In Re Limelight Networks, Inc. Securities Litigation 07-CV-01603

Case 2:07-cv-01603-SRB Document 116 Filed 11/15/10 Page 1 of 26

) In re LIMELIGHT NETWORKS, INC. ) Master File No. CV07-01603-PHX-SRB SECURITIES LITIGATION ) ) ) This Document relates to: ) ) ) All Actions ) ) )

LODGED: Proposed Lead Plaintiffs’ Unopposed Motion For Preliminary Approval Of Proposed Class Action Settlement And Memorandum Of Points And Authorities In Support Thereof Attached Case 2:07-cv-01603-SRB Document 116 Filed 11/15/10 Page 2 of 26

1 TIFFANY & BOSCO, P.A. Richard G. Himelrick, #004738 2 J. James Christian, #023614 Third Floor Camelback Esplanade II 3 2525 East Camelback Road Phoenix, Arizona 85016-4237 4 Telephone: (602) 255-6000 Facsimile: (602) 255-0103 5 [email protected] [email protected] 6 Lead Plaintiffs’ Liaison Counsel 7 BARROWAY TOPAZ KESSLER MELTZER & 8 CHECK, LLP Christopher L. Nelson, Esquire (Pro Hac Vice) 9 Mark S. Danek, Esquire (Pro Hac Vice) 280 King of Prussia Road 10 Radnor, PA 19087 Telephone: (610) 667-7706 11 Facsimile: (610) 667-7056 [email protected] 12 [email protected]

13 LABATON SUCHAROW LLP Christopher J. Keller, Esquire (Pro Hac Vice) 14 Jonathan Gardner, Esquire (Pro Hac Vice) 140 Broadway 15 New York, NY 10005 Telephone: (212) 907-0700 16 Facsimile: (212) 818-0477 [email protected] 17 [email protected]

18 Lead Plaintiffs’ Counsel

19 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

20 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

21 ) In re LIMELIGHT NETWORKS, INC. ) Master File No. CV07-01603-PHX-SRB 22 SECURITIES LITIGATION ) )LEAD PLAINTIFFS’ UNOPPOSED 23 ) MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY This Document relates to: ) APPROVAL OF PROPOSED 24 ) CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AND )MEMORANDUM OF POINTS 25 All Actions ) AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT )THEREOF 26 ) ) 27 ) ) 28 ) ) LEAD PLAINTIFFS’ UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF PROPOSED CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT NO. CV07-01603-PHX-SRB

Case 2:07-cv-01603-SRB Document 116 Filed 11/15/10 Page 3 of 26

1 TABLE OF CONTENTS 2 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ii 3 PRELIMINARY STATEMENT 1 4 FACTUAL BACKGROUND 3 5 I. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROCEEDINGS 3 6 II. SETTLEMENT DISCUSSIONS 5 7 III. THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT 6 8 IV. PROPOSED SCHEDULE OF EVENTS 7 9 ARGUMENT 7 10 I. THE SETTLEMENT MERITS PRELIMINARY APPROVAL 7 11 A. The Settlement Is the Result of a Thorough and Arm’s-Length Process 8 12 B. The Settlement Is Well Within the Range of Reasonableness 9 13 II. THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT NOTICE SATISFIES THE 14 REQUIREMENTS OF RULES 23(d) AND (e) AND DUE PROCESS 11 15 III. THE COURT SHOULD PRELIMINARILY CERTIFY THE SETTLEMENT CLASS 13 16 A. Standards Applicable to Class Certification 13 17 B. The Settlement Class Meets the Requirements of Rule 23(a) 14 18 1. Rule 23(a)(1): Numerosity 14 19 2. Rule 23(a)(2): Questions of Law or Fact Are Common 15 20 3. Rule 23(a)(3): Lead Plaintiffs’ Claims Are Typical 16 21 4. Rule 23(a)(4): The Lead Plaintiffs Are Adequate 16 22 C. The Settlement Class Meets the Requirements of Rule 23(b)(3) 17 23 1. Common Questions of Law or Fact Predominate 17 24 2. A Class Action Is a Superior Method of Adjudication 18 25 D. Lead Plaintiffs’ Counsel Should Be Appointed Class Counsel 19 26 CONCLUSION 19 27

LEAD PLAINTIFFS’ UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF i PROPOSED CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT, No. CV07-01603-PHX-SRB Case 2:07-cv-01603-SRB Document 116 Filed 11/15/10 Page 4 of 26

1 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES 2 Cases Page(s) 3 Amchem Prods. Inc. v. Windsor, 521 U.S. 591 (1997) 17 4 Blackie v. Barack, 5 524 F.2d 891 (9th Cir. 1975) 15 6 Bogner v. Masari Inv. Inc., 257 F.R.D. 529(D. Ariz. 2009) 16 7 Churchill Village, L.L.C. v. Gen. Elec., 8 361 F.3d 566 (9th Cir. 2004) 10, 12 9 Class Plaintiffs v. City of Seattle, 955 F.2d 1268 (9th Cir. 1992) 7 10 In re Cooper Cos. Sec. Litig., 11 254 F.R.D. 628 (C.D. Cal. 2009) 13, 17 12 Desai v. Deutsche Bank Sec. Litig., No. 08-55081, 2009 WL 2245223 (9th Cir. July 29, 2009) 14, 18 13 Dukes v. Wal-Mart, Inc., 14 509 F.3d 1168 (9th Cir. 2007) 14 15 Hanlon v. Chrysler Corp., 150 F.3d 1011 (9th Cir. 1998) 17 16 Horton v. USAA Casualty Ins. Co., 17 266 F.R.D. 360 (D. Ariz. 2009) 8, 10, 13 18 Jaffe v. Morgan Stanley & Co., No. C-06-3903 THE, 2008 WL 346417 (ND. Cal. Feb. 7, 2008) 13 19 Lerwill v. Infligh t Motion Pictures, Inc., 20 582 F.2d 507 (9th Cir. 1978) 16 21 Linney v. Cellular Alaska P’ship, 151 F.3d 1234 (9th Cir. 1998) 7 22 McPhail v. First Command Fin. Planning, Inc., 23 247 F.R.D. 598 (S.D. Cal. 2007) 18 24 Mendoza v. Tucson Sch. Dist. No. 1, 623 F.2d 1338 (9th Cir. 1980) 12 25 Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 26 339 U.S. 306 (1950) 12 27 Negrete v. Allianz Life Ins. Co. of N. Am., 238 F.R.D. 482 (C.D. Cal. 2006) 18 28

LEAD PLAINTIFFS’ UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF ii PROPOSED CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT, No. CV07-01603-PHX-SRB Case 2:07-cv-01603-SRB Document 116 Filed 11/15/10 Page 5 of 26

1 In re Omnivision Tech. Inc., 559 F. Supp. 2d 1036 (N.D. Cal. 2008) 9 2 Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Cmty. v. U.S., 3 266 F.R.D. 375 (D. Ariz. 2010) 15

4 Stratton v. Am. Med. Sec. Inc., 266 F.R.D. 340 (D. Ariz. 2009) 16 5 In re THQ, Inc. Sec. Litig., 6 No. CV-001783 (EX), 2002 WL 1832145 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 22, 2002) 13

7 Weinberger v. Jackson, 102 F.R.D. 839 (N.D. Cal. 1984) 16 8 West v. Circle K Stores, Inc., 9 No. S-04-0438, 2006 WL 1652598 (E.D. Cal. June 13, 2006) 7, 8, 9

10 Yamner v. Boich, No. 92-20597, 1994 WL 514035 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 15, 1994) 13, 15 11

13 STATUTES

14 Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) 14, 19 15 Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(2) 15 16 Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3) 17 17 Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3)(A)-(D) 18 18 Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(g)(1) 19 19 15 U.S.C. §§ 78u-4 2

LEAD PLAINTIFFS’ UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF iii PROPOSED CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT, No. CV07-01603-PHX-SRB

Case 2:07-cv-01603-SRB Document 116 Filed 11/15/10 Page 6 of 26

1 PRELIMINARY STATEMENT 2 Mitchell Robbins, David Gechlik, Thaiky Nguyen and Del G. Nuzum (collectively 3 “Lead Plaintiffs”), the Court-appointed Lead Plaintiffs for the proposed class, submit this 4 memorandum of law in support of their unopposed motion, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 5 23(e), for preliminary approval of the proposed $1,900,000 cash settlement (the 6 “Settlement”) of claims against defendants Limelight Networks, Inc. (“Limelight” or the 7 “Company”); Jeffrey W. Lunsford, Nathan F. Raciborski, Michael W. Gordon, Allan M.

8 Kaplan, Walter D. Amaral, Joseph H. Gleberman, Fredric W. Harman, Mark A. Jung,

9 Peter J. Perrone, David C. Peterschmidt, Gary Valenzuela and Matthew Hale (the

10 “Individual Defendants”); and Goldman, Sachs & Co., Morgan Stanley & Co. 11 Incorporated, Jefferies & Company, Inc., Piper Jaffray & Co., and Friedman, Billings, 12 Ramsey & Co. Inc. (the “Underwriters” and collectively, with Limelight and the

13 Individual Defendants, “Defendants”) in this proposed class action (the “Litigation”), as

14 set forth in the Stipulation of Settlement, dated as of October 29, 2010 (the

15 “Stipulation”). 1

16 If approved, the Settlement will finally resolve Lead Plaintiffs’ appeal of the

17 dismissal of their claims to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and 18 release all claims, and related claims, in the Litigation.

19 In connection with preliminary approval of the Settlement, and for purposes of

20 settlement only, Lead Plaintiffs respectfully request preliminary certification of a 21 settlement class of all Persons who purchased or acquired the common stock of Limelight 22 Networks, Inc. between June 7, 2007 and August 14, 2007, inclusive (the “Settlement 23 Class Period”), and were allegedly damaged thereby, including those persons or entities 24 who acquired shares of Limelight common stock issued pursuant to or traceable to

25 Limelight’s initial public offering (the “Settlement Class”), and appointment of Lead

27 1 All capitalized terms used herein are defined in the Stipulation and have the same meaning as set forth therein. A true and correct copy of the Stipulation, with annexed 28 exhibits, is annexed hereto as Exhibit 1.

LEAD PLAINTIFFS’ UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF 1 PROPOSED CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT, CV-06-5036-R (CWX) Case 2:07-cv-01603-SRB Document 116 Filed 11/15/10 Page 7 of 26

1 Plaintiffs as Class Representatives and Labaton Sucharow LLP (“Labaton Sucharow”) 2 and Barroway Topaz Kessler Meltzer & Check, LLP (“Barroway Topaz,” together with 3 Labaton Sucharow, “Lead Plaintiffs’ Counsel”) as Class Counsel for the Settlement

4 Class. Lead Plaintiffs also seek approval of the form, substance and the requirements of

5 the proposed Notice of Pendency and Proposed Settlement of Class Action (“Notice”),

6 Proof of Claim and Release form (“Proof of Claim”), and the Summary Notice 7 (“Summary Notice”), appended as Exhibits A-1 to A-3 to the Proposed Order

8 Preliminarily Approving Settlement and Providing for Notice (“Preliminary Approval 9 Order”), annexed here to as Exhibit 2, and the means and methods for disseminating 10 notice, as comporting with due process and the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act

11 of 1995 (the “PSLRA”), 15 U. S.C. § § 78u-4 et seq.2 12 Lead Plaintiffs respectfully submit that the $1,900,000 proposed Settlement is a 13 very substantial and fair result for the Settlement Class, given the dismissal of the claims 14 by this Court. As appellants, Lead Plaintiffs had the burden of establishing that the Court

15 erred in granting Defendants’ motion to dismiss, and there were significant risks that

16 Lead Plaintiffs would not prevail on appeal and there would be no recovery at all for the 17 Settlement Class. The decision to settle was well-informed by the rigorous motion 18 practice before this Court and the briefing of Lead Plaintiffs’ appeal to the Ninth Circuit,

19 and was the result of arm’s-length negotiations between counsel for the Defendants and 20 Lead Plaintiffs. For the following reasons, Lead Plaintiffs respectfully submit that the 21 Court should grant preliminary approval to the proposed Settlement.

23 2 In addition to the approvals mentioned above, the proposed Preliminary Approval Order also seeks, inter alia: (i) the scheduling of a hearing (the “Settlement Hearing”) to 24 consider the fairness, reasonableness and adequacy of the proposed Settlement and Plan 25 of Allocation for distributing the Net Settlement Fund and Lead Plaintiffs’ Counsel’s application for an award of attorneys’ fees and expenses; (ii) approval of the appointment 26 of A.B. Data, Ltd. (“A.B. Data”) to administer the Settlement; (iii) approval of the procedures by which Persons may request to be excluded, or “opt out,” from the 27 Settlement Class; and (iv) approval of the procedures for Settlement Class Members to object to the terms of the Settlement, Plan of Allocation, or applications for fees and 28 expenses.

LEAD PLAINTIFFS’ UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF 2 PROPOSED CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT, No. CV07-01603-PHX-SRB

Case 2:07-cv-01603-SRB Document 116 Filed 11/15/10 Page 8 of 26

1 FACTUAL BACKGROUND

2 I. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROCEEDINGS

3 The Litigation was brought on behalf of all Persons who purchased or acquired the 4 common stock of Limelight Networks, Inc. during the Settlement Class Period, and were

5 allegedly damaged thereby, including those persons or entities who acquired shares of

6 Limelight common stock issued pursuant to or traceable to Limelight’s initial public 7 offering on June 8, 2007 (the “IPO”). 8 On August 13, 2007, plaintiff Faisal Mustafa filed a securities class action 9 complaint against Limelight in the United States District Court for the Southern District 10 of New York on behalf of purchasers of Limelight common stock in the IPO. Mustafa v. 11 Limelight Networks, Inc., et al., No. 07-CIV-7205 (PAC). Subsequently, five other 12 substantially similar complaints were filed in the Southern District of New York alleging 13 violations of the federal securities laws: Radecki v. Limelight Networks, Inc., et al., No. 14 07-CIV-7394 (PAC), filed on August 20, 2007; Weernink v. Limelight Networks, Inc., et 15 al., No. 07-CIV-7404 (PAC), filed on August 20, 2007; Kairalla v. Limelight Networks, 16 Inc., et al., No. 07-CIV-7417 (PAC), filed on August 21, 2007; Paul v. Limelight 17 Networks, Inc., et al., No. 07-CIV-7432 (PAC), filed on August 21, 2007; and Artis v. 18 Limelight Networks, Inc., et al., No. 07-CIV-7475 (PAC), filed on August 23, 2007 19 (collectively, the “New York Cases”). On August 21, 2007, plaintiff Larry Heffez filed a 20 similar complaint against Limelight in the United States District Court for the District of 21 Arizona. Heffez v. Limelight Networks, Inc., et al., No. 07-CV-01603-SRB. 22 The Court appointed Mitchell Robbins, David Gechlik, Thaiky Nguyen and Del G. 23 Nuzum Lead Plaintiffs on October 31, 2007 and approved their selection of Labaton 24 Sucharow and Schiffrin Barroway Topaz & Kessler, LLP (n/k/a Barroway Topaz Kessler

25 Meltzer & Check, LLP) as Lead Plaintiffs’ Counsel.

26 On November 2, 2007, the New York Cases were transferred to the United States 27 District Court for the District of Arizona, and on December 11, 2007, the Court

LEAD PLAINTIFFS’ UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF 3 PROPOSED CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT, No. CV07-01603-PHX-SRB

Case 2:07-cv-01603-SRB Document 116 Filed 11/15/10 Page 9 of 26

1 consolidated all seven actions in the present Litigation, In re Limelight Networks, Inc. 2 Securities Litigation, Master File No. CV07-01603-PHX-SRB.

3 On January 30, 2008, Lead Plaintiffs filed the operative complaint, the 4 Consolidated Class Action Complaint (the “Consolidated Complaint”). (D.E. 73.) The 5 Consolidated Complaint alleged that Limelight violated Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of

6 the Securities Act of 1933 (the “Securities Act”) when it issued a prospectus, filed in 7 connection with the IPO, that contained misrepresentations and omissions of material 8 information concerning the state of Limelight’s business and future business prospects.

9 This allegedly inflated the price of Limelight’s common stock issued in the IPO and

10 during the Settlement Class Period. 11 During the course of the Litigation, Lead Plaintiffs conducted a thorough 12 investigation of the claims and defenses at issue, which included, inter alia: (i) review 13 and analysis of filings made by Defendants with the United States Securities and 14 Exchange Commission (“SEC”); (ii) review and analysis of press releases, public 15 statements, securities analysts’ reports, conference calls and announcements made by 16 Defendants; (iii) identification of over one hundred potential witnesses and interviews

1 7 with approximately a dozen third parties (iv) review and analysis of news articles 18 concerning Defendants; (v) consultations with an expert in the fields of damages; and (vi) 19 research and analysis of the applicable law with respect to the claims and potential 20 defenses. 21 Defendants moved to dismiss the Consolidated Complaint on March 17, 2008. 22 Following briefing by both sides, the Court, on August 7, 2008, dismissed the Section 12 23 claim with prejudice, because the Lead Plaintiffs lacked standing, and the Section 11 and 24 15 claims, with leave to amend. On August 29, 2008, the Court entered a final judgment

25 in favor of Defendants.

26 On September 5, 2008, Lead Plaintiffs appealed the Court’s dismissal of the 27 Section 11 and 15 claims. The Lead Plaintiffs’ opening brief and record on appeal were

28 filed on December 22, 2008. Defendants’ responsive brief was filed on February 3, 2009,

LEAD PLAINTIFFS’ UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF 4 PROPOSED CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT, No. CV07-01603-PHX-SRB

Case 2:07-cv-01603-SRB Document 116 Filed 11/15/10 Page 10 of 26

1 and Lead Plaintiffs’ reply brief was filed on March 6, 2009. Oral argument on the appeal 2 was scheduled for December 10, 2009.

3 While Lead Plaintiffs’ appeal was pending before the Ninth Circuit, the Settling 4 Parties engaged in arm’s-length negotiations and reached an agreement in principle to 5 settle the Litigation. On or about November 23, 2009, the Settling Parties entered into a 6 Memorandum of Understanding (“MOU”) setting forth the general terms of their 7 agreement. The Settling Parties informed the Ninth Circuit of the settlement in principle, 8 and oral argument on Lead Plaintiffs’ appeal was taken off calendar. Pursuant to a joint

9 motion, on April 21, 2010 the Litigation was remanded by the Ninth Circuit to the Court

10 for further proceedings in connection with the Settlement. 11 In view of the foregoing, Lead Plaintiffs were well-informed about the strengths 12 and weaknesses of their claims and had a strong foundation for negotiating the 13 Settlement.

14 II. SETTLEMENT DISCUSSIONS

15 Lead Plaintiffs and Defendants participated in a series of informal arm’s-length

16 settlement discussions and negotiations during the appellate stage of this Litigation. 17 Initially, Lead Plaintiffs and Defendants participated in a telephonic mediation before the

18 Ninth Circuit. Although this mediation did not result in settlement at that time, it laid the 19 groundwork for both sides to resume arm’s-length negotiations, which ultimately resulted 20 in the Settlement. 21 Thereafter, the Settling Parties’ negotiations focused on the key issues of the 22 Litigation (about which both sides fundamentally disagreed), the likelihood of an 23 affirmance of the Court’s dismissal and the potential of success upon remand. Chief 24 among the issues that the Settling Parties disagreed upon were two of the central

25 arguments of the Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss. The Defendants argued in their Motion

26 to Dismiss, and this Court agreed, that (1) Lead Plaintiffs failed to allege that Defendants’ 27 prospectus contained material omissions or misstatements; and (2) Lead Plaintiffs failed

LEAD PLAINTIFFS’ UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF 5 PROPOSED CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT, No. CV07-01603-PHX-SRB

Case 2:07-cv-01603-SRB Document 116 Filed 11/15/10 Page 1 1 of 26

1 to allege control person liability under Section 15 of the Securities Act. The Settling 2 Parties briefed these issues on appeal and strongly disagreed about their merits.

3 In addition to the risks associated with the appeal, there were ongoing risks to 4 further litigation if Lead Plaintiffs succeeded in securing a remand on the Section 11 and 5 15 claims. The Settling Parties took very different positions on causation and damages 6 issues that would likely arise at summary judgment and trial: (1) the amount by which

7 Limelight stock was allegedly artificially inflated (if at all) during the Settlement Class

8 Period; and (2) the extent to which the various matters that Lead Plaintiffs alleged were

9 materially false or misleading influenced (if at all) the price of Limelight stock during the

10 Settlement Class Period. 11 With the Settling Parties expressing widely differing views regarding the issues on 12 appeal and the merits of the case, settlement was not achieved until shortly before oral

13 argument of the appeal. Ultimately, through arm’s-length, frank settlement negotiations,

14 an agreement in principle was reached that led to this Settlement.

15 III. THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT

16 The Settlement creates a fund in the amount of $1,900,000 in cash (the

17 “Settlement Fund”), which Limelight will deposit into an interest-bearing escrow account

18 within ten (10) business days of the Court’s entry of the Preliminary Approval Order. In

19 exchange for this payment, upon the Effective Date of the Settlement, Lead Plaintiffs and

20 the Settlement Class will release all Released Claims against the Released Persons. 21 The terms of the Settlement are embodied in the Stipulation and a Supplemental 22 Agreement concerning the circumstance under which the amount of exclusions from the 23 Settlement could cause Limelight to terminate the Settlement. See Stipulation ¶ 7.6. As 24 is commonly done, the Supplemental Agreement is not being filed in order to keep the 25 exclusion threshold confidential and to avoid an intentional trigger by a large 26 shareholder.

LEAD PLAINTIFFS’ UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF 6 PROPOSED CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT, No. CV07-01603-PHX-SRB Case 2:07-cv-01603-SRB Document 116 Filed 11/15/10 Page 12 of 26

1 Lead Plaintiffs believe that the proposed Settlement provides a substantial 2 recovery for the claims that form the basis of this Litigation, and is in all respects fair, 3 adequate, and reasonable.

4 IV. PROPOSED SCHEDULE OF EVENTS 5 Lead Plaintiffs’ Counsel and Lead Plaintiffs request permission to provide notice

6 of the Settlement to Settlement Class Members. Lead Plaintiffs respectfully propose the

7 following schedule for the various Settlement events, based upon, in part, the terms of the 8 Stipulation: 9 • Mailing of individual Notices and Proof of Claim and Release forms (“Proof of Claim”) to all potential Settlement Class Members who can 10 be identified through reasonable effort (the “Notice Date”): within ten 11 (10) calendar days of entry of the Preliminary Approval Order.

12 • Publication of the Summary Notice in Investor’s Business Daily and 13 transmission over a wire service: within fourteen (14) calendar days of entry of the Preliminary Approval Order. 14 • 15 Deadline for filing motions in support of the Settlement and request for attorneys’ fees and expenses: within thirty-three (33) calendar days 16 before the Settlement Hearing.

17 • Deadline for submission of requests for exclusion from the Settlement 18 Class or objections to the Settlement, Plan of Allocation, or applications for fees and reimbursement of expenses: on or before fourteen (14) 19 calendar days prior to the Settlement Hearing.

20 • Settlement Hearing: at the Court’s convenience, at least ninety(90) 21 calendar days from entry of the Preliminary Approval Order.

22 • Deadline for submission of Proofs of Claim: within one hundred and 23 twenty (120) calendar days from the Notice Date.

24 ARGUMENT 25 I. THE SETTLEMENT MERITS PRELIMINARY APPROVAL 26 Strong judicial policy favors settlement of class actions. Class Plaintiffs v. City of 27 Seattle, 955 F.2d 1268, 1276 (9th Cir. 1992); Linney v. Cellular Alaska P’ship, 151 F.3d 28 1234, 1238 (9th Cir. 1998); West v. Circle K Stores, Inc., No. S-04-0438 WBS GGH,

LEAD PLAINTIFFS’ UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF 7 PROPOSED CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT, No. CV07-01603-PHX-SRB

Case 2:07-cv-01603-SRB Document 116 Filed 11/15/10 Page 13 of 26

1 2006 WL 1652598, at * 1 (E.D. Cal. June 13, 2006). Settlements of complex cases 2 greatly contribute to the efficient utilization of scarce judicial resources and achieve the 3 speedy resolution of justice. Here, the recovery of $1,900,000 is a very favorable 4 outcome for the Settlement Class given the Court’s dismissal of the claims and the risk of

5 affirmance on appeal.

6 Approval of class action settlements normally proceeds in two stages: preliminary 7 approval, followed by notice to the class, and then final approval. See, e.g., West, 2006 8 WL 1652598, at * 2. This case is now at the first stage of the process. “At the

9 preliminary approval stage, the Court must consider only whether the settlement 10 agreement ‘appears to be the product of serious, informed, non-collusive negotiations’, is 11 fair, and has no obvious deficiency.” Horton v. USAA Cas. Ins. Co., 266 F.R.D. 360, 363 12 (D. Ariz. 2009) (internal citations omitted). A court should examine whether the 13 proposed settlement “appears to be the product of serious, informed, non-collusive 14 negotiations, has no obvious-deficiency, does not improperly grant preferential treatment 15 to class representatives or segments of the class and falls within the range of possible 16 approval.” Id. Applying the standards set forth above, Lead Plaintiffs respectfully 17 submit that the Settlement should be preliminarily approved.

18 A. The Settlement Is the Result of a Thorough and Arm’s-Length Process

19 This lawsuit was filed over three years ago and the parties have vigorously

20 litigated the claims since that time. This litigation process included: (i) briefing on 21 Defendants’ motion to dismiss the Consolidated Complaint; (ii) review and analysis of 22 the Court’s decision granting of the motion to dismiss; (iii) Lead Plaintiffs’ appeal to the

23 United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit; and (iv) briefing by the Settling 24 Parties on appeal and preparation for oral argument. This case has therefore involved 25 extensive and challenging motion practice by the Settling Parties. 26 Lead Plaintiffs’ independent investigation into the facts and merits of the case is 27 evidence that the process resulting in the Settlement was thorough and well-informed. 28 Lead Plaintiffs reviewed and analyzed publicly available information concerning

LEAD PLAINTIFFS’ UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF 8 PROPOSED CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT, No. CV07-01603-PHX-SRB

Case 2:07-cv-01603-SRB Document 116 Filed 11/15/10 Page 14 of 26

1 Defendants, SEC filings, securities analyst reports, press releases and media reports 2 issued by and disseminated by Defendants. They also consulted with a damages expert

3 and interviewed approximately a dozen third parties, such as former employees, to gain

4 an understanding of the underlying facts, even though formal discovery was stayed

5 pursuant to the PSLRA. Through this process Lead Plaintiffs evaluated the strengths and 6 weaknesses of the claims and the potential for a future recovery. The Settlement only 7 occurred after a thorough evaluation of this evidence and the pertinent legal issues. 8 Further evidence of the arm’s-length nature of the process that resulted in the 9 Settlement may be found in the history of negotiations and the mediation between the

10 Settling Parties. The Settling Parties took part in a telephonic mediation before the Ninth 11 Circuit, which, while unsuccessful, resulted in subsequent negotiations in which the 12 strengths and weaknesses of the respective claims and defenses were discussed. 13 Ultimately, these discussions resulted in an agreement in principle that led to this 14 Settlement. 15 Throughout this process, Lead Plaintiffs also had the advice and counsel of 16 Labaton Sucharow and Barroway Topaz, firms with extensive experience in class action 17 litigation. See Section III. D. below. Courts have given considerable weight to the

18 opinion of experienced and informed counsel who support settlement. In deciding

19 whether to approve a proposed settlement of a class action, “[t]he recommendations of 20 plaintiffs’ counsel should be given a presumption of reasonableness.” In re Omnivision 21 Tech., Inc., 559 F. Supp. 2d 1036, 1043 (N.D. Cal. 2008). In Omnivision the Court held 22 that the recommendation of counsel weighed in favor of settlement given their familiarity 23 with the dispute and their significant experience in securities litigation. Id. Labaton 24 Sucharow and Barroway Topaz likewise have a thorough understanding of the merits of 25 the claims and extensive experience in securities litigation. See Section III. D. below.

26 B. The Settlement Is Well Within the Range of Reasonableness

27 “[A]t this preliminary approval stage, the court need only ‘determine whether the 28 proposed settlement is within the range of possible approval.’” West, 2006 WL 1652598,

LEAD PLAINTIFFS’ UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF 9 PROPOSED CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT, No. CV07-01603-PHX-SRB Case 2:07-cv-01603-SRB Document 116 Filed 11/15/10 Page 15 of 26

1 at * 11 (internal citation omitted); see also Horton, 266 F.R.D. at 363. This Settlement, 2 in the amount of $1,900,000, is within such a range and merits consideration by members

3 of the Settlement Class. It is difficult to compare the Settlement to the amount that the 4 Settlement Class might have obtained if it had been completely successful in establishing

5 liability at trial, because the Settling Parties hotly debated the value of Lead Plaintiffs’

6 claims. Lead Plaintiffs also faced a distinct possibility of recovering no money for the 7 Settlement Class, if the Ninth Circuit affirmed the Court’s dismissal of the case. 8 Nevertheless, $1.9 million is within the range of reasonableness when compared to 9 other securities class action settlements recently achieved within the Ninth Circuit. See 10 In re Metawave Comm. Corp. Sec. Litig., C02-625RSM (W.D. Wash. 2010) ($1.5 11 million); In re LJ Int’l Inc., Sec. Litig., CV-07-6076-GAF (JWJx) (C.D. Cal.2009) ($2 12 million); In re Biolase Tech., Inc. Sec. Litig., No. 04-cv-00947 (C.D. Cal. 2007) ($1.9 13 million); In re Maxim Pharm. Inc. Sec. Litig., No. 04 CV 1900 (S.D. Cal. 2006) ($1 14 million in cash, $1.3 million in stock); In re Amylin Pharm. Inc. Sec. Litig., CV-01-1455 15 LAB (WMc) (S.D. Cal. 2004) ($2.1 million); In re Alliance Equip. Release Program Sec. 16 Litig., 98-CV-2150 J (NLS) (S.D. Cal. 2001) ($2 million); In re AT&E Corp. Sec. Litig.,

17 C-90-3265-CAL (N.D. Cal. 1992) ($2 million).

18 The fairness and adequacy of the Settlement is also underscored by the obstacles

19 the proposed class faced in ultimately succeeding on the merits, as well as the expense 20 and likely duration of the litigation. See Churchill Village, L.L.C. v. Gen. Elec., 361 F.3d 21 566, 576 (9th Cir. 2004) (citing risk, expense, complexity, and likely duration of further 22 litigation as factors supporting final approval of settlement). Lead Plaintiffs believed that 23 they could eventually prevail on appeal, however even were they to do so, Lead 24 Plaintiffs’ claims would have to also survive a class certification challenge, summary 25 judgment and trial. There was significant risk that there could ultimately be no recovery 26 for the Settlement Class given the difficulties of the appeal and the likely vigorous 27 arguments by Defendants on the issues during continued litigation.

LEAD PLAINTIFFS’ UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF 10 PROPOSED CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT, No. CV07-01603-PHX-SRB Case 2:07-cv-01603-SRB Document 116 Filed 11/15/10 Page 16 of 26

1 Specifically, the question of whether Lead Plaintiffs properly pleaded that 2 Limelight’s prospectus contained material misstatements or omissions in violation of 3 Section 11 of the Securities Act – specifically the failure to disclose four items of

4 information that were allegedly material– was a heavily disputed issue on appeal. The 5 Defendants were obviously successful in arguing their positions before this Court and

6 there was a significant risk that the Ninth Circuit could affirm the dismissal of the claims

7 and that the Settlement Class would, in the end, recover nothing. 8 If Lead Plaintiffs were successful on appeal, potentially years from now, they still 9 would have to survive a summary judgment challenge and prove their claims in order to 10 recover for the Settlement Class. Proving causation and damages at trial involves 11 additional risk. There is no doubt that at summary judgment and trial, both sides would 12 have to present complex and nuanced information that would include a “battle of the 13 experts” on the arcana of damages calculation and isolation of the damages attributable to 14 the alleged disclosure. Also, the results of a trial might not end the Litigation, as one side 15 could appeal the verdict or other issues in the case, and it is quite possible that both sides 16 would do so in the event that the jury found for the class but substantially reduced the 17 damages sought. In the absence of a settlement, class members would have to wait many 18 years before they obtained any relief, even assuming they were successful and overcame 19 every obstacle. 20 For all the foregoing reasons, Lead Plaintiffs respectfully submit that the 21 Settlement is well within the range of reasonableness and request that the Court 22 preliminarily approve the proposed Settlement.

23 II. THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT NOTICE SATISFIES THE REQUIREMENTS OF RULES 23(d) AND (e) AND DUE PROCESS 24 Lead Plaintiffs’ Counsel propose that mailed and published notice be given in the 25 form of the Notice and Summary Notice, attached as Exhibits A-1 and A-3 to the 26 proposed Preliminary Approval Order. Notice to the Settlement Class in the form and in 27 the manner set forth in the proposed Preliminary Approval Order will fulfill the 28

LEAD PLAINTIFFS’ UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF 1 1 PROPOSED CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT, No. CV07-01603-PHX-SRB

Case 2:07-cv-01603-SRB Document 116 Filed 11/15/10 Page 17 of 26

1 requirements of due process, comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the 2 PSLRA, and inform Settlement Class Members of the Settlement, their right to request

3 exclusion from the Settlement Class, their right to object to the Settlement, the Plan of

4 Allocation, the request for attorneys’ fees and expenses, and their opportunity to appear

5 and be heard at the Settlement Hearing. 6 Notice must be “reasonably calculated, under all the circumstances, to apprise

7 interested parties of the pendency of the action and afford them an opportunity to present 8 their objections.” Mullane v. Cent. Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306, 314 (1950) 9 (citations omitted); Mendoza v. Tucson Sch. Dist. No. 1, 623 F.2d 1338, 1352 (9th Cir. 10 1980). Here, Lead Plaintiffs propose to give interested parties notice in two ways: by 11 first-class mail, addressed to all Settlement Class Members who can reasonably be 12 identified and located, and by publication notice in Investor’s Business Daily and 13 transmission over a wire service. The notice procedures and administration will be 14 overseen by A.B. Data, a claims administrator that has administered hundreds of 15 settlements and distributed billions in claims. See Curriculum Vitae of A.B. Data, 16 annexed hereto as Exhibit 3.

1 7 The form and substance of the notice are also sufficient. “Notice is satisfactory if 18 it ‘generally describes the terms of the settlement in sufficient detail to alert those with 19 adverse viewpoints to investigate and to come forward and be heard.’” Churchill Village, 20 361 F.3d at 575 (quoting Mendoza v. Tucson Sch. Dist. No. 1, 623 F.2d at 1352). In 21 addition, notice must comply with the requirements of the PSLRA. Taken together, the 22 proposed forms of notice describe in plain English, among other things, the terms and 23 operation of the Settlement, the considerations that caused Lead Plaintiffs to conclude 24 that the Settlement is fair and adequate, the maximum attorneys’ fees and expenses that 25 may be sought, the procedure for requesting exclusion from the Settlement Class, the 26 procedure for objecting to the Settlement, the procedure for participating in the 27 Settlement, and the date and place of the Settlement Hearing. The notices will, when 28 mailed and published as provided for in the Preliminarily Approval Order submitted

LEAD PLAINTIFFS’ UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF 12 PROPOSED CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT, No. CV07-01603-PHX-SRB Case 2:07-cv-01603-SRB Document 116 Filed 11/15/10 Page 18 of 26

1 herewith, fairly apprise Settlement Class Members of the proposed Settlement and their 2 options with respect thereto, and fully satisfy all due process and PSLRA requirements. 3 III. THE COURT SHOULD PRELIMINARILY CERTIFY THE SETTLEMENT CLASS 4 A. Standards Applicable to Class Certification 5 At the hearing on final approval of the Settlement, the Court will be asked to grant 6 final approval to the Settlement on behalf of a Settlement Class. For that reason, it is 7 appropriate for the Court to consider, at the preliminary approval stage, whether the 8 certification of a settlement class is appropriate. Jaffe v. Morgan Stanley & Co., No. C- 9 06-3903 TEH, 2008 WL 346417 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 7, 2008); see also Horton, 266 F.R.D. at 10 366 (granting class certification at preliminary approval stage). 11 The Litigation satisfies all the factors for certification and, if the action were to 12 proceed to trial, Lead Plaintiffs submit that class certification would be appropriate. 3 In 13 this Circuit, “Rule 23 is . . . liberally construed in a securities fraud context because class 14 actions are particularly effective in serving as private policing weapons against corporate 15 wrongdoing.” In re Cooper Cos. Sec. Litig., 254 F.R.D. 628, 642 (C.D. Cal. 2009) 16 (internal citations omitted). “[T]he law in the Ninth Circuit is very well established that 17 the requirements of Rule 23 should be liberally construed in favor of class action cases 18 brought under the federal securities laws.” In re THQ, Inc., Sec. Litig., No. CV-001783 19 (EX), 2002 WL 1832145, at * 2 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 22, 2002) (internal citations omitted); 20 see also Yamner v. Boich, No. 92-20597, 1994 WL 514035, at * 2 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 15, 21 1994) (the “Ninth Circuit favors a liberal use of class actions to enforce federal securities 22 laws”). 23 Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a), a class may be certified if: (i) it is so numerous that 24 joinder of all members is impracticable; (ii) there are questions of law and fact common 25 to the class; (iii) the claims or defenses of the representative parties are typical of the 26

27 3 As described herein, the Settling Parties have stipulated to class certification for the 28 purposes of settlement only.

LEAD PLAINTIFFS’ UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF 13 PROPOSED CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT, No. CV07-01603-PHX-SRB

Case 2:07-cv-01603-SRB Document 116 Filed 11/15/10 Page 19 of 26

1 claims or defenses of the class; and (iv) the representative parties will fairly and 2 adequately protect the interests of the class. Dukes v. Wal-Mart, Inc., 509 F.3d 1168,

3 1176 (9th Cir. 2007), aff’d in part and remanded in part, 603 F.3d 571 (9th Cir. 2010).

4 The proposed class action additionally must fall within one of the three categories of

5 class actions defined in Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 (b). See Desai v. Deutsche Bank Sec. Ltd., No. 6 08-55081, 2009 WL 2245223, at * 3 (9th Cir. July 29, 2009).

7 Lead Plaintiffs respectfully request that the Court preliminarily certify a settlement 8 class as follows: all Persons who purchased or acquired the common stock of Limelight 9 Networks, Inc. between June 7, 2007 and August 14, 2007, inclusive, and were allegedly 10 damaged thereby, including those persons or entities who acquired shares of Limelight 11 common stock issued pursuant to or traceable to Limelight’s June IPO. Excluded from 12 the Settlement are: Defendants; members of the families of each of the Individual 13 Defendants; current or former officers and directors of Limelight; any entity in which any 14 Defendant has or had a majority interest; the legal representatives, heirs, successors and 15 assigns of any such excluded person; and any Person who timely and validly seeks 16 exclusion from the Settlement Class.

17 B. The Settlement Class Meets the Requirements of Rule 23(a)

18 1. Rule 23(a)(1): Numerosity 19 Rule 23(a)(1) requires that the class be so numerous that joinder of all members is

20 impracticable. “[I]mpracticable does not mean ‘impossibility’, but only the difficulty or 21 inconvenience of joining all members of the class. Harris v. Palm Springs Alpine 22 Estates, Inc., 329 F.2d 909, 913-14 (9th Cir. 1964). There is no fixed number of class 23 members which either compels or precludes the certification of a class. Arnold v. United 24 Artists Theatre Circuit, Inc., 158 F.R.D. 439, 448 (N.D. Cal. 1994); see also Welling v. 25 Alexy, 155 F.R.D. 654, 656 (N.D. Cal. 1994) (classes consisting of as few as 25 members 26 have been held large enough to justify certification). The exact size of the class need not 27 be known so long as general knowledge and common sense indicate that the class is 28 large. Perez-Funez v. Dist Dir., I.N.S., 611 F. Supp. 990, 995 (C.D. Cal. 1984). In

LEAD PLAINTIFFS’ UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF 14 PROPOSED CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT, No. CV07-01603-PHX-SRB

Case 2:07-cv-01603-SRB Document 116 Filed 11/15/10 Page 20 of 26

1 securities litigation, courts regularly find the numerosity requirement satisfied with 2 respect to putative purchasers of nationally traded securities on the volume of outstanding

3 shares. Yamner, 1994 WL 514035, at * 3. 4 Here, there can be no dispute that the Settlement Class satisfies numerosity and 5 consists of (at least) thousands of investors. For instance, in connection with the June

6 IPO, 18.4 million shares of Limelight common stock were sold to the market. ( See 7 Consolidated Compl. ¶7.) Common sense dictates that these shares were purchased by 8 thousands of investors, making joinder impracticable. See Salt River Pima-Maricopa

9 Indian Community v. U.S., 266 F.R.D. 375, 378 (D. Ariz. 2010) (class of more than 1000 10 members makes joinder very inefficient and impracticable and meets the numerosity 11 requirement). 12 2. Rule 23(a)(2): Questions of Law or Fact Are Common

13 Rule 23(a)(2) requires the existence of “questions of law or fact common to the 14 class.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(2). Commonality does not require class members to share 15 all issues in the suit, but simply a single common issue. Blackie v. Barrack, 524 F.2d 16 891, 902-903 (9th Cir. 1975). Indeed, “[t]he Ninth Circuit has repeatedly found that 17 common issues predominate in federal securities actions where the proposed class 18 members have all been injured by the same alleged course of conduct.” In re First 19 Capital Holdings Corp. Fin. Prods. Sec. Litig., No. MDL 901, 1993 WL 144861, at * 6

20 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 26, 1993). 21 Common questions of both law and fact abound here. The central questions of 22 whether (a) the provisions of the Securities Act were violated; (b) the Prospectus filed in 23 connection with the IPO contained misstatements of material fact or omitted to state 24 material facts; (c) Defendants had a duty to make a reasonable and diligent investigation 25 of the statements contained in the Prospectus, but failed to do so; (d) whether the price of 26 Limelight common stock was artificially inflated; and (e) whether Lead Plaintiffs and the 27 other members of the Settlement Class sustained damages and, if so, the appropriate

LEAD PLAINTIFFS’ UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF 15 PROPOSED CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT, No. CV07-01603-PHX-SRB

Case 2:07-cv-01603-SRB Document 116 Filed 11/15/10 Page 21 of 26

1 measure thereof, are all the same for each class member. The claims of each class 2 member arise from the same operative facts and share legal theories.

