Arts & Sciences (1970-71).

Mr. Stiefel worked at the British House of Commons as a member of the Conservative Parliamentary Power Committee’s Subcommittee on Amendments, chaired by Sir John Eden, Bt., and as Parliamentary Personal Assistant to Sir Peter F.H. Emery, P.C. (1969-70). Other residencies and work abroad, and nineteen years of linguistic studies, including at the Universités de Bordeaux et de la Toulouse (French, Certificat d’Assiduité 1965), have made Mr. Stiefel conversant in foreign languages, customs and practices. He was one of two U.S. Delegates to the International Conference on the U.S. Bicentennial, Philadelphia (1970).

Mr. Stiefel graduated from the Dickinson School of Law (J.D. 1974) where he was an editor of the Dickinson Law Review and a member of the Appellate Moot Court Board and of the Legal

80 Case 8:10-cv-01327-JST -RNB Document 59-3 Filed 09/19/11 Page 83 of 87 Page ID #:1327

Aid Society. He completed programs on Public and Private International Law at the Hague Academy of International Law, The Netherlands, where he served as U.S. Embassy Liaison (1972); and on the British legal system at Emmanuel College, Cambridge University (1997, 1998). He has lectured on law at Temple University and authored law review articles on International and Constitutional Law. For his paper, “The Rights of the Accused Before Trial,” delivered at Oxford University (1977), Mr. Stiefel was awarded le Prix des Anciens Presidents, the top prize of the Association Internationale des Jeunes Avocats (Young Lawyers International Association), a bar association whose U.S. operations he was elected to head (1978). He received the Outstanding Service Award of the Young Lawyers’ Section of the Philadelphia Bar Association for his service on its Executive Committee (1981). He has also served on the PBA’s Committees on International Law, Services to the Spanish-speaking Community, the Federal Courts and Lawyers for the Arts.

Mr. Stiefel has played a lead or principal role in complex securities actions throughout the country, in which many legal precedents were established and significant monetary and remedial benefits achieved. These include, among others, Employee Solutions Securities Litigation, Master File No. Civ-97-545-PHX-RGS (OMP) (D. Ariz.) (class settlement of in excess of $15 million); Rospatch Corporation Securities Litigation, Case No. 1:90-CV-806 et al. (W.D. Mich.) (class settlement of in excess of $6.5 million); Long Island Lighting Company Securities Litigation, 84-CIV-0588 (LDW) (E.D.N.Y.) (class settlement of in excess of $48.5 million); Washington Public Power Supply System Securities Litigation, M.D.L. 551 (W.D. Wash) (class settlements of over $700 million); Charal v. Andes (re The Franklin Mint), C.A. Nos. 77-1725 and 78-1610 (E.D. Pa.) ($6 million class settlement); Dura-Bilt Corporation v. Chase Manhattan Corp., 79 Civ. 4666, 71 Civ. 3800 (S.D.N.Y.); Berman v. HNC Mortgage & Realty Investors, C.A. No. B78-111 (D.Conn.); AM International, Inc. Securities Litigation, M.D.L. No. 494 (S.D.N.Y.) (class settlements of cash and warrants valued at approximately $20 million); Cincinnati Gas & Electric Company Securities Litigation, Master File No. C-1-83-1721 (S.D. Ohio) (class settlement of $13.9 million); Consumers Power Company Securities Litigation, Civ. Act. No. 83-CV-6448 AA(E.D. Mich); Oak Industries Securities Litigation, No. 83-0537-G(M) (S.D. Cal.) (class settlement of in excess of $33 million); Lundy v. Interfirst Corporation, No. 3- 84-0952H (N.D. Tex.) (class settlement of $6.7 million); and Council on Social Work Education, Inc., et al. v. Texas Instruments Inc., et al., C.A. No. CA-83-1083-H (N.D. Tex.)(class settlement of $12 million).

Mr. Stiefel has been a board member of various cultural and civic organizations in Philadelphia, including the Philadelphia Chamber Orchestra, Historic Rittenhouse, Inc., the Oxford & Cambridge Society, which he co-founded, and the Center City Residents’ Association, chairing its Celebration of Center City Living (1995). He is also a shareholder of the Library Company of Philadelphia and serves on the Advisory Board of the American Philosophical Society Library. He is a member of the Numismatic & Antiquarian Society of Philadelphia. Mr. Stiefel’s philanthropic interests include Independence Hall National Historical Park and various university museums and libraries, for which he was inducted into the De La Salle Society (2001). His sports are squash, tennis, and hiking. He is a member of the Philadelphia Club.

81 Case 8:10-cv-01327-JST -RNB Document 59-3 Filed 09/19/11 Page 84 of 87 Page ID #:1328

Mr. Stiefel is also an historian of early American commerce and the decorative arts. He has lectured at Winterthur Museum, the American Philosophical Society, Oxford University, the American Museum in Britain, and also before the Decorative Arts Trust, The Washington Decorative Arts Forum, and the Alexandria Association, among other venues. Mr. Stiefel serves on the Advisory Committee of the Delaware Antiques Show for Winterthur (1998-present). He has been admitted to various educational programs of the Attingham Trust in Great Britain and elsewhere (Summer School, 1996; and several Study Weeks since). Mr. Stiefel’s “Philadelphia Cabinetmaking and Commerce, 1718-1753: the Account Book of John Head, Joiner” and “The Head Account Book as Artifact” inaugurated the American Philosophical Society’s online historical journal, the Library Bulletin, vol. 1, no. 1, new series (Winter 2001); and were the subject of two feature articles: Lita Solis-Cohen, “Account Book Becomes Rosetta Stone for Philadelphia Furniture,” Maine Antiques Digest (April 2001), and “The Cabinetmaker’s Account,” Masterpiece (June 2001). Mr. Stiefel’s articles on Philadelphia’s colonial craftsmen have appeared in various publications, including the Bulletin of the Pewter Collectors’ Club of America (Winter 2002); the Catalogue of Antiques and Fine Art (Spring 2003 and 2004) and the Magazine Antiques (August 2006).

Mr. Stiefel is admitted to practice in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and before other federal courts throughout the country.

Tyler E. Wren

Tyler E. Wren is a trial lawyer with over 35 years of experience in both the public and private sectors.

Mr. Wren has represented both plaintiffs and defendants in a broad spectrum of litigation matters, including class actions, environmental, civil rights, commercial disputes, personal injury, insurance coverage, election law, zoning and historical preservation matters and other government affairs. Mr. Wren routinely appears in both state and federal courts, as well as before local administrative agencies.

Mr. Wren graduated from the Georgia Institute of Technology with a B.S. in Industrial Management and obtained his law degree from the University of Georgia School of Law. Following his graduation from law school, Mr. Wren served as staff attorney to the Committee of Seventy, a local civic watchdog group. Mr. Wren then spent a decade in the Philadelphia City Solicitor’s Office in various positions in which his litigation and counseling skills were developed: Chief Assistant City Solicitor for Special Litigation and Appeals, Divisional Deputy City Solicitor for the Environment, Counsel to the Philadelphia Board of Ethics and Counsel to the Philadelphia Planning Commission.

After leaving government employ and before joining Berger & Montague in 2010, Mr. Wren was in private practice, including nine years with the Sprague and Sprague firm, headed by nationally recognized litigator Richard Sprague. Mr. Wren was also the editor and principal author, Volumes 8-12 (Civil Litigation) of Dunlap-Hanna Pennsylvania Forms, 1987-1990.

82 Case 8:10-cv-01327-JST -RNB Document 59-3 Filed 09/19/11 Page 85 of 87 Page ID #:1329

Mr. Wren was recently named as one of Pennsylvania’s “Super Lawyers” in the area of Administrative Law. Mr. Wren has for many years held an AV rating by Martindale-Hubbell, the highest rating available for both professional competence and ethical integrity.

A member of the Pennsylvania Bar since 1973, Mr. Wren is also admitted to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit and the United States Supreme Court. Mr. Wren is also a member of the Pennsylvania Bar Association and the Philadelphia Bar Association.

Mr. Wren is also active in community affairs, serving as the elected Vice Chair of the East Nantmeal Township Board of Supervisors (Chester County, PA) and a member of the board of directors of the East Nantmeal Land Trust.

83 Case 8:10-cv-01327-JST -RNB Document 59-3 Filed 09/19/11 Page 86 of 87 Page ID #:1330

SPECIAL COUNSEL

Abbott A Leban

Abbott A. Leban joined Berger & Montague in 2004 as Senior Counsel in its Securities Litigation Department. Since 2008, he has continued his association with the firm as Of Counsel and resident attorney in the firm’s office in Wilmington, Delaware.

Mr. Leban is admitted to the practice of law in the District of Columbia, New York, Pennsylvania, and Delaware. He is also admitted in the U.S. Supreme Court, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit and the Fifth Circuit, and the U.S. District Courts for Delaware and the Southern District of New York. He is a member of the American and the Delaware State Bar Associations and was an original member of the National Association of Public Pension Attorneys. His local associations include the Delaware Center for Justice, Inc. and the American Civil Liberties Union of Delaware.

Mr. Leban received his B.A. from Columbia College and the J.D. degree from Yale Law School. He held a judicial clerkship in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit and continued in federal government service in Washington as an attorney in the (now defunct) U.S. Civil Aeronautics Board; as an Assistant U. S. Attorney for D.C.; and on the professional staff of U.S. Sen. Kenneth B. Keating (R.-N.Y.), ending as his Executive Assistant.

