BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER BARRACK, RODOS & BACINE & GROSSMANN LLP LEONARD BARRACK 2 ALAN SCHULMAN (Bar No. 128661) GERALD J . RODOS ROBERT S. GANS (Bar No . 214420) M. RICHARD KOMINS DAVID R. STICKNEY (Bar No . 188574) JEFFREY A. BARRACK TIMOTHY A. DeLANGE (Bar No . 190768) 3300 Two Commerce Square 4 12544 High Bluff Drive, Suite 15 0 2001 Market Street San Diego, CA 92130 Philadelphia, PA 1910 3 Tel : (858) 793-0070 Tel : (215) 963-0600 Fax: (858) 793-0323 Fax : (215) 963-0838 6 -and- -and- MAX W . BERGER STEPHEN R. BASSER (Bar No . 121590) ROCHELLE FEDER HANSEN 402 West Broadway, Suite 85 0 1285 Avenue of the Americas San Diego, CA 92101 New York, NY 1001 9 Tel : (619) 230-0800 Tel : (212) 554-1400 Fax : (619) 230-1874 9 Fax : (212) 554-1444

10 Attorneys for Lead Plaintiff The New York State Common Retirement 11 Fund and Co-Lead Counsel for the Class

12 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

13 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

14 SAN JOSE DIVISION

15 In re McKESSON HBOC, INC . Master File No. 99-CV-20743 RMW (PVT) SECURITIES LITIGATION And Related Cases 16 CLASS ACTION 1. 7 Date: N/A 18 This Document Relates To : Time: N/A Place: Courtroom 6, 41h Floor 19 ALL ACTIONS. Before : Hon. Ronald M . Whyte

20

21

22

23 LEAD PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO BEAR, STEARNS & CO . INC .'S OPPOSITION TO THE STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER 24 (1) SUBSTITUTING THE FORM OF PROPOSED FINAL JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF DISMISSAL AND 2 PRELIMINARILY APPROVING SETTLEMEN T 25

26

27

28 LEAD PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO BEAR, STEARNS & CO ., INC .'S OPPOSITION TO THE STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER Master F ile No. 99-CV-20743 RMW (PVT) TABLE OF CONTENTS

Pne TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ...... ii

1. INTRODUCTION ...... 1

II. ARGUMENT ...... 2

A. The Proposed Judgment Addresses The Concerns Expressed In The Court's May 23 Order- ...... 2

1 . The Bar Order ...... 2

2. The Judgment Reduction Provision...... -...... 4

B. The Proposed Judgment Does Not Violate Bea r Stearns' Contract Rights And Is Not Unfair...... 5

Ili. CONCLUSION ...... 1 0

LEAD PLAINTIFF'S MEM, FURTHER SUPPORT . PRELIM . APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMEN . 99-CV-,20743 RMWT Master File No (PVT) TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Case Page

148 Inv. Group, Inc. v. Elvis Presley Enter., Inc. (unpublished), No . 93 -6444, 1995 WL 283785 (6th Cir. May 10, 1995) ...... 7

American Broadcasting Cos. v. Wolf, 430 N.Y.S .2d 275 (N.Y .A.D . 1980) ...... 7

Cipriano v. Glen Cove Lodge, 769 N .Y.S .2d 168 (N.Y. 2003 ) ...... 7

In re Consolidated Pinnacle West Sec. Litig./Resolution Trust Corp.-Merabank Litig. , 51 F .3d 194 (9th Cir. 1995) ...... 8

Degree Sec. Sys., Inc. v. F.A.B. Land Corp. , 756 N .Y.S .2d 248 (N.Y.A.D. 2003) ...... 7

Eichenholtz v. Brennan, 52 F.3d 478 (3d Cir. 1995) ...... 6

FDIC v. McSweeney, 976 F .2d 532 (9th Cir. 1992) ...... 3

Franklin v. Kaypro Corp. , 884 F .2d 1222 (9th Cir. 1989) ...... 6

Gerber v. MTC Elec. Tech. Co. , 329 F .3d 297 (2d Cir. 2003) ...... 33,5,

Golden Gate Acceptance Corp. v. General Motors Corp. , 597 ' .2d 676 (9th Cir. 1979) ...... 8

Gould v. American-Hawaiian S. S. Co. , 387 F . Supp. 163 (D. Del. 1974) ...... 66,7,

In re Jiffy Lube Sec. Litig. , 927 F .2d 155 (4th Cir. 1991) ...... 4,5

Laventhol, Krekstein, Horwath & Horwath v. Horwitch, 637 F .2d 672 (9th Cir. 1980) ...... 66,7,

Local No. 93 Intl Assn of Firefighters v. City of Cleveland, 478 U .S. 501 ( 1986) ...... 8

Lucas v. Hackett Assocs., Inc. , 18 F. Supp. 2d 531 (E.D. Pa. 1998) ...... 2

LEAD PLAINTIFF' S MEM. FURTHER SUPPORT . PRELIM. APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMEN T Master File No. 99-CV-20743 RMW (PVT) In re MTC Elec. Tech, S"holder Litig., No . MDL 1059, 2005 U .S. Dist. LEXIS 10312 (E .D.N.Y. May 3I, 2005) ...... 3

In re Masters elates & Pilots Pension Plan , 957 F .2d 1020 (2d Cir. 1992) .,...... 8

Neuberger v. Shapiro, 110 F. Supp. 2d 373 (L D. Pa. 2000) ...... 3

Norfolk Redevelopment & Hous . Auth. v. Chesapeake & Potomac Tel. Co. of Va. , 464 U.S. 30 (1983) ...... 3

In re Rite Aid Corp. Sec. Lixig. , 146 F . Supp. 2d 706 (E.D. Pa. 2001 ) ...... 2

Stewart v. American Intl Oil & Gas Co. , 845 F .2d 196 (9th Cir. 1988) ...... 6

In re US. Oil & Gas Litig. , 967 F .2d 489 (11th Cir. 1992) ...... 3

In re Wilshire Tech. Sec. Litig. , 887 F . Supp. 236 (S .D. Cal. 1995) ...... 6

Wisconsin Inv. Bd. v. Ruttenberg, 300 F. Supp. 2d 1210 (N.D. Ala. 2004) ...... 3

In re WorldCom, Inc. Sec. Litig. , No. 02 Civ. 3288, 2005 U.S . Dist . LEXIS 3791 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 14,2005) ...... 3,8,9

STATUTES

15 U.S .C . § 78u-4(f)(7)(A) ...... 2,9

15 U.S .C . § 78u-4(f)(7)(B) ...... 4

LEAD PLAINTIFF'S MEM . FURTHER SUPPORT . PRELIM. APPROVA L OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT -iii- Master File No. 99-CV-20743 RMW (PVT) 1 II INTRODUCTION

2 On July 12, 2005, the New York State Common Retirement Fund (the "Lead Plaintiff" )

3 [ and McKesson Corporation ("McKesson") submitted a Second Revised Proposed Final

4 I Judgment and Order of Dismissal ("Second Revised Proposed Judgment") to address the

5 [ concerns expressed in the Court's May 23, 2005 Order Denying Preliminary Approval of Clas s

6 [ Action Settlement ("May 23 Order"), Only Bear, Steams & Co ., Inc. ("Bear Stearns") continue s

7 [ to object.