3 3. Rule 23(a)(3): Lead Plaintiffs’ Claims Are Typical 4 Rule 23(a)(3), is satisfied where the claims of the proposed class representatives

5 arise from the same course of conduct that gives rise to the claims of the other class 6 members, and where the claims are based on the same legal theory. Bogner v. Masari

7 Inv. LLC, 257 F.R.D. 529, 532 (D. Ariz. 2009). Rule 23(a)(3) does not require plaintiffs 8 to show that their claims are identical on every issue to those of the class, but “only

9 reasonably co-extensive” with those of other class members Stratton v. Am. Med. Sec., 10 Inc., 266 F.R.D. 340, 346 (D. Ariz. 2009). Differences in the amount of damages, the 11 size or manner of purchase, type of purchase, and even the specific documents 12 influencing the purchase will not render the claim atypical in most securities actions. See 13 Weinberger v. Jackson, 102 F.R.D. 839, 844 (N.D. Cal. 1984). 14 Here, Lead Plaintiffs’ claims are identical to those of the other members of the 15 Settlement Class. Like the other Settlement Class Members, the Lead Plaintiffs 16 purchased Limelight common stock during the Settlement Class Period, at a time when 17 accurate information about Limelight’s business had allegedly not been disclosed. Other 18 members of the Settlement Class were allegedly affected by the same conduct and in the 19 same way. Similarly, the interest of Lead Plaintiffs in obtaining a fair, reasonable and 20 adequate settlement of the claims is identical to the interests of the Settlement Class. 21 Accordingly, the typicality requirement is met. 22 4. Rule 23(a)(4): The Lead Plaintiffs Are Adequate

23 Rule 23(a)(4), entails two showings: (i) class counsel must be qualified, 24 experienced and able to conduct the litigation; and (ii) there must be no antagonism or 25 disabling conflict between the interests of the named class representative and the 26 members of the class. See, e.g. Lerwill v. Inflight Motion Pictures, Inc., 582 F.2d 507, 27 512 (9th Cir. 1978); see also Stratton v. American Medical Sec., Inc., 266 F.R.D. 340, 28 347 (D.Ariz.2009) (“The court must examine two issues: (1) whether the named plaintiff

LEAD PLAINTIFFS’ UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF 16 PROPOSED CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT, No. CV07-01603-PHX-SRB

Case 2:07-cv-01603-SRB Document 116 Filed 11/15/10 Page 22 of 26

1 and her counsel have any conflicts of interest with other class members, and (2) whether 2 the named plaintiff and her counsel will prosecute the action vigorously on behalf of the

3 class.”).

4 First, Labaton Sucharow and Barroway Topaz, Court-appointed Lead Plaintiffs’ 5 Counsel for Lead Plaintiffs and the proposed class, are amply qualified, experienced and 6 able to conduct this litigation effectively, and have ably represented Lead Plaintiffs and

7 the proposed Settlement Class in this Litigation. Labaton Sucharow and Barroway Topaz 8 have strong records of successfully litigating class action securities litigations and 9 significant legal experience in the relevant issues. See Firm Resumes, annexed here to as 10 Exhibits 4 and 5. 11 Second, there is no genuine conflict or antagonism between the claims of the 12 proposed class representative and those of the other members of the proposed Settlement 13 Class. Lead Plaintiffs and each member of the Settlement Class have a strong and

14 identical interest in establishing Defendants’ liability.

15 C. The Settlement Class Meets the Requirements of Rule 23(b)(3)

16 1. Common Questions of Law or Fact Predominate

17 Rule 23(b)(3) sets forth two requirements, the first being that the questions of law

18 or fact common to the members of the class must “predominate” over any questions

19 affecting only individual members. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3). The predominance inquiry 20 “tests whether proposed classes are sufficiently cohesive to warrant adjudication by 21 representation.” Amchem Prods. Inc. v. Windsor, 521 U.S. 591, 623 (1997). “When 22 common questions present a significant aspect of the case and they can be resolved for all 23 members of the class in a single adjudication, there is a clear justification for handling the 24 dispute on a representative rather than an individual basis.” Hanlon v. Chrysler Corp., 25 150 F.3d 1011, 1022 (9th Cir. 1998) (quoting treatise). The predominance requirement is 26 “readily met” in securities class actions. Amchem, 521 U.S. at 625. See also Cooper, 27 254 F.R.D. at 632 (“As the Ninth Circuit has so aptly stated, securities fraud cases fit

28 Rule 23 ‘like a glove.’”) (internal citations omitted).

LEAD PLAINTIFFS’ UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF 17 PROPOSED CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT, No. CV07-01603-PHX-SRB Case 2:07-cv-01603-SRB Document 116 Filed 11/15/10 Page 23 of 26

1 The common questions of law and fact noted above clearly predominate over 2 individual questions because the Defendants’ alleged fraudulent statements and 3 omissions affected all Settlement Class Members in the same manner (i.e., through public 4 statements made to the market and documents publicly filed with the SEC). 5 Predominance of common questions generally will be found where, as alleged here, 6 “many purchasers have been defrauded over time by similar misrepresentations, or by a 7 common scheme to which alleged non-disclosures related,” Negrete v. Allianz Life Ins. 8 Co. of North America, 238 F.R.D. 482, 492 (C.D. Cal. 2006). Generalized proof will be 9 necessary with respect to the main issues of whether: (1) Defendants’ alleged 10 misstatements and omissions were false and material to Limelight investors; (2) certain 11 Defendants had a duty to investigate; and (3) whether the price of Limelight’s shares was 12 artificially inflated. 13 2. A Class Action Is a Superior Method of Adjudication 14 Finally, Rule 23(b)(3) also requires that the action be superior to other available 15 methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of the controversy. The rule lists several 16 matters pertinent to this finding: 17 (A) the class members’ interest in individually controlling the prosecution or defense of separate actions; 18 (B) the extent and nature of any litigation concerning the controversy 19 already begun by or against class members; 20 (C) the desirability or undesirability of concentrating the litigation of the claims in the particular forum; and 21 (D) the likely difficulties in managing a class action. 22 Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3)(A)-(D); see Desai, 2009 WL 2245223, at * 4. Each factor 23 counsels strongly in favor of class certification here. See e.g. McPhail v. First Command 24 Fin. Planning, Inc., 247 F.R.D. 598, 615 (S.D. Cal. 2007) (class action is superior to 25 individual suits when to allow individual suits would “clog . . . the federal courts with 26 innumerable individual suits litigating the same issues repeatedly” and the plaintiffs 27

LEAD PLAINTIFFS’ UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF 18 PROPOSED CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT, No. CV07-01603-PHX-SRB

Case 2:07-cv-01603-SRB Document 116 Filed 11/15/10 Page 24 of 26

1 assert complex claims that “would be very costly to litigate” and each claim is for a 2 relatively small amount). 3 Further, without the settlement class device, Defendants could not obtain a

4 classwide release, and therefore would have had little, if any, incentive to enter into the 5 Settlement. Certification of a class for settlement purposes will allow the Settlement to 6 be administered in an organized and efficient manner. 7 As demonstrated by the foregoing, the proposed Settlement Class satisfies each of 8 the requirements for the certification of a class pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) and at

9 least one of the factors enumerated in Rule 23(b). The certification of the Settlement 10 Class is, therefore, warranted. 11 D. Lead Plaintiffs’ Counsel Should Be Appointed Class Counsel 12 Rule 23(g)(1) of the Federal Rules states that “a court that certifies a class must 13 appoint class counsel.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(g)(1). Lead Plaintiffs respectfully request 14 Labaton Sucharow and Barroway Topaz be appointed Class Counsel for the Settlement 15 Class. As discussed above, Lead Plaintiffs’ Counsel have been and will continue to fairly 16 and adequately represent the Settlement Class. Proposed counsel are among the nation’s 17 preeminent law firms in this area of practice and have served as lead or co-lead plaintiffs’ 18 counsel on behalf of major institutional investors in numerous class actions since the

19 enactment of the PSLRA. They are knowledgeable about the applicable law, extremely

20 experienced in handling class actions, have performed substantial work in pursuing the 21 Settlement Class’s claims here and in reaching a settlement, and have committed the 22 necessary resources to representing the Settlement Class. See Exhibits 4-5, hereto.

23 CONCLUSION

24 For the foregoing reasons, Lead Plaintiffs respectfully request that the Court issue

25 an order substantially in the form of the proposed Preliminary Approval Order: (a)

26 certifying the Settlement Class; (b) preliminarily approving the Settlement; (c) holding

27 that the manner and form of notice set forth in the Preliminary Approval Order satisfies

28 due process and is the best notice practicable under the circumstances; (d) setting a date

LEAD PLAINTIFFS’ UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF 19 PROPOSED CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT, No. CV07-01603-PHX-SRB

Case 2:07-cv-01603-SRB Document 116 Filed 11/15/10 Page 25 of 26

1 for the Settlement Hearing and establishing any currently unspecified deadlines set forth 2 in the Preliminary Approval Order; (e) approving the forms of Notice, Proof of Claim 3 and Summary Notice; (f) appointing A.B. Data as claims administrator; and (g) ordering 4 that notice substantially in the form of the proposed Notice be given to the proposed 5 Settlement Class. 6 Dated: November 15, 2010 7 Respectfully submitted, 8 s/ J. James Christian 9 TIFFANY & BOSCO, P.A. Richard G. Himelrick, #004738 10 J. James Christian, #023614 Third Floor Camelback Esplanade II 11 2525 East Camelback Road Phoenix, Arizona 85016-4237 12 Telephone: (602) 255-6000 Facsimile: (602) 255-0103 13 [email protected] [email protected] 14 Lead Plaintiffs’ Liaison Counsel 15 BARROWAY TOPAZ KESSLER 16 MELTZER & CHECK, LLP Christopher L. Nelson, Esquire (Pro Hac Vice) 17 Mark S. Danek, Esquire (Pro Hac Vice) 280 King of Prussia Road 18 Radnor, PA 19087 Telephone: 6 ) 19 Facsimile: (610) 667-70 566 [email protected] 20 [email protected] 21 LABATON SUCHAROW LLP Jonathan Gardner, Esquire (Pro Hac Vice) 22 140 Broadway New York, NY 10005 23 Telephone: (212) 907-0700 Facsimile: (212) 907-7077 24 [email protected] 25 Lead Plaintiffs’ Counsel 26

LEAD PLAINTIFFS’ UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF 20 PROPOSED CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT, No. CV07-01603-PHX-SRB Case 2:07-cv-01603-SRB Document 116 Filed 11/15/10 Page 26 of 26

1 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 2 I hereby certify that on November 15, 2010, I electronically filed the foregoing 3 with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system which will send notification of 4 such filing to the email addresses denoted on the Electronic Mail notice list, and I hereby 5 certify that I will mail the foregoing document or paper via the United State Postal 6 Service to the non-CM/ECF participants indicated on the Manual Notice list. 7 I certify under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America 8 that the foregoing is true and correct. 9

10 s/ J. James Christian J. James Christian 11

LEAD PLAINTIFFS’ UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF 21 PROPOSED CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT, No. CV07-01603-PHX-SRB Case 2:07-cv-01603-SRB Document 116-1 Filed 11/15/10 Page 1 of 87

Exhibit 1 Case 2:07-cv-01603-SRB Document 116-1 Filed 11/15/10 Page 2 of 87

1 EXECUTION COPY 2 TIFFANY & BOSCO, P.A. Richard G. Himelrick, #004738 3 J. James Christian, #023614 Third Floor Camelback Esplanade II 4 2525 East Camelback Road Phoenix, Arizona 85016-4237 5 Telephone: (602) 255-6000 Facsimile: (602) 255-0103 6 [email protected] [email protected] 7 Lead Plaintiffs' Liaison Counsel 8 BARROWAY TOPAZ KESSLER MELTZER & CHECK, LLP 9 Christopher L. Nelson, Esquire (Pro Hac Vice) Mark S. Danek, Esquire Pro Hac Vice) 10 280 King of Prussia Road Radnor, PA 19087 11 Telephone: (610) 667-7706 Facsimile: (610) 667-7056 12 [email protected] mdar^[email protected] 13 LABATON SUCHAROW LLP 14 Christopher J. Keller, Esquire (Pro Hac Vice) Jonathan Gardner, Esquire (Pro Hac Vice) 15 140 Broadway New York, NY 10005 16 Telephone: (212) 907-0700 Facsimile: (212) 818-0477 17 [email protected] [email protected] 18 Lead Plaintiffs' Counsel 19 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 20 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 21

22 In re LIMELIGHT NETWORKS, INC. ) Master File No. CV07-01603-PHX- SECURITIES LITIGATION ) SRB 23 )

24 This Document Relates to: CLASS ACTION 25 All Actions STIPULATION OF 26 ) SETTLEMENT

27 )

STIPULATION OF SETTLEMENT Master File No. CV07-01603-PHX-SRB

Case 2:07-cv-01603-SRB Document 116-1 Filed 11/15/10 Page 3 of 87

1 This Stipulation of Settlement dated as of October 29, 2010 (the "Stipulation"), is 2 made and entered into by and among the following Settling Parties (as defined further in 3 Section IV hereof) to the above-entitled Litigation: (i) the Lead Plaintiffs (on behalf of 4 themselves and each of the Settlement Class Members), by and through their counsel of 5 record in the Litigation; and (ii) the Defendants, by and through their counsel of record in 6 the Litigation. The Stipulation is intended by the Settling Parties to fully, finally and 7 forever resolve, discharge and settle the Released Claims, upon and subject to the terms 8 and conditions hereof. 9 I. THE LITIGATION 10 On August 13, 2007, plaintiff Faisal Mustafa filed a securities class action 11 complaint against Limelight Networks, Inc. ("Limelight" or the "Company") in the 12 United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of 13 purchasers of Limelight common stock in its initial public offering on June 8, 2007. 14 Mustafa v. Limelight Networks, Inc., et al., No. 07-CIV-7205 (PAC). Subsequently, five 15 other substantially similar complaints were filed in the Southern District of New York 16 alleging violations of the federal securities laws: Radecki v. Limelight Networks, Inc., et 17 al., No. 07-CIV-7394 (PAC), filed on August 20, 2007; Weernink v. Limelight Networks, 18 Inc., et al., No. 07-CIV-7404 (PAC), filed on August 20, 2007; Kairalla v. Limelight 19 Networks, Inc., et al., No. 07-CIV-7417 (PAC), filed on August 21, 2007; Paul v. 20 Limelight Networks, Inc., et al., No. 07-CIV-7432 (PAC), filed on August 21, 2007; and 21 Artis v. Limelight Networks, Inc., et al., No. 07-CIV-747.5 (PAC), filed on August 23, 22 2007 (collectively, the "New York Cases"). 23 On August 21, 2007, plaintiff Larry Heffez filed a similar complaint against 24 Limelight in the United States District Court for the District of Arizona. Heffez v. 25 Limelight Networks, Inc., et al., No. 07-CV-0 1603 -SRB. 26 On October 31, 2007, the Court appointed The Robbins Group and Del G. Nuzum 27 as Lead Plaintiffs and approved their selection of Labaton Sucharow LLP and Schiffrin 28

STIPULATION OF SETTLEMENT Master File No. CV07-01603-PHX-SRB

Case 2:07-cv-01603-SRB Document 116-1 Filed 11/15/10 Page 4 of 87

1 Barroway Topaz & Kessler, LLP (n/k/a Barroway Topaz Kessler Meltzer & Check, LLP) 2 as co-lead counsel ("Lead Plaintiffs' Counsel"). 3 On November 2, 2007, the New York Cases were transferred to the United States 4 District Court for the District of Arizona (the "Court"). 5 On December 11, 2007, the Court consolidated all seven actions, and the 6 consolidated action was captioned "In re Limelight Networks, Inc. Securities Litigation, 7 Master File No. CV07-01603-PHX-SRB" (the "Litigation"). 8 On January 30, 2008, Lead Plaintiffs filed their Consolidated Class Action 9 Complaint (the "Consolidated Complaint"). Defendants moved to dismiss the 10 Consolidated Complaint on March 17, 2008. Following briefing by both sides, the Court, 11 on August 7, 2008, dismissed the Consolidated Complaint. On August 29, 2008, the 12 Court entered a final judgment in favor of Defendants. 13 On September 5, 2008, Lead Plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the Ninth Circuit. 14 The Lead Plaintiffs' opening brief and record on appeal was filed on December 22, 2008. 15 Defendants' response brief was filed on February 3, 2009, and Lead Plaintiffs' reply brief 16 was filed on March 6, 2009. Oral argument on the appeal was scheduled for December 17 10, 2009. Following arm's-length discussions, the Settling Parties reached an agreement 18 in principle to settle the Litigation on or about November 23, 2009 and entered into a 19 Memorandum of Understanding ("MOU") setting forth the general terms of the 20 agreement. The Settling Parties informed the Ninth Circuit of the settlement in principle, 21 and oral argument on Lead Plaintiffs' appeal was taken off calendar. Pursuant to a joint 22 motion, on April 21, 2010 the Litigation was remanded by the Ninth Circuit to the Court 23 for further proceedings in connection with the settlement. 24 II. CLAIMS OF THE LEAD PLAINTIFFS AND BENEFITS OF SETTLEMENT 25 The Lead Plaintiffs have conducted an extensive investigation into the allegations 26 of wrongdoing asserted and the alleged damages suffered by the Settlement Class, and 27 Lead Plaintiffs believe that the claims alleged in the Litigation have merit and that the 28 evidence developed to date supports their claims. However, the Lead Plaintiffs recognize

STIPULATION OF SETTLEMENT -2- Master File No. CV07-01603-PHX-SRB Case 2:07-cv-01603-SRB Document 116-1 Filed 11/15/10 Page 5 of 87

1 and acknowledge the expense and length of continued proceedings necessary to prosecute 2 the Litigation against the Defendants through trial and through appeals. The Lead 3 Plaintiffs also have taken into account the uncertain outcome and the risk of any 4 litigation, especially in complex actions such as this Litigation, as well as the difficulties 5 and delays inherent in such litigation. Among other things, the Lead Plaintiffs have 6 considered the fact that the Consolidated Complaint was previously dismissed by the 7 Court and the possibility that the dismissal could be affirmed on appeal. The Lead 8 Plaintiffs also are mindful of the inherent problems of proof under and possible defenses 9 to the securities law violations asserted in the Litigation even if the dismissal were to be 10 reversed in the pending appeal. The Lead Plaintiffs believe that the settlement set forth in 11 this Stipulation confers substantial benefits upon the Settlement Class. Based on their 12 evaluation, the Lead Plaintiffs and Lead Plaintiffs' Counsel have determined that the 13 settlement set forth in this Stipulation is in the best interests of the Lead Plaintiffs and the 14 Settlement Class. 15 111. DEFENDANTS' DENIALS OF WRONGDOING AND LIABILITY 16 The Defendants have denied and continue to deny each and all of the claims and 17 contentions alleged by the Lead Plaintiffs in the Litigation. The Defendants expressly 18 have denied and continue to deny all charges of wrongdoing or liability against them 19 arising out of any of the conduct, statements, acts or omissions alleged, or that could have 20 been alleged, in the Litigation. The Defendants also have denied and continue to deny,

21 inter alia, the allegations that the Lead Plaintiffs or the Settlement Class have suffered 22 damage, that the price of Limelight common stock was artificially inflated by reasons of 23 alleged misrepresentations, non-disclosures or otherwise, and that the Lead Plaintiffs or 24 the Settlement Class were harmed by the conduct alleged in the Consolidated Complaint. 25 26 27 28

STIPULATION OF SETTLEMENT _3- Master File No. CV07-01603-PHX-SRB Case 2:07-cv-01603-SRB Document 116-1 Filed 11/15/10 Page 6 of 87

1 Nonetheless, the Defendants have concluded that further conduct of the Litigation 2 would be protracted and potentially expensive, and that it is desirable that the Litigation 3 be fully and finally ,settled in the manner and upon the terms and conditions set forth in 4 this Stipulation. 5 IV. TERMS OF STIPULATION AND AGREEMENT OF SETTLEMENT 6 NOW, THEREFORE, without any admission or concession on the part of Lead 7 Plaintiffs of any lack of merit of the Litigation whatsoever, and without any admission or 8 concession of any liability or wrongdoing or lack of merit in the defenses whatsoever by 9 Defendants, IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by and among the Lead 10 Plaintiffs (for themselves and the Settlement Class Members) and the Defendants, by and 11 through their respective counsel or attorneys of record, that, subject to the approval of the 12 Court, the Litigation and the Released Claims (as defined herein), as against the Released 13 Persons (as defined herein), and all Settled Defendants' Claims (as defined herein) shall 14 be finally and fully compromised, settled and released, and the Litigation shall be 15 dismissed with prejudice, as to all Settling Parties, upon and subject to the terms and 16 conditions of the Stipulation, as follows. 17 1. Definitions 18 As used in the Stipulation the following terms have the meanings specified below: 19 1.1 "Authorized Claimant" means any Settlement Class Member whose claim 20 for recovery has been allowed pursuant to the terms of the Stipulation. 21 1.2 "Claimant" means any Settlement Class Member who files a Proof of 22 Claim and Release form ("Proof of Claim") in such form and manner, and within such 23 time, as the Court shall prescribe. 24 1.3 "Claims Administrator" means the firm of A.B. Data, Ltd. 25 1.4 "Defendants" means Limelight, the Individual Defendants and the 26 Underwriters. 27 1.5 "Effective Date" means the first date by which all of the events and 28 conditions specified in ¶7.1 of the Stipulation have been met and have occurred.

STIPULATION OF SETTLEMENT -4- Master File No. CV07-01603-PHX-SRB

Case 2:07-cv-01603-SRB Document 116-1 Filed 11/15/10 Page 7 of 87

1 1.6 "Escrow Agent" means Lead Plaintiffs' Counsel or their successor(s). 2 1.7 "Final" means when the last of the following with respect to the Judgment 3 approving the Stipulation, substantially in the form of Exhibit B hereto, shall occur: (i) 4 the expiration of one (1) business day after the time to file a motion to alter or amend the 5 Judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) has passed without any such 6 motion having been filed; (ii) the expiration of one (1) business day after the time in 7 which to appeal the Judgment has passed without any appeal having been taken (which 8 date shall be deemed to be thirty-one (31) days following the entry of the Judgment, 9 unless the date to take such an appeal shall have been extended by Court order or 10 otherwise, or unless the 31st day falls on a weekend or a Court holiday, in which case the I i date for purposes of this Stipulation shall be deemed to be the next business day after .12 such 31st day); and (iii) if such motion to alter or amend is filed or if an appeal is taken, 13 one (1) business day after the determination of that motion or appeal (and without being 14 subject to further appeal or review by petition for a writ of certiorari) in such a manner as 15 to permit the consummation of the settlement substantially in accordance with the terms 16 and conditions of this Stipulation. For purposes of this paragraph, an "appeal" shall not 17 include any appeal that concerns only the issue of attorneys' fees and reimbursement of 18 costs or the Plan of Allocation of the Settlement Fund. 19 1.8 "Individual Defendants" means Jeffrey W. Lunsford, Nathan F. Raciborski, 20 Michael W. Gordon, Allan M. Kaplan, Walter D. Amaral, Joseph H. Gleberman, Fredric 21 W. Harman, Mark A. Jung, Peter J. Perrone, David C. Peterschmidt, Gary Valenzuela

22 and Matthew Hale. 23 1.9 "Judgment" means the judgment to be rendered by the Court, substantially 24 in the form attached hereto as Exhibit B. 25 1.10 "Lead Plaintiffs" mean The Robbins Group and Del G. Nuzum. 26 1.11 "Lead Plaintiffs' Counsel" means Labaton Sucharow LLP and Barroway 27 Topaz Kessler Meltzer & Check, LLP. 28

STIPULATION OF SETTLEMENT -5 Master File No. CV07-01603-PHX-SRB

Case 2:07-cv-01603-SRB Document 116-1 Filed 11/15/10 Page 8 of 87

1 1.12 "Person" means an individual, corporation, partnership, limited partnership, 2 association, limited liability company, joint stock company, estate, legal :representative, 3 trust, unincorporated association, government or any political subdivision or agency 4 thereof, and any business or legal entity and their spouses, heirs, predecessors, 5 successors, representatives, or assignees. 6 1.13 "Plan of Allocation" means a plan or formula of allocation of the 7 Settlement Fund whereby the Settlement Fund shall be distributed to Authorized 8 Claimants after payment of expenses of notice and administration of the settlement, 9 Taxes and Tax Expenses (as those terms are defined in ¶2.7(c) herein) and such 10 attorneys' fees, costs, expenses and interest as may be awarded by the Court. Any Plan 11 of Allocation is not part of the Stipulation and Defendants and their Related Parties shall 12 have no responsibility therefore or liability with respect thereto. 13 1.14 "Preliminary Approval Order" means the order preliminarily approving the 14 settlement set forth in this Stipulation and directing notice thereof to the Settlement Class, 15 to be entered by the Court substantially in the form attached hereto as Exhibit A. 16 1.15 "Related Parties" means each of the Defendants, their pastor present 17 subsidiaries, parents, affiliates, successors and predecessors, and their respective past and 18 present officers, directors, shareholders, agents, employees, attorneys, advisors, 19 investment advisors, auditors, accountants, insurers and any person, firm, trust, 20 corporation, officer, director or other individual or entity in which any Defendant has or 21 had a controlling interest or which is related to or affiliated with any of the Defendants, 22 and the legal representatives, heirs, successors in interest or assigns of the Defendants. 23 1.16 "Released Claims" shall collectively mean all claims (including "Unknown 24 Claims" as defined in T1.25 hereof), demands, rights, liabilities and causes of action of 25 every nature and description whatsoever, known or unknown, whether or not concealed 26 or hidden, asserted or that could have been asserted, including, without limitation, claims 27 for negligence, gross negligence, breach of duty of care and/or of duty of loyalty, fraud, 28 breach of fiduciary duty, or violations of any state or federal statutes, rules or regulations,

STIPULATION OF SETTLEMENT -6- Master File No. CV07-01603-PHX-SRB Case 2:07-cv-01603-SRB Document 116-1 Filed 11/15/10 Page 9 of 87

1 asserted or that could have been asserted by Lead Plaintiffs or any Settlement Class 2 Member against the Defendants or their Related Parties arising out of, relating to, or in 3 connection with, directly or indirectly, the purchase, acquisition or holding of Limelight 4 common stock by Lead Plaintiffs or any Settlement Class Member during the Settlement 5 Class Period and the facts, matters, allegations, transactions, events, disclosures, 6 statements, acts or omissions which have been or could have been asserted by any 7 member of the Settlement Class in the Litigation against the Released Persons and any 8 claims arising out of, relating to, or in connection with the settlement or resolution of this 9 Litigation (except for claims to enforce the settlement). 10 1.17 "Released Persons" means each and all of the Defendants and each and all 11 of their Related Parties. 12 1.18 "Settled Defendants' Claims" shall collectively mean all claims (including 13 "Unknown Claims" as defined in 11.25 hereof), demands, rights, liabilities and causes of 14 action of every nature and description whatsoever, known or unknown, whether or not 15 concealed or hidden, asserted or that could have been asserted in the Litigation or any 16 forum by the Defendants against the Lead Plaintiffs, any Settlement Class Member or 17 their attorneys, which arise out of or relate in any way to the institution, prosecution, or 18 settlement of the Litigation (except for claims to enforce the settlement). 19 1.19 "Settlement Class" means all Persons who purchased or acquired the 20 common stock of Limelight Networks, Inc. between June 7, 2007 and August 14, 2007, 21 inclusive (the "Class Period"), and were allegedly damaged thereby, including those 22 persons or entities who acquired shares of Limelight common stock issued pursuant to or 23 traceable to Limelight's initial public offering. Excluded from the Settlement Class are: 24 Defendants; members of the families of each of the Individual Defendants; current or 25 former officers and directors of Limelight; any entity in which any Defendant has or had 26 a majority interest; and the legal representatives, heirs, successors and assigns of any 27 such excluded person. The Settlement Class shall be certified by stipulation for purposes 28 of this settlement only.

STIPULATION OF SETTLEMENT -7- Master File No. CV07-01603-PHX-SRB

Case 2:07-cv-01603-SRB Document 116-1 Filed 11/15/10 Page 10 of 87

1 1.20 "Settlement Class Member" or "Member of the Settlement Class" means a 2 Person who falls within the definition of the Settlement Class as set forth in x(1.19 of the 3 Stipulation. 4 1.21 "Settlement Class Period" means the period between June 7, 2007 and 5 August 14, 2007, inclusive. 6 1.22 "Settlement Fund" means the principal amount of $1,900,000 (one million 7 nine hundred thousand dollars) in cash (the "Settlement Amount") to be paid to the 8 Escrow Agent pursuant to 12.1 of this Stipulation , plus all interest earned thereon 9 pursuant to ¶¶2.1, 2.2 and 2.6. 10 1.23 "Settling Parties" means, collectively, each of the Defendants and the Lead 11 Plaintiffs on behalf of themselves and Settlement Class Members. 12 1.24 "Underwriters" means Goldman, Sachs & Co., Morgan Stanley & Co. 13 Incorporated, Jefferies & Company, Inc., Piper Jaffray & Co., and Friedman, Billings, 14 Ramsey & Co. Inc., who served as the underwriters of Limelight's initial public offering. 15 1.25 "Unknown Claims" shall collectively mean all claims, demands, rights, 16 liabilities, and causes of action of every nature and description which any Lead Plaintiff 17 or Settlement Class Member does not know or suspect to exist in his, her or its favor at 18 the time of the release of the Released Persons, and any Settled Defendants' Claims that 19 any Released Person does not know or suspect to exist in his, her or its favor as of the 20 Effective Date, which, if known by him, her or it, might have affected his, her or its 21 decisions(s) with respect to the settlement, and specifically with respect to Lead Plaintiffs 22 and the Settlement Class Members his, her or its release of the Released Persons, or his, 23 her or its decision not to object to or to opt out of the settlement. With respect to any and 24 all Released Claims and Settled Defendants' Claims, the Settling Parties stipulate and 25 agree that, upon the Effective Date, the Lead Plaintiffs and Defendants shall be deemed 26 to have expressly waived, and each of the Settlement Class Members and Released 27 Persons shall be deemed to have waived, and by operation of the Judgment shall have 28

STIPULATION OF SETTLEMENT Master File No. CV07-01603-PHX-SRB Case 2:07-cv-01603-SRB Document 116-1 Filed 11/15/10 Page 1 1 of 87

1 waived, the provisions, rights and benefits of California Civil Code § 1542, which 2 provides: 3 A general release does not extend to claims which the creditor does not 4 know or suspect to exist in his or her favor at the time of executing the 5 release, which if known by him or her must have materially affected his 6 or her settlement with the debtor. 7 The Lead Plaintiffs shall be deemed to have expressly and each of the Settlement 8 Class Members shall be deemed to have, and by operation of the Judgment, shall have, 9 expressly waived any and all provisions, rights and benefits conferred by any law of any 10 state or territory of the United States, or principle of common law or otherwise, which is 11 similar, comparable, or equivalent to California Civil Code § 1542. The Lead Plaintiffs 12 and Settlement Class Members may hereafter discover facts in addition to or different 13 from those which he, she or it now knows or believes to be true with respect to the 14 subject matter of the Released Claims, but the Lead Plaintiffs shall expressly, fully, 15 finally and forever settle and release, and each Settlement Class Member, upon the 16 Effective Date, shall be deemed to have, and by operation of the Judgment shall have, 17 fully, finally, and forever settled and released, any and all Released Claims, known or 18 unknown, suspected or unsuspected, contingent or non-contingent, whether or not 19 concealed or hidden, which now exist, or heretofore have existed, upon any theory of law 20 or equity now existing or coming into existence in the future, including, but not limited 21 to, conduct which is negligent, intentional, with or without malice, or a breach of any 22 duty, law or rule, without regard to the subsequent discovery or existence of such 23 different or additional facts. The Lead Plaintiffs and Defendants acknowledge, and the 24 Settlement Class Members and Released Persons shall be deemed by operation of the 25 Judgment to have acknowledged, that the foregoing waiver was separately bargained for 26 and a key element of the settlement of which this release is a part. 27 28

STIPULATION OF SETTLEMENT _9- Master File No. CV07-01603-PHX-S1tB

Case 2:07-cv-01603-SRB Document 116-1 Filed 11/15/10 Page 12 of 87

1 2. The Settlement 2 a. The Settlement Fund 3 2.1 The principal amount of $1,900,000 (one million nine hundred thousand 4 dollars) in cash shall be transferred by, or caused to be transferred by, Limelight to the 5 Escrow Agent within ten (10) business days after notice of the Court's entry of the 6 Preliminary Approval Order. Upon execution of the Stipulation, Lead Plaintiffs' Counsel 7 shall provide to Limelight's counsel wire transfer instructions for the transfer of the 8 Settlement Amount to the Escrow Agent for deposit into an interest-bearing escrow 9 account designated by Lead Plaintiffs' Counsel. 10 b. The Escrow Agent 11 2.2 The Escrow Agent may invest the Settlement Amount deposited pursuant to 12 ¶2.1 hereof, plus interest accrued thereon, in instruments of no greater than twelve- 13 months duration backed by the full faith and credit of the United States Government or 14 fully insured by the United States Government or an agency thereof and shall reinvest the 15 proceeds of these instruments as they mature in similar instruments at their then-current 16 market rates. The Released Persons shall bear no responsibilities, obligations or risks 17 related to investment of the Settlement Fund. 18 2.3 The Escrow Agent shall not disburse the Settlement Fund except as 19 provided in the Stipulation, by an order of the Court, or with the written agreement of 20 counsel for Defendants. 21 2.4 Subject to further order and/or direction as may be made by the Court, the 22 Escrow Agent is authorized to execute such transactions on behalf of the Settlement 23 Class Members as are consistent with the terms of the Stipulation. 24 2.5 All funds held by the Escrow Agent shall be deemed and considered to be 25 in custodia legis of the Court, and shall remain subject to the jurisdiction of the Court, 26 until such time as such funds shall be distributed pursuant to the Stipulation and/or 27 further order(s) of the Court. 28

STIPULATION OF SETTLEMENT -10- Master File No. CV07-01603-PHX-SRB

Case 2:07-cv-01603-SRB Document 116-1 Filed 11/15/10 Page 13 of 87

1 2.6 Before the Effective Date, up to $250,000 of the Settlement Fund may be 2 used as a Class Notice and Administration Fund, which may be used by Lead Plaintiffs' 3 Counsel to pay costs and expenses reasonably and actually incurred in connection with 4 providing notice to the Settlement Class, locating Settlement Class Members, assisting 5 with the filing of claims, administering and distributing the Settlement Fund to 6 Authorized Claimants, processing Proof of Claim and Release forms and paying escrow 7 fees and costs (collectively, "Notice and Administration Expenses"), if any, without 8 further order of the Court or approval by Defendants. The Class Notice and 9 Administration Fund may also be invested and earn interest as provided for in T2.2 of this 10 Stipulation. In no event shall Defendants or their Related Parties have any responsibility 11 for or liability with respect to the Escrow Agent or its actions or the Class Notice and 12 Administration Fund. After the Effective Date, the Escrow Agent may, if needed, utilize 13 a portion of the balance of the Settlement Fund for the payment of additional Notice and 14 Administration Expenses.