In 1965, Mr. Leban began a long career in the finance, insurance, and real estate (“FIRE”) sector. In Equitable Life’s Law Department, he was the company’s first-time officer and counsel for Federal Relations. At Colonial Penn Group, Inc., of Philadelphia (CPG), he was initially President/COO of its New York-based life insurance subsidiary and later CPG’s Senior V.P. and Corporate Secretary, with responsibilities for its legal, government relations, human resources, and corporate and public affairs departments. With the taking effect of ERISA in 1974, he also served as the chairman of the company’s pension trusts and supervised them in the early years of the ERISA regime. In the early 1980s, Mr. Leban joined with another CPG executive in the founding management of American Homestead, Inc., of Mt. Laurel, New Jersey, a mortgage banking concern, which developed and pioneered in offering reverse mortgage products to the “house-rich, cash-poor” segment of the senior population.

In 1987, the new administration of Pennsylvania Governor Robert P. Casey appointed Mr. Leban as the chief counsel of each of the three state-level public-employee retirement systems, with then combined assets of approximately $20 billion. In addition to corporate governance initiatives on behalf of the state and public school funds, he represented PSERS, as an ex officio member, along with CalPERS, on the official equity committee in Chapter 11 proceedings, In re Texaco, Inc., 81 B.R. 806 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 1988). That committee played a key role in the settlement of the Pennzoil-Texaco lawsuit judgment and the inclusion of important governance provisions in Texaco’s reorganization plan.

84 Case 8:10-cv-01327-JST -RNB Document 59-3 Filed 09/19/11 Page 87 of 87 Page ID #:1331

Mr. Leban left state government in 1991 to join the Philadelphia law firm now known as Blank Rome. As chair of the firm’s Public Pension Fund Practice Group within its Corporate Department, he concentrated his work on varied corporate, tax, fiduciary, litigation, and legislative matters on behalf of both in-state and sister-state public pension funds. When his colleagues, the resident litigation partners in Blank Rome’s Wilmington office, formed their own firm in 1997, Mr. Leban joined them in Delaware soon after they commenced business. Among other securities class actions in that period, he was a member of that firm’s litigation team as counsel for co-lead plaintiff Colorado PERA in the Oxford Health Plans Litigation in the Southern District of New York and for the Florida SBA as co-lead plaintiff in the DaimlerChrysler Securities Litigation in the District Court for Delaware.

85 Case 8:10-cv-01327-JST -RNB Document 59-4 Filed 09/19/11 Page 1 of 25 Page ID #:1332

EXHIBIT 4 Case 8:10-cv-01327-JST -RNB Document 59-4 Filed 09/19/11 Page 2 of 25 Page ID A.B. DATA, LTD. #:1333 Class Action Administration

COMPANY CURRICULUM VITAE

Headquarters California 600 A.B. Data Drive 548 Market Street Milwaukee, WI 53217 San Francisco, CA 94104 Tel: 414-961-6440 Tel: 415-670-9596 J Toll Free: 866-797-0826 Fax: 414-961-2214 DATA Fax: 414-961-7499 [email protected] [email protected]

Florida New York 325 Clematis Street, #316 244 Madison Avenue, #385 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 New York, NY 10016 Tel: 561-202-8147 Tel: 646-290-9137 Fax: 561-245-5238 Fax: 646-290-6070 [email protected] [email protected]

Founded in 1980, A.B. Data has earned an international reputation for expertly managing the complexities of class action administration in securities, ERISA, consumer, antitrust, employment, civil rights, insurance, environmental, wage and hour, and other class action cases. A.B. Data’s work in all aspects of class action administration has been perfected by decades of experience. Dedicated professionals deliver A.B. Data’s all-inclusive services, working in partnership with its clients to administer their class action cases effectively, efficiently, and affordably, regardless of size or scope.

Whether notifying millions of class members in the United States or throughout the world, processing millions of claims, or printing and distributing millions of checks, A.B. Data matches its talent and technology to the specific needs of its clients, delivering unparalleled services on time and on budget without ever compromising quality.

With over 400 employees, A.B. Data offers unmatched resources and capacity and is capable of expertly administering any class action settlement. A.B. Data offers the highest level of security and has the in-house capacity to mail four million personalized pieces every 24 hours. A.B. Data’s 170,000-square-foot mail distribution center, with its own on-site USPS postal substation, is one of the nation’s largest and most advanced facilities. In addition, A.B. Data has been entrusted to MICR-print and mail 70,000 checks a week and has the capacity to print and mail one million checks in a day.

A.B. Data has administered some of the largest and most complex class action settlements in history. A.B. Data’s success is driven by its passion for class action administration coupled with a focus on client relationships. An intensely case-specific approach and a philosophy of respect and professionalism toward A.B. Data’s clients and claimants guide every aspect of our work, from the pre-settlement phase through notice administration, claims processing, and fund distribution.

a bd ata cla ssacti on.com

New York I San Francisco I Washington, D.C. I Chicago I West Palm Beach I Milwaukee Case 8:10-cv-01327-JST -RNB Document 59-4 Filed 09/19/11 Page 3 of 25 Page ID #:1334 Page 2 of 24 PRESETTLEMENT CONSULTATION

A.B. Data helps its clients to prepare a stronger case. A.B. Data’s technology and acumen empower clients to manage a maze of documents during investigation and discovery. A.B. Data’s skillful logic enables our team to walk into a warehouse with millions of documents and walk out with a fully interactive media package for court presentations and settlement negotiations.

A.B. Data offers expert testimony on document, process, class, and notice manageability and deliberative opinions on proposed plans of allocation.

A.B. Data provides consultation with clients before the final settlement to discuss options available for a targeted, comprehensive, and cost-effective notice program that comports with the federal and state class action statutes as well as all CAFA requirements.

NOTICE ADMINISTRATION A.B. Data is an industry leader in full-service class action notice administration. A.B. Data’s class action notice programs are known worldwide for their efficiency, effectiveness, affordability, and compliance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 and due process requirements. A.B. Data has extensive experience in class action notice administration, and our services include class member location; third-party outreach; and media, Internet, email, and direct-mail notice.

As a leading class action notice administrator, A.B. Data is a recognized expert in producing high volumes of notice documents with accuracy, speed, and quality. A.B. Data prints customized notice packages in a cost-efficient format that substantially improves the efficacy of the notice program.

Globally, A.B. Data has successfully notified millions of class members throughout 109 countries in more than 80 languages. Domestically, as part of our multifaceted approach to class member location, A.B. Data is a licensee of various postal products, including the NCOA database, which tracks millions of moves across the United States.

A.B. Data’s in-house team of class action attorneys, professional proofreaders, and design specialists ensure that all notice packages are clear, accurate, and easy to understand. Among other services, A.B. Data will:

• Identify and locate potential class members via proprietary methods and research tools. • Review (substantive), format, print, and disseminate direct-mail notice. • Design and implement synergistic media notice campaigns. • Develop and implement case-specific third-party outreach campaigns. • Design, support, and host case-specific websites. • Coordinate legal translation of notice documents. • Draft CAFA notice, identify appropriate government agencies, and disseminate CAFA notice. • Utilize a proprietary list of over 5,000 domestic and international banks, brokers, and other nominees (for securities class action cases).

A.B. DATA. LTD. n ^ abdataclassaction.com DATA New York I Washington, D.C. 1 Chicago I West Palm Beach I Milwaukee I San Francisco Case 8:10-cv-01327-JST -RNB Document 59-4 Filed 09/19/11 Page 4 of 25 Page ID #:1335 Page 3 of 24 CLAIMS PROCESSING

A.B. Data raises the bar on claims processing with a team of class action attorneys leading experienced claims administrators and call center agents, all of whom utilize cutting-edge technologies to meet the exacting requirements of each case. A.B. Data’s customized approach combines accuracy, accountability, and speed with our human touch.

A.B. Data’s claims administrators are accurate, fast, and accountable. Each claim is reviewed in detail and processed precisely in accordance with the court-approved plan of allocation or settlement stipulation. A.B. Data’s claims-processing services include paper and electronic claims processing, with optical character recognition (OCR) technology to convert claims and correspondence into electronically searchable databases.

Expert software engineers, in collaboration with the Claimant Services Department, created A.B. Data’s proprietary Claims Engine. This database offers an extremely flexible work flow engine that allows high-speed claims imaging and processing without compromising quality. Its high level of automation allows maximum control and provides a comprehensive and accurate claims solution. The database allows A.B. Data’s team to develop custom applications tailored to the specific needs of each case, thereby creating efficient, accurate, and cost-effective claims processing.

When processing is complete and recommendations must be made to the court for settlement distribution, A.B. Data prepares timely affidavits that are accurate, concise, supported by the required documentation, and designed to withstand legal scrutiny.

A.B. Data has the in-house capacity to process millions of pages, but at A.B. Data, every process is transparent and every claim is handled as if it were the only one. Whether processing a simple claim form or a complicated form requiring detailed data and supporting documentation, A.B. Data’s claims administrators are claims-processing experts. A.B. Data provides, as applicable:

• Case-customized paper and electronic claims processing. • Conversion of documentation into a searchable database. • Verification of claims substantiations. • Assurance that lead plaintiff’s claim is filed timely and correctly. • Detection and rejection of fraudulent claims. • Identification and rejection of duplicate claims. • Detection and rejection of claims submitted by excluded parties, if any. • Claims processing auditing, including quality control and quality assurance. • Exclusion requests and objections processed within two hours of receipt. • Deficiency flagging and resolution. • Calculation of recognized losses and individual payments. • Management of claim-related correspondence. • Bulletproof claims review and resolution. • Calculation and reporting of payment amounts. • Comprehensive on-demand reporting. • Preparation of affidavits and recommendations drafted by experienced class action litigators and accounting professionals.