8 As explained below, the Second Revised Proposed Judgment directly addresses the

9 concerns expressed in the Court's May 23 Order. The bar order has been revised to preserve

10 Bear Steams' contract-based claims, as well as defenses to such claims, and is consistent with

11 the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 ("PSLRA") .' In addition, the Second

1 2 Revised Proposed Judgment eliminates the previous judgment reduction provision that was

13 disapproved in the Court's May 23 Order . ¶12.

14 Not satisfied, Bear Stearns adds invective to prior unsuccessful arguments, accusing the

15 Settling Parties of violating Bear Stearns' purported contract rights .2 Again, Bear Steams is

16 wrong. The Settling Parties included special provisions to accommodate Bear Stearns' contrac t

17 and specifically preserved Bear Stearns' contract-based claims . ¶ 10, 13. Bear Stearns'

1 8 purported rights under its contract are not prejudiced in any way .

19 The validity of such rights is not an issue before this Court . Thus, while Bear Steams'

20 claimed rights are in fact unenforceable for multiple reasons, the Court need not decide the issue

21 in order to preliminarily approve the Settlement because that contested issue is specifically

22 preserved . ' 10. It would be unprecedented to deny preliminary approval of a class actio n

23

24 25 E Second Revised Proposed Judgment, ¶10 . Throughout, "T,-" refers to paragraphs of the 26 Second Revised Proposed Judgment .

27 2 "Settling Parties" refers collectively to Lead Plaintiff, McKesson and McKesson Information Solutions, Inc. ("HBO & Company" or "HBOC") . 28 LEAD PLAINTIFFS RESPONSE TO BEAR, ST EARNS & CO., INC.'S OPPOSITION TO THE STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER Master File No . 99-CV-20743 RMW (PVT) 1 settlement based on the contested assertion of a non-settling defendant that it has veto power

2 over any settlement or, alternatively, must be released as part of any settlement .

3 f II. ARGUMENT

4 A. The Proposed Judgment Addresses The Concerns Expressed In The Court's May 23 Order 5

6 The Second Revised Proposed Judgment addresses the two concerns expressed in th e

7 Court's May 23 Order . First, with respect to the bar order provisions, the Second Revise d

8 I Proposed Judgment makes clear that the bar order shall not "bar any claim by Bear Stearn s

9 against McKesson based on any contract (other than claims for contribution that are barred by §

10 1 21D(0(7)(A) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U .S .C. § 78u-(f)(7)(A)) . . ." ¶i0.

11 Second, the Second Revised Proposed Judgment eliminates the judgment reduction provision

12 that the Court disapproved and leaves unaffected the judgment reduction provision of th e

1 3 PSLRA. !12.

1 4 1 . The Bar Order

15 In its May 23 Order, the Court concluded that "the contribution bar section of th e

16 I PSLRA . . .is not intended to bar claims for contractual indemnity ." May 23 Order [Doc . No.

17 1351] at 1 . Paragraph 10 of the Second Revised Proposed Judgment addresses that concern by

18 expressly excluding from the bar order claims based on contract, including contractua l

19 indemnity. Bear Stearns nevertheless contends that the bar order remains impermissibly broad .

20 Bear Stearns is wrong . Having excluded claims for contractual indemnity from the bar order, th e

21 Second Revised Proposed Judgment cures the issue addressed in . the May 23 Order.

22 Moreover, as previously established, the overwhelming majority of courts hold that the

23 I contribution bar mandated by the PSLRA is not the exclusive bar and that orders barrin g

24 indemnity claims are necessary to effectuate partial settlements .3 Such courts have explaine d

25

26 3 See In re Rite Aid Corp. Sec, Litig., 146 F . Supp. 2d 706, 726 (E .D. Pa. 2001) (approving a bar order broader than the language of the PSLRA and holding that the statute does not limit the 27 scope of a bar order); Lucas v. Hackett Assocs ., Inc., 18 F. Supp. 2d 531, 535 (E .D. Pa. 1998) (stating that it was unnecessary for Congress to expressly bar indemnification claims because 28 LEAD PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO BEAR, STEARNS & CO .. INC'S OPPOSITION TO THE STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER -2- Master File No. 99-CV-20743 RMW (PVT) 1 that Congress did not indicate any intention to supplant the well-established case law o n

2 settlement bar orders . Like the bar orders approved in Rite Aid, Ruttenberg, MTC Elec., and the

3 host of additional decisions, the proposed bar in this case is constitutional .`'

4 Bear Stearns also complains that paragraph 10 of the Second Revised Proposed Judgmen t

5 does not preserve Bear Stearns' (unidentified) claims sounding in equity or tort agains t

6 [ McKesson. The Second Revised Proposed Judgment, however, bars only claims fo r

7 I "-contribution or indemnity . . . however denominated . . . by which such Person seeks to recove r

8 . . . any portion of any amount such Person is required to, or agrees to, pay to Lead Plaintiff or to

9 any Settlement Class Member . . . " ¶10. In other words, the only equity and tort claims that ar e

10 barred are those that are veiled claims for contribution and indemnity .'

11 In addition, Bear Stearns complains that the Second Revised Proposed Judgment does no t

12 preserve contract-based claims against any of the "Settling Parties' Released Persons." Bear