15 C. Taxes 16 2.7 (a) Settling Parties and the Escrow Agent agree to treat the Settlement 17 Fund as being at all times a "qualified settlement fund" within the meaning of Treas. Reg. 18 § 1.46813-1. In addition, the Escrow Agent, or its agent(s), shall timely make such 19 elections as necessary or advisable to carry out the provisions of this ¶2.7, including the 20 "relation-back election" (as defined in Treas. Reg. §1.46813-1) back to the earliest 21 permitted date. Such elections shall be made in compliance with the procedures and 22 requirements contained in such regulations. It shall be the responsibility of the Escrow 23 Agent, or its agent(s), to timely and properly prepare and deliver the necessary 24 documentation for signature by. all necessary parties, and thereafter to cause the 25 appropriate filing to occur. 26 (b) For the purpose of §468B of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as 27 amended, and the regulations promulgated thereunder, the "administrator" shall be the 28 Escrow Agent. The Escrow Agent, or its agents, shall timely and properly file all

STIPULATION OF SETTLEMENT -11- Master File No. CV07-01603-PHX-SRB Case 2:07-cv-01603-SRB Document 116-1 Filed 11/15/10 Page 14 of 87

1 informational and other tax returns necessary or advisable with respect to the Settlement 2 Fund (including without limitation the returns described in Treas. Reg. §1.468B-2(k)). 3 Such returns (as well as the election described in 12.7(a) hereof) shall be consistent with 4 this 12.7 and in all events shall reflect that all taxes (including any estimated taxes, 5 interest or penalties) on the income earned by the Settlement Fund shall be paid out of the 6 Settlement Fund as provided in ¶2.7(c) hereof. 7 (c) All (i) taxes (including any estimated taxes, interest or penalties) 8 arising with respect to the income earned by the Settlement Fund, including any taxes or 9 tax detriments that may be imposed upon the Defendants or their Related Parties with 10 respect to any income earned by the Settlement Fund for any period during which the 11 Settlement Fund does not qualify as a "qualified settlement fund" for federal or state 12 income tax purposes (collectively "Taxes"), and (ii) expenses and costs incurred in 13 connection with the operation and implementation of this ¶2.7 (including, without 14 limitation, expenses of tax attorneys and/or accountants and mailing and distribution 15 costs and expenses relating to filing (or failing to file) the returns described in this ¶2.7) 16 ("Tax Expenses"), shall be paid out of the Settlement Fund. In no event shall the 17 Defendants or their Related Parties have any responsibility for or liability with respect to 18 the Taxes or the Tax Expenses. Further, Taxes and Tax Expenses shall be treated as, and 19 considered to be, a cost of administration of the Settlement Fund and shall be timely paid 20 by the Escrow Agent out of the Settlement Fund without prior order from the Court or 21 approval from Defendants and the Escrow Agent shall be obligated (notwithstanding 22 anything herein to the contrary) to withhold from distribution to Authorized Claimants 23 any funds necessary to pay such amounts including the establishment of adequate 24 reserves for any Taxes and Tax Expenses (as well as any amounts that may be required to 25 be withheld under Treas. Reg. § 1.468B-2(1)(2)); neither the Defendants nor their Related 26 Parties are responsible therefore nor shall they have any liability with respect thereto. 27 The Settling Parties agree to cooperate with the Escrow Agent, each other, and their tax 28

STIPULATION OF SETTLEMENT -12- Master File No. CV07-01603-PBX-SRB

Case 2:07-cv-01603-SRB Document 116-1 Filed 11/15/10 Page 15 of 87

1 attorneys and accountants to the extent reasonably necessary to carry out the provisions 2 of this ¶2.7. 3 (d) For the purpose of this ¶2.7, references to the Settlement Fund shall 4 include both the Settlement Fund and the Class Notice and Administration Fund and shall 5 also include any earnings thereon. 6 d. Termination of Settlement 7 2.8 In the event that the Stipulation is not approved, or is terminated, canceled, 8 or fails to become effective for any reason, the Settlement Fund (including accrued 9 interest) less Notice and Administration Expenses, Taxes and Tax Expenses, and any 10 other expenses actually incurred or due and owing in connection with providing notice to 11 the Settlement Class or administering the settlement provided for herein shall be refunded 12 to Limelight's insurer, as provided in ¶7.3 below. 13 3. Preliminary Approval Order and Settlement Hearing 14 3.1 Promptly after execution of the Stipulation, the Settling Parties shall submit 15 the Stipulation together with its Exhibits to the Court and shall apply for entry of the 16 Preliminary Approval Order, substantially in the form of Exhibit A hereto, requesting,

17 inter alia, the preliminary approval of the settlement set forth in this Stipulation, the 18 certification of the Settlement Class for settlement purposes, and approval for mailing the 19 Notice of Pendency and Proposed Settlement of Class Action (the "Notice") substantially 20 in the form of Exhibit A-I hereto and publication of a Summary Notice substantially in 21 the form of Exhibit A-3 hereto. The Notice shall include the general terms of the 22 settlement set forth in this Stipulation, the proposed Plan of Allocation, the general terms 23 of the Fee and Expense Application (as defined in ¶6.1 below) and the date of the 24 Settlement Hearing. 25 3.2 Lead Plaintiffs' Counsel shall request that after notice is given, the Court 26 hold a hearing (the "Settlement Hearing") and approve the settlement of the Litigation as

27 set forth herein. At or after the Settlement Hearing, Lead Plaintiffs' Counsel also will

STIPULATION OF SETTLEMENT -13- Master File No. CV07-01603-PHX-SRB

Case 2:07-cv-01603-SRB Document 116-1 Filed 11/15/10 Page 16 of 87

1 request that the Court approve the proposed Plan of Allocation and the Fee and Expense 2 Application. 3 4. Releases 4 4.1 Upon the Effective Date, as defined in X1.5 hereof, the Lead Plaintiffs and 5 each of the Settlement Class Members shall be deemed to have, and by operation of the 6 Judgment shall have, fully, finally, and forever released, relinquished and discharged all 7 Released Claims against the Released Persons, whether or not such Settlement Class 8 Member executes and delivers a Proof of Claim and Release form, and shall forever be 9 enjoined from prosecuting any Released Claims against any of the Released Persons. 10 4.2 The Proof of Claim and Release to be executed by Settlement Class 11 Members shall release all Released Claims against the Released Persons and shall be 12 substantially in the form contained in Exhibit A-2 hereto. 13 4.3 Upon the Effective Date, as defined in T1.5 hereof, each of the Released 14 Persons shall be deemed to have, and by operation of the Judgment shall have, fully, 15 finally, and forever released, relinquished and discharged Lead Plaintiffs, the Settlement 16 Class Members and Lead Plaintiffs' Counsel from each and all of the Settled Defendants' 17 Claims, and shall forever be enjoined from prosecuting any of the Settled Defendants' 18 Claims. 19 5. Administration and Calculation of Claims and Supervision and Distribution of Settlement Fund 20 5.1 The Claims Administrator shall administer and calculate the claims 21 submitted by Settlement Class Members. The Company shall provide or cause to be 22 provided to the Claims Administrator, without any charge to Lead Plaintiffs or the 23 Settlement Class, its shareholder lists in electronic and searchable form, such as an Excel 24 file, within seven (7) calendar days of execution of this Stipulation, as appropriate for 25 providing notice to the Settlement Class. 26 5.2 The Settlement Fund shall be applied as follows: 27 28

STIPULATION OF SETTLEMENT -14- Master File No. CV07-01603-PHX-SRB

Case 2:07-cv-01603-SRB Document 116-1 Filed 11/15/10 Page 17 of 87

1 (a) to pay Lead Plaintiffs' Counsel's attorneys' fees and expenses with 2 interest thereon (the "Fee and Expense Award") and any reimbursement of costs and 3 expenses to the Lead Plaintiffs, as awarded by the Court; 4 (b) to pay all Notice and Administration Expenses reasonably and 5 actually incurred, including, but not limited to, the costs and expenses of providing notice 6 to the Settlement Class, locating Settlement Class Members, assisting with the filing of 7 claims, administering and distributing the Settlement Fund to Authorized Claimants, 8 processing Proof of Claim and Release forms and paying escrow fees and costs, if any; 9 (c) to pay the Taxes and Tax Expenses described in ¶2.7 hereof; and 10 (d) to distribute the balance of the Settlement Fund after deduction of 11 the payments described above (the "Net Settlement Fund") to Authorized Claimants as 12 allowed by the Stipulation, the Plan of Allocation, or the Court. 13 5.3 Upon the Effective Date and thereafter, and in accordance with the terms of 14 the Stipulation, the Plan of Allocation, or such further approval and further order(s) of the 15 Court as may be necessary or as circumstances may require, the Net Settlement Fund 16 shall be distributed to Authorized Claimants, subject to and in accordance with the 17 following. 18 5.4 Within one hundred twenty (120) days after the mailing of the Notice or 19 such other time as may be set by the Court, each Person claiming to be an Authorized 20 Claimant shall be required to submit to the Claims Administrator a completed Proof of 21 Claim and Release, substantially in the form of Exhibit A-2 hereto, signed under penalty 22 of perjury and supported by such documents as are specified in the Proof of Claim and 23 Release, or as otherwise allowed in the discretion of Lead Plaintiffs' Counsel. 24 (a) Each Proof of Claim and Release shall be reviewed by the Claims 25 Administrator, under the supervision of Lead Plaintiffs' Counsel, who shall determine in 26 accordance with this Stipulation the extent, if any, to which each claim shall be allowed, 27 subject to review by the Court. Lead Plaintiffs' Counsel shall have the right, but not the 28

STIPULATION OF SETTLEMENT -15- Master File No. CV07-01603-PHX-SRB

Case 2:07-cv-01603-SRB Document 116-1 Filed 11/15/10 Page 18 of 87

1 obligation, to waive what they deem to be formal or technical defects in any Proofs of 2 Claim submitted in the interests of achieving substantial justice. 3 (b) Proofs of Claim that do not meet the submission requirements may 4 be rejected. Prior to rejection of a timely submitted Proof of Claim, the Claims 5 Administrator shall communicate with Claimants in order to remedy the curable 6 deficiencies in the Proofs of Claim submitted. The Claims Administrator, under 7 supervision of Lead Plaintiffs' Counsel, shall notify, in a timely fashion and in writing, 8 all Claimants whose timely submitted Proofs of Claim they propose to reject in whole or 9 in part, setting forth the reasons therefor, and shall indicate in such notice that the 10 Claimant whose claim is to be rejected has the right to a review by the Court if the 11 Claimant so desires and complies with the requirements of subparagraph (c) below. 12 (c) If any Claimant whose claim has been rejected in whole or in part 13 desires to contest such rejection, the Claimant must, within the time period established by 14 the Claims Administrator, serve upon the Claims Administrator a notice and statement of 15 reasons indicating the Claimant's grounds for contesting the rejection along with any 16 supporting documentation, and requesting a review thereof by the Court. If a dispute 17 concerning a claim cannot otherwise be resolved, Lead Plaintiffs' Counsel shall thereafter 18 present the request for review to the Court. 19 5.5 Except as otherwise ordered by the Court, all Settlement Class Members 20 who fail to timely submit a Proof of Claim and Release within such period, or such other 21 period as may be ordered by the Court, or otherwise allowed, shall be forever barred from 22 receiving any payments pursuant to the Stipulation and the settlement set forth herein, but 23 will in all other respects be subject to and bound by the provisions of the Stipulation, the 24 releases contained herein, and the Judgment. 25 5.6 Upon order of the Court, the Net Settlement Fund shall be distributed to the 26 Authorized Claimants substantially in accordance with a Plan of Allocation to be 27 described in the Notice and approved by the Court. If there is any balance remaining in 28 the Net Settlement Fund after six (6) months from the date of distribution of the Net

STIPULATION OF SETTLEMENT -16- Master File No. CV07-01603-PHX-SRB

Case 2:07-cv-01603-SRB Document 116-1 Filed 11/15/10 Page 19 of 87

1 Settlement Fund (whether by reason of tax refunds, uncashed checks or otherwise), Lead 2 Plaintiffs' Counsel shall, if feasible and economical, reallocate such balance among 3 Authorized Claimants in an equitable and economic fashion. Any balance which still 4 remains in the Net Settlement Fund, after payment of Taxes and Tax Expenses, if any, 5 shall be contributed to non-sectarian not-for-profit charitable organizations serving the 6 public interest, designated by, and unaffiliated with, Lead Plaintiffs' Counsel. 7 5.7 This is not a claims-made settlement and, if all conditions of the Stipulation 8 are satisfied and the settlement becomes Final, no portion of the Settlement Fund will be 9 returned to the Defendants or their insurers. The Defendants and their Related Parties 10 shall have no responsibility for, interest in, or liability whatsoever with respect to the 11 distribution of the Settlement Fund; the Plan of Allocation; the determination, 12 administration, or calculation of claims; the payment or withholding of Taxes or Tax 13 Expenses, or any losses incurred in connection therewith. 14 5.8 No Person shall have any claim against Lead Plaintiffs' Counsel, the 15 Claims Administrator or other agent designated by Lead Plaintiffs' Counsel based on 16 distributions made substantially in accordance with the Stipulation and the settlement 17 contained herein, the Plan of Allocation, or further order(s) of the Court. 18 5.9 It is understood and agreed by the Settling Parties that any proposed Plan of 19 Allocation of the Net Settlement Fund including, but not limited to, any adjustments to an 20 Authorized Claimant's claim set forth therein, is not a part of the Stipulation and is to be 21 considered by the Court separately from the Court's consideration of the fairness, 22 reasonableness and adequacy of the settlement set forth in the Stipulation, and any order 23 or proceeding relating to the Plan of Allocation shall not operate to terminate or cancel 24 the Stipulation or affect the finality of the Court's Judgment approving the Stipulation 25 and the settlement set forth therein, or any other orders entered pursuant to the 26 Stipulation. 27 28

STIPULATION OF SETTLEMENT -17_ Master File No. CV07-01603-PHX-SRB

Case 2:07-cv-01603-SRB Document 116-1 Filed 11/15/10 Page 20 of 87

1 6. Lead Plaintiffs' Counsel's Attorneys' Fees and Reimbursement of Expenses 2 6.1 Lead Plaintiffs' Counsel may submit an application or applications (the 3 4 "Fee and Expense Application") to the Court for: (a) an award of attorneys' fees; (b) 5 reimbursement of actual expenses, including the fees of any experts or consultants, 6 incurred in connection with prosecuting the Litigation; (c) reimbursement, pursuant to the 7 Private Securities Litigation Reform Act, of reasonable costs and expenses (including lost 8 wages) incurred by the Lead Plaintiffs directly relating to their representation of the 9 Settlement Class; and (d) any interest on such attorneys' fees and expenses awarded at 10 the same rate and for the same periods as earned by the Settlement Fund (until paid), as 11 may be awarded by the Court. The Released Persons shall take no position on Lead 12 Plaintiffs' Counsel's application for attorneys' fees, for reimbursement of expenses, or 13 request for reimbursement of reasonable costs and expenses (including lost wages) incurred in the representation of the Settlement Class. 14 6.2 The attorneys' fees and other payments, as awarded by the Court, shall be 15 16 paid to Lead Plaintiffs' Counsel from the Settlement Fund, as ordered, immediately after 17 the Court executes an order awarding such fees and expenses. In the event that the 18 Effective Date does not occur, or the Judgment or the order making the Fee and Expense 19 Award is reversed or modified, or the Stipulation is canceled or terminated for any other 20 reason, and in the event that the Fee and Expense Award has been paid to any extent, 21 then the recipient shall within fifteen (15) business days from receiving notice from 22 Defendants' counsel or from a court of appropriate jurisdiction, refund to the Settlement 23 Fund the fees and expenses previously paid to them from the Settlement Fund plus interest thereon at the same rate as earned on the Settlement Fund in an amount consistent 24 with such reversal or modification. 25 6.3 The procedure for and the allowance or disallowance by the Court of any 26 27 applications by Lead Plaintiffs' Counsel for attorneys' fees and expenses, including the fees of experts and consultants, to be paid out of the Settlement Fund, or Lead Plaintiffs' 28

STIPULATION OF SETTLEMENT -18- Master File No. CV07-01603-PHX-SRB

Case 2:07-cv-01603-SRB Document 116-1 Filed 11/15/10 Page 21 of 87

1 request for reimbursement, are not part of the settlement set forth in this Stipulation, and 2 are to be considered by the Court separately from the Court's consideration of the 3 fairness, reasonableness and adequacy of the settlement set forth in the Stipulation, and 4 any order or proceedings relating to the Fee and Expense Application, or any appeal from 5 any order relating thereto or reversal or modification thereof, shall not operate to 6 terminate or cancel the Stipulation, or affect or delay the finality of the Judgment 7 approving the Stipulation and the settlement of the Litigation set forth therein. 8 6.4 Defendants and their Related Parties shall have no responsibility for or 9 liability with respect to any payment of attorneys' fees and expenses to Lead Plaintiffs' 10 Counsel over and above payment of the Settlement Fund pursuant to ¶2.1 hereof. 11 Defendants and their Related Parties shall have no responsibility for or liability with 12 respect to the allocation or distribution of any fee and expense payment awarded by the 13 Court to Lead Plaintiffs' Counsel, and Lead Plaintiffs' Counsel shall have sole discretion 14 in the allocation of attorneys' fees among plaintiffs' counsel. 15 7. Conditions of Settlement, Effect of Disapproval, Cancellation or 16 Termination 17 7.1 The Effective Date of the Stipulation shall be conditioned on the occurrence 18 of all of the following events: 19 (a) payment of the Settlement Amount as required by ¶2.1 hereof; 20 (b) Limelight has not exercised their option to terminate the Stipulation 21 pursuant to ¶7.6 hereof; 22 (c) The Court has entered the Preliminary Approval Order, as required 23 by T3.1 hereof; 24 (d) The Court has entered the Judgment, or a judgment substantially in 25 the form of Exhibit B hereto; and 26 (e) The Judgment has become Final, as defined in ¶1.7 hereof. 27 7.2 Upon the occurrence of all of the events referenced in ¶7.1 hereof, any and 28 all remaining interest or right of Defendants in or to the Settlement Fund, if any, shall be

STIPULATION OF SETTLEMENT -19- Master File No. CV07-01603-PHX-SRB

Case 2:07-cv-01603-SRB Document 116-1 Filed 11/15/10 Page 22 of 87

1 absolutely and forever extinguished. If all of the conditions specified in 17.1 hereof are 2 not met, then the Stipulation shall be canceled and terminated subject to ¶7.4 hereof 3 unless Lead Plaintiffs' Counsel and counsel for Defendants mutually agree in writing to 4 proceed with the Stipulation. 5 7.3 Unless otherwise ordered by the Court, in the event the Stipulation shall 6 terminate, or be canceled, or shall not become effective for any reason, within forty-five 7 (45) calendar days after the occurrence of such event and in accordance with the terms of 8 ¶2.8 hereof, the Settlement Fund (including accrued interest), including any amount then 9 remaining in the Class Notice and Administration Fund (including accrued interest), less 10 Taxes, Tax Expenses, Notice and Administration Expenses and any costs which have 11 either been disbursed pursuant to 12.6 hereof or are determined to be chargeable to the 12 Class Notice and Administration Fund, shall be refunded by the Escrow Agent to 13 Defendants' insurer, pursuant to written instructions from Limelight or its successor-in- 14 interest. At the request of counsel to Limelight, and subject to Limelight advancing any 15 fees or expenses relating thereto, the Escrow Agent or its designee shall apply for any tax 16 refund owed on the Settlement Fund and pay the proceeds, after deduction of any 17 unreimbursed fees or expenses incurred in connection with such application(s) for refund, 18 pursuant to written direction from Limelight or its successor-in-interest. 19 7.4 In the event that the Stipulation is not approved by the Court or the 20 settlement set forth in the Stipulation is terminated or fails to become effective in 21 accordance with its terms, the Settling Parties shall be restored to their respective 22 positions in the Litigation immediately prior to the execution of the MOU. In such event, 23 the terms and provisions of the Stipulation, with the exception of T^2.7-2.8, 7.3 -7.5 24 hereof, shall have no further force and effect with respect to the Settling Parties and shall 25 not be used in this Litigation or in any other proceeding for any purpose, and any 26 judgment or order entered by the Court in accordance with the terms of the Stipulation 27 shall be treated as vacated, nunc pro tune. No order of the Court or modification or 28 reversal on appeal of any order of the Court concerning the Plan of Allocation or the

STIPULATION OF SETTLEMENT -20- Master File No. CV07-01603-PHX-SRB

Case 2:07-cv-01603-SRB Document 116-1 Filed 11/15/10 Page 23 of 87

1 amount of any attorneys' fees, costs, expenses and interest awarded by the Court to Lead 2 Plaintiffs' Counsel shall constitute grounds for cancellation or termination of the 3 Stipulation. 4 7.5 If the Effective Date does not occur, or if the Stipulation is terminated 5 pursuant to its terms, neither the Lead Plaintiffs nor Lead Plaintiffs' Counsel shall have 6 any obligation to repay any amounts actually and properly disbursed from the Settlement 7 Fund, including the Class Notice and Administration Fund. In addition, any expenses 8 already incurred and properly chargeable to the Settlement Fund pursuant to ¶2.6 hereof 9 at the time of such termination or cancellation, but which have not been paid, shall be 10 paid by the Escrow Agent in accordance with the terms of the Stipulation prior to the 11 balance being refunded in accordance with ¶¶2.8 and 7.3 hereof. 12 7.6 If prior to the Settlement Hearing, the aggregate number of shares of 13 Limelight common stock purchased and/or acquired by Persons who would otherwise be 14 Members of the Settlement Class, but who request exclusion from the Settlement Class, 15 exceeds the sum specified in a separate confidential "Supplemental Agreement" between 16 the Settling Parties, Limelight shall have, in its sole and absolute discretion, the option to 17 terminate this Stipulation in accordance with the procedures set forth in the Supplemental 18 Agreement. Unless otherwise ordered by the Court, the Supplemental Agreement will 19 not be filed with the Court unless and until a dispute among the Settling Parties 20 concerning its interpretation or application arises. 21 8. Miscellaneous Provisions 22 8.1 The Settling Parties (a) acknowledge that it is their intent to consummate 23 this agreement; and (b) agree to cooperate to the extent reasonably necessary to effectuate 24 and implement all terms and conditions of the Stipulation and to exercise their reasonable 25 best efforts to accomplish the foregoing terms and conditions of the Stipulation. 26 8.2 The Settling Parties intend this settlement to be a final and complete 27 resolution of all disputes between them with respect to the Litigation. The settlement 28 compromises claims which are contested and shall not be deemed an admission by any

STIPULATION OF SETTLEMENT -21 Master File No. CV07-01603-PHX-SRB Case 2:07-cv-01603-SRB Document 116-1 Filed 11/15/10 Page 24 of 87

1 Settling Party as to the merits of any claim or defense. The Judgment will contain a 2 statement that, pursuant to the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act, during the course 3 of the Litigation, the parties and their respective counsel at all times complied with the 4 requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11. While retaining their right to deny 5 liability, the Defendants agree that the amount paid to the Settlement Fund and the other 6 terms of the settlement were negotiated in good faith by the Settling Parties, and reflect a 7 settlement that was reached voluntarily after consultation with competent legal counsel. 8 The Settling Parties reserve their right to rebut, in a manner that such party determines to 9 be appropriate, any contention made in any public forum that the Litigation was brought 10 or defended in bad faith or without a reasonable basis. 11 8.3 If a case is commenced in respect of any Defendant contributing to the 12 Settlement Fund under Title 11 of the United States Code (Bankruptcy), or a trustee, 13 receiver or conservator is appointed under any similar law, and in the event of the entry of 14 a final order of a court of competent jurisdiction determining the transfer of the Settlement

15 Fund, or any, portion thereof, by or on behalf of such Defendant to be a preference, 16 voidable transfer, fraudulent conveyance, or similar transaction and any portion thereof is 17 required to be returned, and such amount is not promptly re-deposited to the Settlement 18 Fund by any of the other Defendants, then, at the election of Lead Plaintiffs' Counsel, the 19 Settling Parties shall jointly move the Court to vacate and set aside the releases given and 20 Judgment entered in favor of Defendants pursuant to this Stipulation, which releases and 21 Judgment shall be null and void, and the Settling Parties shall be restored to their 22 respective positions in the Litigation immediately prior to the execution of the MOU and 23 any cash proceeds in the Settlement Fund shall be returned as provided in ¶7.3, above. 24 8.4 Neither the Stipulation nor the settlement contained therein, nor any act 25 performed or document executed pursuant to or in furtherance of the Stipulation or the 26 settlement: (a) is or may be deemed to be or may be used as an admission of, or evidence 27 of, the validity of any Released Claim, or of any wrongdoing or liability of the 28 Defendants or their Related Parties; (b) is or may be deemed to be or may be used as an

STIPULATION OF SETTLEMENT -22- Master File No. CV07-01603-PHX-SRB Case 2:07-cv-01603-SRB Document 116-1 Filed 11/15/10 Page 25 of 87

1 admission of, or evidence of, any fault or omission of any of the Defendants or their 2 Related Parties in any civil, criminal or administrative proceeding in any court, 3 administrative agency or other tribunal; (c) is or may be construed as an admission or 4 concession that the consideration to be given hereunder represents the amount which 5 could be or would have been recovered after trial; or (d) is or may be construed as or 6 received in evidence as an admission, concession or presumption against the Lead

7 Plaintiffs or any of the Settlement Class Members that any of their claims are without 8 merit, or that defenses asserted by the Defendants have any merit, or that damages 9 recoverable under the Consolidated Complaints would not have exceeded the Settlement 10 Amount. Defendants and/or their Related Parties may file the Stipulation and/or the 11 Judgment in any action that may be brought against them in order to support a defense or

12 counterclaim based on principles of res judicata, collateral estoppel, release, good faith 13 settlement, judgment bar or reduction or any other theory of claim preclusion or issue 14 preclusion or similar defense or counterclaim. 15 8.5 All agreements made and orders entered during the course of the Litigation 16 relating to the confidentiality of information shall survive this Stipulation.

17 8.6 All of the Exhibits to the Stipulation are material and integral parts hereof 18 and are fully incorporated herein by this reference. 19 8.7 The Stipulation may be amended or modified only by a written instrument

20 signed by or on behalf of all Settling Parties or their respective successors-in-interest. 21 8.8 The Stipulation, the Exhibits attached hereto and the Supplemental

22 Agreement constitute the entire agreement among the parties hereto and no 23 representations, warranties or inducements have been made to any party concerning the

24 Stipulation, its Exhibits or the Supplemental Agreement, other than the representations, 25 warranties and covenants contained and memorialized in such documents. Except as 26 otherwise provided herein, each party shall bear its own costs.

27 8.9 Lead Plaintiffs' Counsel, on behalf of the Settlement Class, are expressly 28 authorized by the Lead Plaintiffs to take all appropriate action required or permitted to be

STIPULATION OF SETTLEMENT -23- Master File No. CV07-01603-PHX-SRB Case 2:07-cv-01603-SRB Document 116-1 Filed 11/15/10 Page 26 of 87

1 taken by the Settlement Class pursuant to the Stipulation to effectuate its terms and also 2 are expressly authorized to enter into any modifications or amendments to the Stipulation 3 on behalf of the Settlement Class which they deem appropriate. 4 8.10 Each counsel or other Person executing the Stipulation or any of its 5 Exhibits on behalf of any party hereto hereby warrants that such Person has the full 6 authority to do so. 7 8.11 The Stipulation may be executed in one or more counterparts. All executed 8 counterparts and each of them shall be deemed to be one and the same instrument. A 9 complete set of original executed counterparts shall be filed with the Court. to 8.12 The Stipulation shall be binding upon, and inure to the benefit of, the I 1 successors and assigns of the parties hereto. 12 8.13 The Court shall retain jurisdiction with respect to implementation and 13 enforcement of the terms of the Stipulation, and all parties hereto submit to the 14 jurisdiction of the Court for purposes of implementing and enforcing the settlement 15 embodied in the Stipulation. 16 8.14 The Stipulation and the Exhibits hereto shall be considered to have been 17 negotiated, executed and delivered, and to be wholly performed, in the State of Arizona, 18 and the rights and obligations of the parties to the Stipulation shall be construed and 19 enforced in accordance with, and governed by, the internal, substantive laws of the State 20 of Arizona without giving effect to that State's choice-of-law principles. 21 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused the Stipulation to be 22 executed, by their duly authorized attorneys dated as of October 29, 2010. 23 24 Dated: Qek+er _, 2010 WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI Professional Corporation 25 26 By: gnacio a c a 27 Attorneys for Limelight Networks, Inc., Jeffrey -)8 W. Lunsford, Nathan F. Raciborski, Michael W.

STIPULATION OF SETTLEMENT -24- Master File No. CV07-01603-PHX-SRB

Case 2:07-cv-01603-SRB Document 116-1 Filed 11/15/10 Page 27 of 87

i Gordon, Allan M. Kaplan, Walter D. Amaral, Joseph. H. Gleberman, Fredric W. Harman., 2 Mark A. Jung, Peter J. Perrone, David C. 3 Peterschmidt, Gary Valenzuela, and Matthew Hale 4 5 Dated: November 2, 2010 SHEAAMAg- & STE:' ^! G LIEF P; . 6 Alan S. Goudiss 7 Attorneys for Goldman, Sachs & Co., Morgan 8 Stanley & Co. Incorporated, Jefferies & 9 Company, Inc., Piper Jaffray & Co., and Friedman, Billings, Ramsey & Co. Inc. 10

Dated: O toh= . , 201€1 OSBO' 12 1y. — `D , 3 ^ e.^ r"'osenbaum 14 Attorneys for All Defendants

15 Dated: October —, 2010 LABATON SUCHAROW LLP 16 By: 17 Jonathan Gardner 18 Mark S. Goldman

19 BAR.ROWAY TOPAZ KESSLER.MELTZER 20 & CHECK, LLP Christopher L. Nelson 21 Mark S. Danek Jennifer L. Enck 22 Co-Lead Counsel for Lead Plaintiffs and the 23 Settlement Class 24

STIPULATION OF SE I i LEMENT -25- Master File No. CV07-0 i 603-PHX-SRB

Case 2:07-cv-01603-SRB Document 116-1 Filed 11/15/10 Page 28 of 87

1 Gordon, Allan M. Kaplan, Walter D. Amaral, Joseph H. Gleberman, Fredric W. Harman, 2 Mark A. Jung, Peter J. Perrone, David C. 3 Peterschmidt, Gary Valenzuela, and Matthew Hale 4 5 Dated: October _, 2010 SHEARMAN & STERLING LLP 6 By: Alan S. Goudiss 7 8 Attorneys for Goldman, Sachs & Co., Morgan Stanley & Co. Incorporated, Jefferies & g Company, Inc., Piper Jaffray & Co., and Friedman, Billings, Ramsey & Co. Inc. 10

11 Dated: October 2010 OSBORN MALEDON, P.A. 12 By: 13 David B. Rosenbaum 14 Attorneys for All Defendants

15 16 Dated: October ^, 2010 LABATON SUC • +' OW LLP

17 Jonathan Gardner Mark S. Goldman 18

19 BARROWAY TOPAZ KESSLER MELTZER & CHECK, LLP 20 Christopher L. Nelson 21 Mark S. Danek Jennifer L. Enck 22 Co-Lead Counsel for Lead Plaintiffs and the 23 Settlement Class

STIPULATION OF SETTLEMENT -25- Master File No. CV07-01603-PHX-SRB Case 2:07-cv-01603-SRB Document 116-1 Filed 11/15/10 Page 29 of 87

Exhibit A Case 2:07-cv-01603-SRB Document 116-1 Filed 11/15/10 Page 30 of 87

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 11 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 12 In re LIMELIGHT NETWORKS, INC. ) Master File No. CV07-01603-PHX- 13 SECURITIES LITIGATION ) SRB ) 14 ) This Document Relates to: ) 15 ) CLASS ACTION ) 16 All Actions ) [PROPOSED] ORDER ) PRELIMINARILY APPROVING 17 ) ) SETTLEMENT AND PROVIDING 18 ) FOR NOTICE ) 19 ) EXHIBIT A ) 20 ) Before: Hon. Susan R. Bolton ) 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

[PROPOSED] ORDER PRELIMINARILY APPROVING SETTLEMENT AND PROVIDING FOR NOTICE MASTER FILE NO. CV07-01603-PHX-SRB

Case 2:07-cv-01603-SRB Document 116-1 Filed 11/15/10 Page 31 of 87

1 WHEREAS, a consolidated class action is pending before the Court entitled 2 In re Limelight Networks, Inc. Securities Litigation, Master File No. CV07-01603- 3 PHX-SRB (the “Litigation”); 4 WHEREAS, the Court has received the Stipulation of Settlement dated as 5 of October 29, 2010 (the “Stipulation”), that has been entered into by the Lead 6 Plaintiffs and Defendants (the “Settling Parties”), by and through their respective 7 counsel, and the Court has reviewed the Stipulation and its attached Exhibits; and 8 WHEREAS, the Settling Parties having made an application, pursuant to 9 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e), for an order preliminarily approving the 10 settlement of this Litigation, in accordance with the Stipulation which, together 11 with the Exhibits annexed thereto, sets forth the terms and conditions for a 12 proposed settlement of the Litigation and for dismissal of the Litigation with 13 prejudice upon the terms and conditions set forth therein; and the Court having 14 read and considered the Stipulation and the Exhibits annexed thereto; and 15 WHEREAS, all defined terms contained herein shall have the same 16 meanings as set forth in the Stipulation; 17 NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 18 1. The Court does hereby preliminarily approve the Stipulation and the 19 settlement set forth therein, including the proposed plan for allocating the 20 settlement proceeds, subject to further consideration at the Settlement Hearing 21 described below. 22 2. A hearing (the “Settlement Hearing”) shall be held before this Court 23 on , 2011, at _.m., at the United States Courthouse, Sandra Day 24 O’Connor U.S. Courthouse, 401 W. Washington Street, Phoenix, Arizona 85003, 25 to determine whether the proposed settlement of the Litigation on the terms and 26 conditions provided for in the Stipulation is fair, reasonable and adequate to the 27 Settlement Class and should be approved by the Court; whether a Judgment as 28

[PROPOSED] ORDER PRELIMINARILY APPROVING SETTLEMENT AND PROVIDING FOR NOTICE 1 MASTER FILE NO. CV07-01603-PHX-SRB

Case 2:07-cv-01603-SRB Document 116-1 Filed 11/15/10 Page 32 of 87

1 provided in ¶1.9 of the Stipulation should be entered; whether the proposed Plan 2 of Allocation should be approved; whether the Settlement Class should be finally 3 certified only for purposes of effectuating a settlement; and to determine the 4 amount of attorneys’ fees and expenses that should be awarded to Lead Plaintiffs’ 5 Counsel. 6 3. Pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the 7 Court hereby preliminarily certifies, for purposes of effectuating this settlement 8 only, a Settlement Class of all Persons who purchased or acquired the common 9 stock of Limelight Networks, Inc. (“Limelight”) between June 7, 2007 and August 10 14, 2007, inclusive (the “Settlement Class Period”), and were allegedly damaged 11 thereby, including those persons or entities who acquired shares of Limelight 12 common stock issued pursuant to or traceable to Limelight’s June 7, 2007 initial 13 public offering (the “Settlement Class”). Excluded from the Settlement Class are: 14 Defendants; members of the families of each of the Individual Defendants; current 15 or former officers and directors of Limelight; any entity in which any Defendant 16 has or had a majority interest; and the legal representatives, heirs, successors and 17 assigns of any such excluded person. Also excluded from the Settlement Class are 18 those Persons who timely and validly request exclusion from the Settlement Class 19 pursuant to the Notice of Pendency and Proposed Settlement of Class Action. The 20 certification of the Settlement Class shall be binding only with respect to the 21 settlement of the Litigation. 22 4. Pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and for 23 purposes of settlement only, The Robbins Group and Del G. Nuzum are appointed 24 as the Class Representatives and Lead Plaintiffs’ Counsel, Labaton Sucharow LLP 25 and Barroway Topaz Kessler Meltzer & Check, LLP, are appointed as Class 26 Counsel. 27 28

[PROPOSED] ORDER PRELIMINARILY APPROVING SETTLEMENT AND PROVIDING FOR NOTICE 2 MASTER FILE NO. CV07-01603-PHX-SRB

Case 2:07-cv-01603-SRB Document 116-1 Filed 11/15/10 Page 33 of 87

1 5. With respect to the Settlement Class, this Court preliminarily finds 2 for purposes of effectuating this settlement only that (a) the Members of the 3 Settlement Class are so numerous that joinder of all Settlement Class Members in 4 the Litigation is impracticable; (b) there are questions of law and fact common to 5 the Settlement Class which predominate over any individual questions; (c) the 6 claims of the Lead Plaintiffs are typical of the claims of the Settlement Class; (d) 7 the Lead Plaintiffs and Lead Plaintiffs’ Counsel have fairly and adequately 8 represented and protected the interests of all of the Settlement Class Members; and 9 (e) a class action is superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient 10 adjudication of the controversy, considering: (i) the interests of the Members of 11 the Settlement Class in individually controlling the prosecution of the separate 12 actions; (ii) the extent and nature of any litigation concerning the controversy 13 already commenced by Members of the Settlement Class; (iii) the desirability or 14 undesirability of continuing the litigation of these claims in this particular forum; 15 and (iv) the difficulties likely to be encountered in the management of the 16 Litigation. 17 6. The Court approves, as to form and content, the Notice of Pendency 18 and Proposed Settlement of Class Action (the “Notice”), the Proof of Claim and 19 Release form (the “Proof of Claim”), and Summary Notice annexed as Exhibits A- 20 1, A-2 and A-3 hereto, and finds that the mailing and distribution of the Notice 21 and publishing of the Summary Notice substantially in the manner and form set 22 forth in ¶¶6-7 of this Order meet the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil 23 Procedure 23 and due process, and is the best notice practicable under the 24 circumstances and shall constitute due and sufficient notice to all Persons entitled 25 thereto. 26 7. Pursuant to Rule 23(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the 27 Court appoints the firm of A.B. Data, Ltd. (“Claims Administrator”) to supervise 28

[PROPOSED] ORDER PRELIMINARILY APPROVING SETTLEMENT AND PROVIDING FOR NOTICE 3 MASTER FILE NO. CV07-01603-PHX-SRB

Case 2:07-cv-01603-SRB Document 116-1 Filed 11/15/10 Page 34 of 87

1 and administer the notice procedure as well as the processing of claims as more 2 fully set forth below: 3 (a) Not later than ten (10) calendar days after entry of this Order, 4 (the “Notice Date”), Lead Plaintiffs’ Counsel shall cause a copy of the Notice and 5 the Proof of Claim, substantially in the forms annexed as Exhibits A-1 and A-2, to 6 be mailed by first class mail to all Settlement Class Members who can be 7 identified with reasonable effort; 8 (b) Not later than fourteen (14) calendar days after entry of this 9 Order, Lead Plaintiffs’ Counsel shall cause the Summary Notice to be published 10 once in Investor’s Business Daily and transmitted over a wire service; and 11 (c) At least seven (7) calendar days prior to the Settlement 12 Hearing, Lead Plaintiffs’ Counsel shall cause to be served on Defendants’ counsel 13 and filed with the Court proof, by affidavit or declaration, of such mailing and 14 publishing. 15 8. The Claims Administrator shall make reasonable efforts to identify 16 all Persons who are members of the Settlement Class, including beneficial owners 17 whose shares of Limelight common stock are held by banks, brokerage firms, or 18 other nominees. Pursuant to the Stipulation, the Company is to provide or cause to 19 be provided to the Claims Administrator, without any charge to Lead Plaintiffs or 20 the Settlement Class, its shareholder lists in electronic and searchable form, such 21 as an Excel file, within seven (7) calendar days of execution of the Stipulation, as 22 appropriate for providing notice to the Settlement Class. To the extent such lists 23 have not already been provided, they shall be provided by the Company within 24 two (2) calendar days of entry of this Order. 25 9. Nominees who purchased or acquired Limelight common stock on 26 the open market between June 7, 2007 and August 14, 2007, inclusive, including 27 shares of Limelight common stock issued pursuant to or traceable to Limelight’s 28

[PROPOSED] ORDER PRELIMINARILY APPROVING SETTLEMENT AND PROVIDING FOR NOTICE 4 MASTER FILE NO. CV07-01603-PHX-SRB Case 2:07-cv-01603-SRB Document 116-1 Filed 11/15/10 Page 35 of 87

1 June 7, 2007 initial public offering on behalf of beneficial owners, shall send the 2 Notice and the Proof of Claim to all such beneficial owners of such Limelight 3 common stock within seven (7) calendar days after receipt thereof, or send a list of 4 the names and addresses of such beneficial owners to the Claims Administrator 5 within seven (7) calendar days of receipt thereof, in which event the Claims 6 Administrator shall promptly mail the Notice and Proof of Claim to such 7 beneficial owners. The Claims Administrator shall, if requested and upon 8 appropriate documentation, reimburse banks, brokerage houses or other nominees 9 solely for their reasonable out-of-pocket expenses incurred in providing notice to 10 beneficial owners who are Settlement Class Members, which expenses would not 11 have been incurred except for the sending of such notice, subject to further order 12 of this Court with respect to any dispute concerning such compensation. Such 13 expenses shall be payable from the Class Notice and Administration Fund. 14 10. All Members of the Settlement Class shall be bound by all 15 determinations and judgments in the Litigation concerning the settlement, whether 16 favorable or unfavorable to the Settlement Class. 17 11. Settlement Class Members who wish to participate in the settlement 18 shall complete and submit Proof of Claim forms in accordance with the 19 instructions contained therein. Unless the Court orders otherwise, all Proof of 20 Claim forms must be submitted to the Claims Administrator, postmarked no later 21 than one hundred twenty (120) calendar days from the Notice Date. Any 22 Settlement Class Member who does not timely submit a Proof of Claim within the 23 time provided for shall be barred from sharing in the distribution of the proceeds 24 of the Net Settlement Fund, unless otherwise ordered by the Court. 25 12. Any Person falling within the definition of the Settlement Class and 26 who desires to request exclusion from the Settlement Class must submit a Request 27 for Exclusion to the Claims Administrator so that it is postmarked or received at 28

[PROPOSED] ORDER PRELIMINARILY APPROVING SETTLEMENT AND PROVIDING FOR NOTICE 5 MASTER FILE NO. CV07-01603-PHX-SRB Case 2:07-cv-01603-SRB Document 116-1 Filed 11/15/10 Page 36 of 87

1 least fourteen (14) calendar days prior to the date of the Settlement Hearing and in 2 the manner described in the Notice. All Persons who submit valid and timely 3 Requests for Exclusion in the manner set forth in the Notice shall have no rights 4 under the Stipulation, shall not share in the distribution of the Net Settlement 5 Fund, and shall not be bound by the Stipulation or the Judgment entered in the 6 Litigation. Upon receiving any Request(s) for Exclusion the Claims 7 Administrator, shall promptly notify counsel for Lead Plaintiffs and Defendants of 8 such Request(s) for Exclusion and provide counsel for Lead Plaintiffs and 9 Defendants copies of such Request(s) for Exclusion and any documentation 10 accompanying them by facsimile or electronic mail. 11 13. Any Member of the Settlement Class may enter an appearance in the 12 Litigation, at their own expense, individually or through counsel of their own 13 choice. If they do not enter an appearance, they will be represented by Lead 14 Plaintiffs’ Counsel. 15 14. Any Member of the Settlement Class may appear and show cause, if 16 he, she or it has any reason, why the proposed settlement of the Litigation should 17 or should not be approved as fair, reasonable and adequate, why a judgment 18 should or should not be entered thereon, why the Plan of Allocation should or 19 should not be approved, or why the requested attorneys’ fees and expenses should 20 or should not be awarded to Lead Plaintiffs’ Counsel; provided, however, that no 21 Settlement Class Member or any other Person shall be heard or entitled to contest 22 the approval of the terms and conditions of the proposed settlement, or, if 23 approved, the Judgment to be entered thereon approving the same, or the order 24 approving the Plan of Allocation, or the attorneys’ fees and expenses to be 25 awarded to Lead Plaintiffs’ Counsel, unless that Person has delivered by hand or 26 sent by first class mail written objections and copies of any papers and briefs such 27 that they are postmarked or received on or before fourteen (14) calendar days prior 28

[PROPOSED] ORDER PRELIMINARILY APPROVING SETTLEMENT AND PROVIDING FOR NOTICE 6 MASTER FILE NO. CV07-01603-PHX-SRB Case 2:07-cv-01603-SRB Document 116-1 Filed 11/15/10 Page 37 of 87

1 to the Settlement Hearing to counsel for the parties as identified in the Notice and 2 filed said objections, papers and briefs with the Clerk of the United States District 3 Court for the District of Arizona, on or before fourteen (14) calendar days prior to 4 the Settlement Hearing. Any Member of the Settlement Class who does not make 5 his, her or its objection in the manner provided for in the Notice shall be deemed 6 to have waived such objection and shall forever be foreclosed from making any 7 objection to the fairness or adequacy of the proposed settlement as set forth in the 8 Stipulation, to the Plan of Allocation, or to the award of attorneys’ fees and 9 expenses to Lead Plaintiffs’ Counsel, unless otherwise ordered by the Court. 10 15. All funds held by the Escrow Agent shall be deemed and considered 11 to be in custodia legis of the Court, and shall remain subject to the jurisdiction of 12 the Court, until such time as such funds shall be distributed pursuant to the 13 Stipulation and/or further order(s) of the Court. 14 16. Papers in support of the settlement, the Plan of Allocation, and the 15 application by Lead Plaintiffs’ Counsel for attorneys’ fees or reimbursement of 16 expenses shall be filed and served thirty-three (33) calendar days before the 17 Settlement Hearing. Reply papers, if any, shall be filed and served seven (7) 18 calendar days before the Settlement Hearing. 19 17. Neither Defendants nor their Related Parties shall have any 20 responsibility for or liability with respect to the Plan of Allocation or any 21 application for attorneys’ fees or reimbursement of expenses submitted by Lead 22 Plaintiffs’ Counsel, and such matters will be considered separately from the 23 fairness, reasonableness and adequacy of the settlement. 24 18. At or after the Settlement Hearing, the Court shall determine 25 whether the Plan of Allocation proposed by Lead Plaintiffs’ Counsel, and any 26 application for attorneys’ fees or reimbursement of expenses shall be approved. 27 28

[PROPOSED] ORDER PRELIMINARILY APPROVING SETTLEMENT AND PROVIDING FOR NOTICE 7 MASTER FILE NO. CV07-01603-PHX-SRB

Case 2:07-cv-01603-SRB Document 116-1 Filed 11/15/10 Page 38 of 87

1 19. All reasonable expenses incurred in identifying and notifying 2 Settlement Class Members, as well as administering the Settlement Fund, shall be 3 paid as set forth in the Stipulation. In the event the settlement is not approved by 4 the Court, or otherwise fails to become effective, neither the Lead Plaintiffs nor 5 Lead Plaintiffs’ Counsel shall have any obligation to repay any amounts actually 6 and properly disbursed from the Class Notice and Administration Fund. 7 20. Neither the Stipulation nor the settlement contained therein, nor any 8 act performed or document executed pursuant to or in furtherance of the 9 Stipulation or the settlement: (a) is or may be deemed to be or may be used as an 10 admission of, or evidence of, the validity of any Released Claim, or of any 11 wrongdoing or liability of the Defendants or their Related Parties; (b) is or may be 12 deemed to be or may be used as an admission of, or evidence of, any fault or 13 omission of any of the Defendants or their Related Parties in any civil, criminal or 14 administrative proceeding in any court, administrative agency or other tribunal; (c) 15 is or may be construed as an admission or concession that the consideration to be 16 given hereunder represents the amount which could be or would have been 17 recovered after trial; or (d) is or may be construed as or received in evidence as an 18 admission, concession or presumption against the Lead Plaintiffs or any of the 19 Settlement Class Members that any of their claims are without merit, or that 20 defenses asserted by the Defendants have any merit, or that damages recoverable 21 under the Consolidated Complaints would not have exceeded the Settlement 22 Amount. 23 21. The Court reserves the right to adjourn the date of the Settlement 24 Hearing or modify the proposed Plan of Allocation set forth in the Notice without 25 further notice to the Members of the Settlement Class, and retains jurisdiction to 26 consider all further applications arising out of or connected with the proposed 27 settlement. The Court may approve the settlement, with such modifications as 28

[PROPOSED] ORDER PRELIMINARILY APPROVING SETTLEMENT AND PROVIDING FOR NOTICE 8 MASTER FILE NO. CV07-01603-PHX-SRB Case 2:07-cv-01603-SRB Document 116-1 Filed 11/15/10 Page 39 of 87

1 may be agreed to by the Settling Parties, if appropriate, without further notice to 2 the Settlement Class. 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] ORDER PRELIMINARILY APPROVING SETTLEMENT AND PROVIDING FOR NOTICE 9 MASTER FILE NO. CV07-01603-PHX-SRB Case 2:07-cv-01603-SRB Document 116-1 Filed 11/15/10 Page 40 of 87

Exhibit A-1 Case 2:07-cv-01603-SRB Document 116-1 Filed 11/15/10 Page 41 of 87

1 2

3 4

5 6 7 8 9 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 10 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 11

12 In re LIMELIGHT NETWORKS, INC. ) Master File No. CV07-01603-PHX- SECURITIES LITIGATION ) SRB 13 ) ) 14 This Document Relates to: ) ))CLASS ACTION 15 All Actions ) NOTICE OF PENDENCY AND 16 ) PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF ) 17 CLASS ACTION ) 18 ) EXHIBIT A-1 ) 19 ) Before: Hon. Susan R. Bolton ) 20 21 22

23 24

25 26 27 28

NOTICE OF PENDENCY AND PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF CLASS ACTION MASTER FILE NO. CV07-01603-PHX-SRB Case 2:07-cv-01603-SRB Document 116-1 Filed 11/15/10 Page 42 of 87

1 IF YOU PURCHASED OR ACQUIRED THE COMMON STOCK OF LIMELIGHT NETWORKS, INC. (“LIMELIGHT”) BETWEEN JUNE 7, 2 2007 AND AUGUST 14, 2007, INCLUSIVE, INCLUDING SHARES OF LIMELIGHT COMMON STOCK ISSUED PURSUANT TO OR 3 TRACEABLE TO LIMELIGHT’S JUNE 7, 2007 INITIAL PUBLIC OFFERING, AND WERE ALLEGEDLY DAMAGED THEREBY (THE 4 “SETTLEMENT CLASS”), YOU COULD RECEIVE A PAYMENT FROM A CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT. 5 A federal court authorized this Notice. This is not a solicitation from a 6 lawyer. Your legal rights are affected whether you act, or do not act. Please 7 read this Notice carefully. 8 Security and Time Period: Limelight Networks, Inc. common stock 9 purchased or acquired between June 7, 2007 and August 14, 2007, inclusive, 10 including shares of Limelight common stock issued pursuant to or traceable to 11 Limelight’s June 7, 2007 initial public offering (“IPO”). 12 YOUR LEGAL RIGHTS AND OPTIONS IN THIS SETTLEMENT: 13 SUBMIT A CLAIM The only way to get a payment. 14 FORM BY , 2010 15 EXCLUDE Get no payment. This is the only option that allows YOURSELF BY , 2010 you to participate in another lawsuit against the Defendants or Released Persons relating to the legal 16 claims in this case. OBJECT BY , 2010 You may write to the Court if you do not like this 17 settlement, the Plan of Allocation, or Lead Plaintiffs’ Counsel’s request for attorneys’ fees and 18 expenses. 19 GO TO A HEARING You may ask to speak in Court about the ON , 2011 settlement. DO NOTHING Get no payment and give up your rights with regard 20 to the claims in this case. 21

22 These rights and options — and the deadlines to exercise them — are 23 explained in this Notice. Please note the date of the Settlement Hearing – 24 currently scheduled for , 2011 – is subject to change without further 25 notice. If you plan to attend the hearing, you should check with Lead Plaintiffs’ 26 Counsel as set forth below, or with the Court, to be sure that no change to the date 27 and time of the hearing has been made.