A.B. DATA. LTD. n ^ abdataclassaction.com DATA New York I Washington, D.C. 1 Chicago I West Palm Beach I Milwaukee I San Francisco Case 8:10-cv-01327-JST -RNB Document 59-4 Filed 09/19/11 Page 5 of 25 Page ID #:1336 Page 4 of 24 FUND DISTRIBUTION

A.B. Data provides a full-service solution to settlement fund distribution. From complete escrow services to establishment of qualified settlement funds; check, voucher, or coupon printing and mailing; electronic cash or stock distribution; and tax services, A.B. Data’s in-house team of certified public accountants and financial advisors expertly manages fund distribution while meeting legal, financial, and governmental requirements.

A.B. Data ensures the highest level of quality assurance, security, and confidentiality, with secure on-site facilities that have the capacity to print one million checks a day.

A.B. Data provides all-inclusive escrow, tax, and settlement fund distribution services, including:

• Fund investment strategies. • Escrow services. • Secure, in-house check printing. • Electronic transfers of cash and/or common stock. • Positive pay. • Maintenance of records of all distributions and perform daily account reconciliations. • Ongoing quality assurance and control by qualified accounting professionals. • Investigations of undelivered checks. • Detailed reporting, including completion of the standardized fund accounting report (SFAR). • All-inclusive tax and accounting services. • 1099 and W-2 tax reporting. • Monitoring outstanding and cleared checks.

CLIENT PORTAL

A.B. Data’s exclusive Client Portal is a website-based information portal that can be accessed 24 hours a day, seven days a week. It delivers a detailed snapshot of up-to-date statistics on case administration. Designed to ensure that relevant case information is available at your fingertips and at your convenience, this secure Client Portal allows you to log in to the system with your password to obtain whatever information you may need, when you need it.

Preparing for a hearing or meeting has never been this simple and convenient. With A.B. Data’s Client Portal, you can:

• Check the number of notices and claim forms mailed, exclusions, objections, website hits, phone calls, and undeliverable notices and claim forms. • Check the total number of claims received and processed. • Review the mailing and distribution affidavits. • View invoices, amounts paid and outstanding, and total amounts due.

CALL CENTER

A.B. Data’s newly renovated in-house call center utilizes state-of-the-art telecommunications systems designed to meet the specific requirements of any administration project as well as maximize the financial and service goals of our clients.

A.B. DATA. LTD. n ^ abdataclassaction.com DATA New York I Washington, D.C. 1 Chicago I West Palm Beach I Milwaukee I San Francisco Case 8:10-cv-01327-JST -RNB Document 59-4 Filed 09/19/11 Page 6 of 25 Page ID #:1337 Page 5 of 24

The call center is managed by full-time staff familiar with the specific details of every case. Our skilled customer service representatives are trained using case-specific materials and resources and employ telephone scripts created by our in-house attorneys and approved by our clients. Quality assurance and quality control procedures ensure the transmission of clear and accurate information to class members in a courteous and professional manner.

In addition to providing class members with superior quality service, our customer service representatives respond to email inquiries; document notice, claim form, and call-back requests; return voice mail messages within 24 hours, and call class members regarding the status of the administration.

Clients may also utilize A.B. Data’s advanced interactive voice response (IVR) system, which is a cost-effective way to permit class members to receive informational announcements, request notices and claim forms, and obtain case-specific details.

FRAUD PREVENTION AND DETECTION

A.B. Data is an industry leader in fraud prevention and detection. A.B. Data maintains and utilizes comprehensive proprietary fraud detection and prevention procedures and databases to prevent payment of allegedly fraudulent claims. A.B. Data is in regular communication and collaboration with the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), the USPS, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) Criminal Investigation division, the United States Secret Service, Homeland Security and many other governmental and local law enforcement agencies in an effort to identify and prevent fraudulent claims from being paid. A.B. Data has an outstanding fraud prevention research team on staff that, among other things, collects and reviews media clippings on a daily basis regarding any potential ongoing and/or new investigations concerning potentially fraudulent filers. In addition, A.B. Data’s fraud prevention research team reviews and analyzes various filing patterns across all existing cases and all existing claims. The parameters of such patterns are maintained in the Information Systems Department protocol on claims fraud prevention. The fraud prevention patterns are reviewed by A.B. Data’s fraud prevention research team on a quarterly basis. Potential fraudulent filers are reported to our clients as well as the appropriate governmental agencies. Recently, due to our dedication and diligent work, the FBI arrested and convicted a fraudulent filer detected by A.B. Data.

As a further result of our notable work preventing fraud, Anya Verkhovskaya, A.B. Data’s Senior Executive Vice President and Chief Operating Officer, was recently selected by Professor of Law, Francis McGovern of Duke Law School to spearhead an industry wide taskforce on fraud prevention and detection. Professor McGovern was among the first in the nation to write about and to use alternative dispute resolution and, as a court-appointed special master or neutral expert, has developed solutions in most of the significant mass claim litigation in the United States. The federal judiciary, many state courts, and institutions around the world, such as the United Nations, all seek his guidance on practical and conceptual issues in dispute resolution. His name is virtually synonymous with “mass claim” litigation -- the often tens of thousands of tort claims arising out of a major disaster or major product liability issue. Professor McGovern has authored two books and over 50 articles including, “Punitive Damages & Class Actions” and “Distribution of Funds in Class Actions – Claims Administration.”

A.B. DATA. LTD. n ^ abdataclassaction.com DATA New York I Washington, D.C. 1 Chicago I West Palm Beach I Milwaukee I San Francisco Case 8:10-cv-01327-JST -RNB Document 59-4 Filed 09/19/11 Page 7 of 25 Page ID #:1338 Page 6 of 24 A.B. DATA’S LEADERSHIP

• Anya Verkhovskaya, Senior Executive Vice President and Chief Operating Officer. Ms. Verkhovskaya has overseen the management of hundreds of fund distributions in SEC enforcement actions, as well as class action cases including, securities, ERISA, wage and hour, employment, discrimination, antitrust, and consumer. Ms. Verkhovskaya oversees all aspects of administration to ensure the delivery of an impeccable work product and exemplary service and leads a team of legal, accounting, finance, information systems, information technology, claims administration, and facilities and operations professionals.

• Michelle La Count, Esq., Vice President Case Management. Ms. La Count has managed the administration of hundreds of class action cases and fund distributions during her tenure at A.B. Data, and has developed specialized knowledge and expertise in SEC fund distributions and securities class actions. Her responsibilities include operations, establishing and refining procedures, and customer relations. Ms. La Count brings leadership, value, and experience to all projects she oversees, and enables A.B. Data to provide superior quality and cost-effective service to our clients, investors and class members.

• Stacey Fishbein, Esq., Vice President In-House Counsel. Ms. Fishbein is a former securities class action litigator and has over nine years of experience litigating, settling, and administering securities class actions. Ms. Fishbein addresses any legal matters and supervises select administrations to ensure the highest level of quality in all processes. Her significant experience in securities class action litigation and client service permits her to attend to the specific needs of our clients and ensures the highest level of customer satisfaction.

• Al Wichtoski, CPA, Vice President and Chief Financial Officer. Beginning as a Controller with A.B. Data over twenty years ago, Mr. Wichtoski rose to a number of corporate administrative and financial management positions before realizing his current role with the company. Mr. Wichtoski’s years of financial management and expertise include a broad range of roles and responsibilities including, bank liaison, IRS conduit, risk management, budgeting, tax filing, statement preparation, financial analysis, and serving as final compliance officer for all financial accounts associated with A.B. Data.

• Linda Smith, CPA and Financial Analyst. Ms. Smith has over a decade of experience as a broker-dealer auditor, trainer, and manager, and is a Certified Anti-Money Laundering Specialist. Ms. Smith is responsible for managing and performing financial analysis, reviewing plans of allocations, working with independent distribution consultants, and performing account reconciliations for fund distributions. Prior to joining A.B. Data, Ms. Smith conducted audits for Northwestern Mutual, where she was a subject matter expert for anti-money laundering and broker-dealer audits and prior to that, she was in charge of performing financial and compliance audits for broker-dealers and futures commission merchants at the Chicago Board of Trade.

• Jeremy Thiede, Information Systems Director. Mr. Thiede has over 10 years of experience in systems design and development with specializations in application/database design and development, process/workflow, and document management. Mr. Thiede is responsible for overseeing all aspects of A.B. Data’s technical processes and determining how they can best be leveraged throughout the administration and fund distribution processes. Mr. Thiede analyzes business lines and internal processes to ensure efficiencies across A.B. Data. A.B. DATA. LTD. n ^ abdataclassaction.com DATA New York I Washington, D.C. 1 Chicago I West Palm Beach I Milwaukee I San Francisco Case 8:10-cv-01327-JST -RNB Document 59-4 Filed 09/19/11 Page 8 of 25 Page ID #:1339 Page 7 of 24 • Eric Schultz, Information Technology Manager, Security Team Chairperson. Mr. Schultz is a Microsoft Certified Systems Engineer with over 20 years of experience in information technology systems and solutions, and has developed specializations in network security, infrastructure, design/architecture, telephony and high availability network systems. Mr. Schultz has been with A.B. Data more than 10 years and is currently responsible for overseeing all information technology areas for all divisions of A.B. Data. Additionally, Mr. Schultz provides strategic information technology planning and manages all security and compliance initiatives for A.B. Data. . • Jodi Long, Claims Operations Manager. Ms. Long has been with A.B. Data since 2004 and currently manages all operations and staff associated with the claims administration. While occupying a number of supervisory roles, Ms. Long has become an expert in SEC fund distributions and securities class action administrations and is responsible for ensuring that all claims administration matters are handled in an efficient and timely manner.