13 Stearns, however, fails to identify any contract with any of the Settling Parties' Release d

14 Persons, much less any contract-based claim. Also, Bear Stearns objects to the words "by itself"

15

16

17 such claims violated federal policy) ; Wisconsin Inv. Bd. v. Ruttenberg, 300 F. Supp. 2d 1210, 18 1216-1217 (N.D. Ala. 2004) (holding that a court may enter a bar order broader than the express language of the PSLRA); In re hTTC Elec. Tech. S'holder Litig., No. MDL 1059, 2005 U .S . Dist. 1 9 LEXIS 10312, at * 16 {E .D.N .Y. May 31, 2005) (approving order barring claims for contribution and indemnity); In re WorldCom, Inc. Sec. Litig., No. 02 Civ. 3288, 2005 U.S . Dist. LEXIS 20 3791, at *37-*40 (S .D .N.Y. Mar. 14, 2005) (approving order barring claims for contribution, indemnity and contractual contribution ); Neuberger v. Shapiro, 110 F. Supp. 2d 373, 381 (E .D. 21 Pa. 2000) (approving settlement that proposed an order barring claims for indemni fication 22 among other claims) . 4 See also FDIC v. McSweeney, 976 F.2d 532, 538 (9th Cir. 1992) (absent a clear congressional 23 statement to the contrary, preexisting legal principles are not displaced by a statute's enactment), 24 citing Norfolk Redevelopment & Hous. Auth. v. Chesapeake & Potomac Tel. Co. of Va., 464 U.S . 30, 35 (1983). 25 See Gerber v, MTC Elec . Tech. Co., 329 F.3d 297, 306-307 (2d Cir. 2003) (barring claims in which the injury is the non-settling defendant ' s liability to the plaintiff, while preserving claims 26 for "independent" damages); In re US Oil & Gas Litig., 967 F.2d 489, 495-96 (11th Cir. 1992) 27 (fraud and negligence claims properly barred because those claims were simply another theory to recover the amount the non-settling defendant paid the plaintiff). 28 LEAD PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO BEAR, STEARNS & CO ., ENC .'S OPPOSITION TO THE STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER -3- Master File No. 99-CV-20743 RMW (PVT) 1 in paragraph 10 of the Second Revised Proposed Judgment as somehow ambiguous .6 Lead

2 Plaintiff does not agree with, nor understand, the perceived ambiguity Bear Stearns claims . "By

3 itself" makes clear that all available defenses and challenges to Bear Stearns' purported contrac t

4 [ claim are unaffected by the exclusion from the bar order of Bear Stearns' contract-based claims.

5 As explained below, there are complete defenses to Bear Stearns' claims, but the Court need no t

6 [ decide them now in order to preliminarily approve the settlement .

7 2 . The Judgment Reduction Provisio n

8 The Second Revised Proposed Judgment eliminates the provision that was disapproved i n

9 the May 23 Order and leaves unaffected the judgment reduction provision of the PSLRA . I11 .

10 Bear Stearns does not openly object to paragraph 11 . Rather, Bear Stearns requests that the

1 1 Court enter an order elaborating how the judgment reduction provisions of the PSLRA will apply

12 to this Settlement. Bear Stearns Mem . at 5. Such an order is unnecessary, however, because the

13 method for determining the credit is governed by the PSLRA . The PSLRA does not require, an d

14 no case holds, that non-settling defendants must know the amount of the judgment credit unde r

1.5 the PSLRA method . The Second Revised Proposed Judgment actually gives more to the Non-

16 Settling Defendants than set forth in the PSLRA by providing that each of Defendants' Release d

17 Persons shall be considered "a covered settling person enter[ing] into a settlement with th e

18 plaintiff' in determining the appropriate judgment reduction credit under 15 U.S.C. § 78u-

19 4(f)(7)(B). '11 .

20 Bear Stearns repeats its argument that it requires a final determination of the judgmen t

2 1 reduction at this time because such information "will affect the intended trial strategies of Bear

22 Steams and the dynamics of any potential settlement discussions." Id. at 6. Bear Stearns agai n

23 mistakenly relies on In re Jiffy Lube See. Litig., 927 F.2d 155 (4th Cir. 1991 ). In Jiffy Lube, the

24

25 6 See Bear Stearns & Co. Inc .'s Memorandum Of Points And Authorities In Opposition To The 26 "Stipulation And [Proposed] Order (1) Substituting The Form Of Proposed Final Judgment And Order of Dismissal, Attached As Tab A, In Place Of The Form That Is Accompanied (sic) The 27 Motion For Preliminary Approval Of Class Action Settlement ; And Preliminarily Approving Settlement As Submitted" ("Bear Stearns Mem .") at 4. 28 LEAD PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO BEAR, STEARNS & CO ., INC.'S OPPOSITION TO THE STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER -4- Master File No. 99-CV-20743 RMW (PVT) 1 trial court deferred until after trial, not just the amount of the judgment credit, but the method to

2 be used to determine how the judgment credit would be calculated . Id. at 158 . The Fourth

3 ( I Circuit reversed, stating only that the non-settling defendants were entitled to know the method

4 I I to be used. Id. at 161 .

5 Here, the method is plain - the judgment reduction provisions of the PSLRA will apply,

6 except that Bear Steams will receive the added benefit of the proportionate fault of Defendants '

7 Released Persons . ¶11 . Bear Stearns, therefore, can develop its trial strategy taking into account

8 the fault of all such persons . Gerber, 329 F .3d at 305.

9 B. The Proposed Judgment Does Not Violat e Bear Steams' Contract Rights And Is Not Unfai r 1 0 Bear Steams again contends that the Settlement deprives it of contractual rights, namely , 11 the purported right to veto any McKesson settlement or, alternatively, to an unconditional 12 release . See Bear Steams Merry . at 8 . The Court has twice considered this very contention and 13 found it to be insufficient to prevent preliminary approval . 1 4 First, in advance of the March 25, 2005 hearing on Lead Plaintiffs motion for 1 5 preliminary approval, the Court summarized the Settlement Agreement's "special provisions to 1 6 accommodate the contract between Bear Steams and McKesson" and concluded that, for 1 7 purposes of granting preliminary approval, the provisions are not unduly unfair . See [Tentative] 18 Order re : Bear Stearns' And Arthur Andersen's Objections To Preliminary Approval of Class 19 Action Settlement (dated March 24, 2005) at 14-15 . As the Court explained, "an unconditional 20 release of claims against Bear Stearns without any sort of review as to the substance of those 21 claims is not legally required . . . ." Id. at 15 (emphasis added) . Second, after the next round o f 22 briefing and argument, the Court identified two grounds for denying preliminary approval 23 without prejudice - but requiring a blanket release for Bear Steams was not among them . See 24 May 23 Order. 25 Far from depriving Bear Stearns of its contract rights, the Second Revised Proposed 26 Judgment specifically preserves Bear Steams' contract claims, and all of McKesson's defense s 27 to such claims. ¶14 . Bear Stearns' contract rights are not prejudiced . Likewise, the Second 28 LEAD PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO BEAR, STEARNS & CO„ INC .'S OPPOSITION TO THE STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER -5- Master File No . 99-CV-20743 RMW (PVT) I Revised Proposed Judgment also preserves McKesson's contract claims against Bear Steams ,

2 [ and Bear Stearns' defenses to such claims.

3 Bear Stearns also has a mechanism to obtain the release to which it claims entitlement i f

4 its contract is valid . That is : If a court of competent jurisdiction determines that Bear Steam s

5 I has a valid indemnification claim against McKesson, Lead Plaintiff and the Settlement Class wil l

6 I release their § 14(a) claim against Bear Stearns . ¶1 3

7 The Court need not decide now (for purposes of preliminary approval) whether th e

8 purported contractual obligations to obtain a release for Bear Steams are valid and enforceable .