NOTICE OF PENDENCY AND PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF CLASS ACTION MASTER FILE NO. CV07-01603-PHX-SRB

Case 2:07-cv-01603-SRB Document 116-1 Filed 11/15/10 Page 43 of 87

1 The Court in charge of this case must decide whether to approve the 2 settlement. Payments will be made if the Court approves the settlement and, if 3 there are any appeals, after appeals are resolved. Please be patient.

4 SUMMARY OF THIS NOTICE 5 Statement of Plaintiff Recovery: This proposed settlement will create a 6 Settlement Fund of $1,900,000 in cash, plus interest as it accrues. Based on the 7 Lead Plaintiffs’ estimate of the number of shares of common stock that may have 8 been damaged by the alleged fraud, and assuming that all those shares participate 9 in the settlement, Lead Plaintiffs estimate that the average recovery would be 10 approximately $0.10 per damaged share. 1 This estimate is before deduction of 11 any court-awarded expenses, such as attorneys’ fees and litigation expenses, taxes 12 and the cost of sending this Notice and administering the distribution of the 13 settlement. The amount an eligible Class Member will actually recover will 14 depend on numerous factors. These factors are fully explained in the Plan of 15 Allocation beginning on page [ ]. Please refer to the Plan of Allocation for 16 more information on your potential “Recognized Loss” (defined below). 17 Statement of Potential Outcome of the Lawsuit: The settlement 18 resolves a class action lawsuit, which alleges that Limelight’s prospectus, filed in 19 connection with its IPO, contained misrepresentations and omissions of material 20 information concerning the state of Limelight’s business and future business 21 prospects. The lawsuit also claims that these alleged misrepresentations and 22 omissions inflated the price of Limelight’s common stock issued in the 23 Company’s IPO and during the Settlement Class Period, causing financial injury 24

25 1 An allegedly damaged share might have been traded more than once during the 26 Settlement Class Period, and this average recovery would be the total for all purchasers of that share. 27 28

NOTICE OF PENDENCY AND PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF CLASS ACTION 2 MASTER FILE NO. CV07-01603-PHX-SRB Case 2:07-cv-01603-SRB Document 116-1 Filed 11/15/10 Page 44 of 87

1 to members of the Settlement Class. Before this settlement, the Court had 2 dismissed Lead Plaintiffs’ lawsuit with prejudice and issued a final judgment in 3 favor of Defendants. Lead Plaintiffs filed an appeal seeking to overturn the 4 Court’s dismissal, which was pending when the settlement was reached. 5 Continuing with this case could have resulted in Lead Plaintiffs losing the appeal. 6 Even if Lead Plaintiffs had won the appeal, continuing with the case could have 7 resulted in dismissal or loss at trial. 8 The two sides do not agree on the amount of money that could have been 9 won if Lead Plaintiffs had been successful on appeal and prevailed at trial. The 10 parties also disagree about, among other things: (1) whether various statements 11 challenged by Lead Plaintiffs were material, false, misleading or otherwise 12 actionable under the securities laws; (2) the method for determining whether 13 Limelight common stock was artificially inflated during the relevant period; (3) 14 the amount of any such inflation; and (4) the extent to which various facts alleged 15 by Lead Plaintiffs influenced the trading price of Limelight common stock during 16 the relevant period. 17 Attorneys’ Fees and Litigation Expenses: Court-appointed Lead 18 Plaintiffs’ Counsel will ask the Court to award attorneys’ fees of no more than 19 $ ( % of the Settlement Fund), reimbursement of litigation 20 expenses of no more than $ , plus interest earned on both amounts at the 21 same rate earned on the Settlement Fund, all to be paid from the Settlement Fund. 22 If the above amounts are requested and approved by the Court, the estimated 23 average cost per damaged share will be $ . Lead Plaintiffs’ Counsel have 24 litigated this case on a contingent bases and have not received any payment for 25 their work investigating the facts, conducting this litigation and negotiating the 26 settlement on behalf of the Lead Plaintiffs and the Settlement Class. 27 More Information: 28

NOTICE OF PENDENCY AND PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF CLASS ACTION 3 MASTER FILE NO. CV07-01603-PHX-SRB

Case 2:07-cv-01603-SRB Document 116-1 Filed 11/15/10 Page 45 of 87

1 Claims Administrator: Lead Plaintiffs’ Counsel:

2 Jonathan Gardner, Esq. Limelight Networks, Inc. Colin Holmes, Esq. 3 Securities Litigation Labaton Sucharow LLP 140 Broadway 4 New York, NY 10005 www. (888) 5 www. 6 Christopher L. Nelson, Esq. 7 Jennifer L. Enck, Esq. Barroway Topaz Kessler Meltzer 8 & Check, LLP 280 King of Prussia Road 9 Radnor, PA 19087 ( ) 10 www. 11

12 Reasons for Settlement: Before this settlement was reached, the Court had

13 dismissed Lead Plaintiffs’ lawsuit with prejudice and issued a final judgment in 14 favor of Defendants. Lead Plaintiffs subsequently filed an appeal seeking to

15 overturn the Court’s dismissal. At the time the settlement was reached, Lead 16 Plaintiffs’ appeal had not yet been decided, and continuing with this case could 17 have resulted in Lead Plaintiffs losing the appeal. Even if Lead Plaintiffs had won 18 the appeal, continuing with the case could have resulted in dismissal or loss at 19 trial. For Lead Plaintiffs, the principal reason for the settlement is the immediate 20 benefit of a favorable cash recovery for the Settlement Class. The settlement

21 avoids the costs and risks associated with continued litigation, including the 22 danger of no recovery if the appeal is unsuccessful. For the Defendants, who deny 23 all allegations of wrongdoing, the principal reason for the settlement is to 24 eliminate the burden, expense, uncertainty and risk of further litigation.

25 26 27 28

NOTICE OF PENDENCY AND PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF CLASS ACTION 4 MASTER FILE NO. CV07-01603-PHX-SRB

Case 2:07-cv-01603-SRB Document 116-1 Filed 11/15/10 Page 46 of 87

1 BASIC INFORMATION 2 1. Why Did I Get This Notice Package? 3 You or someone in your family may have purchased or acquired shares of 4 Limelight common stock between June 7, 2007 and August 14, 2007, inclusive, 5 including shares of Limelight common stock issued pursuant to or traceable to 6 Limelight’s IPO. 7 The Court sent you this Notice because you have a right to know about a 8 proposed settlement of this class action lawsuit, and about all of your options, 9 before the Court decides whether to approve the settlement. If the Court approves 10 it and after any objections or appeals are resolved, the Claims Administrator 11 appointed by the Court will make the payments that the settlement allows. 12 This package explains the lawsuit, the settlement, your legal rights, what 13 benefits are available, who is eligible for them, and how to receive them. 14 2. What Is This Lawsuit About and What Has Happened So Far? 15 The lawsuit is pending in the United States District Court for the District of 16 Arizona, and it is known as In re Limelight Networks, Inc. Securities Litigation, 17 Master File No. CV07-01603-PHX-SRB. The persons who sued are called the 18 Lead Plaintiffs and the entities and the individuals they sued, (i) Limelight, (ii) 19 Jeffrey W. Lunsford, Nathan F. Raciborski, Michael W. Gordon, Allan M. Kaplan, 20 Walter D. Amaral, Joseph H. Gleberman, Fredric W. Harman, Mark A. Jung, Peter 21 J. Perrone, David C. Peterschmidt, Gary Valenzuela and Matthew Hale (the 22 “Individual Defendants”), and (iii) Goldman, Sachs & Co., Morgan Stanley & Co. 23 Incorporated, Jefferies & Company, Inc., Piper Jaffray & Co., and Friedman, 24 Billings, Ramsey & Co. Inc. (the “Underwriters”), are collectively called the 25 “Defendants.” 26 This lawsuit was brought as a class action alleging that the Defendants 27 made false or misleading statements resulting in the inflation in the price of 28

NOTICE OF PENDENCY AND PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF CLASS ACTION 5 MASTER FILE NO. CV07-01603-PHX-SRB

Case 2:07-cv-01603-SRB Document 116-1 Filed 11/15/10 Page 47 of 87

1 Limelight common stock during the class period. Defendants deny that they did 2 anything wrong. 3 On January 30, 2008, Lead Plaintiffs filed their Consolidated Class Action 4 Complaint (the “Consolidated Complaint”). Defendants moved to dismiss the 5 Consolidated Complaint on March 17, 2008. Following briefing by both sides, the 6 Court, on August 7, 2008, dismissed the Consolidated Complaint and, on August 7 29, 2008, entered a final judgment in favor of Defendants. 8 On September 5, 2008, Lead Plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the United 9 States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (the “Court of Appeals”). The Lead 10 Plaintiffs’ opening brief and record on appeal was filed on December 22, 2008. 11 Defendants’ response brief was filed on February 3, 2009, and Lead Plaintiffs’ 12 reply brief was filed on March 6, 2009. Oral argument on the appeal was 13 scheduled for December 10, 2009. Following arm’s-length discussions, the 14 settling parties reached an agreement in principle to settle the Litigation on or 15 about November 23, 2009. 16 3. Why Is This a Class Action? 17 In a class action, one or more people called class representatives (in this 18 case the Court-appointed Lead Plaintiffs), sue on behalf of individuals and entities 19 who have similar claims. Here, all these individuals and entities are called a 20 Settlement Class or Settlement Class Members. One court resolves the issues for 21 all Settlement Class Members, except for those who exclude themselves from the 22 Settlement Class. The Honorable Susan R. Bolton is presiding over this class 23 action. 24 4. Why Is There a Settlement? 25 As explained above, the Court had previously dismissed Lead Plaintiffs’ 26 lawsuit and issued a final judgment in favor of the Defendants. Lead Plaintiffs 27 filed an appeal trying to overturn the Court’s dismissal and the parties had 28

NOTICE OF PENDENCY AND PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF CLASS ACTION 6 MASTER FILE NO. CV07-01603-PHX-SRB

Case 2:07-cv-01603-SRB Document 116-1 Filed 11/15/10 Page 48 of 87

1 submitted written briefs to the Court of Appeals. The hearing on Lead Plaintiffs’ 2 appeal had been scheduled but had not yet taken place. Instead of continuing to 3 litigate the lawsuit, both sides agreed to a settlement. That way, they avoid the 4 cost of the appeal, and if the appeal is successful, the cost of a trial, and eligible 5 Settlement Class Members who timely make a valid claim will get compensation. 6 The Lead Plaintiffs and their attorneys think the settlement is best for all 7 Settlement Class Members. 8 WHO IS IN THE SETTLEMENT 9 To see if you will get money from this settlement, you first have to 10 determine if you are a Settlement Class Member. 11 5. How Do I Know if I Am Part of the Settlement? 12 The Settlement Class consists of all Persons who purchased or acquired 13 shares of Limelight common stock between June 7, 2007 and August 14, 2007, 14 inclusive and were allegedly damaged thereby, including those Persons who 15 acquired shares of Limelight common stock issued pursuant to or traceable to 16 Limelight’s June 7, 2007 initial public offering, except those persons and 17 entities that are excluded, as described below. 18 6. What Are The Exceptions to Being Included? 19 You are not a Settlement Class Member if you are: one of the Defendants; a 20 member of the family of one of the Individual Defendants; a current or former 21 officer or director of Limelight; an entity in which any Defendant has or had a 22 majority interest; or the legal representative, heir, successor or assign of any such 23 excluded person. Also excluded from the Settlement Class are those Persons who 24 timely and validly request exclusion from the Settlement Class, as explained 25 below. 26 27 28

NOTICE OF PENDENCY AND PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF CLASS ACTION 7 MASTER FILE NO. CV07-01603-PHX-SRB

Case 2:07-cv-01603-SRB Document 116-1 Filed 11/15/10 Page 49 of 87

1 7. I’m Still Not Sure if I Am Included. 2 If you are still not sure whether you are included, you can ask for free help. 3 You can call at for more information. Or 4 you can fill out and return the claim form described in question 10, to see if you 5 qualify. 6 THE SETTLEMENT BENEFITS — WHAT YOU GET 7 8. What Does the Settlement Provide? 8 Defendants have agreed to pay $1,900,000 in cash. This Settlement Fund is 9 to be divided among all eligible Settlement Class Members who timely send in 10 valid claim forms (“Authorized Claimants”), after payment of court-approved 11 attorneys’ fees and expenses, taxes and the costs of claims administration, 12 including the costs of printing and mailing this Notice and the cost of publishing 13 newspaper notice (the “Net Settlement Fund”). 14 9. How Much Will My Payment Be? What is the Plan of 15 Allocation? 16 Each person or entity claiming to be an Authorized Claimant shall be 17 required to submit a Proof of Claim and Release form (“Proof of Claim”) signed 18 under penalty of perjury and supported by such documents as specified in the 19 Proof of Claim as are reasonably available to the Claimant. If you are entitled to a 20 payment, your share of the Net Settlement Fund will depend on the number of 21 valid claim forms that Settlement Class Members send in and how many shares of 22 Limelight common stock you purchased and/or acquired during the relevant period 23 and when you bought, acquired and sold them. 24 The Plan of Allocation described below explains how claimants’ 25 “Recognized Losses” will be calculated. It is unlikely that you will get a payment 26 for your entire Recognized Loss, given the number of potential Settlement Class 27 Members. After all Settlement Class Members have sent in their Proofs of Claim, 28

NOTICE OF PENDENCY AND PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF CLASS ACTION 8 MASTER FILE NO. CV07-01603-PHX-SRB

Case 2:07-cv-01603-SRB Document 116-1 Filed 11/15/10 Page 50 of 87

1 the payment you get will be a portion of the Net Settlement Fund. Your share will 2 be your Recognized Loss divided by the total of all Authorized Claimants’ 3 Recognized Losses and then multiplied by the total amount in the Net Settlement 4 Fund. 5 Once all the Proofs of Claim are processed and claims are calculated, Lead 6 Plaintiffs’ Counsel, without further notice to the Settlement Class, will apply to the 7 Court for an order distributing the Net Settlement Fund to the eligible members of 8 the Settlement Class. Lead Counsel will also ask the Court to approve payment of 9 the Claims Administrator’s fees and expenses incurred in connection with 10 administering the settlement that have not already been reimbursed. 11 The Net Settlement Fund will be distributed according to the Plan of 12 Allocation to Authorized Claimants who have a net loss on all Settlement Class 13 Period transactions in Limelight’s common stock. Class Members who do not 14 timely submit valid Proofs of Claim will not share in the settlement proceeds, but 15 will otherwise be bound by the terms of the settlement. The Court may approve 16 the Plan of Allocation with or without modifications agreed to among the Settling 17 Parties, or another Plan of Allocation, without further notice to the Settlement 18 Class. 19 The Claims Administrator will determine each Authorized Claimant’s share 20 of the Net Settlement Fund based upon each Authorized Claimant’s “Recognized 21 Loss,” as defined below. To the extent there are sufficient funds in the Net 22 Settlement Fund, each Authorized Claimant will receive an amount equal to the 23 Authorized Claimant’s Recognized Loss. If, however, the amount in the Net 24 Settlement Fund is not sufficient to permit payment of the total of all Recognized 25 Losses, then each Authorized Claimant will be paid the percentage of the Net 26 Settlement Fund that each Authorized Claimant’s recognized claim bears to the 27 total of the claims of all Authorized Claimants (“pro rata share”). 28

NOTICE OF PENDENCY AND PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF CLASS ACTION 9 MASTER FILE NO. CV07-01603-PHX-SRB

Case 2:07-cv-01603-SRB Document 116-1 Filed 11/15/10 Page 51 of 87

1 The Plan of Allocation is not intended to estimate the amount a Class 2 Member might have been able to recover after a trial, nor is it intended to estimate 3 the amount that will be paid to Authorized Claimants. The Plan of Allocation is 4 the basis upon which the Net Settlement Fund will be proportionately divided 5 among all the Authorized Claimants. The Court will be asked to approve the 6 Claims Administrator’s determinations before the Net Settlement Fund is 7 distributed to Authorized Claimants. No distributions to Authorized Claimants 8 who would receive less than $10.00 will be made, given the administrative 9 expenses of processing and mailing such checks. Rather, such distributions will 10 be reallocated to the remaining Authorized Claimants. 11 To calculate a Recognized Loss on Limelight common stock purchased and 12 sold during the Settlement Class Period, such sales must be matched against 13 purchases during the Settlement Class Period. To do so, the earliest sale will be 14 matched first against those shares in the claimant’s opening position on the first 15 day of the Settlement Class Period, and then matched chronologically thereafter 16 against each purchase made during the Settlement Class Period (“FIFO 17 Matching”). 18 A purchase or sale of Limelight common stock will be deemed to have 19 occurred on the “contract” or “trade” date as opposed to the “settlement” or 20 “payment” date. All transaction amounts for purchase and sales of Limelight 21 common stock shall exclude commissions, taxes and fees. Any person or entity 22 that sold Limelight common stock “short” will have no Recognized Loss with 23 respect to such purchase during the Settlement Class Period to cover said short 24 sale. In the event that there is an opening short position in Limelight common 25 stock, the earliest Settlement Class Period purchases shall be matched against such 26 opening short position, and not be entitled to a recovery, until that short position is 27 fully covered. Option contracts are not securities eligible to participate in the 28

NOTICE OF PENDENCY AND PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF CLASS ACTION 10 MASTER FILE NO. CV07-01603-PHX-SRB

Case 2:07-cv-01603-SRB Document 116-1 Filed 11/15/10 Page 52 of 87

1 settlement. Accordingly, shares of Limelight common stock purchased during the 2 Settlement Class Period through the exercise of a call option or the assignment of 3 a put option shall be treated as a purchase on the date of exercise or assignment for 4 the stated exercise price set forth in the call or put option, and any Recognized 5 Loss arising from such transaction shall be computed as provided for purchases of 6 common stock. 7 The Defendants, their respective counsel, and all other Released Persons 8 will have no responsibility for or liability whatsoever for the investment of the 9 Settlement Fund, the distribution of the Net Settlement Fund, the Plan of 10 Allocation or the payment of any claim. Lead Plaintiffs and Lead Plaintiffs’ 11 Counsel likewise will have no liability for their reasonable efforts to execute, 12 administer and distribute the settlement. 13 The following Plan of Allocation reflects the allegations that the price of 14 Limelight common stock during the Settlement Class Period was inflated 15 artificially by reason of allegedly false and misleading statements made by the 16 Defendants. The Defendants deny any allegations of liability. The artificial 17 inflation allegedly began on June 7, 2007 when Limelight issued its prospectus in 18 connection with Limelight’s IPO. Lead Plaintiffs allege that statements in the 19 prospectus, and subsequently throughout the Settlement Class Period, were 20 materially false and misleading. 21 Lead Plaintiffs allege that the artificial inflation was eliminated on August 22 14, 2007, when Limelight filed its Form 10-Q for the Quarter Ended June 30, 2007 23 and allegedly disclosed that it had lost business with substantial and well- 24 established companies. The Plan of Allocation described below was created with 25 the assistance of a damages expert who analyzed the movement of Limelight’s 26 common stock after the alleged disclosures. It takes into account the portion of 27 the stock drops attributable to the alleged fraud. 28

NOTICE OF PENDENCY AND PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF CLASS ACTION 11 MASTER FILE NO. CV07-01603-PHX-SRB

Case 2:07-cv-01603-SRB Document 116-1 Filed 11/15/10 Page 53 of 87

1 Payment in this manner will be deemed conclusive against all Claimants. 2 A Recognized Loss will be calculated as defined herein and cannot be less than 3 zero. 4 Plan of Allocation Formula for Calculating a Recognized Loss: 5 Only the 18.4 million publicly traded or unrestricted common shares of the 6 Company purchased pursuant to or traceable to the June 7, 2007 IPO are eligible

7 shares. 2 8 For publicly traded or unrestricted common shares purchased and sold 9 between June 7, 2007 and August 14, 2007, the Recognized Loss will be the lesser 10 of (1) the purchase price (not to exceed the IPO price of $15.00 per share) minus 11 the sales price; or (2) $5.43 per share. 12 For publicly traded or unrestricted common shares purchased between June 13 7, 2007 and August 14, 2007 that were not sold on or before August 14, 2007, the 14 Recognized Loss will the lesser of (1) the purchase price (not to exceed the IPO 15 price of $15.00 per share) minus the “settle-out” price (or assumed sales price) of 16 $7.89;3 or (2) $5.43 per share. 17 HOW YOU GET A PAYMENT — SUBMITTING A CLAIM FORM 18 10. How Will I Get a Payment? 19 To qualify for payment, you must be an eligible Settlement Class Member 20 and you must send in a claim form. A Proof of Claim form is enclosed with this 21 Notice. Read the instructions carefully, fill out the form, include all the 22 documents the form asks for, sign it, and mail it to the Claims Administrator 23 24 2 Outstanding Limelight shares that were restricted and not available for trading in 25 the open market are not eligible shares.

26 3 This figure represents the closing price of Limelight common shares on August 14 2007. 27 28

NOTICE OF PENDENCY AND PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF CLASS ACTION 12 MASTER FILE NO. CV07-01603-PHX-SRB

Case 2:07-cv-01603-SRB Document 116-1 Filed 11/15/10 Page 54 of 87

1 postmarked no later than , 2010. Please retain a copy of 2 everything you mail, in case the materials are lost or destroyed during shipping. 3 11. When Will I Get My Payment? 4 The Court will hold a hearing on , 2011, to decide 5 whether to approve the settlement. If the Court approves the settlement, there may 6 be appeals. It is always uncertain whether these appeals can be resolved, and 7 resolving them can take time, perhaps several years. In addition, the Claims 8 Administrator must process all of the Proofs of Claim. The processing of the 9 claims is complicated and will take many months. Everyone who sends in a claim 10 form will be informed of the determination with respect to their claim. Please be 11 patient. 12 12. What Am I Giving Up to Get a Payment or Stay in the 13 Settlement Class? 14 Unless you exclude yourself, you are staying in the Settlement Class, and 15 that means that you cannot sue, continue to sue, or be part of any other lawsuit 16 against the Defendants or Released Persons about the same legal issues in this 17 case. It also means that all of the Court’s orders will apply to you and legally bind 18 you and you will release your claims in this case against the Defendants. The 19 terms of the release are included in the Proof of Claim form that is enclosed. 20 EXCLUDING YOURSELF FROM THE SETTLEMENT 21 If you do not want a payment from this settlement, but you want to keep the 22 right to sue or continue to sue the Defendants on your own about the same legal 23 issues in this case, then you must take steps to get out of the Settlement Class. 24 This is called excluding yourself and is sometimes referred to as “opting out” of 25 the Settlement Class. 26 27 28

NOTICE OF PENDENCY AND PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF CLASS ACTION 13 MASTER FILE NO. CV07-01603-PHX-SRB

Case 2:07-cv-01603-SRB Document 116-1 Filed 11/15/10 Page 55 of 87

1 13. How Do I Exclude Myself From the Settlement Class? 2 To exclude yourself from the Settlement Class, you must send a letter by 3 mail stating that you want to be excluded from In re Limelight Networks, Inc. 4 Securities Litigation, Master File No. CV07-01603-PHX-SRB. You must include 5 your name, address, telephone number, your signature, and the number of shares 6 of Limelight common stock you purchased and/or acquired between June 7, 2007 7 and August 14, 2007, inclusive, including shares of Limelight common stock 8 issued pursuant to or traceable to Limelight’s June 7, 2007 initial public offering, 9 the number of shares sold during this time period, if any, and the dates of such 10 purchases, acquisitions and sales. You must mail your exclusion request so that it 11 is received or postmarked no later than , 2010 to: 12 Limelight Networks, Inc. Securities Litigation Claims Administrator 13 c/o 14 15 Please keep a copy of everything you send by mail, in case it is lost or 16 destroyed during shipping. 17 You cannot exclude yourself on the phone or by e-mail. If you ask to be 18 excluded, you are not eligible to get any payment from the Net Settlement Fund, 19 and you cannot object to the settlement. You will not be legally bound by 20 anything that happens in this lawsuit and you will be able to pursue the claims that 21 are being released in this settlement. 22 14. If I Do Not Exclude Myself, Can I Sue the Defendants for the 23 Same Thing Later? 24 No. Unless you exclude yourself, you give up any right to sue the 25 Defendants or the Released Persons for the claims resolved by this settlement. If 26 you have a pending lawsuit against any of the Defendants, speak to your lawyer in 27 28

NOTICE OF PENDENCY AND PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF CLASS ACTION 14 MASTER FILE NO. CV07-01603-PHX-SRB

Case 2:07-cv-01603-SRB Document 116-1 Filed 11/15/10 Page 56 of 87

1 that case immediately. Remember, the exclusion deadline is , 2 2010. 3 15. If I Exclude Myself, Can I Receive a Payment from This 4 Settlement? 5 No. If you exclude yourself, do not send in a claim form. But, you may 6 sue, continue to sue, or be part of a different lawsuit against the Defendants. 7 16. Do I Have a Lawyer in This Case? 8 The Court appointed the law firms of Labaton Sucharow LLP and 9 Barroway Topaz Kessler Meltzer & Check, LLP as Lead Plaintiffs’ Counsel. For 10 purposes of the settlement, they represent you and other Settlement Class 11 Members. 12 You will not be separately charged for these lawyers. The Court will 13 determine the amount of Lead Plaintiffs’ Counsel’s fees and expenses, which will 14 be paid from the Settlement Fund if they are approved. If you want to be 15 represented by your own lawyer, you may hire one at your own expense. 16 17. How Will the Lawyers Be Paid? 17 Lead Plaintiffs’ Counsel will apply to the Court for attorneys’ fees of no 18 more than $ (or % of the Settlement Fund), an estimated average of $ 19 per share, and for reimbursement of their litigation expenses of no more than $ 20 ($ per share), which were advanced in connection with the Litigation, 21 plus interest on both amounts at the same rate as earned by the Settlement Fund. 22 Such sums as may be approved by the Court will be paid from the Settlement 23 Fund. 24 The attorneys’ fees and expenses requested will be the only payment to 25 Lead Plaintiffs’ Counsel for their efforts in achieving this settlement and for their 26 risk in undertaking this representation on a wholly contingent basis. To date, Lead 27 Plaintiffs’ Counsel have not been paid for their services for conducting this 28

NOTICE OF PENDENCY AND PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF CLASS ACTION 15 MASTER FILE NO. CV07-01603-PHX-SRB

Case 2:07-cv-01603-SRB Document 116-1 Filed 11/15/10 Page 57 of 87

1 litigation on behalf of the Lead Plaintiffs and the Settlement Class nor for their 2 litigation expenses. The fee requested will compensate Lead Plaintiffs’ Counsel 3 for their work in achieving the Settlement Fund and is well within the range of 4 fees awarded to class counsel under similar circumstances in other cases of this 5 type. The Court may award less than this amount. 6 OBJECTING TO THE SETTLEMENT 7 You can tell the Court that you do not agree with the settlement or some 8 part of it. 9 18. How Do I Tell the Court that I Do Not Like the Settlement? 10 If you are a Settlement Class Member, you can object to the settlement if 11 you do not like any part of it, including the Plan of Allocation or request for 12 attorneys’ fees and expenses, or otherwise be heard with regard to the merits of the 13 proposed settlement. You can give reasons why you think the Court should or 14 should not approve it. The Court will consider your views. To object and/or be 15 heard with regard to the settlement, you must send a letter saying that you object 16 and/or want to be heard with regard to the settlement. Be sure to include your 17 name, address, telephone number, your signature, the number of shares of 18 Limelight common stock you purchased, acquired and sold during the relevant 19 time period, and the reasons you object to the settlement and whether you intend 20 to speak at the Settlement Hearing. Any objection to the settlement must be 21 mailed or delivered such that it is postmarked or received by each of the following 22 no later than , 2010: 23 Clerk of the Court UNITED STATES OF DISTRICT COURT 24 DISTRICT OF ARIZONA Sandra Day O’Connor U.S. Courthouse 25 401 W. Washington Street Phoenix, Arizona 85003 26 Lead Plaintiffs’ Counsel: 27 Jonathan Gardner, Esq. 28

NOTICE OF PENDENCY AND PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF CLASS ACTION 16 MASTER FILE NO. CV07-01603-PHX-SRB

Case 2:07-cv-01603-SRB Document 116-1 Filed 11/15/10 Page 58 of 87

1 Colin Holmes, Esq. Labaton Sucharow LLP 2 140 Broadway New York, NY 10005 3 Christopher L. Nelson, Esq. Mark S. Danek, Esq. 4 Jennifer L. Enck, Esq. Barroway Topaz Kessler Meltzer & Check, LLP 5 280 King of Prussia Road 6 Radnor, PA 19087 7 Counsel for Limelight and the Individual Defendants: WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI, P.C. 8 Boris Feldman Ignacio E. Salceda, Esq. 9 650 Page Mill Road 10 Palo Alto, CA 94304-1050 11 Counsel for the Underwriter Defendants: SHEARMAN & STERLING LLP 12 Alan S. Goudiss Daniel C. Lewis 13 599 Lexington Avenue 14 New York, NY 10022

15 19. What’s the Difference Between Objecting and Excluding? 16 Objecting is simply telling the Court that you do not like something about 17 the settlement. You can object only if you stay in the Settlement Class. Excluding 18 yourself is telling the Court that you do not want to be part of the Settlement 19 Class. If you exclude yourself, you have no basis to object because the case no

20 longer affects you.

21 THE COURT'S FAIRNESS HEARING 22 The Court will hold a hearing to decide whether to approve the settlement. 23 You may attend and you may ask to speak, but you do not have to.

24 20. When and Where Will the Court Decide Whether to Approve 25 the Settlement?

26 The Court will hold a fairness hearing at m., on 27 2010, at the United States Courthouse, Sandra Day O’Connor U.S. Courthouse,

NOTICE OF PENDENCY AND PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF CLASS ACTION 17 MASTER FILE NO. CV07-01603-PHX-SRB Case 2:07-cv-01603-SRB Document 116-1 Filed 11/15/10 Page 59 of 87

1 401 W. Washington Street, Phoenix, Arizona 85003. At this hearing, the Court 2 will consider whether the settlement is fair, reasonable and adequate. If there are 3 objections, the Court will consider them. The Court will listen to people who have 4 requested in writing by , 2010 to speak at the hearing. The Court may 5 also consider how much to award in attorneys’ fees and expenses to Lead 6 Plaintiffs’ Counsel. The Court may decide these issues at the hearing or take them 7 under consideration. We do not know how long these decisions will take. 8 21. Do I Have to Come to the Hearing? 9 No. Lead Plaintiffs’ Counsel will answer any questions the Court may 10 have. But, you are welcome to come at your own expense. If you send an 11 objection, you do not have to come to Court to talk about it. As long as your 12 written objection was postmarked or received on time, the Court will consider it. 13 You may also pay your own lawyer to attend, but it is not necessary. 14 22. May I Speak at the Hearing? 15 You may ask the Court for permission to speak at the Settlement Hearing. 16 To do so, you must send a letter saying that it is your intention to appear in the In 17 re Limelight Networks, Inc. Securities Litigation, Master File No. CV07-01603- 18 PHX-SRB. Be sure to include your name, address, telephone number, your 19 signature, and the number of shares of Limelight common stock you purchased 20 and/or acquired between June 7, 2007 and August 14, 2007, inclusive, including 21 shares of Limelight common stock issued pursuant to or traceable to Limelight’s 22 June 7, 2007 initial public offering. Your notice of intention to appear must be 23 delivered by hand or sent by first class mail such that it is received or postmarked 24 on or before , 2010, and be sent to the Clerk of the Court, 25 Lead Plaintiffs’ Counsel, and Defendants’ counsel, at the addresses listed in 26 question 18. You cannot speak at the hearing if you exclude yourself from the 27 Settlement Class. 28

NOTICE OF PENDENCY AND PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF CLASS ACTION 18 MASTER FILE NO. CV07-01603-PHX-SRB

Case 2:07-cv-01603-SRB Document 116-1 Filed 11/15/10 Page 60 of 87

1 IF YOU DO NOTHING 2 23. What Happens if I Do Nothing at All? 3 If you do nothing, you will receive no money from this settlement. But, 4 unless you exclude yourself, you won’t be able to start a lawsuit, continue with a 5 lawsuit, or be part of any other lawsuit against the Defendants or the Released 6 Persons about the same legal issues in this case. 7 GETTING MORE INFORMATION 8 24. Are There More Details About the Settlement? 9 This Notice summarizes the proposed settlement. More details are in the 10 Stipulation of Settlement dated as of October 29, 2010 (the “Stipulation”). You 11 can obtain a copy of the Stipulation or more information about the Settlement by 12 visiting www. .com or by writing to one of Lead Plaintiffs’ Counsel 13 listed on page . You can also get a copy of the Stipulation from the Clerk’s 14 office at the United States District Court for the District of Arizona, 401 W. 15 Washington Street, Phoenix, Arizona 85003, during regular business hours. 16 DO NOT TELEPHONE THE COURT REGARDING THIS NOTICE 17 SPECIAL NOTICE TO NOMINEES 18 If you purchased shares of Limelight common stock between June 7, 2007 19 and August 14, 2007, inclusive, including shares of Limelight common stock 20 issued pursuant to or traceable to Limelight’s June 7, 2007 initial public offering, 21 as nominee for a beneficial owner, then, within seven (7) calendar days after you 22 receive this Notice, you must either: (1) send a copy of this Notice by first class 23 mail to all such Persons; or (2) provide a list of the names and addresses of such 24 Persons to the Claims Administrator: 25 Limelight Networks, Inc. Securities Litigation Claims Administrator 26 c/o 27 28

NOTICE OF PENDENCY AND PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF CLASS ACTION 19 MASTER FILE NO. CV07-01603-PHX-SRB

Case 2:07-cv-01603-SRB Document 116-1 Filed 11/15/10 Page 61 of 87

1 If you choose to mail the Notice and Proof of Claim yourself, you may 2 obtain from the Claims Administrator (without cost to you) as many additional 3 copies of these documents as you will need to complete the mailing. 4 Regardless of whether you choose to complete the mailing yourself or elect 5 to have the mailing performed for you, you may obtain reimbursement for 6 reasonable administrative costs actually incurred in connection with forwarding 7 the Notice and which would not have been incurred but for the obligation to 8 forward the Notice, upon submission of appropriate documentation to the Claims 9 Administrator. 10 DATED: , 2010 BY ORDER OF THE COURT UNITED STATES DISTRICT 11 COURT DISTRICT OF 12 ARIZONA

13 14

15 16 17 18 19

20 21 22

23 24

25 26 27 28

NOTICE OF PENDENCY AND PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF CLASS ACTION 20 MASTER FILE NO. CV07-01603-PHX-SRB Case 2:07-cv-01603-SRB Document 116-1 Filed 11/15/10 Page 62 of 87

Exhibit A-2 Case 2:07-cv-01603-SRB Document 116-1 Filed 11/15/10 Page 63 of 87

1 2

3 4

5 6 7 8 9 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 10 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 11

12 In re LIMELIGHT NETWORKS, INC. ) Master File No. CV07-01603- SECURITIES LITIGATION ) PHX-SRB 13 ) ) 14 This Document Relates to: ) ))CLASS ACTION 15 All Actions ) PROOF OF CLAIM AND 16 ) RELEASE ) 17 ) ) EXHIBIT A-2 18 ) ) Before: Hon. Susan R. Bolton 19 ) ) 20 21 22

23 24

25 26 27 28

PROOF OF CLAIM AND RELEASE MASTER FILE NO. CV07-01603-PHX-SRB

Case 2:07-cv-01603-SRB Document 116-1 Filed 11/15/10 Page 64 of 87

1 I. GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS 2 1. To recover as a member of the class based on your claims in the 3 action entitled In re Limelight Networks, Inc. Securities Litigation, Master File 4 No. CV07-01603-PHX-SRB (the “Litigation”), you must complete and, on page 5 hereof, sign this Proof of Claim and Release. If you fail to file a properly 6 addressed (as set forth in paragraph 3 below) Proof of Claim and Release, your 7 claim may be rejected and you may be precluded from any recovery from the 8 Settlement Fund created in connection with the proposed settlement of the 9 Litigation. 10 2. Submission of this Proof of Claim and Release, however, does not 11 assure that you will share in the proceeds of settlement in the Litigation. 12 3. YOU MUST MAIL YOUR COMPLETED AND SIGNED 13 PROOF OF CLAIM AND RELEASE POSTMARKED ON OR BEFORE 14 , 2011, ADDRESSED AS FOLLOWS: 15 Limelight Networks, Inc. Securities Litigation Claims Administrator 16 c/o 17 If you are NOT a Member of the Settlement Class, as defined in the Notice 18 of Pendency and Proposed Settlement of Class Action (“Notice”), DO NOT 19 submit a Proof of Claim and Release form. 20 4. If you are a Member of the Settlement Class, you are bound by the 21 terms of any judgment entered in the Litigation, WHETHER OR NOT YOU 22 SUBMIT A PROOF OF CLAIM AND RELEASE FORM. 23 II. DEFINITIONS 24 1. “Defendants” means Limelight Networks, Inc. (“Limelight”), the 25 Individual Defendants and the Underwriters. 26 27 28