• Lisa Smuckler, Esq., Account Executive. Ms. Smuckler, a former litigator, is responsible for managing client engagements while ensuring the highest level of customer satisfaction and providing ongoing counsel to assist A.B. Data clients in meeting all of their administration goals. Prior to joining A.B. Data, Ms. Smuckler was engaged in private practice in Chicago. During her eight years in private practice, Ms. Smuckler represented insurance carriers and other corporations in complex commercial litigation matters and specialized in insurance risk mitigation related to class action exposure.

• Christina Peters-Stasiewicz, Account Executive. Ms. Peters-Stasiewicz has been with A.B. Data since 2004 and during her tenure has gained extensive experience administering high volume securities litigations as well as consumer, wage and hour, antitrust, ERISA, product liability, and insurance-related matters. As an Associate Account Executive, Ms. Peters-Stasiewicz works directly with A.B. Data’s clients to facilitate seamless administrations and ensures that each case is administered effectively and cost-efficiently. Among her many responsibilities, Ms. Peters- Stasiewicz oversees the notice process, summary notice publication, website design/maintenance, call center management, claims processing, settlement fund allocation and disbursement, client reporting, and affidavits.

• Meghan Nemiroff, Esq., Case Management Coordinator. Ms. Nemiroff joined A.B. Data as a Case Management Coordinator and is the centralized point of contact for the Case Management Team, providing specialized support and serving as a liaison between Account Executives on the Case Management Team and various other internal department and division heads within A.B. Data. Ms. Nemiroff is primarily responsible for, among other things, interfacing with: the Claimant Services Project Managers and Team Leaders to establish and maintain deadlines; the Production Department to schedule and coordinate the printing and mailing of all legal documents; and the Business Critical Communications Division for preparations related to checks and other financial documents that include sensitive, private information.

A.B. DATA. LTD. n ^ abdataclassaction.com DATA New York I Washington, D.C. 1 Chicago I West Palm Beach I Milwaukee I San Francisco Case 8:10-cv-01327-JST -RNB Document 59-4 Filed 09/19/11 Page 9 of 25 Page ID #:1340 Page 8 of 24 CASE LIST

• MARTIN v. AAIPHARMA, INC., Case No. 7:04-CV-27-D, United States District, Eastern District of North Carolina

• MULHERN v. JOHN G. MACLEOD d/b/a ABC MORTGAGE COMPANY, Civil Action No. 2005-01619, Commonwealth of Massachusetts

• FRANCO v. ACE PARKING MANAGEMENT, INC., Case No. BC 392809, Los Angeles Superior Court

• In re AFFILIATED COMPUTER SYSTEMS ERISA LITIGATION, Master File No. 3:06-CV- 1592-M, United States District Court, Northern District Of Texas, Dallas Division

• In re AIG ERISA LITIGATION, Case No. 04-CV-9387-JES(AJP), United States District Court, Southern District of New York

• In re AIRGATE PCS, INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION, Civil Action No. 1:02-CV- 1291 -JOF, United States District Court, Northern District of Georgia, Atlanta Division

• CARLSON v. STATE OF ALASKA, COMMERCIAL FISHERIES ENTRY COMMISSION, Case No. 3AN-84-5790 CI, Superior Court for the State of Alaska, Third Judicial District Anchorage

• ALAKA YAK v. ALL ALASKAN SEAFOODS, INC., et al., Case No. 3AN-95-4676 CIV, In the Superior Court for the State of Alaska, Third Judicial District at Anchorage

• In re AMERICAN ITALIAN PASTA COMPANY SECURITIES LITIGATION, 05 -CV-0725 -W- ODS, United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri, Western Division

• PARKER v. AMERICAN MEDICAL SECURITY GROUP, INC., et al., Civil Action File No. 04-1-1980-42, In The Superior Court of Cobb County, State of Georgia

• HILL V. AMERICAN MEDICAL SECURITY LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY and TAXPAYERS NETWORK, INC., Case No. W-06 CA 332, United States District Court, Western District of Texas, Waco Division

• In re ANDRX CORPORATION, INC., TAZTIA XT SECURITIES LITIGATION, Case No. 02- 60410-CIV-UNGARO-BENAGES, United States District Court, Southern District of Florida

• CERDA v. ASSOCIATES FIRST CAPITAL CORPORATION, Civil Action No. M-03-146, United States District Court, Southern District of Texas, McAllen Division

• In re ATLAS ENERGY, INC. SHAREHOLDERS LITIGATION, Consolidated C.A. No. 5990- VCL, In the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware

• S. PARKER HARDWARE MFG. CORP. v. AT&T CORP., Docket No. BER-L-162-06, Superior Court of New Jersey, Bergen County

A.B. DATA. LTD. n ^^ abdataclassaction.com DATA New York I Washington, D.C. 1 Chicago I West Palm Beach I Milwaukee I San Francisco Case 8:10-cv-01327-JST -RNB Document 59-4 Filed 09/19/11 Page 10 of 25 Page ID #:1341 Page 9 of 24

• YARIV v. AT&T CORP., and SAM’S CLUB EAST, INC. and SAM’S CLUB WEST, INC., Docket No. SOM-L-272-05, Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division: Somerset County

• HAMILTON v. ATX SERVICES, INC., Case No. 08-0030-CV-W-SOW, United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri, Western Division

• OPEN MRI OF PINELLAS, INC. v. ATLANTA CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 03-7721, Circuit Court of the 13th Judicial Circuit in and for Hillsborough County, Florida

• ARIAS v. AWARD HOMES, INC., Case No. M54183, Superior Court of California, County of Monterey

• PATEL v. BALUCHI’S INDIAN RESTAURANT, et al., Case No. 08-cv-9985 (RJS), United States District Court, Southern District of New York

• In re BEAZER HOMES USA, INC. ERISA LITIGATION, Civil Action No. 1:07-CV-00952- RWS, United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, Atlanta Division

• ESTATE OF MITCHELL HAMPTON v. BEVERLY ENTERPRISES-ARKANSAS, INC., No. CV 2004-95-3, Circuit Court of Bradley County, Arkansas

• In re BIGBAND NETWORKS, INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION, Master File No. 07-CV-5101 SBA, United States District Court, Northern District of California, Oakland Division

• BRAGG v. BILL HEARD CHEVROLET, INC. – PLANT CITY, Case No. 8:02-cv-609-T- 30EAJ, In the United States District Court, Middle District of Florida, Tampa Division

• In re BISYS SECURITIES LITIGATION, Civil Action No. 04-CV-3840 (LAK), United States District Court, Southern District of New York

• VON FRIEWALDE v. BOEING AEROSPACE OPERATIONS, INC., C.A. No. SA06CA0236- OG, United States District Court for the Western District of Texas, San Antonio Division

• In re BP PRUDHOE BAY ROYALTY TRUST SECURITIES LITIGATION, Case No. C06-1505 MJP, United States District Court, Western District of Washington at Seattle

• WENGER v. BRUNSWICK B UICK PONTIAC GMC, INC. and SODEN v. EAST BRUNSWICK BUICK PONTIAC GMC, INC., et al., Docket Nos. L-2510-03 and L-5617-03, Superior Court of New Jersey, Middlesex County

• CARLSON. v. C.H. ROBINSON WORLDWIDE, INC., Case No. CV 02-3780 (JNE/JJG), United States District Court for the District of Minnesota

• MANN & COMPANY, PC v. C-TECH INDUSTRIES, INC., Civil Action No. 1:08CV11312- RGS, United States District Court, District of Massachusetts

A.B. DATA. LTD. n ^^ abdataclassaction.com DATA New York I Washington, D.C. 1 Chicago I West Palm Beach I Milwaukee I San Francisco Case 8:10-cv-01327-JST -RNB Document 59-4 Filed 09/19/11 Page 1 1 of 25 Page ID #:1342 Page 10 of 24 • In re CALPINE CORPORATION ERISA LITIGATION, Master File No. C 03-CV-1685 (SBA), United States District Court, Northern District of California, Oakland Division

• PAYSON v. CAPITAL ONE HOME LOANS, LLC, et al., Case No. 07-CV-2282-JTM/DWB, United States District Court for the District of Kansas at Kansas City

• In re CARDINAL HEALTH, INC. ERISA LITIGATION, No. C2-04-643 (ALM), United States District Court, Southern District of Ohio, Eastern Division

• In re CBEYOND, INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION, Case No. 08-cv-1666-SAS, United States District Court, Northern District of Georgia

• MILFORD & FORD ASSOCIATES, INC. and COLLINS v. CELL-TEK, LLC, C.A. NO. 1:09- CV-11261-DPW, United States District Court, District of Massachusetts

• PROVO v. CHINA ORGANIC AGRICULTURE, INC., CHANGQING XU, XUEFENG GUO, HUIZHI XIAO, SHUJIE WU and JIAN LIN, Case No. 08-cv-10810, United States District Court, Southern District of New York