9 That issue is preserved . The reality, however, is that Bear Steams most assuredly is not entitle d

10 to its claimed release for multiple reasons . For instance, it is well-settled that violators of the

11 federal securities laws cannot claim indemnification . As the Ninth Circuit has explained ,

12 I indemnity is unavailable because such an arrangement "tends to frustrate and defeat" the policies

13 of the securities laws by permitting a wrongdoer "to escape loss by shifting his entire

1 4 responsibility to another party." Laventhol, Krekstein, Horwath & Horvath v. Horwitch, 637

1 5 F.2d 672, 676 (9th Cir. 1980) . This prohibition against indemnification for violators of the

16 federal securities laws applies to claims that sound in mere negligence, like Lead Plaintiffs

17 § 14(a) claim, and to contractual indemnification.7

18 The provision purporting to obligate McKesson to obtain a release from Bear Steams i s

19 included in the "Indemnification Provisions" attached to the October 14, 1998 Retention Letter .

20 On its face, the purported right is an indemnity provision that would "frustrate and defeat" th e

2 1 policies of the securities laws by permitting violators to escape responsibility through indemnity .

22

23 7 See Eichenholtz v. Brennan, 52 F.3d 478, 484 (3d Cir . 1995) (rejecting contractual indemnity because "such claims run counter to the policies underlying the federal securities acts ."); 24 Franklin v. Kaypro Corp., 884 F.2d 1222, 1232 (9th Cir. 1989) ("One of the most important changes brought about by [the Securities Act of 1933 and the Exchange Act of 1934] was that 25 [the legislation] made accountable all parties who were responsible for public reports ."); Stewart 26 v, American Int'l Oil & Gas Co., 845 F.2d 196, 200 (9th Cir. 1988); Laventhol, 637 F.2d 672; In re Wilshire Tech. Sec. Litig., 887 P. Supp. 236 (S.D . Cal . 1995); Gould v. American-Hawaiian 27 S.S. Co ., 387 F . Supp . 163, 166-68 (D. Del . 1974) (disallowing indemnity for violations of § 14(a)), vacated on other grounds, 535 F .2d 761 (3d Cir. 1976) . 28 LEAD PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO BEAR, STEARNS & CO ., INC,'S OPPOSITION TO THE STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER -6- Master File No . 99-CV-20743 RMW (PVT) 1 The only way that McKesson could have obtained a release for Bear Stearns, other than th e

2 release in ¶13, would have been to pay additional consideration on Bear Stearns' behalf (i .e., to

indemnify Bear Stearns). That the purported release is an indemnity provision is evident fro m

4 J the remedy Bear Stearns could attempt to seek against McKesson. Any claimed contract

5 damages would be measured by the amount Bear Stearns would be required to pay to Lea d

6 Plaintiff by way of settlement or judgment in this case . Indeed, Bear Stearns confirrns in it s

7 opposing brief that any claim against McKesson will be to recover amounts it pays to Lead

8 Plaintiff. See Bear Stearns Merv. at 11 . Such indemnity is void as against public policy . See,

9 e.g., Laventhol, 637 F.2d at 676 . In other words, Bear Stearns has attempted to write itself a

10 "free pass" to violate the federal securities laws, and it demands that this Court now accept it ,

11 At the May 20, 2005 hearing, counsel for McKesson suggested an additional way in

12 C which a court of competent jurisdiction may find that Bear Stearns would not be entitled t o

13 indemnification of the § 14(a) claims, namely, proof that Bear Stearns acted with gross

14 negligence or willful misconduct . See Bear Stearns Mem. 10. That is true, and the record

15 developed through discovery establishes Bear Stearns' knowing misconduct . Gross negligence

16 or willful misconduct is by no means the exclusive grounds on which Bear Stearns has no right to

17 indemnity from McKesson and will not be released - as explained above, negligent violators of

18 §14(a) cannot seek to avoid responsibility through indemnity. See, e.g., Gould, 387 F. Supp. at

19 1 b6-68. It is worth repeating that the Court need not decide at this juncture the validity of Bear

20 Stearns' purported contract rights because the claims and defenses are preserved .

2 1 Bear Stearns argues in a footnote that "`written consent' contract terms are routinel y

22 enforced." Bear Stearns Mem . at 9, n.8. None of the cases that Bear Stearns cites, however, ar e

23 even remotely relevant to this case .$ Indeed, Bear Stearns cites no precedent in which a court

24

25 8 See American Broadcasting Cos, v. Wolf, 430 N.Y.S.2d 275 (N.Y .A.D. 1980) (employment 26 contract providing right of first refusal to match other offers); Degree Sec. Sys., Inc. v. F.A .B. Land Corp., 756 N.Y .S.2d 248 (N.Y.A.D. 2003) (contract for sale of real estate granting right of 27 first refusal); Cipriano v . Glen Cove Lodge, 769 N.Y.S.2d 168 (N.Y . 2003) (same); 148 Inv. Group, Inc. v. Elvis Presley Enter., Inc., No. 93-6444, 1995 WL 283785 (6th Cir . May 10, 1995 28 ) LEAD PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO BEAR, STEARN'S & CO., INC.' S OPPOSITION TO THE STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER -7- Master File No . 99-CV-20743 RMW (PVT) 1 rejected a class action settlement based on a non-settling defendant's contested contractual clai m

2 to be released as part of any settlement .9

3 Bear Stearns further contends that it is being treated "unfairly" because it was not invite d

4 to participate in the settlement on the same terms as the Individual Defendants , with whom it

5 claims to be similarly situated . Bear Stearns' s contention that Lead Plaintiff must offer the same

6 settlement terms to all similarly situated parties is not supported by the authorities it cites . In In

7 re Consolidated Pinnacle West Sec. Litig./Resolution Trust Corp.-Merabank Litig., 51 F.3d 194,

8 196-97 n.6 (9th Cir. 1995), cert. denied 516 U.S . 1071 (1996 ), the court merely observed in a

9 footnote that the district court made a factual finding that the non-se ttling parties were offered an

10 opportunity to participate in the settlement on the same terms as the settling parties.'() Nothing in

11 that decision establishes this as a requirement .