PROOF OF CLAIM AND RELEASE - 1 - MASTER FILE NO. CV 07-01603-PHX-SRB

Case 2:07-cv-01603-SRB Document 116-1 Filed 11/15/10 Page 65 of 87

1 2. “Individual Defendants” means Jeffrey W. Lunsford, Nathan F. 2 Raciborski, Michael W. Gordon, Allan M. Kaplan, Walter D. Amaral, Joseph H. 3 Gleberman, Fredric W. Harman, Mark A. Jung, Peter J. Perrone, David C. 4 Peterschmidt, Gary Valenzuela and Matthew Hale. 5 3. “Related Parties” means each of the Defendants, their past or 6 present subsidiaries, parents, affiliates, successors and predecessors, and their 7 respective past and present officers, directors, shareholders, agents, employees, 8 attorneys, advisors, investment advisors, auditors, accountants, insurers and any 9 person, firm, trust, corporation, officer, director or other individual or entity in 10 which any Defendant has or had a controlling interest or which is related to or 11 affiliated with any of the Defendants, and the legal representatives, heirs, 12 successors in interest or assigns of the Defendants. 13 4. “Released Claims” shall collectively mean all claims (including 14 “Unknown Claims” as defined below), demands, rights, liabilities and causes of 15 action of every nature and description whatsoever, known or unknown, whether 16 or not concealed or hidden, asserted or that could have been asserted, including, 17 without limitation, claims for negligence, gross negligence, breach of duty of 18 care and/or of duty of loyalty, fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, or violations of 19 any state or federal statutes, rules or regulations, asserted or that could have been 20 asserted by Lead Plaintiffs or any Settlement Class Member against the 21 Defendants or their Related Parties arising out of, relating to, or in connection 22 with, directly or indirectly, the purchase, acquisition or holding of Limelight 23 common stock by Lead Plaintiffs or any Settlement Class Member during the 24 Settlement Class Period and the facts, matters, allegations, transactions, events, 25 disclosures, statements, acts or omissions which have been or could have been 26 asserted by any member of the Settlement Class in the Litigation against the 27 Released Persons and any claims arising out of, relating to, or in connection with 28

PROOF OF CLAIM AND RELEASE - 2 - MASTER FILE NO. CV 07-01603-PHX-SRB

Case 2:07-cv-01603-SRB Document 116-1 Filed 11/15/10 Page 66 of 87

1 the settlement or resolution of this Litigation (except for claims to enforce the 2 settlement). 3 5. “Released Persons” means each and all of the Defendants and each 4 and all of their Related Parties. 5 6. “Settlement Class” means all Persons who purchased or acquired 6 the common stock of Limelight Networks, Inc. between June 7, 2007 and August 7 14, 2007, inclusive (the “Settlement Class Period”), and were allegedly damaged 8 thereby, including those persons or entities who acquired shares of Limelight 9 common stock issued pursuant to or traceable to Limelight’s initial public 10 offering. Excluded from the Settlement Class are: Defendants; members of the 11 families of each of the Individual Defendants; current or former officers and 12 directors of Limelight; any entity in which any Defendant has or had a majority 13 interest; and the legal representatives, heirs, successors and assigns of any such 14 excluded person. 15 7. “Underwriters” means Goldman, Sachs & Co., Morgan Stanley & 16 Co. Incorporated, Jefferies & Company, Inc., Piper Jaffray & Co., and Friedman, 17 Billings, Ramsey & Co. Inc., who served as the underwriters of Limelight’s 18 initial public offering. 19 8. “Unknown Claims” shall collectively mean all claims, demands, 20 rights, liabilities, and causes of action of every nature and description which any 21 Lead Plaintiff or Settlement Class Member does not know or suspect to exist in 22 his, her or its favor at the time of the release of the Released Persons, and any 23 Settled Defendants’ Claims that any Released Person does not know or suspect to 24 exist in his, her or its favor as of the Effective Date, which, if known by him, her 25 or it, might have affected his, her or its decisions(s) with respect to the 26 settlement, and specifically with respect to Lead Plaintiffs and the Settlement 27 Class Members his, her or its release of the Released Persons, or his, her or its 28

PROOF OF CLAIM AND RELEASE - 3 - MASTER FILE NO. CV 07-01603-PHX-SRB

Case 2:07-cv-01603-SRB Document 116-1 Filed 11/15/10 Page 67 of 87

1 decision not to object to or to opt out of the settlement. With respect to any and 2 all Released Claims and Settled Defendants’ Claims, the Settling Parties stipulate 3 and agree that, upon the Effective Date, the Lead Plaintiffs and Defendants shall 4 be deemed to have expressly waived, and each of the Settlement Class Members 5 and Released Persons shall be deemed to have waived, and by operation of the 6 Judgment shall have waived, the provisions, rights and benefits of California 7 Civil Code § 1542, which provides: 8 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 executing the release, which if known by him 9 or her must have materially affected his or her settlement with the debtor. 10 The Lead Plaintiffs shall be deemed to have expressly and each of the 11 Settlement Class Members shall be deemed to have, and by operation of the 12 Judgment, shall have, expressly waived any and all provisions, rights and 13 benefits conferred by any law of any state or territory of the United States, or 14 principle of common law or otherwise, which is similar, comparable, or 15 equivalent to California Civil Code § 1542. The Lead Plaintiffs and Settlement 16 Class Members may hereafter discover facts in addition to or different from those 17 which he, she or it now knows or believes to be true with respect to the subject 18 matter of the Released Claims, but the Lead Plaintiffs shall expressly, fully, 19 finally and forever settle and release, and each Settlement Class Member, upon 20 the Effective Date, shall be deemed to have, and by operation of the Judgment 21 shall have, fully, finally, and forever settled and released, any and all Released 22 Claims, known or unknown, suspected or unsuspected, contingent or non- 23 contingent, whether or not concealed or hidden, which now exist, or heretofore 24 have existed, upon any theory of law or equity now existing or coming into 25 existence in the future, including, but not limited to, conduct which is negligent, 26 intentional, with or without malice, or a breach of any duty, law or rule, without 27 regard to the subsequent discovery or existence of such different or additional 28

PROOF OF CLAIM AND RELEASE - 4 - MASTER FILE NO. CV 07-01603-PHX-SRB

Case 2:07-cv-01603-SRB Document 116-1 Filed 11/15/10 Page 68 of 87

1 facts. The Lead Plaintiffs and Defendants acknowledge, and the Settlement 2 Class Members and Released Persons shall be deemed by operation of the 3 Judgment to have acknowledged, that the foregoing waiver was separately 4 bargained for and a key element of the settlement of which this release is a part. 5 III. CLAIMANT IDENTIFICATION 6 1. If you purchased or acquired Limelight common stock on the open 7 market between June 7, 2007 and August 14, 2007, inclusive, and held the 8 certificate(s) in your name, you are the beneficial purchaser as well as the record 9 purchaser. If, however, the certificate(s) were registered in the name of a third 10 party, such as a nominee or brokerage firm, you are the beneficial purchaser and 11 the third party is the record purchaser. 12 2. Use Part I of this form entitled “Claimant Identification” to identify 13 each purchaser of record (“nominee”), if different from the beneficial purchaser 14 of Limelight common stock which forms the basis of this claim. THIS CLAIM 15 MUST BE FILED BY THE ACTUAL BENEFICIAL PURCHASER OR 16 PURCHASERS, OR THE LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE OF SUCH 17 PURCHASER OR PURCHASERS OF THE LIMELIGHT COMMON STOCK 18 UPON WHICH THIS CLAIM IS BASED. 19 3. All joint purchasers must sign this claim. Executors, 20 administrators, guardians, conservators and trustees must complete and sign this 21 claim on behalf of Persons represented by them and their authority must 22 accompany this claim and their titles or capacities must be stated. The Social 23 Security (or taxpayer identification) number and telephone number of the 24 beneficial owner may be used in verifying the claim. Failure to provide the 25 foregoing information could delay verification of your claim or result in rejection 26 of the claim. 27 IV. CLAIM FORM 28

PROOF OF CLAIM AND RELEASE - 5 - MASTER FILE NO. CV 07-01603-PHX-SRB

Case 2:07-cv-01603-SRB Document 116-1 Filed 11/15/10 Page 69 of 87

1 1. Use Part II of this form entitled “Schedule of Transactions in 2 Limelight Common Stock” to supply all required details of your transaction(s) in 3 Limelight common stock. If you need more space or additional schedules, attach 4 separate sheets giving all of the required information in substantially the same 5 form. Sign and print or type your name on each additional sheet. 6 2. On the schedules, provide all of the requested information with 7 respect to all of your purchases and/or acquisitions and all of your sales of 8 Limelight common stock between June 7, 2007 and August 14, 2007, inclusive, 9 including shares of Limelight common stock issued pursuant to or traceable to 10 Limelight’s June 7, 2007 initial public offering, whether such transactions 11 resulted in a profit or a loss. Failure to report all such transactions may result in 12 the rejection of your claim. 13 3. List each transaction in the Settlement Class Period separately and 14 in chronological order, by trade date, beginning with the earliest. You must 15 accurately provide the month, day and year of each transaction you list. 16 4. Copies of broker confirmations or other documentation of your 17 transactions in Limelight common stock and your holdings in Limelight common 18 stock during the Settlement Class Period must be attached to your claim. Failure 19 to provide this documentation could delay verification of your claim or result in

20 rejection of your claim. DO NOT SEND ORIGINALS. 21 5. The above requests are designed to provide the minimum amount 22 of information necessary to process the most simple claims. The Claims 23 Administrator may request additional information as required to efficiently and 24 reliably calculate your losses. In some cases where the Claims Administrator 25 cannot perform the calculation accurately or at a reasonable cost to the 26 Settlement Class with the information provided, the Claims Administrator may 27 28

PROOF OF CLAIM AND RELEASE - 6 - MASTER FILE NO. CV 07-01603-PHX-SRB Case 2:07-cv-01603-SRB Document 116-1 Filed 11/15/10 Page 70 of 87

1 condition acceptance of the claim upon the production of additional information 2 and/or the hiring of an accounting expert at the claimant’s cost. 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

PROOF OF CLAIM AND RELEASE - 7 - MASTER FILE NO. CV 07-01603-PHX-SRB

Case 2:07-cv-01603-SRB Document 116-1 Filed 11/15/10 Page 71 of 87

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 3 IN RE LIMELIGHT NETWORKS, INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION 4 Master File No. CV07-01603-PHX-SRB 5 PROOF OF CLAIM AND RELEASE 6 Must be Postmarked No Later Than: 7 , 2011 8 Please Type or Print 9 PART I: CLAIMANT IDENTIFICATION 10 11 Beneficial Owner’s Name (First, Middle, Last) 12

13 Street Address 14 15 City State Zip Code 16 17 Foreign Province Foreign Country

18 Social Security Number or Individual/Corporation/Other 19 Taxpayer Identification Number 20 (work) 21 Area Code Telephone Number

22 (home) 23 Area Code Telephone Number 24

25 Record Owner’s Name (if different from beneficial owner listed above) 26 27 28

PROOF OF CLAIM AND RELEASE - 8 - MASTER FILE NO. CV 07-01603-PHX-SRB

Case 2:07-cv-01603-SRB Document 116-1 Filed 11/15/10 Page 72 of 87

1 PART II: SCHEDULE OF TRANSACTIONS IN LIMELIGHT COMMON STOCK 2 3 A. Limelight Common Stock Purchases/Acquisitions (between June 7, 4 2007 and August 14, 2007, inclusive): 5 Trade Date Number of Total Purchase or Mo. Day Year Shares Purchased or Acquisition Price 6 Acquired 1. 1. 1. 7 2. 2. 2. 8 3. 3. 3.

9 B. Limelight Common Stock Sales (between June 7, 2007 and August 10 14, 2007, inclusive): 11 Trade Date 12 Mo. Day Year Number of Shares Sold Total Sales Price

13 1. 1. 1. 2. 2. 2. 14 3. 3. 3. 15 16 C. Number of shares of Limelight common stock held at close of trading on August 14, 2007: 17 If you require additional space, attach extra schedules in the same format as 18 above. Sign and print your name on each additional page. 19 YOU MUST READ AND SIGN THE RELEASE ON PAGE 10. 20 FAILURE TO SIGN CAN RESULT IN REJECTION OF YOUR CLAIM. 21 22

23 24

25 26 27 28

PROOF OF CLAIM AND RELEASE - 9 - MASTER FILE NO. CV 07-01603-PHX-SRB

Case 2:07-cv-01603-SRB Document 116-1 Filed 11/15/10 Page 73 of 87

1 V. SUBMISSION TO JURISDICTION OF COURT AND 2 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 3 I (We) submit this Proof of Claim and Release under the terms of the 4 Stipulation of Settlement dated as of October , 2010 (“Stipulation”) 5 described in the annexed Notice, and which is hereby incorporated by reference. I 6 (We) also submit to the jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the 7 District of Arizona, with respect to my (our) claim as a Settlement Class Member 8 (as defined above and in the Notice) and for purposes of enforcing the release set 9 forth herein. I (We) further acknowledge that I (we) am (are) bound by and 10 subject to the terms of any judgment that may be entered in the Litigation. I (We) 11 agree to furnish additional information to Lead Plaintiffs’ Counsel or to the Claims 12 Administrator to support this claim if required to do so. I (We) have not submitted 13 any other claim covering the same purchases, acquisitions or sales of Limelight 14 common stock during the Settlement Class Period and know of no other Person 15 having done so on my behalf. 16 VI. RELEASE 17 1. I (We) hereby acknowledge full and complete satisfaction of, and 18 do hereby fully, finally and forever settle, release, relinquish and discharge, all of 19 the Released Claims (as defined herein) against each and all of the Defendants 20 and each and all of their Related Parties (as defined herein). 21 2. This release shall be of no force or effect unless and until the Court 22 approves the Stipulation and it becomes effective on the Effective Date. 23 3. I (We) hereby warrant and represent that I (we) have not assigned 24 or transferred or purported to assign or transfer, voluntarily or involuntarily, any 25 matter released pursuant to this release or any other part or portion thereof. 26 4. I (We) hereby warrant and represent that I (we) have included 27 information about all of my (our) transactions in Limelight common stock that 28

PROOF OF CLAIM AND RELEASE - 10 - MASTER FILE NO. CV 07-01603-PHX-SRB

Case 2:07-cv-01603-SRB Document 116-1 Filed 11/15/10 Page 74 of 87

1 occurred during the Settlement Class Period as well as the number of shares of 2 Limelight common stock held by me (us) at the close of trading on August 14, 3 2007. 4 5. I (We) hereby warrant and represent that I am (we are) not 5 excluded from the Settlement Class as defined herein and in the annexed Notice. 6 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of 7 America that the foregoing information supplied by the undersigned is true and 8 correct. 9 10 Executed this day of , (Month/Year) 11 12 in (City) (State/Country) 13 14 (Sign your name here) 15 16 17 (Type or print your name here) 18 19 (Joint owner sign your name here)

21 (Type or print your name here) 22

23 (Capacity of person(s) signing, e.g., 24 Beneficial Purchaser, Executor or Administrator) 25 26 27 28

PROOF OF CLAIM AND RELEASE - 11 - MASTER FILE NO. CV 07-01603-PHX-SRB

Case 2:07-cv-01603-SRB Document 116-1 Filed 11/15/10 Page 75 of 87

1 ACCURATE CLAIMS PROCESSING TAKES A

2 SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF TIME.

3 THANK YOU FOR YOUR PATIENCE. 4 Reminder Checklist: 5 6 1. Please sign the above release and declaration. 7 2. Remember to attach supporting documentation.

8 3. Do not send original stock certificates. 9 4. Keep a copy of your claim form for your records.

10 5. If you desire an acknowledgment of receipt of your claim form, 11 please send it Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested.

12 6. If you move, please send us your new address.

13 These forms and your supporting documentation must be postmarked 14 no later than , 2011. 15 16 17 18 19

20 21 22

23 24

25 26 27 28

PROOF OF CLAIM AND RELEASE - 12 - MASTER FILE NO. CV 07-01603-PHX-SRB Case 2:07-cv-01603-SRB Document 116-1 Filed 11/15/10 Page 76 of 87

Exhibit A-3 Case 2:07-cv-01603-SRB Document 116-1 Filed 11/15/10 Page 77 of 87

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 10 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 11 12 In re LIMELIGHT NETWORKS, INC. ) Master File No. CV07-01603-PHX- SECURITIES LITIGATION ) SRB 13 ) ) 14 This Document Relates to: ) ))CLASS ACTION 15 All Actions ) SUMMARY NOTICE 16 ) EXHIBIT A-3 17) ) )Before:) Hon. Susan R. Bolton 18 ) 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

SUMMARY NOTICE MASTER FILE NO. CV 07-01603-PHX-SRB

Case 2:07-cv-01603-SRB Document 116-1 Filed 11/15/10 Page 78 of 87

1 TO: ALL PERSONS WHO PURCHASED OR ACQUIRED THE COMMON STOCK OF LIMELIGHT NETWORKS, INC. (“LIMELIGHT”) 2 BETWEEN JUNE 7, 2007 AND AUGUST 14, 2007, INCLUSIVE, INCLUDING ALL PERSONS WHO ACQUIRED SHARES OF 3 LIMELIGHT COMMON STOCK ISSUED PURSUANT TO OR TRACEABLE TO LIMELIGHT’S JUNE 7, 2007 INITIAL PUBLIC 4 OFFERING (THE “SETTLEMENT CLASS”). 5 YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to an Order of the United States 6 District Court for the District of Arizona, that the above-captioned Litigation has 7 been certified as a class action and that a settlement for One Million Nine Hundred 8 Thousand Dollars ($1,900,000) has been proposed. A hearing will be held on 9 , 2011, at _.m., before the Honorable Susan R. Bolton at the 10 United States Courthouse, Sandra Day O’Connor U.S. Courthouse, 401 W. 11 Washington Street, Phoenix, Arizona 85003, for the purpose of determining 12 (1) whether the proposed settlement of the claims in the Litigation for the sum of 13 $1,900,000 in cash should be approved by the Court as fair, reasonable and 14 adequate; (2) whether the Settlement Class should be certified and a class 15 representative and class counsel be appointed; (3) whether this Litigation should 16 be dismissed with prejudice as set forth in the Stipulation of Settlement dated as of 17 October 29, 2010; (4) whether the Plan of Allocation is fair, reasonable and 18 adequate and should be approved; and (5) whether the application of Lead 19 Plaintiffs’ Counsel for an award of attorneys’ fees and reimbursement of expenses 20 incurred in connection with this Litigation should be approved. 21 If you are a member of the Settlement Class described above, your 22 rights will be affected by the settlement of this Litigation and you may be 23 entitled to share in the settlement proceeds. If you have not received a detailed 24 Notice of Pendency and Proposed Settlement of Class Action (“Notice”) and a 25 copy of the Proof of Claim and Release (“Proof of Claim”), you may obtain copies 26 of these documents by contacting the Claims Administrator at: Limelight 27 28

SUMMARY NOTICE MASTER FILE NO. CV 07-01603-PHX-SRB

Case 2:07-cv-01603-SRB Document 116-1 Filed 11/15/10 Page 79 of 87

1 Networks, Inc. Securities Litigation, c/o , P.O. Box , 2 , __ ( ) ___- , or via email at [email address]. 3 Inquiries, other than requests for the forms of the Notice and Proof of 4 Claim, may be made to Lead Plaintiffs’ Counsel: 5 Jonathan Gardner, Esq. Christopher L. Nelson, Esq. 6 Colin Holmes, Esq. Jennifer L. Enck, Esq. Labaton Sucharow LLP Barroway Topaz Kessler Meltzer & 7 140 Broadway Check, LLP New York, NY 10005 280 King of Prussia Road 8 www.labaton.com Radnor, PA 19087 [email protected] www. 9 @ .com 10 To participate in the settlement, you must submit a Proof of Claim no later 11 than , 2011. If you are a member of the Settlement Class and do 12 not timely submit a valid Proof of Claim, you will not share in the settlement but 13 you nevertheless will be bound by the Judgment entered by the Court in this 14 Litigation. As more fully described in the Notice, the deadline for submitting 15 objections and requests for exclusion is no later than , 2010. 16 17 PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT OR THE CLERK’S OFFICE 18 REGARDING THIS NOTICE. 19 DATED: 20 BY THE ORDER OF THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR 21 THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

SUMMARY NOTICE 2 MASTER FILE NO. CV 07-01603-PHX-SRB Case 2:07-cv-01603-SRB Document 116-1 Filed 11/15/10 Page 80 of 87

Exhibit B Case 2:07-cv-01603-SRB Document 116-1 Filed 11/15/10 Page 81 of 87

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 10 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 11 12 In re LIMELIGHT NETWORKS, ) Master File No. CV07-01603-PHX- INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION ) SRB ) 13 ) 14 This Document Relates to: ) CLASS ACTION ) 15 All Actions ) [PROPOSED] FINAL 16 JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF ) DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE ) 17 ) EXHIBIT B 18 ) Before: Hon. Susan R. Bolton 19 ) 20 ) 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

[PROPOSED] FINAL JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE MASTER FILE NO. CV07-01603-PHX-SRB

Case 2:07-cv-01603-SRB Document 116-1 Filed 11/15/10 Page 82 of 87

1 This matter came before the Court for hearing pursuant to an Order of this 2 Court, dated , 2010 (the “Preliminary Approval Order”), on the 3 application of the parties for approval of the settlement set forth in the Stipulation 4 of Settlement dated as of October 29, 2010 (the “Stipulation”) entered into by 5 plaintiffs, The Robbins Group and Del G. Nuzum (the “Lead Plaintiffs,” on behalf 6 of themselves and the Settlement Class (as defined herein), and defendants 7 Limelight Networks, Inc. (“Limelight” or the “Company”), Jeffrey W. Lunsford, 8 Nathan F. Raciborski, Michael W. Gordon, Allan M. Kaplan, Walter D. Amaral, 9 Joseph H. Gleberman, Fredric W. Harman, Mark A. Jung, Peter J. Perrone, David 10 C. Peterschmidt, Gary Valenzuela, Matthew Hale, Goldman, Sachs & Co., 11 Morgan Stanley & Co. Incorporated, Jefferies & Company, Inc., Piper Jaffray & Co., 12 and Friedman, Billings, Ramsey & Co. Inc. (collectively, the “Defendants” and 13 together with Lead Plaintiffs, the “Settling Parties”), by and through their 14 respective counsel. 15 Due and adequate notice having been given of the settlement as required in 16 said Preliminary Approval Order and a full opportunity having been offered to all 17 Settling Parties, the Settlement Class, and persons and entities in interest, and the 18 Court having considered all papers filed and proceedings held herein and 19 otherwise being fully informed in the premises and good cause appearing 20 therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that: 21 1. This Judgment incorporates by reference the definitions in the 22 Stipulation, and all terms used herein shall have the same meanings set forth in the 23 Stipulation. 24 2. This Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of the Litigation 25 and over all parties to the Litigation, including all Members of the Settlement 26 Class. 27 28 [PROPOSED] FINAL JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE 1 MASTER FILE NO. CV07-01603-PHX-SRB

Case 2:07-cv-01603-SRB Document 116-1 Filed 11/15/10 Page 83 of 87

1 3. Except as to any individual claim of those Persons (identified in 2 Exhibit 1 attached hereto) who have validly and timely requested exclusion from 3 the Settlement Class, the Litigation and all claims contained therein, including all 4 of the Released Claims (as defined in the Stipulation at ¶1.16), are dismissed with 5 prejudice as to the Lead Plaintiffs and the other Members of the Settlement Class, 6 and as against each and all of the Released Persons (as defined in the Stipulation at 7 ¶1.17). The parties are to bear their own costs, except as otherwise provided in the 8 Stipulation. 9 4. Pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, this 10 Court hereby approves the settlement set forth in the Stipulation and finds that said 11 settlement is, in all respects, fair, reasonable and adequate to, and is in the best 12 interests of, the Lead Plaintiffs, the Settlement Class and each of the Settlement 13 Class Members. This Court further finds the settlement set forth in the Stipulation 14 is the result of arm’s-length negotiations between experienced counsel 15 representing the interests of the Lead Plaintiffs, the Settlement Class Members and 16 the Defendants. Accordingly, the settlement embodied in the Stipulation is hereby 17 approved in all respects and shall be consummated in accordance with its terms 18 and provisions. The Settling Parties are hereby directed to perform the terms of 19 the Stipulation. 20 5. Pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the 21 Court hereby certifies, for purposes of effectuating this settlement only, a 22 Settlement Class of all Persons who purchased or acquired the common stock of 23 Limelight between June 7, 2007 and August 14, 2007, inclusive (the “Class 24 Period”), and were allegedly damaged thereby, including those persons or entities 25 who acquired shares of Limelight common stock issued pursuant to or traceable to 26 Limelight’s June 7, 2007 initial public offering (the “Settlement Class”). 27 Excluded from the Settlement Class are: Defendants; members of the families of 28

[PROPOSED] FINAL JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE 2 MASTER FILE NO. CV07-01603-PHX-SRB

Case 2:07-cv-01603-SRB Document 116-1 Filed 11/15/10 Page 84 of 87

1 each of the Individual Defendants; current or former officers and directors of 2 Limelight; any entity in which any Defendant has or had a majority interest; and 3 the legal representatives, heirs, successors and assigns of any such excluded 4 person. Also excluded from the Settlement Class are those Persons identified in 5 Exhibit 1 attached hereto who timely and validly requested exclusion from the 6 Settlement Class pursuant to the Notice of Pendency and Proposed Settlement of 7 Class Action. The certification of the Settlement Class shall be binding only with 8 respect to the settlement of the Litigation. 9 6. With respect to the Settlement Class, this Court finds for the 10 purposes of effectuating this settlement only that (a) the Members of the 11 Settlement Class are so numerous that joinder of all Settlement Class Members in 12 the Litigation is impracticable; (b) there are questions of law and fact common to 13 the Settlement Class which predominate over any individual questions; (c) the 14 claims of the Lead Plaintiffs are typical of the claims of the Settlement Class; (d) 15 the Lead Plaintiffs and Lead Plaintiffs’ Counsel have fairly and adequately 16 represented and protected the interests of all of the Settlement Class Members; and 17 (e) a class action is superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient 18 adjudication of the controversy, considering: (i) the interests of the Members of 19 the Settlement Class in individually controlling the prosecution of the separate 20 actions; (ii) the extent and nature of any litigation concerning the controversy 21 already commenced by Members of the Settlement Class: (iii) the desirability or 22 undesirability of continuing the litigation of these claims in this particular forum; 23 and (iv) the difficulties likely to be encountered in the management of the 24 Litigation. 25 7. Only for purposes of effectuating this settlement, the Court hereby 26 appoints Lead Plaintiffs The Robbins Group and Del G. Nuzum as Class 27 28

[PROPOSED] FINAL JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE 3 MASTER FILE NO. CV07-01603-PHX-SRB

Case 2:07-cv-01603-SRB Document 116-1 Filed 11/15/10 Page 85 of 87

1 Representative and Labaton Sucharow LLP and Barroway Topaz Kessler Meltzer 2 & Check, LLP as Class Counsel. 3 8. Upon the Effective Date, the Lead Plaintiffs and each of the 4 Settlement Class Members shall be deemed to have, and by operation of the 5 Judgment shall have, fully, finally, and forever released, relinquished and 6 discharged all Released Claims against the Released Persons, whether or not such 7 Settlement Class Member executes and delivers a Proof of Claim and Release 8 form, and shall be enjoined from prosecuting any Released Claims against any of 9 the Released Persons. 10 9. Upon the Effective Date hereof, each of the Released Persons shall 11 be deemed to have, and by operation of this Judgment shall have, fully, finally, 12 and forever released, relinquished and discharged Lead Plaintiffs, Settlement Class 13 Members and Lead Plaintiffs’ Counsel from each and all of the Settled 14 Defendants’ Claims (as defined in the Stipulation at ¶1.18), and shall forever be 15 enjoined from prosecuting any of the Settled Defendants’ Claims. 16 10. The distribution of the Notice of Pendency and Proposed Settlement 17 of Class Action and the publication of the Summary Notice as provided for in the 18 Preliminary Approval Order constituted the best notice practicable, including 19 individual notice to all Members of the Settlement Class who could be identified 20 through reasonable effort. Said Notice provided the best notice practicable under 21 the circumstances of those proceedings and of the matters set forth therein, 22 including the proposed settlement set forth in the Stipulation, to all Persons 23 entitled to such notice, and said Notice fully satisfied the requirements of Federal 24 Rule of Civil Procedure 23, the requirements of due process, and any other 25 applicable law. 26 11. Any plan of allocation submitted by Lead Plaintiffs’ Counsel or any 27 order entered regarding the attorneys’ fee and expense application shall in no way 28

[PROPOSED] FINAL JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE 4 MASTER FILE NO. CV07-01603-PHX-SRB

Case 2:07-cv-01603-SRB Document 116-1 Filed 11/15/10 Page 86 of 87

1 disturb or affect this Judgment and shall be considered separate from this 2 Judgment. 3 12. Neither the Stipulation nor the settlement contained therein, nor any 4 act performed or document executed pursuant to or in furtherance of the 5 Stipulation or the settlement: (a) is or may be deemed to be or may be used as an 6 admission of, or evidence of, the validity of any Released Claim, or of any 7 wrongdoing or liability of the Defendants or their Related Parties; (b) is or may be 8 deemed to be or may be used as an admission of, or evidence of, any fault or 9 omission of any of the Defendants or their Related Parties in any civil, criminal or 10 administrative proceeding in any court, administrative agency or other tribunal; (c) 11 is or may be construed as an admission or concession that the consideration to be 12 given hereunder represents the amount which could be or would have been 13 recovered after trial; or (d) is or may be construed as or received in evidence as an 14 admission, concession or presumption against the Lead Plaintiffs or any of the 15 Settlement Class Members that any of their claims are without merit, or that 16 defenses asserted by the Defendants have any merit, or that damages recoverable 17 under the Consolidated Complaints would not have exceeded the Settlement 18 Amount. The Stipulation may be filed in an action to enforce or interpret the 19 terms of the Stipulation, the settlement contained therein, and any other documents 20 executed in connection with the performance of the agreements embodied therein. 21 Defendants and/or their Related Parties may file the Stipulation and/or the 22 Judgment in any other action that may be brought against them in order to support 23 a defense or counterclaim based on principles of res judicata, collateral estoppel, 24 release, good faith settlement, judgment bar or reduction or any other theory of 25 claim preclusion or issue preclusion or similar defense or counterclaim. 26 13. No Class Member shall have any claim against Lead Plaintiffs, Lead 27 Plaintiffs’ Counsel or against any of the Defendants, the Released Persons or 28

[PROPOSED] FINAL JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE 5 MASTER FILE NO. CV07-01603-PHX-SRB

Case 2:07-cv-01603-SRB Document 116-1 Filed 11/15/10 Page 87 of 87

1 Defendants’ Counsel based on the investments, costs, expenses, administration, 2 allocations, payments, and distributions that are made substantially in accordance 3 with the Stipulation and the settlement contained therein, the Plan of Allocation 4 approved by the Court, or further order of the Court. 5 14. Without further order of the Court, the Settling Parties may agree to 6 reasonable extensions of time to carry out any of the provisions of the Stipulation. 7 15. Without affecting the finality of this Judgment in any way, this 8 Court hereby retains continuing jurisdiction over (a) implementation of this 9 settlement and any award or distribution of the Settlement Fund, including interest 10 earned thereon; (b) hearing and determining applications for attorneys’ fees and 11 expenses in the Litigation; and (c) all parties hereto for the purpose of construing, 12 enforcing and administering the Stipulation. 13 16. Pursuant to the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995, 15 14 U.S.C. §78u-4 (c), the Court finds that during the course of the Litigation, the 15 Settling Parties and their respective counsel at all times complied with the 16 requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11. 17 17. In the event that the settlement does not become effective in 18 accordance with the terms of the Stipulation or the Effective Date does not occur, 19 or in the event that the Settlement Fund, or any portion thereof, is returned to the 20 Defendants, then this Judgment shall be rendered null and void to the extent 21 provided by and in accordance with the Stipulation and shall be vacated and, in 22 such event, all orders entered and releases delivered in connection herewith shall 23 be null and void to the extent provided by and in accordance with the Stipulation. 24 25 26 27 28

[PROPOSED] FINAL JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE 6 MASTER FILE NO. CV07-01603-PHX-SRB Case 2:07-cv-01603-SRB Document 116-2 Filed 11/15/10 Page 1 of 51

Exhibit 2 Case 2:07-cv-01603-SRB Document 116-2 Filed 11/15/10 Page 2 of 51

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 11 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 12 In re LIMELIGHT NETWORKS, INC. ) Master File No. CV07-01603-PHX- 13 SECURITIES LITIGATION ) SRB ) 14 ) This Document Relates to: ) 15 ) CLASS ACTION ) 16 All Actions ) [PROPOSED] ORDER ) PRELIMINARILY APPROVING 17 ) ) SETTLEMENT AND PROVIDING 18 ) FOR NOTICE ) 19 ) ) 20 ) Before: Hon. Susan R. Bolton ) 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

[PROPOSED] ORDER PRELIMINARILY APPROVING SETTLEMENT AND PROVIDING FOR NOTICE MASTER FILE NO. CV07-01603-PHX-SRB

Case 2:07-cv-01603-SRB Document 116-2 Filed 11/15/10 Page 3 of 51

[PROPOSED] ORDER PRELIMINARILY APPROVING SETTLEMENT AND PROVIDING FOR NOTICE 1 MASTER FILE NO. CV07-01603-PHX-SRB

Case 2:07-cv-01603-SRB Document 116-2 Filed 11/15/10 Page 4 of 51

[PROPOSED] ORDER PRELIMINARILY APPROVING SETTLEMENT AND PROVIDING FOR NOTICE 2 MASTER FILE NO. CV07-01603-PHX-SRB

Case 2:07-cv-01603-SRB Document 116-2 Filed 11/15/10 Page 5 of 51

[PROPOSED] ORDER PRELIMINARILY APPROVING SETTLEMENT AND PROVIDING FOR NOTICE 3 MASTER FILE NO. CV07-01603-PHX-SRB

Case 2:07-cv-01603-SRB Document 116-2 Filed 11/15/10 Page 6 of 51

[PROPOSED] ORDER PRELIMINARILY APPROVING SETTLEMENT AND PROVIDING FOR NOTICE 4 MASTER FILE NO. CV07-01603-PHX-SRB Case 2:07-cv-01603-SRB Document 116-2 Filed 11/15/10 Page 7 of 51

[PROPOSED] ORDER PRELIMINARILY APPROVING SETTLEMENT AND PROVIDING FOR NOTICE 5 MASTER FILE NO. CV07-01603-PHX-SRB Case 2:07-cv-01603-SRB Document 116-2 Filed 11/15/10 Page 8 of 51

[PROPOSED] ORDER PRELIMINARILY APPROVING SETTLEMENT AND PROVIDING FOR NOTICE 6 MASTER FILE NO. CV07-01603-PHX-SRB Case 2:07-cv-01603-SRB Document 116-2 Filed 11/15/10 Page 9 of 51

[PROPOSED] ORDER PRELIMINARILY APPROVING SETTLEMENT AND PROVIDING FOR NOTICE 7 MASTER FILE NO. CV07-01603-PHX-SRB

Case 2:07-cv-01603-SRB Document 116-2 Filed 11/15/10 Page 10 of 51

[PROPOSED] ORDER PRELIMINARILY APPROVING SETTLEMENT AND PROVIDING FOR NOTICE 8 MASTER FILE NO. CV07-01603-PHX-SRB Case 2:07-cv-01603-SRB Document 116-2 Filed 11/15/10 Page 11 of 51

1 may be agreed to by the Settling Parties, if appropriate, without further notice to 2 the Settlement Class. 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] ORDER PRELIMINARILY APPROVING SETTLEMENT AND PROVIDING FOR NOTICE 9 MASTER FILE NO. CV07-01603-PHX-SRB Case 2:07-cv-01603-SRB Document 116-2 Filed 11/15/10 Page 12 of 51

Exhibit A-1 Case 2:07-cv-01603-SRB Document 116-2 Filed 11/15/10 Page 13 of 51

1 2

3 4

5 6 7 8 9 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 10 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 11

23 24

25 26 27 28

NOTICE OF PENDENCY AND PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF CLASS ACTION MASTER FILE NO. CV07-01603-PHX-SRB Case 2:07-cv-01603-SRB Document 116-2 Filed 11/15/10 Page 14 of 51

NOTICE OF PENDENCY AND PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF CLASS ACTION MASTER FILE NO. CV07-01603-PHX-SRB

Case 2:07-cv-01603-SRB Document 116-2 Filed 11/15/10 Page 15 of 51

25 1 An allegedly damaged share might have been traded more than once during the 26 Settlement Class Period, and this average recovery would be the total for all purchasers of that share. 27 28

NOTICE OF PENDENCY AND PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF CLASS ACTION 2 MASTER FILE NO. CV07-01603-PHX-SRB

Case 2:07-cv-01603-SRB Document 116-2 Filed 11/15/10 Page 16 of 51

1 to members of the Settlement Class. Before this settlement, the Court had 2 dismissed Lead Plaintiffs’ lawsuit with prejudice and issued a final judgment in 3 favor of Defendants. Lead Plaintiffs filed an appeal seeking to overturn the 4 Court’s dismissal, which was pending when the settlement was reached. 5 Continuing with this case could have resulted in Lead Plaintiffs losing the appeal. 6 Even if Lead Plaintiffs had won the appeal, continuing with the case could have 7 resulted in dismissal or loss at trial. 8 The two sides do not agree on the amount of money that could have been 9 won if Lead Plaintiffs had been successful on appeal and prevailed at trial. The 10 parties also disagree about, among other things: (1) whether various statements 11 challenged by Lead Plaintiffs were material, false, misleading or otherwise 12 actionable under the securities laws; (2) the method for determining whether 13 Limelight common stock was artificially inflated during the relevant period; (3) 14 the amount of any such inflation; and (4) the extent to which various facts alleged 15 by Lead Plaintiffs influenced the trading price of Limelight common stock during 16 the relevant period. 17 Attorneys’ Fees and Litigation Expenses: Court-appointed Lead 18 Plaintiffs’ Counsel will ask the Court to award attorneys’ fees of no more than 19 $475,000 (25% of the Settlement Fund), reimbursement of litigation expenses of 20 no more than $100,000, plus interest earned on both amounts at the same rate 21 earned on the Settlement Fund, all to be paid from the Settlement Fund. If the 22 above amounts are requested and approved by the Court, the estimated average 23 cost per damaged share will be $0.03. Lead Plaintiffs’ Counsel have litigated this 24 case on a contingent bases and have not received any payment for their work 25 investigating the facts, conducting this litigation and negotiating the settlement on 26 behalf of the Lead Plaintiffs and the Settlement Class. 27 More Information: 28

NOTICE OF PENDENCY AND PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF CLASS ACTION 3 MASTER FILE NO. CV07-01603-PHX-SRB

Case 2:07-cv-01603-SRB Document 116-2 Filed 11/15/10 Page 17 of 51

1 Claims Administrator: Lead Plaintiffs’ Counsel:

12 Reasons for Settlement: Before this settlement was reached, the Court had

13 dismissed Lead Plaintiffs’ lawsuit with prejudice and issued a final judgment in 14 favor of Defendants. Lead Plaintiffs subsequently filed an appeal seeking to

25 26 27 28

NOTICE OF PENDENCY AND PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF CLASS ACTION 4 MASTER FILE NO. CV07-01603-PHX-SRB

Case 2:07-cv-01603-SRB Document 116-2 Filed 11/15/10 Page 18 of 51

NOTICE OF PENDENCY AND PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF CLASS ACTION 5 MASTER FILE NO. CV07-01603-PHX-SRB

Case 2:07-cv-01603-SRB Document 116-2 Filed 11/15/10 Page 19 of 51

NOTICE OF PENDENCY AND PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF CLASS ACTION 6 MASTER FILE NO. CV07-01603-PHX-SRB

Case 2:07-cv-01603-SRB Document 116-2 Filed 11/15/10 Page 20 of 51

NOTICE OF PENDENCY AND PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF CLASS ACTION 7 MASTER FILE NO. CV07-01603-PHX-SRB

Case 2:07-cv-01603-SRB Document 116-2 Filed 11/15/10 Page 21 of 51

NOTICE OF PENDENCY AND PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF CLASS ACTION 8 MASTER FILE NO. CV07-01603-PHX-SRB

Case 2:07-cv-01603-SRB Document 116-2 Filed 11/15/10 Page 22 of 51

NOTICE OF PENDENCY AND PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF CLASS ACTION 9 MASTER FILE NO. CV07-01603-PHX-SRB

Case 2:07-cv-01603-SRB Document 116-2 Filed 11/15/10 Page 23 of 51

NOTICE OF PENDENCY AND PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF CLASS ACTION 10 MASTER FILE NO. CV07-01603-PHX-SRB

Case 2:07-cv-01603-SRB Document 116-2 Filed 11/15/10 Page 24 of 51

NOTICE OF PENDENCY AND PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF CLASS ACTION 11 MASTER FILE NO. CV07-01603-PHX-SRB

Case 2:07-cv-01603-SRB Document 116-2 Filed 11/15/10 Page 25 of 51

26 3 This figure represents the closing price of Limelight common shares on August 14 2007. 27 28

NOTICE OF PENDENCY AND PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF CLASS ACTION 12 MASTER FILE NO. CV07-01603-PHX-SRB

Case 2:07-cv-01603-SRB Document 116-2 Filed 11/15/10 Page 26 of 51

NOTICE OF PENDENCY AND PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF CLASS ACTION 13 MASTER FILE NO. CV07-01603-PHX-SRB

Case 2:07-cv-01603-SRB Document 116-2 Filed 11/15/10 Page 27 of 51

NOTICE OF PENDENCY AND PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF CLASS ACTION 14 MASTER FILE NO. CV07-01603-PHX-SRB

Case 2:07-cv-01603-SRB Document 116-2 Filed 11/15/10 Page 28 of 51

1 that case immediately. Remember, the exclusion deadline is , 2 2010. 3 15. If I Exclude Myself, Can I Receive a Payment from This 4 Settlement? 5 No. If you exclude yourself, do not send in a claim form. But, you may 6 sue, continue to sue, or be part of a different lawsuit against the Defendants. 7 16. Do I Have a Lawyer in This Case? 8 The Court appointed the law firms of Labaton Sucharow LLP and 9 Barroway Topaz Kessler Meltzer & Check, LLP as Lead Plaintiffs’ Counsel. For 10 purposes of the settlement, they represent you and other Settlement Class 11 Members. 12 You will not be separately charged for these lawyers. The Court will 13 determine the amount of Lead Plaintiffs’ Counsel’s fees and expenses, which will 14 be paid from the Settlement Fund if they are approved. If you want to be 15 represented by your own lawyer, you may hire one at your own expense. 16 17. How Will the Lawyers Be Paid? 17 Lead Plaintiffs’ Counsel will apply to the Court for attorneys’ fees of no 18 more than $ 475,000 (or 25% of the Settlement Fund), an estimated average of 19 $0.025 per share, and for reimbursement of their litigation expenses of no more 20 than $100,000 ($0.005 per share), which were advanced in connection with the 21 Litigation, plus interest on both amounts at the same rate as earned by the 22 Settlement Fund. Such sums as may be approved by the Court will be paid from 23 the Settlement Fund. 24 The attorneys’ fees and expenses requested will be the only payment to 25 Lead Plaintiffs’ Counsel for their efforts in achieving this settlement and for their 26 risk in undertaking this representation on a wholly contingent basis. To date, Lead 27 Plaintiffs’ Counsel have not been paid for their services for conducting this 28

NOTICE OF PENDENCY AND PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF CLASS ACTION 15 MASTER FILE NO. CV07-01603-PHX-SRB

Case 2:07-cv-01603-SRB Document 116-2 Filed 11/15/10 Page 29 of 51

NOTICE OF PENDENCY AND PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF CLASS ACTION 16 MASTER FILE NO. CV07-01603-PHX-SRB

Case 2:07-cv-01603-SRB Document 116-2 Filed 11/15/10 Page 30 of 51

20 longer affects you.