• ZELNIK v. CITATION HOMES, INC., a California corporation; and SCS DEVELOPMENT CO., et al., Case No. 413861, Superior Court of California, County of San Mateo

• CLEARVIEW IMAGING, LLC v. DAIRYLAND INSURANCE COMPANY a/k/a SENTRY INSURANCE A MUTUAL COMPANY, a foreign corporation d/b/n Florida, Case No. 04- 11399, In the Circuit Court of the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit in and for Hillsborough County, Florida, Civil Division

• CLEARVIEW IMAGING, LLC d/b/a CLEARVIEW OPEN MRI v. MERCURY INSURANCE COMPANY OF FLORIDA, Case No. 03-5170, In the Circuit Court of the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit of the State of Florida, in and for Hillsborough County, Florida, Civil Division

• CLEARVIEW IMAGING, LLC v. NATIONWIDE MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, et al., Case No. 04-10396, In the Circuit Court of the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit in and for Hillsborough County, Florida, Civil Division

• CLEARVIEW IMAGING, LLC d/b/a CLEARVIEW OPEN MRI v. PROGRESSIVE CONSUMERS INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 03-4174, In the Circuit Court of the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit in and for Hillsborough County, Florida, Civil Division

• MEADOWS v. CLEARWATER BAY MARKETING, LLC d/b/a SANDPOINT CAPITAL, LLC, Cause No. No. 49C01-0812-PL-054708, Marion Circuit Court, Civil Division, Marion County, Indiana

• CANNING v. CONCORD EFS, INC., Docket No. L-6609-02, Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division: Camden County

• CRUZ v. CONDOR CAPITAL CORPORATION, Docket No. MID-L-2108-06, Superior Court of New Jersey, Middlesex County: Law Division

A.B. DATA. LTD. n ^^ abdataclassaction.com DATA New York I Washington, D.C. 1 Chicago I West Palm Beach I Milwaukee I San Francisco Case 8:10-cv-01327-JST -RNB Document 59-4 Filed 09/19/11 Page 12 of 25 Page ID #:1343 Page 11 of 24

• In re CONNETICS SECURITIES LITIGATION, Case No. C 07-02940 SI, United States District Court for the Northern District of California

• In re THE CONSUMERS TRUST, Chapter 11, Case No. 05-60155 (REG), United States Bankruptcy Court, Southern District of New York

• HELLMERS v. COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS, INC., Case No. 07-7703, United States District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana

• In re CP SHIPS LTD. SECURITIES LITIGATION, Case No. 8:05-MD-1656-T-27 TBM, United States District Court For The Middle District Of Florida

• DRURY v. COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS, INC., et al., Case No. 6:08-CV-152-ORL-28 DAB, United States District Court, Middle District of Florida, Orlando Division

• VEAL v. CROWN AUTO DEALERSHIPS, INC., Case No. 8:04-CV-0323-T-27 MSS, United States District Court, Middle District of Florida, Tampa Division

• THE LOUISIANA MUNICIPAL POLICE EMPLOYEES’ RETIREMENT SYSTEM v. DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP, Civil Action No. 04-621 (LDW), United States District Court, Eastern District of New York

• QUAAK v. DEXIA, S.A. and DEXIA BANK BELGIUM (f/k/a ARTESIA BANKING CORP., SA), Case No. 03-CV-11566 (PBS), United States District Court, District of Massachusetts

• WELLS v. DTD ENTERPRISES, et al., Case No. L-9012-07, Superior Court of New Jersey, Middlesex County, Law Division

• In re DURA PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION, Master File No. 99-cv- 0 15 1 -JLS, United States District Court, Southern District of California

• YINGLING v. EBAY, INC., C 09 01733 JW (PVT), United States District Court, Northern District of California, San Jose Division

• COLEMAN v. EDISON AUTO SALES, INC., BENNY CARMINO, ERNEST GEMELAR O, Civil Action, Docket No: MID-L-8168-09, Superior Court of New Jersey, Middlesex County: Law Division

• WYATT v. EL PASO CORPORATION, et al., Civil Action No. H-02-2717, United States District Court, Southern District of Texas, Houston Division

• In re ELECTRONIC DATA SYSTEMS CORP. ERISA LITIGATION, Case No. 6:03-MD-1512, Lead Case 6:03-CV-126 (“ERISA”), United States District Court, Eastern District of Texas, Tyler Division

• OSBORN v. EMC CORPORATION, et al., Case No. C 04-00336 JSW, U.S. District Court, Northern District of California, San Francisco Division

A.B. DATA. LTD. n ^^ abdataclassaction.com DATA New York I Washington, D.C. 1 Chicago I West Palm Beach I Milwaukee I San Francisco Case 8:10-cv-01327-JST -RNB Document 59-4 Filed 09/19/11 Page 13 of 25 Page ID #:1344 Page 12 of 24

• In re ENTERPRISE RENT-A-CAR WAGE & HOUR EMPLOYMENT PRACTICES LITIGATION, MDL No. 2056, United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania

• GILLEY v. ERNIE HAIRE FORD, INC., Case No. 02-8101, Circuit Court for the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit in and for Hillsborough County, Florida, Civil Division

• PASKOWITZ v. ERNST & YOUNG, LLP, Civil Action No. A-08-CA-188-LY, United States District Court for the Western District of Texas, Austin Division

• LONG v. ESCHELON TELECOM, CLIFFORD D. WILLIAMS, RICHARD A. SMITH, LOUIS L. MASSARO, MARK E. NUNNELLY, MAR VIN MOSES, JAMES P. TENBROEK and IAN K. LORING, Case No. 27-CV-07-6687, Fourth Judicial District of the State of Minnesota, County of Hennepin

• FAMILY OPEN MRI, INCORPORATED v. DIRECT GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 03-4175, Circuit Court for the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit in and for Hillsborough County, Florida, Civil Division

• In re FANNIE MAE ERISA LITIGATION, Case No. 04-cv-01784, United States District Court, District of Columbia (Washington, DC)

• COTTON v. FERMAN MANAGEMENT SERVICES CORPORATION, Case No.: 02-08115, Circuit Court for the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit, Hillsborough County, Florida Civil Division

• ZAMETKIN v. FIDELITY MANAGEMENT & RESEARCH COMPANY, et al, No. 1:08-cv- 10960-MLW, United States District Court, District of Massachusetts

• ORI v. FIFTH THIRD BANK, et al, Case No. 08-CV-00432-LA, United States District Court, Eastern District of Wisconsin

• BURNS v. FIRST AMERICAN BANK, No. 04 C 7682, United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division

• In re FLAG TELECOM HOLDINGS, LTD. SECURITIES LITIGATION, Case No. 02-CV- 3400, United States District Court, Southern District of New York

• MARTIN v. FOSTER WHEELER ENERGY CORPORATION, No. 3:06-CV-878, United States District Court, Central District of California

• WENGER v. FREEHOLD SUBARU, LLC, Civil Action, Docket No. MON-L-4003-10, Superior Court of New Jersey, Monmouth County – Law Division

• In re FREMONT GENERAL CORPORATION LITIGATION, Case No. CV07-02693 JHN (FFMx), United States District Court for the Central District of California

A.B. DATA. LTD. n ^^ abdataclassaction.com DATA New York I Washington, D.C. 1 Chicago I West Palm Beach I Milwaukee I San Francisco Case 8:10-cv-01327-JST -RNB Document 59-4 Filed 09/19/11 Page 14 of 25 Page ID #:1345 Page 13 of 24 • FW TRANSPORTATION, INC. v. ASSOCIATES COMMERCIAL CORPORATION, Case No.C200000084, District Court of Johnson County, Texas, 18th Judicial District

• In re: ASSICURAZIONI GENERALI S.p.A. HOLOCAUST INSURANCE LITIGATION, MDL 1374 M21-89 (GBD), United States District Court, Southern District of New York

• MAYES v. THE GEO GROUP, INC., Case No. 5:08-cv-248-RS/EMT, United States District Court, Northern District of Florida, Panama City Division

• GERMAN FORCED LABOR COMPENSATION PROGRAM (GFLCP)

• In re GILEAD SCIENCES SECURITIES LITIGATION, Master File No. C-03-4999-SI, United States District Court, Northern District of California

• PARTHIBAN v. GMAC MORTGAGE CORPORATION, D/B/A DITECH. COM, Case No. SACV-05-768-ODW (MLGx), United States District Court, Central District of California, Southern Division

• PETTWAY v. HARMON LAW OFFICES, P.C., Case No. 03-10932-RGS, United States District Court, District of Massachusetts

• ULTRA OPEN MRI CORPORATION v. HARTFORD CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 07-CA-009132, Circuit Court of the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit in and for Hillsborough County, Florida, Civil Division

• BROWN v. HAYT, HAYT & LANDAU, LLC, Case No. L-7042-07, Superior Court of New Jersey, Essex County, Law Division

• In re HEARST-ARGYLE SHAREHOLDER LITIGATION, Index No. 09-Civ-600926, Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York

• WALKER v. HILL WALLACK LLP, Case No. MID-L-003480-08, Superior Court of New Jersey, Middlesex County, Law Division

• HOLOCAUST VICTIM ASSETS LITIGATION (SWISS BANKS) (HVAP)

• OLIVO v. HOMECOMINGS FINANCIAL LLC, Index no. 4625/06, Supreme Court of the State of New York, Nassau County