12 In re WorldCom, Inc. Sec. Litig., No. 02 Civ. 3288 , 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3791, at *37-

13 *40 (S .D.N .Y. Mar. 14, 2005), is similarly unhelpful to Bear Steams . The WorldCom decision

1 4

15 (unpublished) (lease of personal property restricting certain commercial uses without express consent and written agreement) ; Golden Gate Acceptance Corp. v. General Motors Corp., 597 16 F .2d 676 (9th Cir . 1979) (franchise agreement requiring consent of franchisor to change in location) . 17 9 Bear Stearns' authority is off point . See Bear Steams Mem. at 7-8 . Bear Stearns cites In re 1 8 Masters Mates & Pilots Pension Plan, 957 `.2d 1020 (2d Cir. 1992), for the point that the settlement cannot be approved if it violates Bear Stearns' due process rights . Master Mates is 19 not remotely similar . There, the court reversed approval of an ERISA settlement because the 20 district court failed to consider the relative fault of the settling parties when approving the settlement credit. That is not the case here . Bears Stearns also attempts to rely on Civil Rights 21 and environmental law cases involving objections to consent decrees . Such cases are inapposite and easily distinguished. Among other differences, none of those eases involved a contested 22 contract or a settlement agreement that specifically preserved the objector's contract-based claims. See, e.g., Local No. 93 Int'l Assn of Firefighters v. City of Cleveland 478 U.S . 501, 23 528-530 (1986) (affirming consent decree over objection of the Union because the "consent 24 decree does not purport to resolve any claims the Union might have . . . as a matter of contract" and stating "[i]t has never been supposed that one party . . . could preclude other parties from 25 settling their own disputes and thereby withdrawing from litigation . . . [the objector] does not have power to block the decree merely by withholding its consent") . 26 1° In its opposition, Bear Stearns invents a list of "factors" and asserts that courts consider them 27 when a non-settling defendant objects to a settlement . See Bear Stearns Mem . at 6-7 (listing factors and citing Pinnacle and WorldCom). Bear Stearns' cases do not support its assertion . 28 LEAD PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO BEAR, STEARNS & CO ., INC,' S OPPOSITION TO THE STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER -& Master File No. 99-CV-20743 RMW (PVT) 1 involved a settlement by co-underwriters of bond offerings, each of whom underwrote a

2 percentage of the same offerings. The issue raised by the non-settling underwriter was whethe r

3 the judgment reduction formula provided in the settlement treated it unfairly . It was in that

4 I context that the court stated in dictum that a showing of procedural unfairness, such as a showin g

5 by the non-settling defendant that the plaintiff had refused to settle with it on the same terms as

6 the other underwriters, might require the court to give the settlement "a higher degree of scrutiny

7 to assure that there was no collusion involved." 2005 U.S . Dist. LEXIS 3791, at *34 . The

8 decision simply cannot be read to suggest that Lead Plaintiff here is required to treat Bea r

9 Stearns, the investment bank that promoted the merger between McKesson and HBOC, the same

10 as McKesson, HBOC and the Individual Defendants .

11 Unlike the co-underwriters in WorldCom, who were similarly situated because they wer e

12 liable for underwriting percentages of the same bond offerings, Bear Stearns' situation is no t

13 remotely similar to McKesson, HBOC or the Individual Defendants . The mere fact that Bear

14 Stearns claims a purported right to indemnity from McKesson does not make it "similarly

1 5 situated." Among other things, the Individual Defendants are former and current employees of

16 HBOC and McKesson . McKesson's and HBOC's liability, therefore, is derived from the

17 liability of the Individual Defendants." Bear Stearns, however, is liable for its own fals e

18 statements and its own misconduct . Clearly, no authority requires Lead Plaintiff to ignore suc h

19 differences. 20

21

2 2

23

24

25

26 11 It should be noted in this connection that McKesson has expressly reserved the right to pursue 27 claims against the Individual Defendants, which right is provided by § 2ID(f)(7)(A)(ii) of the PSLRA, 15 U .S.C . § 78u-4(f)(7)(A)(ii) . 112. 28 LEAD PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO BEAR, STEARNS & CO ., INC.'S OPPOSITION TO THE STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER -9- Master File No . 99-CV-20743 RMW (PVT) 1 III. CONCLUSION

2 For the foregoing reasons, Lead Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court accept the

3 Settling Parties' Second Revised Proposed Judgment and preliminarily approve the Settlement.

4 Dated : August 5, 2005 BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGE R & GROSSMANN LLP 5

6 DAV R. STIC 'EY 7

8 ALAN SCHULMAN ROBERT S . GANS 9 DAVID R. STICKNEY TIMOTHY A . DeLANGE 10 12544 High Bluff Drive, Suite 150 I I San Diego, CA 92130 Tel : (858) 793-0070 1 2 Fax : (858) 793-0323 -and- 1 3 MAX W. BERGER ROCHELLE FEDER HANSEN 14 1285 Avenue of the Americas 15 New York, NY 1001 9 Tel : (212) 554-1400 16 Fax : (212) 554-144 4

17 Dated: August 5, 2005 BARRACK, RODOS & BACIN E 18

19 :k,- 4lz c . -f " r //fi t 20 M. RICHARD KOMIN S

2 1 LEONARD BARRACK GERALD J. RODOS 22 M . RICHARD KOMINS 23 JEFFREY A. BARRACK 3300 Two Commerce Square 24 2001 Market Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 25 Tel: (215) 963-0600 Fax: (215) 963 0838 26 -and- 27

28 LEAD PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO BEAR, STEARNS & CO ., INC.'S OPPOSITION TO THE STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER ..10- Master File No . 99-CV-20743 RMW (PVT) STEPHEN R. BASSER 402 West Broadway, Suite 850 San Diego, CA 92101 Tel : (619) 230-0800 Fax : (619) 2' )0 1874

Attorneys for Lead Plaintiff The New York State Common Retirement Fund and Co-Lead Counsel for the Clas s

. .ODMA''CDOCS LHOCWa9349 .

LEAD PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO BEAR, STEARNS & CO ., INC.'S OPPOSITION TO THE STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER Master File No. 99-CV-20743 R.MW (PVT) 1 BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER BARRACK, RODOS & BACINE & GROSSMANN LLP LEONARD BARRAC K 2 ALAN SCHULMAN (Bar No . 128661) GERALD J. RODOS ROBERT S. GANS (Bar No . 214420) M. RICHARD KOMINS 3 DAVID R. STICKNEY (Bar No . 188574) JEFFREY A. BARRACK TIMOTHY A . DeLANGE (Bar No. 190768) 3300 Two Commerce Square 4 12544 High Bluff Drive, Suite 150 2001 Market Stree t San Diego, CA 92130 Philadelphia, PA 1910 3 5 Tel: (858) 793-0070 Tel : (215) 963-0600 Fax : (858) 793-0323 Fax : (215) 963-083 8 6 -and- -and- MAX W. BERGER STEPHEN R. BASSER (Bar No. 121590) 7 ROCHELLE FEDER HANSEN MARISA C. LIVESAY (Bar No. 223247) 1285 Avenue of the Americas 402 West Broadway, Suite 85 0 8 New York, NY 10019 San Diego, CA 9210 1 Tel: (212) 554-1400 Tel: (619) 230-0800 9 Fax : (212) 554-1444 Fax: (619) 230-1874