21 THE COURT'S FAIRNESS HEARING 22 The Court will hold a hearing to decide whether to approve the settlement. 23 You may attend and you may ask to speak, but you do not have to.

24 20. When and Where Will the Court Decide Whether to Approve 25 the Settlement?

26 The Court will hold a fairness hearing at m., on 27 2010, at the United States Courthouse, Sandra Day O’Connor U.S. Courthouse,

NOTICE OF PENDENCY AND PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF CLASS ACTION 17 MASTER FILE NO. CV07-01603-PHX-SRB Case 2:07-cv-01603-SRB Document 116-2 Filed 11/15/10 Page 31 of 51

NOTICE OF PENDENCY AND PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF CLASS ACTION 18 MASTER FILE NO. CV07-01603-PHX-SRB

Case 2:07-cv-01603-SRB Document 116-2 Filed 11/15/10 Page 32 of 51

NOTICE OF PENDENCY AND PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF CLASS ACTION 19 MASTER FILE NO. CV07-01603-PHX-SRB

Case 2:07-cv-01603-SRB Document 116-2 Filed 11/15/10 Page 33 of 51

13 14

15 16 17 18 19

20 21 22

23 24

25 26 27 28

NOTICE OF PENDENCY AND PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF CLASS ACTION 20 MASTER FILE NO. CV07-01603-PHX-SRB Case 2:07-cv-01603-SRB Document 116-2 Filed 11/15/10 Page 34 of 51

Exhibit A-2 Case 2:07-cv-01603-SRB Document 116-2 Filed 11/15/10 Page 35 of 51

1 2

3 4

5 6 7 8 9 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 10 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 11

23 24

25 26 27 28

PROOF OF CLAIM AND RELEASE MASTER FILE NO. CV07-01603-PHX-SRB

Case 2:07-cv-01603-SRB Document 116-2 Filed 11/15/10 Page 36 of 51

PROOF OF CLAIM AND RELEASE - 1 - MASTER FILE NO. CV 07-01603-PHX -SRB

Case 2:07-cv-01603-SRB Document 116-2 Filed 11/15/10 Page 37 of 51

PROOF OF CLAIM AND RELEASE - 2 - MASTER FILE NO. CV 07-01603-PHX -SRB

Case 2:07-cv-01603-SRB Document 116-2 Filed 11/15/10 Page 38 of 51

PROOF OF CLAIM AND RELEASE - 3 - MASTER FILE NO. CV 07-01603-PHX -SRB

Case 2:07-cv-01603-SRB Document 116-2 Filed 11/15/10 Page 39 of 51

PROOF OF CLAIM AND RELEASE - 4 - MASTER FILE NO. CV 07-01603-PHX -SRB

Case 2:07-cv-01603-SRB Document 116-2 Filed 11/15/10 Page 40 of 51

PROOF OF CLAIM AND RELEASE - 5 - MASTER FILE NO. CV 07-01603-PHX -SRB

Case 2:07-cv-01603-SRB Document 116-2 Filed 11/15/10 Page 41 of 51

PROOF OF CLAIM AND RELEASE - 6 - MASTER FILE NO. CV 07-01603-PHX -SRB Case 2:07-cv-01603-SRB Document 116-2 Filed 11/15/10 Page 42 of 51

1 condition acceptance of the claim upon the production of additional information 2 and/or the hiring of an accounting expert at the claimant’s cost. 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

PROOF OF CLAIM AND RELEASE - 7 - MASTER FILE NO. CV 07-01603-PHX -SRB

Case 2:07-cv-01603-SRB Document 116-2 Filed 11/15/10 Page 43 of 51

13 Street Address 14 15 City State Zip Code 16 17 Foreign Province Foreign Country

18 Social Security Number or Individual/Corporation/Other 19 Taxpayer Identification Number 20 (work) 21 Area Code Telephone Number

22 (home) 23 Area Code Telephone Number 24

25 Record Owner’s Name (if different from beneficial owner listed above) 26 27 28

PROOF OF CLAIM AND RELEASE - 8 - MASTER FILE NO. CV 07-01603-PHX -SRB

Case 2:07-cv-01603-SRB Document 116-2 Filed 11/15/10 Page 44 of 51

9 B. Limelight Common Stock Sales (between June 7, 2007 and August 10 14, 2007, inclusive): 11 Trade Date 12 Mo. Day Year Number of Shares Sold Total Sales Price

23 24

25 26 27 28

PROOF OF CLAIM AND RELEASE - 9 - MASTER FILE NO. CV 07-01603-PHX -SRB

Case 2:07-cv-01603-SRB Document 116-2 Filed 11/15/10 Page 45 of 51

PROOF OF CLAIM AND RELEASE - 10 - MASTER FILE NO. CV 07-01603-PHX -SRB

Case 2:07-cv-01603-SRB Document 116-2 Filed 11/15/10 Page 46 of 51

21 (Type or print your name here) 22

23 (Capacity of person(s) signing, e.g., 24 Beneficial Purchaser, Executor or Administrator) 25 26 27 28

PROOF OF CLAIM AND RELEASE - 11 - MASTER FILE NO. CV 07-01603-PHX -SRB

Case 2:07-cv-01603-SRB Document 116-2 Filed 11/15/10 Page 47 of 51

1 ACCURATE CLAIMS PROCESSING TAKES A

2 SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF TIME.

3 THANK YOU FOR YOUR PATIENCE. 4 Reminder Checklist: 5 6 1. Please sign the above release and declaration. 7 2. Remember to attach supporting documentation.

8 3. Do not send original stock certificates. 9 4. Keep a copy of your claim form for your records.

10 5. If you desire an acknowledgment of receipt of your claim form, 11 please send it Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested.

12 6. If you move, please send us your new address.

13 These forms and your supporting documentation must be postmarked 14 no later than , 2011. 15 16 17 18 19

20 21 22

23 24

25 26 27 28

PROOF OF CLAIM AND RELEASE - 12 - MASTER FILE NO. CV 07-01603-PHX -SRB Case 2:07-cv-01603-SRB Document 116-2 Filed 11/15/10 Page 48 of 51

Exhibit A-3 Case 2:07-cv-01603-SRB Document 116-2 Filed 11/15/10 Page 49 of 51

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 10 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 11 12 In re LIMELIGHT NETWORKS, INC. ) Master File No. CV07-01603-PHX- SECURITIES LITIGATION ) SRB 13 ) ) 14 This Document Relates to: ) ))CLASS ACTION 15 All Actions ) SUMMARY NOTICE 16 ) )EXHIBIT) A-3 17 )Before:) Hon. Susan R. Bolton 18 ) 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

SUMMARY NOTICE MASTER FILE NO. CV 07-01603-PHX -SRB

Case 2:07-cv-01603-SRB Document 116-2 Filed 11/15/10 Page 50 of 51

SUMMARY NOTICE MASTER FILE NO. CV 07-01603-PHX -SRB

Case 2:07-cv-01603-SRB Document 116-2 Filed 11/15/10 Page 51 of 51

SUMMARY NOTICE 2 MASTER FILE NO. CV 07-01603-PHX -SRB Case 2:07-cv-01603-SRB Document 116-3 Filed 11/15/10 Page 1 of 52

Exhibit 3 Case 2:07-cv-01603-SRB Document 116-3 Filed 11/15/10 Page 2 of 52

-.gAA D ATA Case 2:07-cv-01603-SRB Document 116-3 Filed 11/15/10 Page 3 of 52 A.B. DATA, LTD. Class Action Administration

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 DATA 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. A.B. Data is the fastest-growing company in this industry, with more than $2.5 billion of settlements currently in various stages of administration.

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, totaling a billion dollars annually, and has the capacity to print and mail 500,000 checks in one 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 presettlement phase through notice administration, claims processing, and fund distribution.

a hda to cl assa ct i o n. corn New York I Washington, D.C. I Chicago I West Palm Beach I Milwaukee Case 2:07-cv-01603-SRB Document 116-3 Filed 11/15/10 Page 4 of 52

A.B. Data administers class action cases on schedule and on budget, with accuracy and efficiency. Trust the extraordinary, experienced professional talent at A.B. Data, and retain company services:

Class Action Administration 415-670-9596 A.B. Data, Ltd. 415-553-0776 548 Market Street 414-961-2214 San Francisco, CA 94104 [email protected]

Class Action Administration 646-290-9137 A.B. Data, Ltd. 917-566-1984 244 Madison Avenue, #385 646-290-6070 New York, NY 10016 [email protected]

A.B. DATA, LTD. Page 2 of 50 n ^, andataclassaction.com DATA New York I Washington, D.C. I Chicago I West Palm Beach I Milwaukee Case 2:07-cv-01603-SRB Document 116-3 Filed 11/15/10 Page 5 of 52

TABLE OF CONTENTS

• FACTORS THAT DIFFERENTIATE A.B. DATA

• CLASS ACTION ADMINISTRATION SERVICES • Presettlement Consultation • Notice Administration • Claims Processing • Fund Distribution • Client Portal • Call Center • Secure Environment • Fraud Prevention and Detection • Accountability and Reporting • Environmentally Friendly Business

• NOTABLE CASES

• A.B. DATA’S LEADERSHIP • Jerry Benjamin • Bruce Arbit • Anya Verkhovskaya • Peter L. Smith, Esq. • Stacey B. Fishbein, Esq. • Michelle M. La Count, Esq. • Christina Peters-Stasiewicz • Al Wichtoski, CPA • Shirley Bruggenthies, CPA • REPRESENTATIVE LIST OF CASES

• SPECIAL NOTICE PROJECTS

A.B. DATA, LTD. Page 3 of 50 n ^, andataclassaction.com DATA New York I Washington, D.C. I Chicago I West Palm Beach I Milwaukee Case 2:07-cv-01603-SRB Document 116-3 Filed 11/15/10 Page 6 of 52

FACTORS THAT DIFFERENTIATE A.B. DATA

• A.B. Data’s pricing structure is competitive and transparent, with no hidden fees or unpredictable hourly rates. No additional services or costs are incurred without clients’ prior approval.

• A.B. Data’s in-house team of experienced class action attorneys and certified public accountants is involved in every aspect of the administration, ensuring the delivery of impeccable work product and exemplary service.

• A.B. Data’s administration team is highly responsive to its clients’ needs and always ensures that A.B. Data’s clients’ expectations are not only met, but exceeded in every detail.

• A.B. Data’s notice programs are known worldwide for their innovation, efficiency, and compliance with due process requirements.

• A.B. Data’s customized approach to every case results in quicker distributions, simplified claims processes, and greater costs savings.

• A.B. Data’s in-house printing, mailing, and operational facilities create the highest level of security, streamlined communication, and considerable costs savings.

• A.B. Data’s legal documents are prepared accurately, efficiently, and timely and are designed to withstand legal scrutiny.

• A.B. Data’s exclusive Client Portal provides clients with instant and secure online access to a variety of critical case-specific information.

• A.B. Data provides complimentary class action news and industry updates to ensure clients are informed of the latest developments in the class action industry in a timely manner and on a regular basis.

A.B. DATA, LTD. Page 4 of 50 n ^, andataclassaction.com DATA New York I Washington, D.C. I Chicago I West Palm Beach I Milwaukee Case 2:07-cv-01603-SRB Document 116-3 Filed 11/15/10 Page 7 of 52

• A.B. Data’s cutting-edge information and systems technologies, which were developed by A.B. Data’s exceptional information systems team, enable A.B Data to provide superior quality control and quality assurance.

• A.B. Data’s proprietary online claims submission system permits class members to submit claims using a secure web browser. The system is fast, flexible, and cost-effective.

• A.B. Data’s brand-new call center, which operates 24/7, contains state- of-the-art telecommunications systems designed to meet the requirements of all administration projects.

• A.B. Data’s proprietary fraud detection and prevention database which was developed exclusively to prevent payment of fraudulent claims.

• 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.

• A.B. Data maintains a neutral focus when working with its multiple clients, including class counsel, defense counsel, defendant companies, special masters, and claims-filing services.

A.B. DATA, LTD. Page 5 of 50 n ^, andataclassaction.com DATA New York I Washington, D.C. I Chicago I West Palm Beach I Milwaukee Case 2:07-cv-01603-SRB Document 116-3 Filed 11/15/10 Page 8 of 52

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.

Retaining A.B. Data gives its clients confidence that their case management is beginning on a planned, solid foundation.

• Document analysis and organization.

• Conversion of original documents into an interactive media package.

• Expert reports and testimony on document, process, class, and notice manageability.

• Consultation on proposed plans of allocation and damages analyses by experienced securities litigators and certified public accountants.

• Assistance with “reach and frequency” analysis.

• Consultation regarding design and implementation of preliminary notice programs that are designed to meet legal scrutiny and withstand objections and challenges. • Consultation to determine probable claim rates and settlement structures in an effort to avoid unexpected delays and additional costs that can arise when providing notice and distributing a settlement fund.

A.B. DATA, LTD. Page 6 of 50 n ^, andataclassaction.com DATA New York I Washington, D.C. I Chicago I West Palm Beach I Milwaukee Case 2:07-cv-01603-SRB Document 116-3 Filed 11/15/10 Page 9 of 52

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 Link licensee of various postal products, including NCOA , 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.

• 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 (online, newspaper, magazine, radio, and television). • 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 6,000 domestic and international banks, brokers, and other nominees (for securities class action cases).

A.B. DATA, LTD. Page 7 of 50 n ^, andataclassaction.com DATA New York I Washington, D.C. I Chicago I West Palm Beach I Milwaukee Case 2:07-cv-01603-SRB Document 116-3 Filed 11/15/10 Page 10 of 52

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. The database’s high level of automation allows maximum control and provides a comprehensive and accurate claims solution. The A.B. Data Claims Engine contains the following special features: • Eligibility criteria formula, which allows automatic flagging of claimants who do not meet the established criteria. • High-speed bar-coded claims-processing system. • Complete tracking of all claims administration–related activities. • Claims status reporting. • Case-specific algorithms and formulas for the calculation of individual payments and pro rata distribution. A.B. Data’s proprietary Claims Engine 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 for every case. 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, LTD. Page 8 of 50 n ^, andataclassaction.com DATA New York I Washington, D.C. I Chicago I West Palm Beach I Milwaukee Case 2:07-cv-01603-SRB Document 116-3 Filed 11/15/10 Page 11 of 52

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 requiring only a signature or a complicated form requiring detailed data and supporting documentation, A.B. Data’s claims administrators are claims-processing experts.

• 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. Page 9 of 50 n ^, andataclassaction.com DATA New York I Washington, D.C. I Chicago I West Palm Beach I Milwaukee Case 2:07-cv-01603-SRB Document 116-3 Filed 11/15/10 Page 12 of 52

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.

• Create fund investment strategies. • Provide escrow services. • Ensure secure, in-house check printing. • Provide electronic transfers of cash and/or common stock. • Utilize positive pay. • Maintain records of all distributions and perform daily account reconciliations. • Conduct ongoing quality assurance and control by qualified accounting professionals. • Investigate and attempt to resolve undelivered checks. • Provide detailed reporting, including completion of the standardized fund accounting report (SFAR). • Provide all-inclusive tax and accounting services. • Provide 1099 and W-2 tax reporting. • Monitor outstanding and cleared checks. • Redistribute uncollected funds.

A.B. DATA, LTD. Page 10 of 50 n ^, andataclassaction.com DATA New York I Washington, D.C. I Chicago I West Palm Beach I Milwaukee Case 2:07-cv-01603-SRB Document 116-3 Filed 11/15/10 Page 13 of 52

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. • Obtain details on the settlement fund, including the EIN, the funded date, current monthly and total fees, taxes, withdrawals, deposits, and balance. • For each tax year, check federal and state taxes, return filed date, and accounting notes. • View invoices, amounts paid and outstanding, and total amounts due.

A.B. DATA, LTD. Page 11 of 50 n ^, andataclassaction.com DATA New York I Washington, D.C. I Chicago I West Palm Beach I Milwaukee Case 2:07-cv-01603-SRB Document 116-3 Filed 11/15/10 Page 14 of 52

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.

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.

• Superior customer service. • State-of-the-art telecommunications systems. • Advanced IVR system. • Unparalleled quality assurance and control systems. • TTY for the hearing-impaired. • Case-specific toll-free telephone numbers. • Multilingual customer service representatives.

A.B. DATA, LTD. Page 12 of 50 n ^, andataclassaction.com DATA New York I Washington, D.C. I Chicago I West Palm Beach I Milwaukee Case 2:07-cv-01603-SRB Document 116-3 Filed 11/15/10 Page 15 of 52

SECURE ENVIRONMENT

A.B. Data’s facilities provide the highest level of security and customization of security procedures including:

• Secure Sockets Layer server. • Video monitoring. • Limited physical access to production facilities. • Lockdown mode when checks are printed. • Background checks of key employees completed prior to hire: FBI criminal background check, credit bureau, department of motor vehicles, educational credentials, and past employment verification. • Police response time—two minutes. • Frequency of police patrol—under five minutes. • Disaster recovery plan available upon request.

All claim forms, supporting documentation, and class member correspondence sent to the designated PO box are delivered from the post office to the Claims Preparation Department by A.B. Data’s courier in a secure vehicle. Claim forms are stamped with the date received. Claim forms, supporting documents, and envelopes are bar-coded and scanned into the claims database. Original claim forms, supporting documents, correspondence, and envelopes are stored off-site at an A.B. Data secure facility.

A.B. Data’s Claims Engine is located and stored on A.B. Data’s secure designated SQL server to ensure complete confidentiality and data security. The Claims Engine is backed up twice a day. One set of backup tapes is stored at A.B. Data’s headquarters for immediate access, and the copies are archived at a secure off-site location in accordance with media storage requirements.

A.B. DATA, LTD. Page 13 of 50 n ^, andataclassaction.com DATA New York I Washington, D.C. I Chicago I West Palm Beach I Milwaukee Case 2:07-cv-01603-SRB Document 116-3 Filed 11/15/10 Page 16 of 52

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 constant communication and collaboration with the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), the USPS, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) Criminal Investigation division, and many other governmental agencies in an effort to identify and prevent fraudulent claims from being paid.

A.B. Data has a 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 is based upon an analysis of various 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.

A.B. Data is an industry leader in fraud prevention and detection. As a result, Anya Verkhovskaya, A.B. Data’s Senior Executive Vice President and Chief Operating Officer, was recently chosen by Professor Francis McGovern of Duke University School of Law to spearhead an industry-wide task force on fraud prevention and detection.

A.B. DATA, LTD. Page 14 of 50 n ^, andataclassaction.com DATA New York I Washington, D.C. I Chicago I West Palm Beach I Milwaukee Case 2:07-cv-01603-SRB Document 116-3 Filed 11/15/10 Page 17 of 52

ACCOUNTABILITY AND REPORTING

A.B. Data has the expertise necessary to provide project-management services to ensure that all work is completed timely and accurately. A.B. Data customizes its processes and procedures to ensure that all details of notice administration, claims processing, and fund administration are executed precisely to our client’s specifications.

A.B. Data provides affidavits detailing the methodologies employed in notice administration, claims processing, and fund administration. A.B. Data can also provide expert testimony or audit trail reporting, if requested.

A.B. Data tracks and audits every aspect of daily production including:

• Receipt of files (noting any issues with transmission). • Status reports regarding claims status. • Audited and confirmed record counts. • Confirmation of mailings. • Inventory counts. • Daily production counts reported on a weekly basis.

A.B. Data provides monthly accounting of funds. When fund administration has concluded, a complete financial accounting, including the sources and uses of all funds and a listing of the amounts disbursed by recipient, is provided. A.B. Data maintains records of all disbursements to answer class member inquiries, investigate and resolve undelivered material, monitor outstanding and cleared checks, and maintain mailing and financial databases for an agreed-upon period.

A.B. DATA, LTD. Page 15 of 50 n ^, andataclassaction.com DATA New York I Washington, D.C. I Chicago I West Palm Beach I Milwaukee Case 2:07-cv-01603-SRB Document 116-3 Filed 11/15/10 Page 18 of 52

ENVIRONMENTALLY FRIENDLY BUSINESS

A.B. Data operates a green business, focused on conserving resources and decreasing waste. To that end, A.B. Data is a paperless business. For example, paper claim forms are imaged and stored on A.B. Data’s secure SQL server, and all claims processing is done electronically. In addition, A.B. Data emphasizes the need for recycling and encourages the use of recycled products. A.B. Data’s policies compel employees to turn off their computers when not in use, and email communications are encouraged to the extent possible.

A.B. Data’s new headquarters in Milwaukee were designed with the environment in mind. Upon purchasing the 16-acre campus in September 2007, A.B. Data renovated the 30-year-old building, upgrading its mechanical and electrical systems to optimize efficiency and utilizing natural elements such as cork, bamboo, and concrete. For its efforts, A.B. Data won The Business Journal of Milwaukee’s Real Estate Award for the Best Environmentally Friendly Project.

A.B. DATA, LTD. Page 16 of 50 n ^, andataclassaction.com DATA New York I Washington, D.C. I Chicago I West Palm Beach I Milwaukee Case 2:07-cv-01603-SRB Document 116-3 Filed 11/15/10 Page 19 of 52

NOTABLE CASES

• Holocaust Victim Assets Litigation (Swiss Banks) —$1.25 billion settlement. As a court-appointed notice administrator, A.B. Data played a key role in a worldwide Phase I notice that resulted in the processing of more than 500,000 initial questionnaires. In Phase III, A.B. Data delivered notice to over 10,000 Jewish communities in 109 countries, and A.B. Data administered international help and call centers in Phases I and III that personally assisted more than 100,000 potential claimants. A.B. Data created a class-appropriate notice targeting Romanies (Gypsies) in 48 countries and directed hundreds of staff to communicate orally and directly with Romani communities and individuals. A.B. Data notified more than two million people and, as designated by the International Organization for Migration (IOM), directly assisted more than 22,000 Romanies in 17 countries of central and eastern Europe with claim completion.

• German Forced Labour Compensation Programme (GFLCP): As designated by the IOM, A.B. Data located more than 43,000 Romani survivors in 17 countries of central and eastern Europe who were potentially eligible for humanitarian aid. A.B. Data created a comprehensive database for the GFLCP and the Holocaust Victim Assets Programme and directly assisted more than 11,000 Romanies in eight central and eastern European countries with claim completion.

• Wyatt v. El Paso Corporation—$285 million settlement. • In re Symbol Technologies, Inc. Securities Litigation —$139 million settlement, including electronic stock distribution. • In re Lernout & Hauspie Securities Litigation—$120.5 million settlement. • Perez v. Rent -A-Center, Inc. —$109 million settlement. • In re Reliant Securities Litigation—$75 million settlement. • In re Ready-Mixed Concrete Antitrust Litigation— $45-50 million settlement. • In re Marsh ERISA Litigation—$35 million settlement. • Norflet v. John Hancock Life Insurance Company—$24.4 million settlement. • In re Marine Hose Antitrust Litigation—$21.7 million settlement.

A.B. DATA, LTD. Page 17 of 50 n ^, abdataclassaction.com DATA New York I Washington, D.C. I Chicago I West Palm Beach I Milwaukee Case 2:07-cv-01603-SRB Document 116-3 Filed 11/15/10 Page 20 of 52

A.B. DATA’S LEADERSHIP

A.B. Data’s administration team is composed of the following key executives, who collectively have many decades of experience litigating, settling, and administering class actions:

• Jerry Benjamin, Co-Managing Director, has over 10 years of experience overseeing administration of class action cases. • Anya Verkhovskaya, Senior Executive Vice President and Chief Operating Officer, has over 10 years of experience administering class actions and has overseen hundreds of securities, ERISA, consumer, employment, RESPA, civil rights, environmental, discrimination, and other types of class actions. • Peter L. Smith, Vice President Business Development, oversees A.B. Data’s San Francisco office and spearheads the company’s sales and outreach efforts nationally. Mr. Smith has over 20 years’ experience in the legal industry including as litigator and trial lawyer in the Am Law 100, and has substantive experience in antitrust, complex litigation, mass tort, employment and intellectual property. Moreover, Mr. Smith has had the privilege of bringing professional legal support services to premier law firms and in-house legal departments around the globe. • Michelle M. La Count, Senior Account Executive, is responsible for the day-today aspects of administration and has developed specific expertise in class action administration, having administered over 200 cases during her tenure at A.B. Data. • Stacey B. Fishbein, Senior Executive National Accounts, oversees all national accounts and heads up A.B. Data’s West Palm Beach, Florida, office. Ms. Fishbein was formerly a Senior Associate at Labaton Sucharow LLP and has over eight years of experience litigating, settling, and administering class actions. • Christina Pete rs-Stasi ewi cz, Associate Account Executive, oversees the management of an array of cases, ensuring that each case is exceptionally administered, from notice to disbursement.

A.B. DATA, LTD. Page 18 of 50 n ^, abdataclassaction.com DATA New York I Washington, D.C. I Chicago I West Palm Beach I Milwaukee

Case 2:07-cv-01603-SRB Document 116-3 Filed 11/15/10 Page 21 of 52

JERRY BENJAMIN

Since 1981 Jerry Benjamin has been Co-Managing Director of A.B. Data, an innovative force in class action administration, targeted fundraising communications, business-critical communications, t list management and brokerage services, and direct- marketing services.

A.B. Data’s Class Action Administration company 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.

For over 25 years, A.B. Data’s Targeted Fundraising Communications Group has fostered dedicated partnerships with nonprofit charitable and progressive advocacy organizations, pushing the boundaries of direct- response fundraising and securing the resources they need to fulfill their critical missions. A.B. Data has served as fundraising consultant to the campaigns of over 20 United States senators and more than 30 of the most significant national nonprofit, charitable, and advocacy organizations.

A.B. Data’s Business Critical Communications Group provides statement and transaction mail services with expertise in data management, print and mail or electronic presentment of statements, billing notices, disbursement checks, collection letters, renewal notices, and more. The company has developed systems for large-scale document scanning into fully indexed and searchable databases for government units and Fortune 1000 companies.

A.B. Data’s List Services Division has a history of providing creative solutions and quality service custom-tailored to meet the particular needs of each and every mailer.

A.B. Data’s Direct Marketing Services Group offers a full spectrum of direct-mail outsourcing and database maintenance solutions for business- to-consumer, business-to-business, and fundraising marketers.

A.B. DATA, LTD. Page 19 of 50 n ^, andataclassaction.com DATA New York I Washington, D.C. I Chicago I West Palm Beach I Milwaukee Case 2:07-cv-01603-SRB Document 116-3 Filed 11/15/10 Page 22 of 52

In 1985 Mr. Benjamin cofounded and is currently a principal in Integrated Mail Industries, which has grown to become one of the largest mail- processing facilities in the Midwest. Working 24-7, the company produces nearly four million completed mail packages each day.

Mr. Benjamin also cofounded and grew several Israeli companies, including A.B. Data Israel and TDM, and currently is a shareholder with Haaretz Newspapers, a mailing services and printing company. Mr. Benjamin is also a board member and partner of Asset Development Group, Wisconsin’s largest owner of manufactured housing communities with more than 60 properties and 5,000 tenants, and Home Source One, Wisconsin’s largest seller of new and reconditioned manufactured housing.

Mr. Benjamin received a Bachelor of Arts degree in English literature from Case Western Reserve University in 1975 and a Master’s degree in English from the Harvard University School of Education in 1976. Mr. Benjamin was awarded the Certificate of Advanced Study in 1981.

A.B. DATA, LTD. Page 20 of 50 n ^, andataclassaction.com DATA New York I Washington, D.C. I Chicago I West Palm Beach I Milwaukee

Case 2:07-cv-01603-SRB Document 116-3 Filed 11/15/10 Page 23 of 52

ANYA VERKHOVSKAYA

Anya Verkhovskaya is A.B. Data’s Senior Executive Vice President and Chief Operating Officer. In this role, Ms. Verkhovskaya oversees .^ all aspects of administration to ensure the delivery of impeccable work product and exemplary service and leads a team of business development, legal, accounting, finance, information systems, information technology, claims administration, and facilities and operations professionals.

Having administered over 500 cases, Ms. Verkhovskaya has extensive experience in the administration of class action settlements and the implementation of class action notice programs to various groups in the United States and abroad. Ms. Verkhovskaya has provided expert testimony and affidavits concerning class action notice manageability and adequacy as well as class certification and settlement issues in connection with hundreds of securities, ERISA, consumer, insurance, employment, civil rights, environmental, antitrust, wage and hour, and other types of class actions.

Since joining A.B. Data in the late 1990s, Ms. Verkhovskaya has led A.B. Data to become one of the premier class action administration companies in the country. Counted among the class action cases that A.B. Data has successfully administered are several of the largest securities class action settlements in history. In addition, during the Swiss Banks and other Holocaust-related class actions, Ms. Verkhovskaya served as a consultant to A.B. Data, and her work resulted in reaching out to millions of people who collectively spoke more than 80 languages and lived in 109 countries.

Prior to joining A.B. Data, Ms. Verkhovskaya worked for many years with filmmaker Steven Spielberg, heading up his eastern European and middle Asian operations of the Survivors of the Shoah Visual History Foundation (currently USC Shoah Foundation Institute for Visual History and Education). Ms. Verkhovskaya served as an expert for community outreach in eastern Europe and the countries of the former Soviet Union. During her tenure with Mr. Spielberg, she created an outreach community network in

A.B. DATA, LTD. Page 21 of 50 n ^, andataclassaction.com DATA New York I Washington, D.C. I Chicago I West Palm Beach I Milwaukee Case 2:07-cv-01603-SRB Document 116-3 Filed 11/15/10 Page 24 of 52

more than 20 eastern European and former Soviet Union countries, which resulted in the videotaping of more than 9,000 interviews with Jewish, Romani, and other Holocaust survivors and witnesses. Ms. Verkhovskaya oversaw a multimillion-dollar budget, 14 field offices, and over 1,200 staff members. She delivered and implemented production, research, community outreach/relations, publicity, translation, shipping, accounting, fundraising, data entry, database management, and quality control.

In 2009 and 2010, Ms. Verkhovskaya was named a finalist in the Best Executive—Service Businesses category for the 6 th and 7th annual Stevie Awards for Women in Business. The Stevie Awards are governed by a board of distinguished judges and leading figures in business and recognize outstanding performance in the workplace worldwide. The Stevie Awards were created to honor positive contributions of individuals and organizations in business, and the Stevie is currently one of the world’s most coveted awards.

In early 2010, Ms. Verkhovskaya, a leader in fraud prevention and detection within the class action administration industry, was chosen by Professor Francis McGovern of Duke University School of Law to spearhead an industry-wide task force on fraud prevention and detection.

A.B. DATA, LTD. Page 22 of 50 n ^, andataclassaction.com DATA New York I Washington, D.C. I Chicago I West Palm Beach I Milwaukee Case 2:07-cv-01603-SRB Document 116-3 Filed 11/15/10 Page 25 of 52

PETER L. SMITH, ESQ.

Pete Smith serves as Vice President Business Development for A.B. Data Class Action Administration. His emphasis is fostering the _ continued growth of A.B. Data’s brand and presence in the United States, particularly on the west coast. His efforts are based out of A.B. Data’s -r San Francisco office.

Mr. Smith brings 21 years in the legal industry to bear in his unceasing efforts to ease and improve strategic processes in law firms and in-house counsel departments nationally. The mission, work and reputation of A.B. Data exemplify Pete’s unwavering commitment to excellence and responsiveness in serving his clients.

Prior to joining A.B. Data, Mr. Smith served as National Executive Director for another high profile legal services company, as well as California regional manager for a third. Prior to that, for nearly a decade, Pete served Fortune 50 clients as a litigator and trial lawyer mainly in complex litigation in the context of anti-trust, mass tort, coverage and intellectual property at an AmLaw 100 firm founded and based in San Francisco.

Mr. Smith’s unflagging dedication to bettering the practice of law has led him to devote untold hundreds of pro-bono hours in coaching attorneys in their career goals. In addition, he has been an accomplished motivational speaker for a quarter-century and volunteers weekly with Goodwill Industries and other organizations committed to helping individuals from all professions.

Mr. Smith is a member of the California Bar, a host of national, subject-matter and local bar associations, has started and leads two local networking groups, and is involved in leadership positions in two fraternal organizations. He serves in a variety of capacities in other international and community-based organizations, and maintains several blogs and has self-published a number of books.

Mr. Smith received his JD from USF School of Law (Articles Editor, USF Law Review, AmJur in Legal Ethics, and both in Copyright and Trademark Law under Professor McCarthy) and his BS (Business Administration-International Business) from San José State University. He is also a US Army Veteran, serving in the Military Intelligence Corps with the 101st Airborne Division.

A.B. DATA, LTD. Page 23 of 50 n ^, abdataclassaction.com DATA New York I Washington, D.C. I Chicago I West Palm Beach I Milwaukee Case 2:07-cv-01603-SRB Document 116-3 Filed 11/15/10 Page 26 of 52

STACEY B. FISHBEIN, ESQ.

f.. Stacey B. Fishbein joined A.B. Data in April 2008 and heads up A.B. Data’s West Palm Beach, Florida, office. As Vice President, In-House Counsel, Ms. Fishbein supervises notice and settlement administration projects. Her significant experience in class action litigation and I client service permits her to attend to the specific needs f' of A.B. Data’s clients and ensure the highest level of customer satisfaction.

Ms. Fishbein focused her legal practice on representing individual and institutional investors in complex class actions involving both consumer and securities fraud. Following law school, Ms. Fishbein spent six years at Labaton Sucharow LLP in New York. During her tenure at Labaton Sucharow, Ms. Fishbein played a key role in securing settlements totaling over $500 million in a number of high-profile class actions, including Wyatt v. El Paso Corporation; In re Vesta Insurance Group, Inc. Securities Litigation; Romig v. Jefferson-Pilot Life Insurance Company; and In re Phoenix Leasing Limited Partnership Litigation. Ms. Fishbein also actively litigated several class actions, including In re Take-Two Interactive Software Securities Litigation; Topel v. Reliastar Life Insurance Company; Werner v. Interprise Technology Partners; In re PriceSmart, Inc. Securities Litigation; and Goldman v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company.

Prior to joining A.B. Data, Ms. Fishbein spent two years at the LexisNexis Group, a leading global provider of information management and workflow solutions. While at LexisNexis, Ms. Fishbein worked in the academic market, managing client relationships, developing and implementing sales and marketing strategies, and facilitating workshops on adult learning concepts.

Ms. Fishbein earned a BA from the State University of New York College at Geneseo. She received her JD from Hofstra University School of Law, where she was a member and research editor of the Hofstra Law Review. During law school, Ms. Fishbein served as judicial clerk to Magistrate Judge E. Thomas Boyle in the E.D.N.Y. Ms. Fishbein is the author of Pre-Conviction Mandatory HIV Testing: Rape, AIDS and the Fourth Amendment, published in the Spring 2000 volume of the Hofstra Law Review, 28 Hofstra L. Rev. 835 (2000).

A.B. DATA, LTD. Page 24 of 50 n ^, abdataclassaction.com DATA New York I Washington, D.C. I Chicago I West Palm Beach I Milwaukee

Case 2:07-cv-01603-SRB Document 116-3 Filed 11/15/10 Page 27 of 52

MICHELLE M. LA COUNT, ESQ.

Michelle M. La Count joined A.B. Data in July 2007 as r an Account Executive and was quickly promoted to Senior Account Executive in July 2008 and then Vice President, Case Management in November 2010. While at A.B. Data, Ms. La Count has managed the . administration of hundreds of class actions and, as such, has developed specialized knowledge and j expertise in class action administration. 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 its clients and class members.

Before joining A.B. Data, Ms. La Count served as General Counsel for a privately held investment and property management company. In this role, Ms. La Count reviewed prospectuses and venture capital proposals; handled negotiation and due diligence on multimillion-dollar commercial real estate acquisitions/sales, including those involving REITs; negotiated with banks on various matters including recourse notes and nonrecourse, mortgage-backed securities, refinance packages, security agreements, and lines of credit; and managed ongoing litigation as well as various other projects handled by outside counsel, ensuring deadlines were met and budgets were adhered to in that process.

Prior to that, Ms. La Count advised high–net worth clients on wealth transfer strategies, business succession planning, and trust administration matters. Working with a number of multimillion-dollar estates, she assisted trustees in understanding the Uniform Prudent Investor Act and the requirements it imposed upon them as well as advising them of the tax ramifications of particular investment strategies.

Ms. La Count received her law degree from Marquette University Law School and her undergraduate degree from the University of Wisconsin.

A.B. DATA, LTD. Page 25 of 50 n ^, andataclassaction.com DATA New York I Washington, D.C. I Chicago I West Palm Beach I Milwaukee Case 2:07-cv-01603-SRB Document 116-3 Filed 11/15/10 Page 28 of 52

CHRISTINA PETERS-STASIEWICZ

Christina Peters-Stasiewicz has been with A.B. Data since 2004 and during her tenure has gained extensive experience administering high-volume rryi securities litigations as well as consumer, wage and hour, antitrust, ERISA, product liability, and insurance-related matters. As an Associate Account Executive, Ms. Pete rs-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. Pete rs-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.

Prior to joining A.B. Data, Ms. Pete rs-Stasiewicz held a number of positions in the banking industry and was responsible for operational activities, cash flow and budget management, marketing, and sales. In addition, Ms. Pete rs-Stasiewicz provided ongoing training and team building, coaching, and other managerial functions.

Ms. Peters-Stasiewicz’s exceptional management and organizational abilities have been instrumental in helping A.B. Data become one of the premier class action administration companies in the industry.

A.B. DATA, LTD. Page 26 of 50 n ^, andataclassaction.com DATA New York I Washington, D.C. I Chicago I West Palm Beach I Milwaukee Case 2:07-cv-01603-SRB Document 116-3 Filed 11/15/10 Page 29 of 52

REPRESENTATIVE CLIENT LIST

Abbey Spanier Rodd & Abrams, LLP Abrams & Laster, LLP Adorno & Yoss, PA Akerman Senterfitt Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP Alston & Bird LLP Anania, Bandklayder, Blackwell, Baumgarten, Torricella & Stein, PA Andrew M. Lawler, P.C. Anthony Ostlund Baer & Louwagie PA Arnold & Porter, LLP Ashby & Geddes Baker Botts LLP Ballon Stoll Bader & Nadler Beck, Redden & Secrest Bendinger, Crockett, Peterson & Casey Betts Patterson & Mines, PS Bingham McCutchen LLP Boies Schiller & Flexner LLP Bowman & Brooke, LLP Brady & Associates Briggs and Morgan, PA Brown & Associates, LLC Brown & Dunn, PC Brownstein Hyatt & Farber, PC Buchalter, Hoffman & Dorchak Budd Larner, PC Burdge Law Office Co., LPA Butler Pappas Weihmuller Katz Craig, LLP Cahill Gordon & Reindel LLP Callahan & Martinez, LLC Carlton Fields, PA Carney Williams Bates Bozeman & Pulliam PLLC Chernau, Chaffin & Burnsed PLLC Chitwood Harley & Harnes, LLP Choate Hall & Stewart LLP Ciarrocca & Ciarrocca Clark & Martino, PA Clifford Chance US LLP Cohen & Malad, LLP Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC Cohn Lifland Pearlman Herrmann & Knopf, LLP Conroy, Simberg, Ganon, Krevans, Abel, Lurvey, Morrow & Schefer, PA Cooley Godward Kronish LLP Covington & Burling, LLP Craig E. Rothburd, PA Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP Crowley Barrett & Karaba, Ltd. Davis Polk & Wardwell

A.B. DATA, LTD. Page 27 of 50 n ^, abdataclassaction.com DATA New York I Washington, D.C. I Chicago I West Palm Beach I Milwaukee Case 2:07-cv-01603-SRB Document 116-3 Filed 11/15/10 Page 30 of 52

Day Pitney, LLP de la Parte & Gilbert, PA Debevoise & Plimpton LLP Dechert, LLP Dewey & LeBoeuf LLP Diab & Bock, LLC Dickstein Shapiro LLP Dilworth Paxon LLP Donelon, P.C. Dorsey & Whitney, LLP Douglas Bowdoin, PA Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP Duane Morris LLP Edelman, Combs, Latturner & Goodwin, LLC Edwards & Angell, LLP Eisenstadt Law Group, PA Elliot J. Wiesner, Esq. Entin, Della Fera & Greenberg, PA Entwistle & Cappucci LLP Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP Federman & Sherwood Feldman, Shepherd, Wohlgelernter, Tanner & Weinstock Fenwick & West LLP Ferry Labella & Zucker L.L.C. Figari & Davenport, LLP Finkelstein Thompson Flynn, Gaskins & Bennett, LLP Fowler White Boggs, PA Franke, Schultz & Mullen, PC Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson LLP Fulbright & Jaworski LLP Gadsby Hannah LLP Gaebe, Mullen, Antonelli, Esco & DiMatteo Gainey & McKenna Galex Wolf, LLC Gardy & Notis, LLP Garwin Gerstein & Fisher, LLP Gary J. Takacs, PA Gibbs & Bruns, LLP Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, LLP Giskan, Sologaroff & Anderson, LLP Glass, Phillips & Murray Gravely & Pearson, LLP Green & Pagano, LLP Greenberg Traurig, LLP Groom Law Group, Chartered Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP Hardin, Jesson & Terry, PLC Harwood Feffer LLP Haynes and Boone, LLP Heller Ehrman, LLP Hill Wallack LLP

A.B. DATA, LTD. Page 28 of 50 n ^, abdataclassaction.com DATA New York I Washington, D.C. I Chicago I West Palm Beach I Milwaukee Case 2:07-cv-01603-SRB Document 116-3 Filed 11/15/10 Page 31 of 52

Hill, Ward & Henderson, PA Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP Hoffman & Lazear Hogan & Hartson LLP Holland & Knight LLP Hollis & Wright, PC Hopper & Blackwell, PC Hughes Hubbard & Reed LLP Irwin Popkin, Esq. Izard Nobel LLP James, Hoyer, Newcomer & Smiljanich, P.A. Jenner & Block, LLP Jones Day Jorden Burt LLP Kahn Gauthier Swick, LLC Kantrowitz, Goldhamer & Graifman Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP Keller Rohrback L.L.P. Kenny Nachwalter, PA Kershaw, Cutter & Ratinoff, LLP King & Spalding LLP Kirby McInerney LLP Kirby Noonan Lance & Hoge LLP Kirkland & Ellis, LLP Klafter, Olsen & Lesser LLP Kohn, Swift & Graf, PC Kutak Rock LLP L’Abbate Balkan Colavita & Contini Labaton Sucharow LLP Lambert & Weiss Lasky & Rifkind, Ltd. Latham & Watkins LLP Law Office of Bohdan Neswiacheny Law Office of Glen H. Chulsky Law Office of William Riback Law Offices of Dalinda B. Garcia, PC Law Offices of J. Mitchell Clark Law Offices of James V. Bashian, P.C. Law Offices of Marc B. Kramer, PC Lawson & Weitzen, LLP Leland l. Greene, Esq. Levi & Korsinsky, LLP Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP Lindquist & Vennum PLLP Litchfield Cavo LLP Lite DePalma Greenberg & Rivas, LLC Littler Mendelson Locks Law Firm, LLP Lord, Bissell & Brook, LLP Lowenstein Sandler PC Ludwig Law Firm, PLC M. Daniel Hughes, Esq.