• HUDSON UNITED BANK v. WEND Y D. CHASE and R ODNE Y MILLER, et al., Docket No. L-235-05, Superior Court of New Jersey, Hunterdon County

• In re ICG COMMUNICATIONS, INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION, Civil Action No. 00-cv- 1864-REB-BNB (Consolidated with 00-cv-1908-REB-BNB, 00-cv-1910-REB-BNB, 00-cv- 1919-REB-BNB, 00-cv-1945-REB-BNB, 00-cv-1954-REB-BNB, 00-cv-1957-REB-BNB, 00- cv-1963-REB-BNB, 00-cv-1996-REB-BNB, 00-cv-2040-REB-BNB, 00-cv-2074-REB-BNB, 00-cv-2149-REB-BNB, 00-cv-2243-REB-BNB, and 00-cv-2316-REB-BNB) United States District Court for the District of Colorado

A.B. DATA. LTD. n ^^ abdataclassaction.com DATA New York I Washington, D.C. 1 Chicago I West Palm Beach I Milwaukee I San Francisco Case 8:10-cv-01327-JST -RNB Document 59-4 Filed 09/19/11 Page 15 of 25 Page ID #:1346 Page 14 of 24

• VALUEPOINT PARTNERS, INC. v. ICN PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. et al., Case No. SACV 03-989 DOC (Anx), United States District Court, Central District of California

• In re INFOSONICS SECURITIES LITIGATION, Civil Action No. 06-CV- 123 1 -JLS (WMC), District Court for the Southern District of California

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON HOLOCAUST ERA INSURANCE CLAIMS (ICHEIC)

• In re INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES CORP. SECURITIES LITIGATION, 1:05- cv-6279 (AKH), United States District Court, Southern District of New York

• In re IOWA READY-MIX CONCRETE ANTITRUST LITIGATION, No. C 10-403 8-MWB (Consolidated Cases). In the United States District Court, Northern District of Iowa, Western Division

• SILKE v. IRWIN MORTGAGE CORPORATION, Cause No. 49D03-0304-PL-000697, Marion Superior Court, Civil Division

• LEHMANN v. STEVEN GLUCKSTERN, ANDRE A. DIMINO, DAVID SAL OFF, KENNETH S. ABRAMOWITZ, PAMELA J. NEWMAN, JEFFREY A. TISCHLER, IVIVI TECHNOLOGIES, LLC, AJAX CAPITAL LLC and IVIVI TECHNOLOGIES, INC., Docket No. C-343-09, Superior Court Of New Jersey, Bergen County, Chancery Division

• NORFLET v. JOHN HANCOCK LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Civil Action No. 3:04-cv- 1099(JBA), United States District Court, District of Connecticut

• PALIOTTO v. THE JOHNNY ROCKETS GROUP, INC.

• COHEN v. JPMORGAN CHASE & CO. AND JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A., Case No. 04-CV-4098, United States District Court , Eastern District of New York

• BLANCO v. KEYBANK USA, N.A., et al., Case No. 08-1-03-CV-524, United States District Court, Northern District of Ohio, Eastern Division

• In re KING PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., Lead Case No. 2:03-CV-77, United States District Court, Eastern District of Tennessee, Greeneville Division

• HOLLEY v. KITTY HAWK, INC, M. TOM CHRISTOPHER, RICHARD WADS WORTH AND CONRAD KALITTA, Case No. 3-00 CV 0828-P, United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division

• MANN v. LAWYERS TITLE INSURANCE CORPORATION, Case No. 03-CH-15223, Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois County Department, Chancery Division

• ROLARK v. LAWYERS TITLE INSURANCE CORPORATION, Case No. 03-CH-13789, Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois County Department, Chancery Division

A.B. DATA. LTD. n ^^ abdataclassaction.com DATA New York I Washington, D.C. 1 Chicago I West Palm Beach I Milwaukee I San Francisco Case 8:10-cv-01327-JST -RNB Document 59-4 Filed 09/19/11 Page 16 of 25 Page ID #:1347 Page 15 of 24

• ACEVEDO v. LAWYERS TITLE INSURANCE CORPORATION, Case No. 03-CH-07718, Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois County Department, Chancery Division

• In re LDK SOLAR SECURITIES LITIGATION, Master File No. C 07-05182 WHA, United States District Court, Northern District of California

• DeCARIO v. LERNER NEW YORK, INC., a Delaware Corporation and Does 1 through 100 inclusive, Case no. BC 317954, Los Angeles County Superior Court of the State of California • In re LERNOUT & HAUSPIE PRODUCTS, N.V., SECURITIES LITIGATION, Case No. 1:00cv1 1589, United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts

• In re LERNOUT & HAUSPIE PRODUCTS, N.V., SECURITIES LITIGATION (KPMG), Case No. 04-CV-1738, United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts

• In re LIMELIGHT NETWORKS, INC., Master File No. CV07-01603-PHX-SRB, United States District Court for the District of Arizona

• COLEMAN v. LINCOLN WOOD PRODUCTS, INC. Case No.: 99-CVS-1362, General Court of Justice, New Hanover County, North Carolina, Superior Court Division

• SERINO v. KENNETH LIPPER, Index No. 02/604396, Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York

• RICHARD A. WILLIAMSON, as Successor Liquidating Trustee on Behalf of Lipper Convertibles, L.P. and Lipper Fixed Income Fund, L.P. v. PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS LLP, Index No. 04/602106, Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York

• CAPOVILLA v. LONE STAR TECHNOLOGIES, INC. ET AL., RHYS J. BEST, Case No. 07- 02979, District Court of Dallas County, Texas, 14th Judicial District

• In re MARINE HOSE ANTITRUST LITIGATION, Master Docket No. 08-MDL-1888, United States District Court, Southern District of Florida, Miami Division

• In re MARSH ERISA LITIGATION, Master File No. 04 cv 8157 (CM), United States District Court, Southern District of New York

• In re MARTEK BIOSCIENCES CORPORATION SECURITIES LITIGATION, Civil Action No. MJG 05-1224, United States District Court, District of Maryland (Northern Division)

• HUGHLEY v. MARYLAND CASUALTY COMPANY, a foreign corporation, Case No. 06- 21428-CIV-ALTONAGA, United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, Miami Division

• In re MBNA CORP. SECURITIES LITIGATION, Case No. 1:05-CV-00272-GMS, United States District Court, District of Delaware

A.B. DATA. LTD. n ^^ abdataclassaction.com DATA New York I Washington, D.C. 1 Chicago I West Palm Beach I Milwaukee I San Francisco Case 8:10-cv-01327-JST -RNB Document 59-4 Filed 09/19/11 Page 17 of 25 Page ID #:1348 Page 16 of 24 • CHAO v. LEONARD SLUTSKY, et al. (MEBT ERISA), Case No. CV 01-7593 (SLT) (ETB), United States District Court, Eastern District of New York

• THE LAFAYETTE LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, MERCY RIDGE, INC. v. CITY OF MENASHA, WISCONSIN, MENASHA UTILITIES, MENASHA STEAM UTILITY, and RBC CAPITAL MARKETS, Case No. 4:09-CV-64-APR, United States District Court, Northern District of Indiana, Hammond Division (LaFayette)

• In re META VANTE TECHNOLOGIES, INC. SHAREHOLDER LITIGATION, Case No. 09-cv- 5325, Milwaukee County Circuit Court

• FRAY-WITZER v. METROPOLITAN ANTIQUES, LLC, Civil Action No. 02-5827, Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Superior Court Department of the Trial Court, Suffolk Division

• BLACK v. METSO PAPER USA, INC., et al., Case No. 3:05-CV-19951, United States District Court, Middle District of Pennsylvania

• RUBIN v. MF GLOBAL, et al., Case No. 08Civ. 2233 (VM), United States District Court, Southern District of New York

• In re MICROMUSE, INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION GREG SUTTERFIELD, derivatively and on behalf OF MICROMUSE, INC. v. LLOYD CARNEY, Case No. C-04-0136BZ, United States District Court, Northern District of California

• SMITH v. MILL-TEL, INC., Case No. 08-CV-2016-JAR/JPO, United States District Court, District of Kansas, at Kansas City

• MN CORN PROCESSORS CLASS ACTION: RUPP v. L. DANIEL THOMPSON, MICHAEL MOTE, ROGER UNTIEDT, LARRY SCHIAVO, JOSEPH BENNETT, DANIEL STACKEN, STANLEY SITTON, ROGER EVERT, JERRY JACOBY AND JOHN AND MARY DOE, DEFENDANTS, File No. C5-03-347, State of Minnesota District Court, County of Lyon Fifth Judicial District

• WISNIAK v. MIRANT AMERICAS GENERATION, LLC, RICHARD J. PERSHING, J. WILLIAM HOLDEN, III, STEPHEN G. GILLIS, S. MAR CE FULLER, AND RAYMOND D. HILL, Civil Action No. 1:03-CV-2049-BBM, In the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, Atlanta Division

• In re MK RESOURCES COMPANY SHAREHOLDERS LITIGATION, Consolidated Case No. 1692-VCS, Court of Chancery, New Castle County, State of Delaware

• ARTEAGA v. MODA FURNITURE, INC., Docket No: L-000980-05, Superior Court of New Jersey, Morris County Law Division

• In re MOTIVE, INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION, Civil Action No. A-05-CV-923-LY and ADAIR v. MOTIVE (The “Derivative Action”), Case No. A-06-CA-017-LY, United States District Court For The Western District Of Texas