1.0 Attorneys for Lead Plaintiff The New York State Common Retiremen t 11 Fund and Co-Lead Counsel for the Class

12 UNITED STATES D ISTRICT COURT

13 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

14 SAN JOSE DIVISION

15 In re McKESSON HBOC, INC . Master File No . 99-CV-20743 RM W SECURITIES LITIGATION And Related Case s 16 CLASS ACTION 17

18 This Document Relates To :

19 ALL ACTIONS.

20

21

22

23 DECLARATION OF SERVICE

24 25

26

27

28

DECLARATION OF SERVICE Master File No. 99-CV-20743 RMW 1 DECLARATION OF SERVICE

2 1, the undersigned, declare :

3 That I am and was, at all. times herein mentioned, a citizen of the United States

4 and a resident of the County of San Diego, over the age of 18 years, and not a party to or

5 interested in the within action.; that declarant's business address is 12544 High Bluff Drive, Suit e

6 150, San Diego , CA 92130.

7 2 . That on August 5, 2005, 1 caused to be served the following documents :

8 + LEAD PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO BEAR STEARNS & CO . INC.'S OPPOSITION TO THE STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] 9 ORDER (1) SUBSTITUTING THE FORM OF PROPOSE D FINAL JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF DISMISSAL AND 10 (2) PRELIMINARILY APPROVING SETTLEMENT AS 11 SUBMITTED; and

12 DECLARATION OF SERVICE .

13 .es) thereof enclosed in sealed envelopes addressed as follows : 14 by placing a true copy(i SEE ATTACHED SERVICE LIS T 15 . MAIL) I am personally and readily familiar with the business practice 16 (BY U.S of Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP for collection and processing of correspondence for mailing with the United States Postal Service, and I caused 17 such envelope(s) with postage thereon filly prepaid to be placed in the United . 18 States Postal Service at San Diego, California ❑ (BY FACSIMILE) I am personally and readily familiar with . the business 19 practice of Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP for collection. and processing of document(s) to be transmitted by facsimile and I caused such 20 document(s) on this date to be transmitted by facsimile to the offices of addressee(s) at the numbers listed below (as indicated by * on attached Service 21 List) . 22 ❑ (BY OVERNIGHT MAIL) I am personally and readily familiar with the business practice of Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP for collection 23 and processing of correspondence for overnight delivery, and I caused such document(s) described herein to be deposited for delivery to a facility regularly 24 maintained by Federal Express for overnight delivery (as indicated by * on attached Service List) . 25 ❑ (BY ELECTRONIC MAIL) Pursuant to Civil L .R. 5-5(a)(1) and F.R.C .P. 5(b), 26 I am personally and readily familiar with. the business practice of Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLB' for collection and processing of document(s) 27 to be transmitted electronically in Portable Document Format (PDF), and 1. caused 28 such document(s) on this date to be transmitted electronically to the offices of the email addressee(s) listed below .

DECLARATION OF SERVICE _1- Master File No . 99-CV-20743 RMW 1 ® (FEDERAL) I declare that I am employed in the office of a member of the bar of this Court at whose direction the service was made . 2 3. That there is a regular communication by mail between the place of mailing and 3 the places so addressed . 4 4. I further declare, pursuant to Civil L .R. 23-2, that on this date I served a copy of 5 the above-listed document(s) on the Securities Class Action Clearinghouse by electronic mail 6 through the following electronic mail address provided by the Securities Class Action 7 Clearinghouse : 8 [email protected] 9

10 I declare under penalty of perjury, under the laws of the State of California, that the 11 foregoing is true and correct. Dated this 5th day of August 2005. 12

13

14 YE A. MARTIN

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

DECLARATION OF SERVICE -2- Master File No. 99-CV-20743 RMW IN RE McKESSON HBOC INC . SERVICE LIST August 5, 200 5 Page 1

ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS :

Martin D. Chitwood Samuel P. Sporn David J. Worley Christopher Lometti Stuart Guber SCHOENGOLD & SPORN, PC CHITWOOD & HARLEY LLP 19 Fulton Street, Suite 406 2900 Promenade 1.1 New York, NY 10038 1230 Peachtree Street, N.E. Tel : (212) 964-0046 Atlanta, GA 30309 Fax : (212) 267-8137 Tel : (404) 873-3900 Fax : (404) 876-4476 Jeffrey C. Zwerling ZWERLING, SCHACTER Linda M . Fong & ZWERLING, LLP KAPLAN FOX & KILSHEIMER LL P 41 Madison Avenue 555 Montgomery Street New York, NY 1001 0 , CA 94111 Tel : (516) 832-9600 Tel : (415) 772-4700 Fax: (516) 832-960 5 Fax : (415) 772-4707 ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANTS : Ellen M. Doyle MALAKOFF DOYLE & FINEBERG P C Gwyn Quillen 437 Grant Stree t *ALSCHULER GROSSMAN STEIN Frick Building, Suite 200 & KAHAN LL P Pittsburgh, PA 15219-6002 The Water Garden, North Tower Tel: (412) 281-8400 1620 26th Street, Fourth Floor Fax : (412) 281-3262 Santa Monica, CA 90404-4060 Tel : (310) 907-1000 Steven J. Ross Fax: (310) 907-2000 ROSS LAW FIR M gquillen vagsk.corn 1015 Atlantic Blvd., Suite 306 Attorneys for Defendant Arthur Andersen Atlantic Beach, FL 32233 LLP Tel : (904) 249-8799 Fax: (309) 413-9137 IN RE McKESSON HBOC,.- NC SERVICE LIST August 5, 2005 Pane 2