A.B. DATA, LTD. Page 29 of 50 n ^, abdataclassaction.com DATA New York I Washington, D.C. I Chicago I West Palm Beach I Milwaukee Case 2:07-cv-01603-SRB Document 116-3 Filed 11/15/10 Page 32 of 52

Mager & Goldstein LLP Malakoff Doyle & Finberg, PC Malesovas & Martin Mandell, Menkes & Surdyk, LLC Martin, Pringle, Oliver, Wallace & Bauer, LLP McKenna Long & Aldridge, LLP Mehri & Skalet, PLLC Melick, Porter & Shea, LLP Melito & Adolfsen Milberg LLP Miller, Canfield, Paddock and Stone Miller, Hamilton, Snider & Odom, LLC Mitchell, Blackstock, Barnes, Wagoner, Ivers & Sneddon, PLLC Mitchell, Williams, Selig, Gates & Woodyard, PLLC Moore Ingram Johnson and Steele, LLP Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell Morrison & Foerster LLP Morvillo, Abramowitz, Grand, Iason, Anello & Bohrer, P.C. Motley Rice LLC Munley, Munley & Cartwright, PC National Consumer Law Center Neiman & Neiman New York Secretary of Labor Nixon Peabody LLP Nobel Izard, PC Nolan, Cadell & Reynolds, PA Nutter McClennen & Fish LLP O’Donnell & Shaeffer LLP O’Melveny & Myers L.L.P. Oats & Hudson Office of the Attorney General of New York Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP Paul S. Rothstein, Esq. Paul, Hastings, Janofsky & Walker LLP Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP Pepper Hamilton LLP Perkins Coie LLP Pillsbury Winthrop LLP Podvey Meanor Catenacci Hildner Cocoziello & Chattman, PC Pomerantz Haudek Block Grossman & Gross LLP Preti, Flaherty Beliveau & Pachios LLP Proskauer Rose LLP Provost Umphrey Law Firm, LLP Puls, Taylor & Woodson, LLP Quarles & Brady LLP Ratliff Law Firm, PLLC Reed Smith LLP Rissman, Barrett, Hurt, Donahue, & McLain, PA Robbins Umeda & Fink, LLP Robert K. Eddy & Associates, PA Robins, Kaplan, Miller & Ciresi, LLP

A.B. DATA, LTD. Page 30 of 50 n ^, abdataclassaction.com DATA New York I Washington, D.C. I Chicago I West Palm Beach I Milwaukee Case 2:07-cv-01603-SRB Document 116-3 Filed 11/15/10 Page 33 of 52

Robinson, Bradshaw & Hinson, PA Roddy Klein & Ryan Ronald L. Lueddeke, Attorney at Law Sacher, Zelman, Van Sant, Paul, Beiley, Hartman, Rolnick and Greif, PA Sanford, Wittels & Heisler, LLP Sarraf Gentile LLP Saxena White P.A. Schoengold Sporn Laitman & Lometti, PC Schwartz Semerdjian Haile Ballard & Cauley LLP Securities and Exchange Commission Severson & Werson Seyfarth Shaw, LLP Shalov Stone Bonner & Rocco LLP Sheehan Phinney Bass & Green Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP Sichenzia Ross Ference Friedman LLP Sidley Austin Brown & Wood, LLP Sills Cummis Epstein & Gross, PC Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom, LLP Sly James Firm, PC Smith Katzenstein & Furlow Smyser Kaplan & Veselka, LLP Sonnenschein Nath & Rosenthal LLP Speights Law Firm, LLP Spiro Moss LLP Sprenger & Lang, PLLC Squitieri & Fearon, LLP Steel Hector & Davis LLP Steptoe & Johnson LLP Stevens, McGhee, Morgan, Lennon & Toll, LLP Stillman, Friedman & Shechtman, P.C. Stites & Harrison Stokes Bartholomew Evans & Petree, PA Stull Stull & Brody Sullivan & Cromwell LLP Sulloway & Hollis, PLLC Susman Godfrey, LLP Swidler Berlin Shereff Friedman LLP The Barnes Law Group, LLC The Consumer Advocacy Center, PC The Jeeves Law Group, PA The Law Office of Edward A. Broderick The Law Office of Matthew P. McCue The Law Offices of Brian L. Weakland The Lee Firm The Powell Law Firm The Weinstein Law Firm The Weiser Law Firm, PC Thierman Law Firm Thompson Hine LLP Thompson Wigdor and Gilly

A.B. DATA, LTD. Page 31 of 50 n ^, abdataclassaction.com DATA New York I Washington, D.C. I Chicago I West Palm Beach I Milwaukee Case 2:07-cv-01603-SRB Document 116-3 Filed 11/15/10 Page 34 of 52

Timan & Walsh, LLP Travis & Calhoun, PC Trief & Olk Troutman Sanders LLP TXU Legal Tyson & Millsaps LLP Vinson & Elkins LLP Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz Walfish & Noonan PC Ware, Snow, Fogel & Jackson, LLP Wechsler Harwood LLP Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP Weltman, Weinberg & Reis Co., LPA Westrup Klick, LLP Wheeler Trigg Kennedy LLP White & Case LLP White & MacDonald, LLP Williams Cuker Berezofsky Williams, Kastner & Gibbs, PLLC Willkie Farr & Gallagher LLP Wilmer Hale Wilson Elser Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, PC Winstead PC Winston & Strawn LLP Wites & Kapetan, P.A. Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP Wolf Popper, LLP Wong Fleming, P.C. Wooden & McLaughlin, LLP Zimmerman Reed, PLLP Zwerling, Schachter & Zwerling, LLP

A.B. DATA, LTD. Page 32 of 50 n ^, abdataclassaction.com DATA New York I Washington, D.C. I Chicago I West Palm Beach I Milwaukee Case 2:07-cv-01603-SRB Document 116-3 Filed 11/15/10 Page 35 of 52

REPRESENTATIVE LIST OF CASES

Case Plaintiffs’ Counsel Defense Counsel

In re AAIPHARMA, INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION Labaton Sucharow LLP Alston & Bird LLP Robinson, Bradshaw & Hinson, PA Stevens, McGhee, Morgan, Lennon & Toll, LLP The Law Office of Edward A. Melick, Porter & Shea, THOMAS MULHERN, individually and on behalf of a class Broderick LLP of all persons and entities similarly situated v. JOHN G. MACLEOD d/b/a ABC MORTGAGE COMPANY The Law Office of Matthew P. McCue CRISTIAN GUARDADO FRANCO v. ACE PARKING Spiro Moss LLP Schwartz Semerdjian MANAGEMENT, INC. Haile Ballard & Cauley LLP In re AFFILIATED COMPUTER SYSTEMS ERISA Gainey & McKenna Alston & Bird LLP LITIGATION Stull Stull & Brody In re AIG ERISA LITIGATION Keller Rohrback LLP Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP Wolf Popper LLP Boies Schiller & Flexner Squitieri & Fearon, LLP LLP Harwood Feffer LLP Morrison & Foerster LLP Winston & Strawn LLP Wachtell Lipton Rosen & Katz In re AIRGATE PCS, INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION Abraham Fruchter & Twersky LLP Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP Chitwood Harley & Harnes, LLP King & Spalding LLP Troutman Sanders LLP LOUIE ALAKAYAK, et al. v. ALL ALASKAN SEAFOODS, Susman Godfrey, LLP Perkins Coie LLP INC., et al. In re AMERICAN ITALIAN PASTA COMPANY Pomerantz Haudek Block Davis Polk & Wardwell SECURITIES LITIGATION Grossman & Gross LLP STEPHEN AND ANNE PARKER, JULIE COX, WILLIAM The Barnes Law Group, LLC Moore Ingram Johnson AND SHARON ROLADER, individually and on behalf of all and Steele, LLP others similarly situated v. AMERICAN MEDICAL Hollis & Wright, PC SECURITY GROUP, INC., a corporation; UNITED WISCONSIN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, a corporation; TONY KEITH, CHESTER SMALLWOOD, and DARREL BLAIR, licensed agents, individually and as co- representatives of a defendant class of others similarly situated

A.B. DATA, LTD. Page 33 of 50 n ^, abdataclassaction.com DATA New York I Washington, D.C. I Chicago I West Palm Beach I Milwaukee Case 2:07-cv-01603-SRB Document 116-3 Filed 11/15/10 Page 36 of 52

Case Plaintiffs’ Counsel Defense Counsel

CANDACE L. HILL V. AMERICAN MEDICAL SECURITY Malesovas & Martin Figari & Davenport, LLP LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY and TAXPAYERS NETWORK, INC. In re ANDRX CORPORATION, INC., TAZTIA XT Carney Williams Bates Bozeman Holland & Knight LLP SECURITIES LITIGATION & Pulliam PLLC Schoengold Sporn Laitman & Lometti, PC Stull, Stull & Brody In re: ASSICURAZIONI GENERALI S.PA HOLOCAUST Anderson Kill & Olick, PC Skadden, Arps, Slate, INSURANCE LITIGATION Meagher & Flom, LLP Heller Ehrman, LLP Kohn, Swift & Graf, PC Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP FW TRANSPORTATION, INC. v. ASSOCIATES Smyser Kaplan & Veselka Winstead PC COMMERCIAL CORPORATION RAUL CERDA & MARIA G. CERDA v. ASSOCIATES Law Offices of Dalinda B. Garcia, Winstead PC FIRST CAPITAL CORPORATION PC Law Offices of J. Mitchell Clark The Lee Firm S. PARKER HARDWARE MFG. CORP, on behalf of itself Cohn Lifland Pearlman Herrmann & Day Pitney, LLP and all others similarly situated v. AT&T CORP. Knopf, LLP Green & Pagano, LLP Kantrowitz, Goldhamer & Graifman YOSEF YARIV, on behalf of himself and all others similarly Cohn Lifland Pearlman Herrmann & Day Pitney LLP situated v. AT&T CORP., and SAM’S CLUB EAST, INC. Knopf LLP and SAM’S CLUB WEST, INC. Kutak Rock LLP Paul S. Rothstein, Esq. Trief & Olk MICHAEL ALAN HAMILTON, on behalf of himself and all Donelon, PC Brown & Dunn, PC others similarly situated v. ATX SERVICES, INC. OPEN MRI OF PINELLAS, INC., as assignee of Edward Clark & Martino, PA Gaebe, Mullen, Antonelli, Richards, individually, and on behalf of all those similarly Esco & DiMatteo situated v. ATLANTA CASUALTY INSURANCE Eisenstadt Law Group, PA COMPANY MISTY AND LUIS ARIAS, et al. v. AWARD HOMES, INC., Timan & Walsh, LLP Bowman & Brooke, LLP an unknown business entity, and DOES 1 through 100 GAUTAM PATEL, et al. v. BALUCHI’S INDIAN Giskan, Sologaroff & Anderson, Thompson Wigdor and RESTAURANT, et al. LLP Gilly In re BEAZER HOMES USA, INC. ERISA LITIGATION Barroway, Topaz Kessler Meltzer Cravath, Swaine & Moore & Check, LLP LLP Keller Rohrback L.L.P. Troutman Sanders LLP

A.B. DATA, LTD. Page 34 of 50 n abdataclassaction.com ro, DATA New York I Washington, D.C. I Chicago I West Palm Beach I Milwaukee Case 2:07-cv-01603-SRB Document 116-3 Filed 11/15/10 Page 37 of 52

Case Plaintiffs’ Counsel Defense Counsel

ESTATE OF MITCHELL HAMPTON, Deceased, et al. v. Carney Williams Bates Bozeman & Hardin, Jesson & Terry, BEVERLY ENTERPRISES - ARKANSAS, INC. d/b/a Pulliam PLLC PLC Beverly Healthcare - Monticello and Beverly Healthcare - Ludwig Law Firm, PLC Mitchell, Williams, Selig, Warren; Beverly Enterprises, Inc., and Beverly Health and Gates & Woodyard, PLLC Rehabilitation Services, Inc. Mitchell, Blackstock, Barnes, Wagoner, Ivers & Sneddon, PLLC and VERA COONEY AND EULA MAE ALLEN, et al. v. BEVERLY ENTERPRISES, INC.; BEVERLY HEALTH AND REHABILITATION SERVICES, INC.; and BEVERLY ENTERPRISES – ARKANSAS, INC. d/b/a REGIONAL NURSING CENTER OF BRYANT In re BIGBAND NETWORKS, INC. SECURITIES Kahn Gauthier Swick, LLC Wilson Sonsini Goodrich LITIGATION & Rosati PC Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP RANDAL S. BRAGG, et al. v. BILL HEARD CHEVROLET, Clark & Martino, PA Carlton Fields, PA INC. – PLANT CITY

In re BISYS SECURITIES LITIGATION Carney Williams Bates Bozeman Cahill Gordon & Reindel & Pulliam PLLC LLP Kirby McInerney LLP Jenner & Block, LLP Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP WILLIAM VON FRIEWALDE, DAVE HARTMAN, MARK The Powell Law Firm Figari & Davenport, LLP COMPAS, AND ROBERT BEVINS v. BOEING Speights Law Firm, LLP AEROSPACE OPERATIONS, INC. The Weinstein Law Firm

In re BP PRUDHOE BAY ROYALTY TRUST SECURITIES Zwerling, Schachter & Zwerling, Sullivan & Cromwell LLP LITIGATION LLP EDWARD SODEN, on his behalf and on behalf of all others Galex Wolf, LLC Elliot J. Wiesner, Esq. similarly situated v. EAST BRUNSWICK BUICK-PONTIAC- Mehri & Skalet, PLLC GMC and John Doe individuals and corporation and Ronald L. Lueddeke, Attorney at Law JOHN J. WENGER, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. BRUNSWICK BUICK PONTIAC GMC, INC., d/b/a EAST BRUNSWICK BUICK PONTIAC GMC, EAST BRUNSWICK AUTO GROUP, INC., EAST BRUNSWICK ONLINE, and other trade names; OTIS THORNTON, KEITH WALKER; GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION; John Does 1-10; and ABC Corporations and ABC Corporations 1-10 GWEN CARLSON, et al. v. C.H. ROBINSON Sprenger & Lang, PLLC Robins, Kaplan, Miller & WORLDWIDE, INC. Ciresi, LLP Seyfarth Shaw, LLP MANN & COMPANY, PC v. C-TECH INDUSTRIES, INC. The Law Office of Edward A. Duane Morris LLP Broderick The Law office of Matthew P. McCue

A.B. DATA, LTD. Page 35 of 50 n abdataclassaction.com ro, DATA New York I Washington, D.C. I Chicago I West Palm Beach I Milwaukee Case 2:07-cv-01603-SRB Document 116-3 Filed 11/15/10 Page 38 of 52

Case Plaintiffs’ Counsel Defense Counsel

In re CALPINE CORPORATION ERISA LITIGATION Barroway Topaz Kessler Meltzer Morrison & Foerster LLP & Check, LLP Latham & Watkins LLP THOMAS J. PAYSON, et al. v. CAPITAL ONE HOME Brady & Associates Paul, Hastings, Janofsky LOANS, LLC, et al. & Walker LLP Donelon, PC In re CARDINAL HEALTH, INC. ERISA LITIGATION Nobel Izard, PC Jones Day Stull, Stull & Brody GERALD AND BIANCA ZELNIK, individually and on behalf White & MacDonald, LLP Bowman & Brooke, LLP of the Class v. CITATION HOMES, INC., a California corporation; and SCS DEVELOPMENT CO., et al. JUSTIN MEADOWS, on behalf of himself and all others Cohen & Malad, LLP Franke, Schultz & Mullen, similarly situated v. CLEARWATER BAY MARKETING, PC LLC d/b/a SANDPOINT CAPITAL, LLC NANCY CANNING AND DANIELLE THOMAS, et al. v. Lite DePalma Greenberg & Rivas, Drinker Biddle & Reath CONCORD EFS, INC. LLC LLP Walfish & Noonan PC Sidley Austin Brown & Wood, LLP Wolf Popper, LLP ROMEO R. CRUZ v. CONDOR CAPITAL CORPORATION Galex Wolf, LLC Reed Smith LLP In re CONNETICS SECURITIES LITIGATION Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Fenwick & West LLP Grossmann LLP In re THE CONSUMERS TRUST Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP Fulbright & Jaworski LLP DORIS DRURY, et al. v. COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS, James, Hoyer, Newcomer & Akerman Senterfitt INC., et al. Smiljanica PA In re CP SHIPS LTD. SECURITIES LITIGATION Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, PLLC Wharton & Garrison LLP Barroway Topaz Kessler Meltzer & Check, LLP ROY VEAL v. CROWN AUTO DEALERSHIPS, INC. Clark & Martino, PA Carlton Fields, PA Craig E. Rothburd, PA Gary J. Takacs, PA The Jeeves Law Group, PA The Law Offices of Brian L. Weakland THE LOUISIANA MUNICIPAL POLICE EMPLOYEES’ Berman DeValerio Skadden, Arps, Slate, RETIREMENT SYSTEM, THE LOUISIANA SHERIFFS’ Meagher & Flom LLP PENSION & RELIEF FUND AND THE CITY OF MIAMI Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP GENERAL EMPLOYEES’ & SANITATION EMPLOYEES’ RETIREMENT TRUST, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED v. DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP HANS A. QUAAK, ATTILIO PO and KARL LEIBINGER, on Berman DeValerio Clifford Chance US LLP behalf of themselves and those similarly situated v. DEXIA, S.A. and DEXIA BANK BELGIUM (f/k/a ARTESIA Carney Williams Bates Bozeman BANKING CORP., SA) &Pulliam PLLC Shalov Stone Bonner & Rocco LLP

A.B. DATA, LTD. Page 36 of 50 n ^, abdataclassaction.com DATA New York I Washington, D.C. I Chicago I West Palm Beach I Milwaukee Case 2:07-cv-01603-SRB Document 116-3 Filed 11/15/10 Page 39 of 52

Case Plaintiffs’ Counsel Defense Counsel

IN RE DIEBOLD ERISA LITIGATION Barroway Topaz Kessler Meltzer & Morgan, Lewis & Bockius Check, LLP LLP Harwood Feffer LLP Jones Day Izard Nobel LLP Stull, Stull & Brody FAMILY OPEN MRI, INCORPORATED, as assignee of Clark & Martino, PA Butler Pappas Weihmuller MARTHA PULIDO, individually, and on behalf of all those Katz Craig, LLP de la Parte & Gilbert, PA similarly situated v. DIRECT GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY The Jeeves Law Group, PA JANICE H. WELLS v. DTD ENTERPRISES, et al. Galex Wolf, LLC Ballon Stoll Bader & Nadler In re DURA PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. SECURITIES Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Paul, Hastings, Janofsky LITIGATION Grossmann LLP & Walker LLP Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC In re ELECTRONIC DATA SYSTEMS CORP. ERISA Susman Godfrey LLP Proskauer Rose LLP LITIGATION OSCAR WYATT, et al. v. EL PASO CORPORATION Berman DeValerio Beck, Redden & Secrest Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Gibbs & Bruns, LLP Grossmann LLP Haynes and Boone, LLP Labaton Sucharow LLP Hughes Hubbard & Reed LLP Smyser Kaplan & Veselka, LLP Susman Godfrey LLP BRET ROBERT OSBORN, MICHAEL PFAFF, KATHLEEN Hoffman & Lazear Paul, Hastings, Janofsky ANN PFAFF AND MARTY GAYLE OSBORN, on behalf of & Walker, LLP Thierman Law Firm themselves, the general public, and all others similarly situated v. EMC CORPORATION, and Does 1 through 50

MOIRA GILLEY, on behalf of herself and all others similarly Clark & Martino, PA Conroy, Simberg, Ganon, situated v. ERNIE HAIRE FORD, INC. Krevans, Abel, Lurvey, Craig E. Rothburd, PA Morrow & Schefer, PA Gary Takacs, PA The Jeeves Law Group, PA The Law Offices of Brian L. Weakland LAURENCE PASKOWITZ on behalf of himself and all Federman & Sherwood Ratliff Law Firm, PLLC other similarly situated, et al. v. ERNST & YOUNG, LLP Barroway Topaz Kessler Meltzer & Check, LLP RICHARD LONG, On Behalf of Himself and All Others Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Latham & Watkins LLP Similarly Situated v. ESCHELON TELECOM, INC. Robbins LLP CLIFFORD D. WILLIAMS, RICHARD A. SMITH, LOUIS L. MASSARO, MARK E. NUNNELLY, MARVIN MOSES, JAMES P. TENBROEK and IAN K. LORING

A.B. DATA, LTD. Page 37 of 50 n abdataclassaction.com ro, DATA New York I Washington, D.C. I Chicago I West Palm Beach I Milwaukee

Case 2:07-cv-01603-SRB Document 116-3 Filed 11/15/10 Page 40 of 52

Case Plaintiffs’ Counsel Defense Counsel

In re FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE ASSOCIATION Harwood Feffer LLP O’Melveny & Myers L.L.P. SECURITIES, DERIVATIVE, AND “ERISA” LITIGATION CHARLES B. COTTEN, JR. and DEBORAH E. COTTEN, The Law Offices of Brian L. Hill, Ward & Henderson and NARSULLAH A. FAROOQUI, and ZAHRA F. Weakland FAROOQUI, individually, and on behalf of all those similarly situated vs. FERMAN MANAGEMENT SERVICES Clark & Martino, PA CORPORATION, , FERMAN MOTOR CAR COMPANY, Gary J. Tackacs, PA INC., FERMAN CHRYSLER-DODGE-JEEP OF WAUCHULA, INC. d/b/a FERMAN OF WAUCHULA, The Jeeves Law Group, PA FERMAN JEEP, INC., FERMAN FORD, INC., and Robert K. Eddy & Associates, PA SUNSHINE CHEVROLET-OLDSMOBILE OF TARPON SPRINGS, INC. THOMAS BURNS and MARK LARSEN v. FIRST The Consumer Advocacy Center, Crowley Barrett & AMERICAN BANK PC Karaba, Ltd. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION v. GEN- Securities and Exchange Law Office of Joel L. SEE CAPITAL CORPORATION a/k/a GEN UNLIMITED Commission Daniels and RICHARD S. PICCOLI SARAH MARTIN AND JEFFREY S. MARTIN v. FOSTER Feldman Shepherd Wohlgelernter Arnold & Porter LLC WHEELER ENERGY CORPORATION Tanner & Weinstock Munley, Munley & Cartwright, PC JOSEPH MAYES, et al. v. THE GEO GROUP, INC. Brown & Associates, LLC Littler Mendelson Donelon, P.C. VASUKI PARTHIBAN v. GMAC MORTGAGE Douglas Bowdoin, PA Lord, Bissell & Brook, CORPORATION, D/B/A DITECH.COM LLP James, Hoyer, Newcomer & Smiljanich, PA Kirby Noonan Lance & Hoge LLP SHARON PETTWAY and MARSHA HUBBARD, National Consumer Law Center Lawson & Weitzen, LLP individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. HARMON LAW OFFICES, PC Roddy Klein & Ryan ULTRA OPEN MRI CORPORATION, as assignee, The Jeeves Law Group PA Fowler White Boggs, PA individually, and on behalf of all those similarly situated v. HARTFORD CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY BESSIE BROWN v. HAYT, HAYT & LANDAU, LLC Law Office of Glen H. Chulsky L’Abbate Balkan Colavita & Contini Galex Wolf, LLC DOUGLAS J. COPPESS, Individually and on behalf of all Gainey & McKenna Alston & Bird LLP others similarly situated v. HEAL THWAYS, INC., BEN R. LEEDLE, JR., THOMAS G. CIGARRAN, JOHN A. WICKENS, HENRY D. HERR, WARREN NEEL, WILLIAM C. O’NEIL, JR., JAY C. BISGARD, JOHN W. BALLA TINE, MARY JANE ENGLAND, ALISON TAUNTON-RIGBY, L. BEN LYTLE, MARY A. CHAPUT, ALFRED LUMSDAINE, BETTY ANN LAY, AMY MOORE, KEITH BRALY, GLENN HARGREAVES, HANS BERTIL WESTIN, CLAIBORNE RICHARDS, JERRY ARMSTRONG, and JOHN DOE 1-10

A.B. DATA, LTD. Page 38 of 50 n abdataclassaction.com ro, DATA New York I Washington, D.C. I Chicago I West Palm Beach I Milwaukee

Case 2:07-cv-01603-SRB Document 116-3 Filed 11/15/10 Page 41 of 52

Case Plaintiffs’ Counsel Defense Counsel

In re HEARST-ARGYLE SHAREHOLDER LITIGATION Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP Clifford Chance US LLP Gardy & Notis, LLP Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP Saxena White P.A. Wachtel, Lipton, Rosen & Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman Katz & Herz LLP Weiser Law Firm PC MICHAEL WALKER v. HILL WALLACK LLP Galex Wolf, LLC Hill Wallack LLP Law Office of Glen H. Chulsky KENNETH OLIVO and KATHY OLIVO, individually and on Leland l. Greene, Esq. Reed Smith LLP behalf of all others similarly situated v. HOMECOMINGS Irwin Popkin, Esq. FINANCIAL LLC HUDSON UNITED BANK v. WENDY D. CHASE Galex Wolf, LLC Day Pitney, LLP In re ICG COMMUNICATIONS, INC. SECURITIES Berman DeValerio O’Melveny & Myers LLP LITIGATION Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Brownstein Hyatt & Grossmann LLP Farber, PC THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON HOLOCAUST Plaintiffs’ Executive Committee ERA INSURANCE CLAIMS (ICHEIC) VALUEPOINT PARTNERS, INC., on behalf of itself and all Carney Williams Bates Bozeman Gibson Dunn & Crutcher others similarly situated v. ICN PHARMACEUTICALS, & Pulliam PLLC LLP INC., MILAN PANIC, RICHARD A. MEIER, JOHN E. GIORDANI, NORMAN BARKER, JR., BIRCH E. BAYH, O’Donnell &Shaeffer EDWARD A. BURKHARDT, ALAN F. CHARLES, RONALD LLP R. FOGLEMAN, ROGER GUILLEMIN, M.D., Ph.D., ADAM Sheppard Mullin Richter JERNEY, JEAN- FRANCOIS KURTZ, STEVEN J. LEE, & Hampton LLP STEPHEN D. MOSES and ROSEMARY TOMICH Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP In re INFOSONICS SECURITIES LITIGATION Klafter Olsen & Lesser LLP Latham & Watkins LLP Berger & Montague, PC In re INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES CORP. Klafter Olsen & Lesser LLP Cravath, Swaine & SECURITIES LITIGATION Moore LLP Labaton Sucharow LLP Barroway Topaz Kessler Meltzer & Check, LLP TERRY P. SILKE, on behalf of himself and all others Cohen & Malad, LLP Briggs and Morgan, PA similarly situated v. IRWIN MORTGAGE CORPORATION Wooden & McLaughlin, LLP AARON LEHMANN v. STEVEN GLUCKSTERN, ANDRE Gardy & Notis, LLP Ferry Labella & Zucker A. DIMINO, DAVID SALOFF, KENNETH S. L.L.C. Law Offices of James V. Bashian, ABRAMOWITZ, PAMELA J. NEWMAN, JEFFREY A. TISCHLER, IVIVI TECHNOLOGIES, LLC, AJAX CAPITAL P.C. Lowenstein Sandler PC LLC and IVIVI TECHNOLOGIES, INC.

MERLE NORFLET, as Fiduciary over the Person and Mehri & Skalet, PLLC Jorden Burt LLP Estate of Maggie Norflet, on behalf of Maggie Norflet, on Klafter, Olsen & Lesser LLP behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. JOHN Day Pitney LLP HANCOCK LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY

A.B. DATA, LTD. n Page 39 of 50 p1 , abdataclassaction.com DATA New York I Washington, D.C. I Chicago I West Palm Beach I Milwaukee

Case 2:07-cv-01603-SRB Document 116-3 Filed 11/15/10 Page 42 of 52

Case Plaintiffs’ Counsel Defense Counsel

ANDREW PALIOTTO, et al. v. THE JOHNNY ROCKETS Sanford, Wittels & Heisler, LLP Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, GROUP, INC. LLP RAMON BLANCO v. KEYBANK USA, N.A., et al. Clark & Martino, PA Nixon Peabody LLP James, Hoyer, Newcomer & Thompson Hine LLP Smiljanich, P.A. Burdge Law Office Co., LPA In re KING PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. SECURITIES Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Davis Polk & Wardwell LITIGATION Grossmann LLP Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher Chernau, Chaffin & Burnsed PLLC LLP TODD HOLLEY, individually and on behalf of all those Carney Williams Bates Bozeman Glass, Phillips & Murray similarly situated v. KITTY HAWK, INC., M. TOM & Pulliam PLLC CHRISTOPHER, RICHARD WADSWORTH and CONRAD Mandell, Menkes & KALITTA Milberg LLP Surdyk, LLC Miller, Canfield, Paddock and Stone Winstead Sechrest & Minick PC BARBARA A. MANN AND JOHN W. MANN, individually Anderson & Wanca Figari & Davenport, LLP and as the representatives of a class of similarly situated persons v. LAWYERS TITLE INSURANCE Diab & Bock, LLC CORPORATION Edelman, Combs, Latturner & Goodwin, LLC and THADDEUS M. ROLARK AND ANTOINETTE ROLARK, individually and as the representatives of a class of similarly situated persons v. LAWYERS TITLE INSURANCE CORPORATION and MARTIN ACEVEDO, individually and as the representative of a class of similarly situated persons v. LAWYERS TITLE INSURANCE CORPORATION In re LDK SOLAR SECURITIES LITIGATION Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll Latham & Watkins PLLC STACY DeCARIO, individually, on behalf of other similarly Kirkland & Ellis, LLP Westrup Klick, LLP situated, and as a private attorney general on behalf of the general public v. LERNER NEW YORK, INC., a Delaware Corporation and Does 1 through 100 inclusive In re LERNOUT & HAUSPIE PRODUCTS, N. V., Berman DeValerio Dickstein Shapiro LLP SECURITIES LITIGATION (DIRECTORS & FLV; KPMG) Carney Williams Bates Bozeman Gadsby Hannah LLP & Pulliam PLLC Shalov Stone Bonner & Rocco LLP

A.B. DATA, LTD. Page 40 of 50 n abdataclassaction.com ro, DATA New York I Washington, D.C. I Chicago I West Palm Beach I Milwaukee Case 2:07-cv-01603-SRB Document 116-3 Filed 11/15/10 Page 43 of 52

Case Plaintiffs’ Counsel Defense Counsel

MATTHEW SERINO and LUCILLE SERINO, individually Kirby McInerney LLP Orrick, Herrington & and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. KENNETH Sutcliffe LLP LIPPER, LIPPER HOLDINGS, LLC, PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS LLP, LIPPER & COMPANY, INC., ABRAHAM BIDERMAN, LAWRENCE BLOCK, EDWARD STRAFACI, AND MICHAEL VISOVSKY, Index No. 02/604396, and

RICHARD A. WILLIAMSON, as Successor Liquidating Trustee on Behalf of Lipper Convertibles, L.P. and Lipper Fixed Income Fund, L.P. v. PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS LLP

FRANK CAPO VILLA, on behalf of himself and all others Provost Umphrey Law Firm, LLP Weil, Gotshal & Manges similarly situated v. LONE STAR TECHNOLOGIES, INC., LLP RHYS J. BEST, FREDERICK B. HEGI, JR., M. JOSEPH Robbins Umeda & Fink, LLP MCHUGH, ALFRED M. MICALLEF, JERRY E. RYAN, ROBERT KELLEY, ROBERT L. KEISER, DAVID A. REED and DAN O. DINGES

In re MARINE HOSE ANTITRUST LITIGATION Garwin Gerstein & Fisher, LLP Haynes and Boone, LLP Labaton Sucharow LLP M. Daniel Hughes, Esq. Preti, Flaherty Beliveau & Pachios LLP In re MARSH ERISA LITIGATION Keller Rohrback LLP O’Melveny & Myers LLP

In re MARTEK BIOSCIENCES CORPORATION Milberg LLP Arnold & Porter LLP SECURITIES LITIGATION Barroway Topaz Kessler Meltzer Hogan & Hartson LLP & Check, LLP VALERIE HUGHLEY and all others similarly situated v. Bared & Associates, PA McKenna Long & MARYLAND CASUALTY COMPANY, a foreign corporation Aldridge, LLP Callahan & Martinez, LLC Melito & Adolfsen In re MBNA CORP. SECURITIES LITIGATION Motley Rice LLC Sullivan & Cromwell LLP

ELAINE L. CHAO v. LEONARD SLUTSKY, et al. (MEBT) New York Secretary of Labor Lambert & Weiss

CLEARVIEW IMAGING, LLC d/b/a CLEARVIEW OPEN Clark & Martino, PA Rissman, Barrett, Hurt, MRI, as assignee of Diana Borges, individually, and on Donahue, & McLain, PA de la Parte & Gilbert, PA behalf of all those similarly situated v. MERCURY INSURANCE COMPANY OF FLORIDA The Jeeves Law Group, PA In re METAVANTE TECHNOLOGIES, INC. Ademi & O’Reilly, LLP Quarles & Brady LLP SHAREHOLDER LITIGATION Finkelstein Thompson Levi & Korsinsky, LLP EVAN FRAY-WITZER and BEARDSLEY RUMI, et al. v. The Law Office of Edward A. Litchfield Cavo LLP METROPOLITAN ANTIQUES, LLC Broderick The Law office of Matthew P. McCue JAMES JEROME BLACK and MARY ALICE BLACK, et al. Feldman, Shepherd, Wohlgelernter, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius v. METSO PAPER USA, INC., et al. Tanner & Weinstock LLP

A.B. DATA, LTD. Page 41 of 50 n ^, abdataclassaction.com DATA New York I Washington, D.C. I Chicago I West Palm Beach I Milwaukee Case 2:07-cv-01603-SRB Document 116-3 Filed 11/15/10 Page 44 of 52

Case Plaintiffs’ Counsel Defense Counsel

In re MICROMUSE, INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION Berman DeValerio Bingham McCutchen LLP WILLIAM SMITH, et al. v. MILL-TEL, INC. Donelon, PC Martin, Pringle, Oliver, Wallace & Bauer, LLP Sly James Firm, PC MN CORN PROCESSORS CLASS ACTION: STEVEN Zimmerman Reed, PLLP Briggs and Morgan, PA RUPP, DOUGLAS ALBIN, VINCENT BOT, JAMES LARSON AND MICHAEL ZINS 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 GIL WISNIAK, on behalf of himself and all others similarly Carney Williams Bates Bozeman Alston & Bird LLP situated v. MIRANT AMERICAS GENERATION, LLC, & Pulliam PLLC RICHARD J. PERSHING, J. WILLIAM HOLDEN III, STEPHEN G. GILLIS, S. MARCE FULLER, and RAYMOND D. HILL

In re MK RESOURCES COMPANY SHAREHOLDERS Law Offices of Marc B. Kramer, Abrams & Laster, LLP LITIGATION PC Ashby & Geddes Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell In re MOTIVE, INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION Barroway Topaz Kessler Meltzer Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Check, LLP & Rosati, PC Federman & Sherwood Fulbright & Jaworski LLP Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP In re NATIONAL CITY CORPORATION SECURITIES, Barroway Topaz Kessler Meltzer & Jones Day DERIVATIVE & ERISA LITIGATION Check, LLP Stull, Stull & Brody STEVEN AND BARBARA GREENSTEIN, individually and Wites & Kapetan, P.A. Hinshaw & Culbertson on behalf of all others similarly situated v. NATIONS TITLE LLP AGENCY OF FLORIDA, INC. ERNESTO KHO and MAELORA KHO, on behalf of Galex Wolf, LLC Wilson Elser Moskowitz themselves and all others similarly situated v. Edelman & Dicker LLP NATIONWIDE HOME RELIEF LAW GROUP, P.A., KENT GROSS, NICOLA L. ZAGAROLO, NICOLA L. ZAGAROLO & ASSOCIATES P.A., NATIONWIDE HOME RELIEF, LLC, NATIONWIDE HOME RELIEF OF AMERICA, LLC, NATIONWIDE HOME RELIEF PROCESSING, LLC, and JOHN DOES 1-10 CLEARVIEW IMAGING, LLC, as assignee of Raul Trujillo, Clark & Martino, PA Fowler White Boggs individually, and on behalf of those similarly situated, et al. Banker, PA v. NATIONWIDE MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, et al. ULTRA OPEN MRI CORPORATION, as assignee of Buchalter, Hoffman & Dorchak Fowler White Boggs Sherese M. Wright, individually, and on behalf of all those Banker, PA Clark & Martino, PA similarly situated v. NATIONWIDE ASSURANCE COMPANY, et al. de la Parte & Gilbert, PA The Jeeves Law Group, PA Sacher, Zelman, Van Sant, Paul, Beiley, Hartman, Rolnick and Greif, PA

A.B. DATA, LTD. Page 42 of 50 n abdataclassaction.com ro, DATA New York I Washington, D.C. I Chicago I West Palm Beach I Milwaukee Case 2:07-cv-01603-SRB Document 116-3 Filed 11/15/10 Page 45 of 52

Case Plaintiffs’ Counsel Defense Counsel

PAUL CURTIS, NORMAN CURTIS & JANET Berman DeValerio Stites & Harrison GUSTAFSON, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. NORTHERN LIFE INSURANCE Betts Patterson & Mines, PS Williams, Kastner & Gibbs, PLLC COMPANY Sulloway & Hollis, PLLC

In re Nx NETWORKS SECURITIES LITIGATION Abbey Spanier Rodd & Abrams, Arnold & Porter LLP LLP Berman DeValerio Barroway Topaz Kessler Meltzer & Check, LLP EDWIN HESS v. ORIOLE HOMES CORP., et al. Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Adorno & Yoss, PA Robbins, LLP Edwards & Angell, LLP Steel Hector & Davis LLP ERNEST W. WARREN AND DOLORES G. WARREN and The Barnes Law Group all others similarly situated v. ROLLINS, INC. AND ORKIN Tyson & Millsaps LLP EXTERMINATING COMPANY, INC. In re OSI PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. SECURITIES Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Dechert LLP LITIGATION Robbins LLP In re PACIFIC GATEWAY EXCHANGE, INC. SECURITIES Berman DeValerio Pillsbury Winthrop LLP LITIGATION

JAMES F. GROEN, et al. v. POLYMEDICA Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Weil, Gotshal & Manges CORPORATION, PATRICK T. RYAN, JAMES J. Robbins LLP LLP MAHONEY, JR., FRANK W.LOGERFO, MARCIA J. The Weiser Law Firm, PC Sullivan & Cromwell LLP HOOPER, EDWARD A. BURKHARDT, SAMUEL L. SHANAMAN, WALTER R. MAUPAY, JR., ALAN D. Squitieri & Fearon, LLP Nutter McClennen & Fish SOLOMONT, KRISHNA G. PALEPU, WILLIAM :C. VAN LLP FAASEN, MEDCO HEALTH SOLUTIONS, INC., and MACQ CORP. LILLIAN NTHENGE, on behalf of herself and those Galex Wolf, LLC Wilson Elser similarly situated v. PRESSLER AND PRESSLER Law Offices of Glen H. Chulsky COUNSELORS AT LAW, a/k/a PRESSLER & PRESSLER; and John Does 1 to 25 PREMIER OPEN MRI, LLC, et al. v. PROGRESSIVE Clark & Martino, PA Anania, Bandklayder, AMERICAN INS. CO., et al. Blackwell, Baumgarten, Eisenstadt Law Group Torricella & Stein, PA and PREMIER OPEN MRI, LLC, et al. v. PROGRESSIVE AUTO PRO INS. CO., et al. and PREMIER OPEN MRI, LLC, et al. v. PROGRESSIVE EXPRESS INS. CO., et al. CLEARVIEW IMAGING, LLC d/b/a CLEARVIEW OPEN Clark & Martino, PA Anania, Bandklayder, MRI, as assignee of Judith A. Rivero, individually, and on Blackwell, Baumgarten, behalf of all those similarly situated v. PROGRESSIVE de la Parte & Gilbert, PA Torricella & Stein CONSUMERS INSURANCE COMPANY The Jeeves Law Group, PA