A.B. DATA. LTD. n F^^ abdataclassaction.com DATA New York I Washington, D.C. 1 Chicago I West Palm Beach I Milwaukee I San Francisco Case 8:10-cv-01327-JST -RNB Document 59-4 Filed 09/19/11 Page 18 of 25 Page ID #:1349 Page 17 of 24 • In re NATIONAL CITY CORPORATION SECURITIES, DERIVATIVE & ERISA LITIGATION, Case No. 08-nc-70000, United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, Eastern Division

• GREENSTEIN v. NATIONS TITLE AGENCY OF FLORIDA, INC., Case No.: 50 2007 CA 014085 XXXMBAA, In the Circuit Court of the 15th Judicial Circuit in and for Palm Beach County, Florida

• ULTRA OPEN MRI CORPORATION v. NATIONWIDE ASSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 03-010725, Thirteenth Judicial Circuit Court in and for Hillsborough County, Florida

• CURTIS v. NORTHERN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, No. 01-2-18578-1 SEA, Superior Court of Washington for King County

• In re Nx NETWORKS SECURITIES LITIGATION, (REES PLAINTIFFS), Case No. 00-CV- 11850 (JLT) United States District Court, District of Massachusetts

• LILLY v. ONEIDA LTD. EMPLOYEE BENEFITS ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEE, Case No. 07-cv-00340, United States District Court, Northern District of New York

• FRAY-WITZER v. OLDE STONE LAND SURVEY COMPANY, INC., Superior Court C.A. NO.: 2008-04175, Commonwealth of Massachusetts

• HESS v. ORIOLE HOMES CORP., RICHARD D. LEVY, HARRY A. LEVY, MARK A. LEVY, GEORGE R. RICHARDS AND PAUL R. LEHRER. Case No. CA 02-13794AA, Circuit Court of the 15th Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County, Florida

• WARREN v. ROLLINS, INC. AND ORKIN EXTERMINATING COMPANY, INC.

• In re OSI PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION, Master File No. 2:04-CV- 05505-JS-WDW, United States District Court, Eastern District of New York

• SCHER v. OXFORD HEALTH PLANS, INC. and OXFORD HEALTH PLANS OF NEW YORK, INC., AAA No. 11 193 00548 05, American Arbitration Association

• In re PACIFIC GATEWAY EXCHANGE, INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION, Master File No. C-00-1211-PH, United States District Court for the Northern District of California

• STEIN v. PACTIV CORPORATION, et al., Case No. 10-CH-35455, In the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois; County Department, Chancery Division

• In re: PFF BANCORP, INC. ERISA LITIGATION, Case No. CV 08-01093 SVW (PLAx), United States District Court, Central District of California

• GROEN v. POLYMEDICA CORPORATION, C.A. No. 07-3352, Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Superior Court Department, Middlesex County

A.B. DATA. LTD. n ^^ abdataclassaction.com DATA New York I Washington, D.C. 1 Chicago I West Palm Beach I Milwaukee I San Francisco Case 8:10-cv-01327-JST -RNB Document 59-4 Filed 09/19/11 Page 19 of 25 Page ID #:1350 Page 18 of 24 • NTHENGE v. PRESSLER AND PRESSLER COUNSELORS AT LAW, a/k/a PRESSLER & PRESSLER, Master File No. C-00-1211-PH, United States District Court for the Northern District of California

• PREMIER OPEN MRI, LLC v. PROGRESSIVE AMERICAN INS. CO ., et al. and PREMIER OPEN MRI, LLC v. PROGRESSIVE AUTO PRO INS. CO ., et al. and PREMIER OPEN MRI, LLC v. PROGRESSIVE EXPRESS INS. CO., et al., Case No. 04-00021, Circuit Court for the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit in and for Hillsborough County, Florida

• Project HEART—HOLOCAUST ERA ASSET RESTITUTION TASKFORCE

• SPECIAL SITUATIONS FUND III, LP v. QUOVADX, INC., et al., Case No. 04-cv-01006- RPM, United States District Court for the District of Colorado

• IN THE MATTER OF THE INVESTIGATION OF ANDREW M. CUOMO, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, OF RADIOSHACK CORPORATION, AOD No. 09-148, Office of the Attorney General of the State of New York, Civil Rights Bureau

• FRIEDMAN v. RAYOVAC CORPORATION, Civil Action No. 02-CV-0308, United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin

• In re RBC DAIN RAUSCHER OVERTIME LITIGATION, Master File No. 06-03093 JRT- FLN, United States District Court, District of Minnesota

• In re RCN CORPORATION ERISA LITIGATION, Master File No. 04-CV-5068 (FLW), United States District Court, District of New Jersey

• In re READY-MIXED CONCRETE ANTITRUST LITIGATION, Case No. 1:05-cv-00979- SEB-VSS, United States District Court For The Southern District Of Indiana, Indianapolis Division

• In re RELIANT SECURITIES LITIGATION, Civil Action No. H-02-1810 (Consolidated), United States District Court, Southern District of Texas, Houston Division

• SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION v. RENAISSANCERE HOLDINGS LTD., Case No. 07-cv-00865 (GEL) ECF Case, United States District Court, Southern District of New York

• In re RENAISSANCERE HOLDINGS LTD. SECURITIES LITIGATION, Master File No. 1:05- cv-06764-WHP, United States District Court, Southern District of New York

• PEREZ v. RENT-A-CENTER, INC., Docket No. CAM-L-21-03, Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division: Camden County

• POLICE AND FIRE RETIREMENT SYSTEM OF THE CITY OF DETROIT v. SAFENET, INC., et al., Lead Case No.: 06 Civ 5797 (PAC), United States District Court, Southern District of New York

A.B. DATA. LTD. n F^^ abdataclassaction.com DATA New York I Washington, D.C. 1 Chicago I West Palm Beach I Milwaukee I San Francisco Case 8:10-cv-01327-JST -RNB Document 59-4 Filed 09/19/11 Page 20 of 25 Page ID #:1351 Page 19 of 24 • RAGSDALE v. SANSAI USA, INC., Case No. 07 CV 1246 WQH(CAB), United States District Court, Southern District of California

• STOFFELS v. SBC COMMUNICATIONS, Case No. 5:05-CA-00233-WWJ, United States District Court for the Western District of Texas, San Antonio Division

• MANTZOURIS v. SCARRITT MOTOR GROUP, INC., Case No. 8:03-CV-00150T-30-MSS, U.S.D.C., Middle District of Florida, Tampa Division

• In re SCHERING-PLOUGH CORPORATION ERISA LITIGATION, Civil Action No. 03-1204 (KSH), United States District Court, District of New Jersey

• In re SCOTTISH RE GROUP SECURITIES LITIGATION, Case No. 06-CV-5853 (SAS), United States District Court, Southern District of New York

• EPSTEIN v. SEARS, ROEBUCK AND CO., Docket No. MID-L-003230-09, Superior Court of New Jersey, Union County-Law Division

• In re SEARS, ROEBUCK & COMPANY ERISA LITIGATION, No. 02 C 8324, United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois

• In re SFBC INTERNATIONAL, INC. SECURITIES & DERIVATIVE LITIGATION, Case No. 2:06-cv-000165SRC, United States District Court, District of New Jersey

• SANTOS v. SAMUEL M. SILVER, LLC, Case No. MID-L-08188-07, Superior Court of New Jersey, Middlesex County

• In re SEXY HAIR CONCEPTS, LLC, Case No. 1: 1 0-bk-25919-GM, United States Bankruptcy Court for the Central District of California, San Fernando Valley Division

• In re SMURFIT-STONE ERISA, Case No. 1:09-cv-02984, United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois

• ESTEP v. SMYTHE VOLVO, INC., Docket No. UNN-L-004184-03, Superior Court of New Jersey, Union County – Law Division

• KUBOTA v. THOMAS C. WALKER., Case No. 06-02446, District Court of Dallas County, Texas, 95th Judicial District

• In re STERLING FINANCIAL CORPORATION SECURITIES LITIGATION, Civil Action No. 07-2171, United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania

• EVANS v. STEWART TITLE GUARANTY COMPANY, Case No. 04-06630-05, Circuit Court of the 17th Circuit, Broward County, Florida

• SOKOLOSKI v. STEWART TITLE GUARANTY COMPANY, Case No. 3:08-cv-00236-AWT, United States District Court, District of Connecticut

A.B. DATA. LTD. n ^^ abdataclassaction.com DATA New York I Washington, D.C. 1 Chicago I West Palm Beach I Milwaukee I San Francisco Case 8:10-cv-01327-JST -RNB Document 59-4 Filed 09/19/11 Page 21 of 25 Page ID #:1352 Page 20 of 24 • BAUMAN v. SUPERIOR FINANCIAL CORPORATION, et al., Civ. Action No. 4-01-CV- 00756 GH, United States District Court, Eastern District of Arkansas Western Division

• COTTRELL v. RICK D. GARDNER, et al., Civ. Action No. CV-2002-121(I) Superior Financial Corp. Derivative Action

• SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION v. RYAN ASHLEY BRANT, No. 1:07-cv- 01075-DLC, United States District Court, Southern District of New York

• In re SUPERVALU, INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION, Civil Action No. 02-CV-1738 (JEL/JGL), United States District Court for the District of Minnesota

• In re SUPREMA SPECIALTIES SECURITIES LITIGATION, Master File No. 02-168 (WHW), United States District Court, District of New Jersey