Jonathan M. Hoff James T. Fousekis Gregory Zimmer Douglas R. Young *CADWALADER, WICKERSHAM C. Brandon Wisoff & TAFT LLP Thomas Mayhew I World Financial Center FARELLA BRAUN & MARTEL LLP New York, NY 10281 235 Montgomery Street, 30`h Floor Tel : (212) 504-6000 San Francisco, CA 94104 Fax: (212) 504-6666 Tel: (415) 954-4400 [email protected] Fax: (415) 954-4480 (4481 ) [email protected] Attorneys for Defendant Heidi F. Yodowitz Attorneys for Defendant Bear Stearns & Co . J . Philip Kirchner Paul A. Renne FLASTER GREENBERG, P .C . Charles M. Schaible 1810 Chapel Avenue West, 3rd Floor COOLEY GODWARD LLP Cherry Hill, NJ 08002-4609 1 Maritime Plaza, 20t Floor Tel: (856) 661-1900 San Francisco, CA 94111-3580 Fax : (856) 661-191 9 Tel: (415) 693-200 0 Attorneys for Defendant Michael G. Fax : (415) 951-3699 Smeraski Attorneys for Defendant Albert J. Bergonzi David B. Hennes David J . Romanski Eric Hirsch. Rachel E. Matteo-Boehm Simi Saran Ahuj a DLA PIPER RUDNICK GRAY FRIED, FRANK, HARRIS, CARY US LLP SHRIVER & JACOBSON LLP , 32nd Floor One New York Plaza Say. Francisco, CA 94105 New York, NY 10004 Tel: (415) 777-3999 Tel: (212) 859-8000 Fax : (415) 442-0856 Fax: (212) 859-4000 Attorneys for Defendant Mark A . Pulido Attorneysfor Defendant Mark A . Pulido IN RE McKESSON HBOC INC. SERVICE LIST August 5, 2005

Michael J. Shepard Paul H. Dawes Michael L. Charlson Patrick Gibbs Howard S . Caro Jacqueline D . Molnar Michael A. Zwibelman *LATHAM & WATKINS LLP HELLER EHRMAN LLP 135 Commonwealth Driv e Menlo Park, CA 94025 San Francisco, CA 94104-2878 Tel: (650) 328-4600 Tel: (415) 772-6000 Fax : (650) 463-2600 Fax : (415) 772-626 8 paul.dawes@iw .coz Attorneysfor Defendant Charles W. JVJcCall [email protected] j acqueline . molnar@lw. com Dorothy Yates Kirkley Attorneys for Defendant Bear Stearns & Co . Penn Payne KIRKLEY & HAWKER LL C William F . Alderman 999 Peachtree Street, NE, Suite 1640 ORRICK, H.ERRINGTON Atlanta, GA 30309 & SUTCLIFFE LLP Tel: (404) 892-8781 The Orrick Building Fax : (404) 892-3662 405 Howard Stree t Attorneys for Defendant Albert .I. Bergonzi San Francisco, CA 941.05-2669 Tel : (415) 773-5700 Stan G. Roman Fax : (415) 773-5759 Tracy Clements Attorneys for Defendant Richard H. *KRIEG, KELLER, SLOAN, REILLY Hawkins & ROMAN LLP 114 Sansome Street, 7`h Floor Grace A. Carter San Francisco, CA 94104 Edward Han Tel: (415) 249-833 0 Braden Wilhel m Fax: (415) 249-8333 PAUL, HASTINGS, JANOFSKY [email protected] & WALKER LLP tc lernents@kksrr. com 55 Second Street, 24`h Floor Attorneys for Defendant Arthur Andersen San Francisco , CA 94105-3441 LLP Tel : (415) 856-7000 Fax : (415) 856-7100 Attorneys for Defendant Jay P. Gilbertson IN RE MCKESSON HBOC INC . SERVICE LIST August 5, 2005 Pane 4

John Parker James E. Lyons Eric Jon Taylor Timothy A. Miller PAUL, HASTINGS, JANOFSKY *SKA.DDEN, ARPS, SLATE , & WALKER LLP MEAGHER & FLOM LL P 600 Peachtree Street, NE, Suite 2400 4 , Suite 3800 Atlanta, GA 30308 San Francisco, CA 94111-4144 Tel: (404) 815-2400 Tel: (415) 984-6400 Fax : (404) 815-2424 Fax: (415) 984-2698 Attorneys for Defendant Jay P. Gilbertson jlyonsGskadden .co tmiller@skadden .com Moses Silverman Attorneys for Defendants McKesson HBOC, Alex Young K. Oh. Inc. and TIRO & Company Farrah R. Berse PAUL, WEISS, RIFKIND, WHARTON Jonathan J. Lerner & GARRISON LLP *SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE , 1285 Avenue of the Americas MEAGHER & FLOM LLP New York, NY 10019-6064 4 Times Squar e Tel: (2.12) 373-3000 New York, NY 10036-6522 Fax : (212) 757-399 0 Tel: (212) 735-3000 Attorneys for Defendant Charles W. McCall Fax: (212) 735-2000 jlern.er aDskadden .com Tony G. Powers Attorneys for Defendants McKesson HBOC, Kimberly L. Myers Inc. and HBO & Company ROGERS & HARDIN LLP 2700 International Tower, Peachtree Center William. M. Goodman 229 Peachtree Street, N.E. Lyn R. Agre Atlanta, GA 30303-1601 TOPEL & GOODMAN Tel: (404) 522-4700 832 Sansome Street, 4"' Floor Fax : (404) 525-2224 San Francisco, CA 94111 Attorneys for Defendant Jay M Lapane Tel: (415) 421-61.40 Fax: (415) 398-503 0 Mark J. Stein Attorneys for Defendant Jay M. Lapine SIMPSON THATCHER & BARTLETT LLP 425 Lexington Avenue New York, NY 10017 Tel: (212) 455-2310 Fax : (212) 455-2502 Attorneys, far Defendant Mark A . Pulido IN RE McKESSON HBOC, INC . SERVICE LIST August 5, 2005 Page 5

ATTORNEYS FOR NON-PARTIES: H . Lamar Mixson Jill A. Pryor David C. Anson Jason M. Freier LAW OFFICES OF DAVID C. ANSON BON-DL'RANT, MIXSON 2433 E. Avenida de Posad a & ELMORE, LLP Tucson, AZ 85718 3900 One Atlantic Center Tel : (520) 299-5809 1201 West Peachtree Street Fax : (520) 529-0407 Atlanta, GA 3030 9 Attorneysfor Plaintiffs in Hess v. McKesson Tel: (404) 881-4100 FLBOC, Inc. Fax: (404) 881-411 1 Attorneys for Holcombe T. Green Stephen H. Kupperman BARRASSO USDIN KUPPERMAN Frederick S. Fields FREEMAN & SARVER LLC COBLENTZ PATCH DUFFY & BAS S 909 Poydras Street, Suite 1800 I Ferry Building, Suite 200 New Orleans, LA 7011 2 San Francisco, CA 94111 Tel: (504) 589-9700 Tel : (415) 772-5709 Fax : (504) 589-970 1 Fax : (415) 989-1663 Attorneys for Plaintiffs in Baker v. Attorneys for McKesson HBOC, Inc . and McKesson JIBOC, Inc. HBO & Company in the Merrill Lynch Funds Action John F. Cove, Jr. Kieran Ringgenberg Josef D. Cooper BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP Tracy R. Kirkham 1999 Harrison Street, Suite 900 John Bogdanor Oakland, CA 94612 Cooper & Kirkham Tel: (510) 874-1000 655 Montgomery Street, Suite 1700 Fax: (510) 874-1460 San Francisco , CA 9411 1 Attorneys for WebMD Corporation in the Tel : (415) 788-3030 Merrill Lynch Funds Action Fax : (415 ) 882-7040 Attorneys for Plaintiff State of Oregon, by and through the Oregon Public Employees Retirement Board in the Pension Fund Actions IN RE McKESSON HBOC INC . SERVICE LIST August 5, 2005 Page 6