• In re SYMBOL TECHNOLOGIES, INC., SECURITIES LITIGATION, Case No. 02-CV-1383 (LDW), United States District Court, Eastern District of New York

• In re TAKE-TWO INTERACTIVE SECURITIES LITIGATION, No. 1:06-cv-00803-RJS, United States District Court, Southern District of New York

• CROXALL v. TAMPA HUND, L.P., et al., Case No. 03-6201, The Circuit Court for the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit In and For Hillsborough County, Florida Civil Division

• SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION v. TECUMSEH HOLDINGS CORPORATION, et al., 03 Civ. 5490 (SAS), United States District Court, Southern District of New York

• BRIEGER v. TELLABS, INC., et al. (ERISA), Case No. 1:06-CV-1882, United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division

• CLEMONS v. DONNA L. THOMPSON a/k/a LAW OFFICES OF DONNA L. THOMPSON, ESQ., et al., Docket No. MON-L-001980-07, Superior Court of New Jersey, Monmouth County – Law Division

• In re TICKETMASTER ENTERTAINMENT SHAREHOLDER LITIGATION, Lead Case No. BC407677, Superior Court for the State of California, County of Los Angeles, Central Civil West

• CEMENT MASONS & PLASTERERS JOINT PENSION TRUST v. TNS, INC., JOHN J. MCDONNELL, JR. AND HENRY H. GRAHAM, JR., Case No. 1:06 CV 363 DMH/BRP, United States District Court, Eastern District of Virginia

• GRAHAM v. TOWN & COUNTRY DISPOSAL OF WESTERN MISSOURI, INC., Case No.: 4:10-CV-00551-NKL, In the United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri, Western Division

A.B. DATA. LTD. n ^^ abdataclassaction.com DATA New York I Washington, D.C. 1 Chicago I West Palm Beach I Milwaukee I San Francisco Case 8:10-cv-01327-JST -RNB Document 59-4 Filed 09/19/11 Page 22 of 25 Page ID #:1353 Page 21 of 24 • MONTALVO v. TRIPOS, INC., et al., Case No. 4:03CV995SNL, United States District Court, Eastern District of Missouri

• HARGRAVE v. TXU CORP., et al. (ERISA), Case No. 3:02-CV-2573-K (Consolidated with Case No. 3:03-CV-423-K and Case No. 3:03-CV-0577-K), United States District Court, Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division

• OVERBY v. TYCO INTERNATIONAL LTD., et al. (ERISA), Case No. 02-CV-1357-B, United States District Court, District of New Hampshire

• TYSON FOODS, INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION, Civil Action No. 01-425-SLR, United States District Court for the District of Delaware

• ACE MARINE RIGGING & SUPPLY, INC. v. VIRGINIA HARBOR SERVICES, INC. et al., No. SACV 11-00436-GW (FFMx) United States District Court for the Central District of California

• BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF THE PORT OF NEW ORLEANS v. VIRGINIA HARBOR SERVICES, INC. et al., No. SACV11-00437-GW (FFMx), United States District Court for the Central District of California

• UNITED CONSUMER FINANCIAL SERVICES COMPANY v. WILLIAM CARBO v. A&M MERCHANDISING, INC., et al., Case No. L-3438-02, Superior Court of New Jersey Law Division: Hudson County

• ZILHAVER v. UNITEDHEALTH GROUP INCORPORATED, et al., No. 06-C-2237, United States District Court, District of Minnesota

• VALLEY NATIONAL BANK v. CAHN, Docket No. L-0504-04, Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division of Mercer County

• In re VASO ACTIVE PHARMACEUTICALS SECURITIES LITIGATION, Master Docket No. 04-10708 (RCL), United States District Court, District of Massachusetts

• In re VASO ACTIVE PHARMACEUTICALS DERIVATIVE LITIGATION, Master Docket No. 04-10792 (RCL) (Consolidated Derivative Action)

• CLAYTON v. VELOCITI, INC. AND CENTRAL STATES THERMO KING, INC., Case No. 08- cv-2298, United States District Court, District of Kansas at Kansas City

• SOUTHEAST TEXAS MEDICAL ASSOCIATES, LLP v. VERISIGN, INC., Case No. 1-05-CV- 035550, Superior Court of the State of California, County of Santa Clara

• CORSELLO v. VERIZON NEW YORK, Index No. 39610/07, Supreme Court of the State of New York

• In re VIISAGE TECHNOLOGY, INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION, Civil Action No. 05-cv- 10438-MLW, United States District Court, District of Massachusetts

A.B. DATA. LTD. n ^^ abdataclassaction.com DATA New York I Washington, D.C. 1 Chicago I West Palm Beach I Milwaukee I San Francisco Case 8:10-cv-01327-JST -RNB Document 59-4 Filed 09/19/11 Page 23 of 25 Page ID #:1354 Page 22 of 24

• In re VISIONAMERICA, INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION, Master File No. 3-00-0279, United States District Court, Middle District of Tennessee, Nashville Division

• In re VONAGE INITIAL PUBLIC OFFERING (IPO) SECURITIES LITIGATION, Docket No. 07-CV-177 (FLW/TJB), United States District Court, District of New Jersey

• In re WARNER CHILCOTT LIMITED SECURITIES LITIGATION, Case No. 06-CV-11515- WHP, United States District Court, Southern District of New York

• KAY v. WELLS FARGO & COMPANY, WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., NORTHSTAR MORTGAGE GUARANTY REINSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 07-01351 WHA, United States District Court for the Northern District of California

• MILLER v. WELTMAN, WEINBERG & REIS CO., et al., Case No. MID-L-006248-07, Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Middlesex County

• SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION v. STEVEN BYERS, JOSEPH SHERESHEVSKY, WEXTRUST CAPITAL, LLC, WEXTRUST EQUITY PARTNERS, LLC, WEXTR UST DEVELOPMENT GROUP, LLC, WEXTR UST SECURITIES, LLC, and AXELA HOSPITALITY, LLC, Case No. 08-cv-7104 (DC), United States District Court, Southern District of New York

• SAM v. ELIZABETH L. WHITE, Cause No. 49D06-1006-PL-027492, State of Indiana, In the Marion Superior Court No. 6, Civil Division

• AL TIER v. WORLEY CATASTROPHE RESPONSE, LLC, Civil Action No. 11-241 c/w 1 1 - 242, United States District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana

• SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION v. ZOMAX, INC., et al., Case No.: 05-CV- 01128, United States District Court for the District of Minnesota

• In re ZOMAX, Civil Action No. 04-1155 (DWF/SRN), United States District Court, District of Minnesota

A.B. DATA. LTD. n ^^ abdataclassaction.com DATA New York I Washington, D.C. 1 Chicago I West Palm Beach I Milwaukee I San Francisco Case 8:10-cv-01327-JST -RNB Document 59-4 Filed 09/19/11 Page 24 of 25 Page ID #:1355 Page 23 of 24 REPRESENTATIVE CLIENT LIST 1

Ademi & O’Reilly Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossman LLP Brady & Associates Carney Williams Bates Bozeman & Pulliam PLLC Clark & Martino, PA Clifford Chance LLP Cohen & Malad, LLP Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC Cooley Godward Kronish LLP Craig E. Rothburd, PA Dewey & LeBoeuf LLP Donelon, P.C. Federman & Sherwood Feldman, Shepherd, Wohlgelernter, Tanner & Weinstock Figari & Davenport, LLP Fowler White Boggs Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer US LLP Galex Wolf, LLC Godfrey & Kahn, S.C. Grant & Eisenhofer P.A. Hill Wallack LLP Hill, Ward & Henderson, PA Izard Nobel LLP James, Hoyer, Newcomer & Smiljanich, P.A. Jeeves Law Group Kahn Gauthier Swick, LLC Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP Keller Rohrback Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP Kirby McInerney LLP Klafter, Olsen & Lesser LLP Kohn, Swift & Graf, PC Labaton Sucharow LLP Latham & Watkins LLP Loevy & Loevy Lowey Dannenberg Cohen & Hart, P.C. Lownstein Sandler PC Mehri & Skalet, PLLC Milberg LLP Motley Rice LLC Paul, Hastings, Janofsky & Walker LLP Podvey Meanor Catenacci Hildner Cocoziello & Chattman, PC Pomerantz Haudek Block Grossman & Gross LLP Proskauer Rose LLP Quarles & Brady LLP

1 Full Client List is available upon request. A.B. DATA. LTD. n ^ abdataclassaction.com DATA New York I Washington, D.C. 1 Chicago I West Palm Beach I Milwaukee I San Francisco Case 8:10-cv-01327-JST -RNB Document 59-4 Filed 09/19/11 Page 25 of 25 Page ID #:1356 Page 24 of 24 Reed Smith LLP Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP Roddy Klein & Ryan Sarraf Gentile LLP Schwartz Semerdjian Haile Ballard & Cauley LLP Securities and Exchange Commission Shalov Stone Bonner & Rocco LLP Sidley Austin Brown & Wood, LLP Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom, LLP Sprenger & Lang, PLLC Squitieri & Fearon, LLP Stull Stull & Brody Susman Godfrey, LLP Wachtell Lipton Rosen & Katz Whatley, Drake & Kallas Williams Cuker Berezofsky Winstead PC Wites & Kapetan, P.A. Wong Fleming Zwerling, Schachter & Zwerling, LLP

A.B. DATA. LTD. n ^ abdataclassaction.com DATA New York I Washington, D.C. 1 Chicago I West Palm Beach I Milwaukee I San Francisco