Bruce L. Simon Michael P. Conway Peter E. Baran Gary M . Elden COTCHETT, PITRE, SIMON & GRIPPO & ELDE N MCCARTHY 1 i 1 South Wacker Drive 840 Malcolm Road , Suite 200 Chicago, IL 60606 Burlingame, CA 9401 0 Tel : (312) 704-7700 Tel: (650) 697-6000 Fax : (312) 558-119 5 Fax : (650) 697-0577 Attorneys for Plaintiffs in Bea v . McKesson Attorneys for Plaintiffs in the Yurick Action HBOC, Inc., Jacobs v. McKesson HBO C, Inc. and Jacobs v. HBO & Company Samuel R . Miller David P. Barton Elizabeth J . Cabraser FOLGER, LEVIN & KAHN, LLP Richard M. Heimann 275 Battery St ., 23rd Flr. LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN San Francisco, CA 94111 & BERNSTEIN, LL P Tel : (415) 986-2800 Embarcadero Center West Fax : (415) 986-2827 275 Battery Street, 30th Floor Attorneys for Defendants HBOC Outside San Francisco, CA 94111 Directors and Michael Kappel and Christine Tel: (415) 956-1000 Rumsey in In re McKesson LIBOC, Inc . Fax: (415) 956-1008 ERISA Litigatio n Attorneysfor Plaintiffs in Merrill Lynch Fundamental Growth Fund, Inc. v. Charles S . Weems McKesson HBOC, Inc. GOLD, WEEMS, BRUSER, SUES & RUNDELL Steven E. Fineman 2001 MacArthur Drive David S . Stellings Alexandria, LA 71307 Daniel P. Chiplock Tel : (318) 445-6471 LIEFF, CABRASER, HEIMANN Fax : (318) 445-6476 & BERNSTEIN, LLP Attorneys for Plaintiffs in Baker v. 780 Third Avenue, 48th Floor McKesson HBOC, Inc. New York, NY 1001 7 Tel : (212) 355-9500 Robert S . Green Fax: (212) 355-959 2 GREEN WELLING Attorneys for Plaintiffs Merrill Lynch , Suite 2750 Fundamental Growth Fund, Inc. and Merrill San Francisco , CA 94105 Lynch Global Value Fund, Inc. in the Tel : (415) 477-6700 Merrill Lynch Funds Action Fax : (415) 477-671 0 Attorneys for Plaintiffs in Cohen v. McCall IN RE McKESSON HBOC, INC . SERVICE LIST August 5, 2005 Pane 7

Ronald S. Kravitz Dorothy L. Fernandez Kim Zeldin Melvin R. Goldman LINER YANKELEVITZ SUNSHINE Paul T . Friedman & REGENSTREIF LLP MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP , Suite 2000 San Francisco, CA 9410 5 San Francisco, CA 94105 Tel : (415) 489-7700 Tel : (415) 268-7000 Fax : (415) 489-770 1 Fax : (415) 268-7522 Attorneys for Plaintiffs In re McKesson Attorneys for Tully M. Friedman, John M. HBOC, Inc. ERISA Litigation Pietruski, Carl Reichardt, Jane Shaw, Robert Waterman, Mary Bitterinan, David Jerry Schreibstein Pottruck and Alan Seelenfreund LOUDERBACH LAW FIRM , Suite 2300 Michael J . Freed San Francisco, CA 9411 1 Carol V. Gilden Tel: (415) 398-7860 MUCH SHELIST FREED DENENBERG Fax : (415) 398-7863 AMENT & RUBENSTEIN, P .C. Attorneys for Plaintiffs in Cater v. 191 N. Wacker Drive, Suite 1800 McKesson HBOC, Inc. Chicago, IL 60606 Tel: (312) 521-2000 James McManis Fax: (312) 521-210 0 Colleen Duffy Smith Attorneys for Plaintiffs in Pacha v. MCMANIS FAULKNER & MORGAN McKesson HBOC, Inc. 50 West San Fernando Street, 10`h Floor San Jose, CA 9511 3 Jeffrey L. Bleich Tel: (408) 279-8700 Hojoon Hwang Fax : (408) 279-3244 MUNGER, TOLLES & OLSON LLP Attorneys for Plaintiffs in Pacha v. 560 Mission Street, 27`h Floor McKesson HBOC, Inc. San Francisco , CA 94105 Tel : (415) 512-4000 J. Brian McTigue Fax : (415) 512-4077 MCTIGUE LAW FIR __M. Attorneys for Holcombe T Green 5301 Wisconsin Avenue, N .W., Suite 350 Washington, D.C. 2001 5 Tel: (202) 364-6900 Fax (202) 364-9960 Attorneys for Plaintiff In re McKesson .IBOC, Inc. ERISA Litigation IN RE McKESSON HBOC, INC . SERVICE LIST August 5, 200 5

D. M. "Chip" Rawlings Kevin. V. Ryan Thad A. Davis C. Ben Burch QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART John H. Hemann OLIVER & HEDGES, LLP Timothy Crudo 865 Figueroa Street, 10th Floor U.S . ATTORNEY'S OFFICE Los Angeles, CA 9001.7-2543 450 Golden Gate Avenue Tel: (213) 624-7707 San. Francisco, CA 94102 Fax: (213) 624-064 3 Tel: (415) 436-6991 Attorneys for General Electric Capital Fax : (415) 436-7234 Corporation , Inc. in the Merrill Lynch Funds Action

Donald J. Querio * Designates service by e-mail SEVERSON & WERSON _ :OI3MA\1 C DOCS`,BLf3G C1Ati3 2 S3',5 I Embarcadero Center, 26th Floor San Francisco, CA 9411 1 Tel: (415) 398-3344 Fax : (415) 956-0439 Attorneys for Plaintiffs in Jacobs v. McKesson I]BOC, Inc. and Jacobs v. HBO & Company

N. Robert Stoll Scott A. Shorr STOLL STOLL BERNE LOKTING & SHLACHTER P .C . 209 S.W. Oak Street, Suite 500 Portland, OR 97204 Tel: (503) 227-1600 Fax: (503) 227-6840 Attorneys for Plaintiffs in State of Oregon v. McKesson HBOC, Inc. and State of Oregon v. Bear Stearns, et al.