A.B. DATA, LTD. Page 43 of 50 n abdataclassaction.com ro, DATA New York I Washington, D.C. I Chicago I West Palm Beach I Milwaukee Case 2:07-cv-01603-SRB Document 116-3 Filed 11/15/10 Page 46 of 52

Case Plaintiffs’ Counsel Defense Counsel

SPECIAL SITUATIONS FUND III, L.P., SPECIAL Law Offices of Marc B. Kramer, Wheeler Trigg Kennedy SITUATIONS CAYMAN FUND, L.P., SPECIAL PC LLP SITUATIONS TECHNOLOGY FUND NEW, L.P., and SPECIAL SITUATIONS TECHNOLOGY FUND II, L.P., on Lowenstein Sandler PC behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated v. QUOVADX, INC., LORINE R. SWEENEY, GARY T. SCHERPING, JEFFREY M. KRAUSS, FRED L. BROWN, J. ANDREW COWHERD, JAMES B. HOOVER, CHARLES J. ROESSLEIN, and JAMES A. GILBERT

IN THE MATTER OF THE INVESTIGATION OF ANDREW Office of the Attorney General of Wong Fleming, P.C. M. CUOMO, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF New York NEW YORK, OF RADIOSHACK CORPORATION ELI FRIEDMAN, Individually and on behalf of all Others Carney Williams Bates Bozeman Quarles & Brady LLP Similarly Situated v. RAYOVAC CORPORATION, & Pulliam PLLC KENNETH V. BILLER, KENT J. HUSSEY, DAVID A. Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP JONES, SCOTT A. SCHOEN, STEPHEN P. SHANESY, THOMAS R. SHEPHERD, RANDALL J. STEWARD, WARREN C. SMITH, JR., and MERRELL M. TOMLIN

In re RCN CORPORATION ERISA LITIGATION Malakoff Doyle & Finberg, PC Proskauer Rose LLP Sarraf Gentile LLP Barroway Topaz Kessler Meltzer & Check, LLP In re READY-MIXED CONCRETE ANTITRUST Cohen & Malad, LLP Hopper & Blackwell, PC LITIGATION In re RELIANT SECURITIES LITIGATION Berman DeValerio Baker Botts LLP Davis Polk & Wardwell Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson LLP Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION v. Securities and Exchange Willkie Farr & Gallagher RENAISSANCERE HOLDINGS LTD. Commission LLP

In re RENAISSANCERE HOLDINGS LTD. SECURITIES Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen LITIGATION Robbins LLP & Katz Barroway Topaz Kessler Meltzer & Check, LLP HILDA PEREZ, on Behalf of Herself and All Others Law Office of William Riback Dechert, LLP Similarly Situated v. RENT-A-CENTER, INC. Locks Law Firm, LLP Williams Cuker Berezofsky EVELIA Y. RAGSDALE v. SANSAI USA, INC. Mager & Goldstein LLP Schwartz Semerdjian Haile Ballard & Cauley LLP Neiman & Neiman FRANK STOFFELS v. SBC COMMUNICATIONS, INC. Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll Vinson & Elkins LLP PLLC

A.B. DATA, LTD. Page 44 of 50 n ^, abdataclassaction.com DATA New York I Washington, D.C. I Chicago I West Palm Beach I Milwaukee Case 2:07-cv-01603-SRB Document 116-3 Filed 11/15/10 Page 47 of 52

Case Plaintiffs’ Counsel Defense Counsel

ELLA AND NICHOLAS MANTZOURIS, et al. v. SCARRITT The Law Offices of Brian L. Law Office of Bohdan MOTOR GROUP, INC. a Florida corporation Weakland Neswiacheny Craig E. Rothburd, PA Gary J. Tackacs, PA The Jeeves Law Group, PA In re SCOTTISH RE GROUP SECURITIES LITIGATION Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Dewey & LeBoeuf LLP Grossmann LLP Latham & Watkins LLP Davis Polk & Wardwell Hughes Hubbard & Reed LLP In re SEARS, ROEBUCK & CO. ERISA LITIGATION Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Sonnenschein Nath & Robbins LLP Rosenthal LLP Barroway Topaz Kessler Meltzer Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Check, LLP & Katz Stull, Stull & Brody CLEARVIEW IMAGING, LLC, as Assignee of Sandra Clay, Clark & Martino, PA Fowler White Boggs individually, and on behalf of all those similarly situated, et Banker, PA al. v. DAIRYLAND INSURANCE COMPANY a/k/a de la Parte & Gilbert, PA SENTRY INSURANCE A MUTUAL COMPANY, a foreign The Jeeves Law Group, PA corporation d/b/n Florida In re SFBC INTERNATIONAL, INC. SECURITIES & Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Holland & Knight LLP DERIVATIVE LITIGATION Grossmann LLP Entin, Della Fera & Greenberg, PA Kenny Nachwalter, PA Dechert LLP SANTOS v. SAMUEL M. SILVER, LLC Galex Wolf, LLC Podvey Meanor Catenacci Hildner Law Office of Glen H. Chulsky Cocoziello & Chattman, PC JEFFREY ESTEP, on behalf of himself and all others Galex Wolf, LLC Ciarrocca & Ciarrocca similarly situated v. SMYTHE VOLVO, INC.; Sean Flanagan; John Does 1-10; and ABC Corporations 1-10 Law Office of Glen H. Chulsky HOWARD KUBOTA, On Behalf of Himself and All Others Robbins Umeda & Fink, LLP Jones Day Similarly Situated and Derivatively On Behalf of O’Melveny & Myers LLP SOURCECORP, INC., v. THOMAS C. WALKER, ED H. BOWMAN, JR., DAVID LOWENSTEIN, JONATHAN B. White & Case LLP SHAW, MICHAEL J. BRADLEY, DONALD F. MOOREHEAD, JR., EDWARD M. ROWELL, G. MICHAEL BELLENGHI, BARRY L. EDWARDS, W. BRYAN HILL and APOLLO MANAGEMENT, L.P. and SOURCECORP, INC. (Nominal Defendant)

In re STERLING FINANCIAL CORPORATION Carney Williams Bates Bozeman Covington & Burling, LLP SECURITIES CLASS ACTION & Pulliam PLLC

JASON and SHARON EVANS, individually and on behalf Wites & Kapetan, PA Adorno & Yoss, PA of others similarly situated v. STEWART TITLE GUARANTY COMPANY

A.B. DATA, LTD. Page 45 of 50 n abdataclassaction.com ro, DATA New York I Washington, D.C. I Chicago I West Palm Beach I Milwaukee

Case 2:07-cv-01603-SRB Document 116-3 Filed 11/15/10 Page 48 of 52

Case Plaintiffs’ Counsel Defense Counsel

TERESA BAUMAN, on behalf of herself and all others Carney Williams Bates Bozeman Miller, Hamilton, Snider & similarly situated v. SUPERIOR FINANCIAL CORP., C. & Pulliam PLLC Odom, LLC STANLEY BAILEY, RICK D. GARDNER, C. MARVIN SCOTT, HOWARD B. McMAHON, JOHN M. STEIN, BEN Nolan, Cadell & Reynolds, PA Mitchell, Williams, Selig, Gates &Woodyard F. SCROGGIN, BRIAN A. GAHR, JOHN E. STEURI, Oats & Hudson DAVID E. STUBBLEFIELD, ERNST & YOUNG, LLP, and JOHNNY McCALEB

In re SUPERVALU, INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION Carney Williams Bates Bozeman Dorsey & Whitney LLP & Pulliam PLLC Barroway Topaz Kessler Meltzer & Check, LLP

In re SUPREMA SPECIALTIES, INC. SECURITIES Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Edwards Angell Palmer LITIGATION Grossmann LLP Dodge LLP Sullivan & Cromwell LLP Pepper Hamilton LLP In re SYMBOL TECHNOLOGIES, INC., SECURITIES Berman DeValerio Swidler Berlin Shereff LITIGATION Friedman LLP Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP IN RE TAKE-TWO INTERACTIVE SECURITIES Labaton Sucharow LLP Debevoise & Plimpton LITIGATION and SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE LLP COMMISSION v. RYAN ASHLEY BRANT Andrew M. Lawler, P.C. King & Spalding LLP Morvillo, Abramowitz, Grand, Iason, Anello & Bohrer, P.C. Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP Stillman, Friedman & Shechtman, P.C. Sullivan & Cromwell LLP PATRICIA CROXALL et al. v. TAMPA HUND, LP, et al. Clark & Martino, PA Hill, Ward & Henderson, PA DON BRIEGER, ROBERT BECKER, ALAN BURSTIN and Lasky & Rifkind, Ltd. Morgan, Lewis & Bockius HARRY SCHULTZ, individually and on behalf of all others LLP similarly situated v. TELLABS, INC., et al. (ERISA) Barroway Topaz Kessler Meltzer & Check, LLP The Weiser Law Firm, PC Wechsler Harwood LLP SAMONE W. CLEMONS and DONYALE JORDAN, on Galex Wolf, LLC behalf of themselves and those similarly situated v. DONNA L. THOMPSON a/k/a LAW OFFICES OF DONNA Law Offices of Glen H. Chulsky L. THOMPSON, ESQ., and John Does 1 to 25 IN RE TICKETMASTER ENTERTAINMENT Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen SHAREHOLDER LITIGATION Grossmann LLP & Katz Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP

A.B. DATA, LTD. Page 46 of 50 n abdataclassaction.com ro, DATA New York I Washington, D.C. I Chicago I West Palm Beach I Milwaukee

Case 2:07-cv-01603-SRB Document 116-3 Filed 11/15/10 Page 49 of 52

Case Plaintiffs’ Counsel Defense Counsel

CEMENT MASONS & PLASTERERS JOINT PENSION Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Dewey & LeBoeuf LLP TRUST, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated Robbins. LLP v. TNS, INC., JOHN J. MCDONNELL, JR. AND HENRY H. GRAHAM, JR.

DAVID MONTALVO, On Behalf of Himself And all Others Carney Williams Bates Bozeman Wilson Sonsini Goodrich Similarly Situated v. TRIPOS, INC., JOHN P. MCALISTER, & Pulliam PLLC & Rosati B. JAMES RUBIN, and ERNST & YOUNG LLP Milberg LLP JAMES BRANT HARGRAVE, PA TRICE HARGRAVE, Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll TXU Legal BRENDA MAYNARD, and MENTHA W. PRICE, on behalf PLLC of the TXU Thrift Plan, and all other persons similarly situated v. TXU CORP., et al. (ERISA) Puls, Taylor & Woodson, LLP Barroway Topaz Kessler Meltzer & Check, LLP Travis & Calhoun, PC Ware, Snow, Fogel & Jackson, LLP MARVIN OVERBY, et al. v. TYCO INTERNATIONAL LTD., Nobel Izard PC Cooley Godward Kronish et al. (ERISA) LLP Stull, Stull & Brody Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP Sheehan Phinney Bass & Green Steptoe & Johnson LLP In re TYSON FOODS, INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION Abbey Spanier Rodd & Abrams, Skadden, Arps, Slate, LLP Meagher & Flom LLP Duane Morris LLP Smith Katzenstein & Furlow Quarles & Brady LLP UNITED CONSUMER FINANCIAL SERVICES COMPANY Galex Wolf, LLC Budd Larner, PC v. WILLIAM CARBO, et al. v. A&M MERCHANDISING, INC., et al. MATTHEW T. ZILHAVER and SASCHA LINN, individually Stull, Stull & Brody Groom Law Group, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Chartered UNITEDHEALTH GROUP INCORPORATED, L. ROBERT DAPPER, JAMES A. JOHNSON, WILLIAM G. SPEARS, Dorsey & Whitney LLP MARY O. MUNDINGER, WILLIAM W. MCGUIRE AND Flynn, Gaskins & STEPHEN J. HEMSLEY Bennett, LLP

VALLEY NATIONAL BANK v. JEFFREY P. CAHN Galex Wolf, LLC Sills Cummis Epstein & Gross, PC IN THE MATTER OF VALUE LINE, INC., VALUE LINE Securities and Exchange Skadden, Arps, Slate, SECURITIES, INC., JEAN BERNHARD BUTTNER, AND Commission Meagher & Flom, LLP DAVID HENIGSON

In re VASO ACTIVE PHARMACEUTICALS DERIVATIVE Barrett Johnston & Parsley Dilworth Paxon LLP LITIGATION Greenberg Traurig, LLP Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP

A.B. DATA, LTD. Page 47 of 50 n ^, abdataclassaction.com DATA New York I Washington, D.C. I Chicago I West Palm Beach I Milwaukee

Case 2:07-cv-01603-SRB Document 116-3 Filed 11/15/10 Page 50 of 52

Case Plaintiffs’ Counsel Defense Counsel

In re VASO ACTIVE PHARMACEUTICALS SECURITIES Barroway Topaz Kessler Meltzer Dilworth Paxon LLP LITIGATION & Check, LLP Sichenzia Ross Ference Friedman LLP Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr, LLP SOUTHEAST TEXAS MEDICAL ASSOCIATES, LLP, a Gravely & Pearson, LLP Arnold & Porter, LLP Texas limited liability partnership, on behalf of itself and all Kershaw, Cutter & Ratinoff, LLP others similarly situated v. VERISIGN, INC., a Delaware corporation, and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive Provost & Umphrey In re VIISAGE TECHNOLOGY, INC. SECURITIES Entwistle & Cappucci LLP Choate Hall & Stewart LITIGATION LLP Klafter & Olsen LLP In re VISIONAMERICA, INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION Carney Williams Bates Bozeman Bendinger, Crockett, & Pulliam PLLC Peterson & Casey Chernau, Chaffin & Burnsed Stokes Bartholomew Evans & Petree, PA IN RE VONAGE INITIAL PUBLIC OFFERING (IPO) Zwerling, Schachter & Zwerling, Wilmer Hale SECURITIES LITIGATION LLP

In re WARNER CHILCOTT LIMITED SECURITIES Abraham Fruchter & Twersky LLP Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, LITIGATION Wharton & Garrison LLP Coughlin, Stoia, Geller, Rudman & Robbins, LLP Pomerantz Haudek Block Grossman & Gross LLP Zwerling, Schachter & Zwerling LLP ANDREA KAY, et al. v. WELLS FARGO & COMPANY, Barroway Topaz Kessler Meltzer Severson & Werson WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., NORTH STAR MORTGAGE & Check, LLP GUARANTY REINSURANCE COMPANY

RANDOLPH MILLER, et al. v. WELTMAN, WEINBERG & Galex Wolf, LLC Weltman, Weinberg & REIS CO., LPA, et al. Reis Co., LPA Law Office of Glen H. Chulsky SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION v. Securities and Exchange Dewey & LeBoeuf LLP STEVEN BYERS, JOSEPH SHERESHEVSKY, Commission WEXTRUST CAPITAL, LLC, WEXTRUST EQUITY PARTNERS, LLC, WEXTRUST DEVELOPMENT GROUP, LLC, WEXTRUST SECURITIES, LLC, and AXELA HOSPITALITY, LLC HERBERT and DORIS STEELE, ERIC R. CHAVEZ, Roddy Klein & Ryan Dickstein Shapiro LLP ALEXANDRA DIAZ, and SONIA TORRES, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. GE MONEY BANK, a federal savings bank, WMC MORTGAGE CORPORATION and WMC MORTGAGE, LLC

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION v. ZOMAX, Securities and Exchange Anthony Ostlund Baer & INC., JAMES T. ANDERSON, MICHELLE BEDARD- Commission Louwagie PA ANDERSON, NEIL L. DOLINSKY, THE JIM AND MIKKI ANDERSON CHARITABLE REMAINDER ANNUITY Lindquist & Vennum PLLP TRUST, JAMES E. FLAHERTY, AND ANTHONY ANGELINI

A.B. DATA, LTD. Page 48 of 50 n abdataclassaction.com ro, DATA New York I Washington, D.C. I Chicago I West Palm Beach I Milwaukee Case 2:07-cv-01603-SRB Document 116-3 Filed 11/15/10 Page 51 of 52

Case Plaintiffs’ Counsel Defense Counsel

In re ZOMAX SECURITIES LITIGATION Barroway Topaz Kessler Meltzer Dorsey & Whitney, LLP & Check, LLP

A.B. DATA, LTD. Page 49 of 50 n ^, andataclassaction.com DATA New York I Washington, D.C. I Chicago I West Palm Beach I Milwaukee

Case 2:07-cv-01603-SRB Document 116-3 Filed 11/15/10 Page 52 of 52

SPECIAL NOTICE PROJECTS

Case Description

GERMAN FORCED LABOUR As designated by the International Organization for Migration (IOM), A.B. Data COMPENSATION located more than 43,000 Romani survivors in 17 countries of central and PROGRAMME (GFLCP) eastern Europe who were potentially eligible for humanitarian aid. A.B. Data created a comprehensive database for the GFLCP/Holocaust Victim Assets Programme and directly assisted more than 11,000 Romanies in eight central and eastern European countries with claim completion. HOLOCAUST VICTIM As a court-appointed notice administrator, A.B. Data played a key role in a ASSETS LITIGATION (SWISS worldwide Phase I notice that resulted in more than 500,000 initial BANKS) questionnaires. In Phase III, A.B. Data delivered notice to over 10,000 Jewish communities in 109 countries and in Phases I and III administered international help and call centers that personally assisted more than 100,000 potential claimants.

A.B. Data created a class-appropriate notice targeting Romanies (Gypsies) in 48 countries and directed hundreds of staff to communicate orally and directly with Romani communities and individuals. A.B. Data notified more than two million people and, as designated by the IOM, directly assisted more than 22,000 Romanies in 17 countries of central and eastern Europe with claim completion.

A.B. DATA, LTD. Page 50 of 50 n ^, abdataclassaction.com DATA New York I Washington, D.C. I Chicago I West Palm Beach I Milwaukee Case 2:07-cv-01603-SRB Document 116-4 Filed 11/15/10 Page 1 of 53

Exhibit 4 Case 2:07-cv-01603-SRB Document 116-4 Filed 11/15/10 Page 2 of 53 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 2:07-cv-01603-SRB Document 116-4 Filed 11/15/10 Page 3 of 53

THE FIRM AND ITS ACHIEVEMENTS

Table of Contents

OVERVIEW 1

CORPORATE GOVERNANCE 2

NOTABLE LEAD COUNSEL APPOINTMENTS 6

TRIAL EXPERIENCE 7

NOTABLE SUCCESSES 7

COMMENTS ABOUT OUR FIRM BY THE COURTS 19

PRO BONO ACTIVITIES 21

WOMEN’S INITIATIVE AND MINORITY SCHOLARSHIP 21

ATTORNEYS 22

LAWRENCE A. SUCHAROW, CHAIRMAN 22

EDWARD LABATON, SENIOR PARTNER 24

JOEL H. BERNSTEIN, SENIOR PARTNER 26

THOMAS A. DUBBS, SENIOR PARTNER 27

JONATHAN M. PLASSE, SENIOR PARTNER 29

MARTIS ALEX, PARTNER 30

MARK S. ARISOHN, PARTNER 32

ERIC J. BELFI, PARTNER 33

JAVIER BLEICHMAR, PARTNER 34

JOSEPH A. FONTI, PARTNER 35

JONATHAN GARDNER, PARTNER 37

DAVID J. GOLDSMITH, PARTNER 38

- i - Case 2:07-cv-01603-SRB Document 116-4 Filed 11/15/10 Page 4 of 53

LOUIS GOTTLIEB, PARTNER 39

JAMES W. JOHNSON, PARTNER 40

CHRISTOPHER J. KELLER, PARTNER 42

SIDNEY S. LIEBESMAN, PARTNER 43

CHRISTOPHER J. MCDONALD, PARTNER 45

HOLLIS SALZMAN, PARTNER 46

IRA A. SCHOCHET, PARTNER 48

- ii - Case 2:07-cv-01603-SRB Document 116-4 Filed 11/15/10 Page 5 of 53

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 17 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 Investor Protection Litigation Group offers

comprehensive services for our institutional investor clients and has recovered, through trial and settlement, more than $3 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 2:07-cv-01603-SRB Document 116-4 Filed 11/15/10 Page 6 of 53

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 senior 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 2:07-cv-01603-SRB Document 116-4 Filed 11/15/10 Page 7 of 53

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 2:07-cv-01603-SRB Document 116-4 Filed 11/15/10 Page 8 of 53

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”) has 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 will be posted on BMS’s website,

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

BMS has 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 2:07-cv-01603-SRB Document 116-4 Filed 11/15/10 Page 9 of 53

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. They 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

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

- 5 - Case 2:07-cv-01603-SRB Document 116-4 Filed 11/15/10 Page 10 of 53

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

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

Two is 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 also is 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 is 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 a few of our current

notable Lead Counsel appointments.

IN RE ROYAL BANK OF SCOTLAND GROUP PLC SECURITIES LITIGATION No. 1:09-cv-00300-DAB (S.D.N.Y.) Representing Mississippi Public Employees’ Retirement System as Co-Lead Plaintiff

- 6 - Case 2:07-cv-01603-SRB Document 116-4 Filed 11/15/10 Page 1 1 of 53

IN RE SA TYAM COMPUTER SERVICES, LTD. SECURITIES LITIGATION No. 1: 09-md-02027-BSJ (S.D.N.Y.) Representing Mineworkers Pension Scheme as Co-Lead Plaintiff

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

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. For example, 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.

- 7 - Case 2:07-cv-01603-SRB Document 116-4 Filed 11/15/10 Page 12 of 53

• 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, UBS AG, UBS Warburg LLC, Howard Capek,

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, which

is the eleventh largest settlement filed after the passage of the PSLRA based on

the SCAS 100 for the first quarter of 2010.

• 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,

- 8 - Case 2:07-cv-01603-SRB Document 116-4 Filed 11/15/10 Page 13 of 53

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 serves 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, violated the federal securities laws by making

misstatements and omitting material facts about its policies and procedures for

underwriting loans that entailed greater risk than disclosed. On May 7, 2010, a

settlement was announced whereby Countrywide will separately pay $600 million

and its accounting firm, KPMG LLP, will pay $24 million. The combined

recovery, if approved by the Court, will be among the largest securities fraud

settlements in U.S. history. On August 2, 2010, the Court granted preliminary

approval to the settlement. The final approval hearing is scheduled to proceed on

November 15, 2010.

• 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

- 9 - Case 2:07-cv-01603-SRB Document 116-4 Filed 11/15/10 Page 14 of 53

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 will make a cash payment of $277 million

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

during 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

- 10 - Case 2:07-cv-01603-SRB Document 116-4 Filed 11/15/10 Page 15 of 53

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.

• 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 serves as Lead Counsel in In re Broadcom Corp. Securities Litigation,

- 11 - Case 2:07-cv-01603-SRB Document 116-4 Filed 11/15/10 Page 16 of 53

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 or judgments in an options

backdating suit. 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 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.”

- 12 - Case 2:07-cv-01603-SRB Document 116-4 Filed 11/15/10 Page 17 of 53

• 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 LLP, 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

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

- 13 - Case 2:07-cv-01603-SRB Document 116-4 Filed 11/15/10 Page 18 of 53

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

(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.

- 14 - Case 2:07-cv-01603-SRB Document 116-4 Filed 11/15/10 Page 19 of 53

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

Ala.), Labaton Sucharow, as Lead Counsel, represents 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.

• 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

- 15 - Case 2:07-cv-01603-SRB Document 116-4 Filed 11/15/10 Page 20 of 53

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

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

- 16 - Case 2:07-cv-01603-SRB Document 116-4 Filed 11/15/10 Page 21 of 53

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.

• 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, the fifth-largest bank in the United States. 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.

- 17 - Case 2:07-cv-01603-SRB Document 116-4 Filed 11/15/10 Page 22 of 53

• 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 accumulated experience and record of success these firms have compiled.

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

Academy Capital Management Arkansas Carpenters Pension Fund Asbestos Workers Local 24 Baltimore County Retirement System State-Boston Retirement System California Public Employees’ Retirement System Central Laborers’ Pension Fund Connecticut Retirement Plans and Trust Funds Genesee County Employees’ Retirement System Iron Workers Local 16 Town of Jupiter Police Officer’s Retirement Fund

- 18 - Case 2:07-cv-01603-SRB Document 116-4 Filed 11/15/10 Page 23 of 53

Lawndale Capital Management LongView Collective Investment Fund of the Amalgamated Bank City of Macon Commonwealth of Massachusetts Pension Reserves Investment Trust Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority Michigan Retirement Systems Mississippi Public Employees’ Retirement System Division of Investment of the New Jersey Department of the Treasury Office of the New Mexico Attorney General and several of its Retirement Systems City of New Orleans Employees’ Retirement System Norfolk County Retirement System Office of the Ohio Attorney General and several of its Retirement Systems Pirate Capital LLC Robino Stortini Holdings LLC San Francisco Employees’ Retirement System St. Denis J. Villere & Co. Steamship Trade Association/International Longshoremen’s Association SunTrust Banks, Inc.

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

- 19 - Case 2:07-cv-01603-SRB Document 116-4 Filed 11/15/10 Page 24 of 53

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 . . . .

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.”

- 20 - Case 2:07-cv-01603-SRB Document 116-4 Filed 11/15/10 Page 25 of 53

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, two to three times

annually, 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 promotes the professional achievements of the young women in our ranks

and others who join us for events. 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.

- 21 - Case 2:07-cv-01603-SRB Document 116-4 Filed 11/15/10 Page 26 of 53

ATTORNEYS

A short description of the qualifications and accomplishments of each of the partners at

Labaton Sucharow who are involved with the prosecution of class actions.

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 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.”

- 22 - Case 2:07-cv-01603-SRB Document 116-4 Filed 11/15/10 Page 27 of 53

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

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.

- 23 - Case 2:07-cv-01603-SRB Document 116-4 Filed 11/15/10 Page 28 of 53

Mr. Sucharow 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 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

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.

EDWARD LABATON, SENIOR PARTNER [email protected]

An accomplished trial lawyer and Senior 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.

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,

- 24 - Case 2:07-cv-01603-SRB Document 116-4 Filed 11/15/10 Page 29 of 53

& 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.

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

- 25 - Case 2:07-cv-01603-SRB Document 116-4 Filed 11/15/10 Page 30 of 53

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.

JOEL H. BERNSTEIN, SENIOR 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.

- 26 - Case 2:07-cv-01603-SRB Document 116-4 Filed 11/15/10 Page 31 of 53

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.

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.

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

directory.

THOMAS A. D UBBS, SENIOR 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.

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.

- 27 - Case 2:07-cv-01603-SRB Document 116-4 Filed 11/15/10 Page 32 of 53

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

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.

- 28 - Case 2:07-cv-01603-SRB Document 116-4 Filed 11/15/10 Page 33 of 53

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.

JONATHAN M. PLASSE, SENIOR PARTNER [email protected]

An accomplished litigator, Jonathan M. Plasse has devoted 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 Countrywide,

Fannie Mae and Morgan Stanley.

His 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 is a regular speaker at continuing legal education seminars relating to

securities class action litigation.

- 29 - Case 2:07-cv-01603-SRB Document 116-4 Filed 11/15/10 Page 34 of 53

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. He is a member of the New York State Bar Association and the

Association of the Bar of the City of New York, where he serves as the Chair of the Securities

Litigation Committee.

Mr. Plasse 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

- 30 - Case 2:07-cv-01603-SRB Document 116-4 Filed 11/15/10 Page 35 of 53

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

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 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.

- 31 - Case 2:07-cv-01603-SRB Document 116-4 Filed 11/15/10 Page 36 of 53

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

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

- 32 - Case 2:07-cv-01603-SRB Document 116-4 Filed 11/15/10 Page 37 of 53

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.

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

directory.

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

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

- 33 - Case 2:07-cv-01603-SRB Document 116-4 Filed 11/15/10 Page 38 of 53

“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.

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

- 34 - Case 2:07-cv-01603-SRB Document 116-4 Filed 11/15/10 Page 39 of 53

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.

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 United States

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

of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

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

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

- 35 - Case 2:07-cv-01603-SRB Document 116-4 Filed 11/15/10 Page 40 of 53

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

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.

- 36 - Case 2:07-cv-01603-SRB Document 116-4 Filed 11/15/10 Page 41 of 53

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 currently represents 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.

Recently Mr. Gardner has been responsible for prosecuting several of the Firm’s options backdating cases, including In re Monster Worldwide, Inc. Securities Litigation, In re SafeNet,

Inc. Securities Litigation, In re Sem tech Securities Litigation, and City of Westland Police and

Fire Retirement System v. Sonic Solutions. 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.

- 37 - Case 2:07-cv-01603-SRB Document 116-4 Filed 11/15/10 Page 42 of 53

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

John’s University Law School in 1990.

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.

Mr. Goldsmith is presently a member of the team representing the New York State

Common Retirement Fund and the New York City Pension Funds as lead plaintiffs in a high- profile securities class action against Countrywide Financial Corporation and its auditors and

certain underwriters of its securities offerings. 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.

- 38 - Case 2:07-cv-01603-SRB Document 116-4 Filed 11/15/10 Page 43 of 53

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 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.

L OUIS 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

- 39 - Case 2:07-cv-01603-SRB Document 116-4 Filed 11/15/10 Page 44 of 53

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

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.

- 40 - Case 2:07-cv-01603-SRB Document 116-4 Filed 11/15/10 Page 45 of 53

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,

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.

- 41 - Case 2:07-cv-01603-SRB Document 116-4 Filed 11/15/10 Page 46 of 53

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.

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 serves 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.

- 42 - Case 2:07-cv-01603-SRB Document 116-4 Filed 11/15/10 Page 47 of 53

Mr. Keller is the co-author of the following articles: “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.

SIDNEY S. LIEBESMAN, PARTNER [email protected]

Sidney S. Liebesman concentrates his practice on complex securities class action

litigation and other cases involving shareholder rights.

Prior to joining Labaton Sucharow LLP, Mr. Liebesman served as a senior partner at a

major, national securities law firm where he played major roles prosecuting many high profile

securities fraud civil actions, including In re Tyco International, Ltd. Securities Litigation, In re

Enron Corp. Securities Litigation, In re WorldCom, Inc. Securities Litigation, and In re Global

Crossing Ltd. Securities Litigation. Mr. Liebesman also played a central role in the landmark

- 43 - Case 2:07-cv-01603-SRB Document 116-4 Filed 11/15/10 Page 48 of 53

European settlement with Royal Dutch Shell in The Netherlands representing dozens of financial

institutions worldwide.

Mr. Liebesman is a regular speaker on securities litigation and corporate governance at

institutional investor gatherings throughout the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom,

Japan, and Sweden. Mr. Liebesman presented to the World Bank in Washington D.C. in 2007 on

“The Role of Good Governance in Economic Development.”

Mr. Liebesman is the co-author of the following articles: “Corporate Democracy in

Action After ‘Citizens United’,” New York Law Journal, March 8, 2010; “Caught by the Net,

What to Do if a Message Board Messes With Your Client,” ABA Business Law Journal, Vol. 10,

No. 1, 2000; “Internet Message Board Litigation – Time Is Of The Essence,” ABA Network,

Vol. 8, Issue 2, 2000; “Brief on Baseball’s Antitrust Exemption,” Villanova Sports &

Entertainment Law Forum, Vol. 2, 1995; and “Triggering an Obligation: Receipt of an EPA PRP

Letter and Insurer’s Duty to Defend,” Villanova Environmental Law Journal, Vol. 5, 1995.

Mr. Liebesman earned a B.A. from University of Delaware in 1986 and a J.D. from

Villanova School of Law in 1995. During law school he was the editor of the Villanova

Environmental Law Journal and a finalist in the 35th Annual Reimel Moot Court competition.

Mr. Liebesman is the founder and former president of the Chesapeake Police & Fire Foundation,

a charitable organization providing benefits to children of police officers, firefighters and other

first responders killed in the line of duty.

Mr. Liebesman is admitted to practice in the States of Delaware, New York and

Pennsylvania; the United States Courts of Appeals for the First, Second, and Fourth Circuits; the

United States District Courts for the District of Delaware, Southern District of New York, and

- 44 - Case 2:07-cv-01603-SRB Document 116-4 Filed 11/15/10 Page 49 of 53

the Eastern and Western Districts of Pennsylvania; Colorado and the Eastern District of

Wisconsin, and the United States Court of International Trade.

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.

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.

- 45 - Case 2:07-cv-01603-SRB Document 116-4 Filed 11/15/10 Page 50 of 53

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.

HOLLIS SALZMAN, PARTNER [email protected]

Hollis Salzman is Co-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.

- 46 - Case 2:07-cv-01603-SRB Document 116-4 Filed 11/15/10 Page 51 of 53

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.

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

- 47 - Case 2:07-cv-01603-SRB Document 116-4 Filed 11/15/10 Page 52 of 53

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. Currently, Mr. Schochet serves as Lead

Counsel in In re Countrywide Securities Litigation.

Mr. Schochet has played a leading role in litigation resulting in multimillion dollar

recoveries for class members in cases such as those against 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 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.

On April 1, 2009, Mr. Schochet began his two-year term as President of the National

Association of Shareholder and Consumer Attorneys (NASCAT), a trade organization and public policy voice for lawyers interested in a strong system of federal and state legal protections for

- 48 - Case 2:07-cv-01603-SRB Document 116-4 Filed 11/15/10 Page 53 of 53

investors and consumers. NASCAT consists of approximately 100 law firms committed to the vigorous prosecution of corporate fraud.

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.

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.

- 49 - Case 2:07-cv-01603-SRB Document 116-5 Filed 11/15/10 Page 1 of 31

Exhibit 5 Case 2:07-cv-01603-SRB Document 116-5 Filed 11/15/10 Page 2 of 31

BARROWAYTOPAZ Owl IKESSLERMELTZERCHECFK LLP

280 King of Prussia Road, Radnor, Pennsylvania 19087 • 610-667-7706 • Fax: 610-667-7056 • [email protected] 580 California Street, Suite 1750, San Francisco, CA 94104 • 415-400-3000 • Fax: 415-400-3001 • [email protected] www.btkmc.com

FIRM PROFILE

Barroway Topaz Kessler Meltzer & Check, LLP (“Barroway Topaz”), headquartered just outside of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, specializes in representing shareholders and consumers in complex class action litigation in state and federal courts throughout the United States. Since the firm’s inception in 1987, Barroway Topaz has recovered billions of dollars on behalf of defrauded shareholders, employees and aggrieved consumers.

Recognized by courts and our clients for achieving exemplary results, Barroway Topaz has grown into one of the largest and most successful plaintiff’s class action firms in the country. With over eighty attorneys, a superior support staff and in-house investigative team, Barroway Topaz has emerged as the leading firm in the campaign to eradicate securities fraud and corporate malfeasance. Barroway Topaz’s considerable resources and extensive experience in prosecuting class actions place it in a unique position to track, advise, prosecute and resolve complex actions.

Barroway Topaz represents various institutional investors from the United States, Canada, Europe and around the world — including pension funds, mutual fund managers, investment advisors, insurance companies, and hedge funds — and has secured landmark recoveries on behalf of our clients and the classes we represent. The firm, with the guidance and assistance of our clients serving as lead plaintiff, is especially proud of our ability to create and structure resolutions with financially troubled companies and, when appropriate, to institute meaningful corporate governance reforms when serving as lead counsel in shareholder actions.

Barroway Topaz is also at the forefront of protecting the rights of employees. The firm’s nationally recognized ERISA Litigation Department specializes in breach of fiduciary duty actions brought pursuant to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974. Barroway Topaz has helped pensioners across the country recover hundreds of millions of dollars in retirement savings lost as a result of mismanaged pension assets. Further, Barroway Topaz’s Wage and Hour Department represents thousands of workers across the country pursuing claims for unpaid wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act and relevant state compensation laws.

Barroway Topaz’s Competition Group combats violations of federal and state antitrust laws (and deceptive trade practice laws) including price-fixing, bid-rigging, monopolization, resale price maintenance and price discrimination. The Group’s attorneys in this highly specialized area of the law have extensive experience and expertise and have been appointed by courts to leadership positions in several important antitrust actions filed in state and federal courts throughout the country. Case 2:07-cv-01603-SRB Document 116-5 Filed 11/15/10 Page 3 of 31 NOTEWORTHY ACHIEVEMENTS During the firm’s successful history, Barroway Topaz has recovered billions of dollars for defrauded stockholders and consumers. The following are among the firm’s notable achievements:

In re Tyco International, Ltd. Sec. Litig., No. 02-1335-B (D.N.H. 2002): Barroway Topaz, which served as Co-Lead Counsel in this highly publicized securities fraud class action on behalf of a group of institutional investors, achieved a record $3.2billion settlement with Tyco International, Ltd. (“Tyco”) and their auditor PricewaterhouseCoopers, LLP (“PwC”). The $2.975 billion settlement with Tyco represents the single-largest securities class action recovery from a single corporate defendant in history. In addition, the $225 million settlement with PwC represents the largest payment PwC has ever paid to resolve a securities class action and is the second-largest auditor settlement in securities class action history.

As presiding Judge Paul Barbadoro aptly stated in his Order approving the final settlement, “[i]t is difficult to overstate the complexity of [the litigation].” Judge Barbadoro noted the extraordinary effort required to pursue the litigation towards its successful conclusion, which included the review of more than 82.5 million pages of documents, more than 220 depositions and over seven hundred discovery requests and responses. In addition to the complexity of the litigation, Judge Barbadoro also highlighted the great risk undertaken by Co-Lead Counsel in pursuit of the litigation, which he indicated was greater than in other multi-billion dollar securities cases and “put [Plaintiffs] at the cutting edge of a rapidly changing area of law.” In sum, the Tyco settlement is of historic proportions for the investors who suffered significant financial losses and it has sent a strong message to those who would try to engage in this type of misconduct in the future.

In re Tenet Healthcare Corp. Sec. Litig., No. CV-02-8462-RSWL (Rx) (C.D. Cal. 2002): Barroway Topaz serves as Co-Lead Counsel in this action. A partial settlement was approved on May 26, 2006. The partial settlement was comprised of three distinct elements, including a substantial monetary commitment by the company in the amount of $215 million, personal contributions by two of the individual defendants totaling $1.5 million and the enactment and/or continuation of numerous changes to the company’s corporate governance practices, which have led various institutional rating entities to rank Tenet among the best in the U.S. in regards to corporate governance. The significance of the partial settlement was heightened by Tenet’s precarious financial condition. Faced with many financial pressures — including several pending civil actions and federal investigations, with total contingent liabilities in the hundreds of millions of dollars — counsel was concerned that Tenet would be unable to fund a settlement or satisfy a judgment of any greater amount in the near future. By reaching the partial settlement, Barroway Topaz, on behalf of the Plaintiffs’ class, was able to avoid the risks associated with a long and costly litigation battle and provide a significant and immediate benefit to the class. Barroway Topaz also obtained a rarity in securities class action litigation — personal financial contributions from individual defendants. Following the partial settlement with the Tenet defendants, Barroway Topaz actively litigated the case against Tenet’s external auditor, KPMG. After more than two years of hard-fought litigation, including dispositive motion practice and merits and expert discovery, Barroway Topaz, on behalf of the Plaintiffs’ class, settled the matter against KPMG for $65 million. While the settlement is not yet final, Barroway Topaz is very pleased with the result as it stands, as one of the largest recoveries against an auditor in U.S. history.

In re AremisSoft Corp. Sec. Litig., C.A. No. 01-CV-2486 (D.N.J. 2002): Barroway Topaz is particularly proud of the results recently achieved before the Honorable Joel A. Pisano in this case. This case was exceedingly complicated, as it involved the embezzlement of hundreds of millions of dollars by former officers of the Company, some of whom are now fugitives. In settling the action, Barroway Topaz, as sole Lead Counsel, assisted in reorganizing AremisSoft as a new Company which allowed for it to continue operations, while successfully separating out the securities fraud claims and the bankrupt Company’s claims into a litigation trust. Pursuant to the Settlement, the litigation trust has distributed more than 16 million shares of the reorganized Company to members of the class. The Court-appointed co-trustees, Joseph P. LaSala, Esq. and Fred S. Zeidman, retained Barroway Topaz to continue prosecuting the actions on behalf of the litigation trust. After extensive litigation in the Isle of Man, including the successful freezing of more than $200 million of stolen funds, the trust settled its action against one of the principal wrongdoers and recovered approximately $200 million. Thus far, the trust has distributed to beneficiaries of the trust more than 28% of their recognized losses (excluding the value of the equity of the new Company), and is poised to recover even more. Recently, the trust commenced further litigation in Cyprus, where it obtained a Mareva injunction and interim ancillary relief against various bank accounts and assets owned and/or controlled by the other principal wrongdoer. Case 2:07-cv-01603-SRB Document 116-5 Filed 11/15/10 Page 4 of 31 In re CVS Corporation Sec. Litig., C.A. No. 01-11464 JLT (D.Mass. 2001): After more than three years of contentious litigation and a series of protracted mediation sessions, Barroway Topaz, serving as Co-Lead Counsel, secured a $110 million recovery for class members in the CVS Sec. Litig. Specifically, the suit alleged that CVS violated accounting practices by delaying discounts on merchandise in an effort to prop up its earnings. In addition, the suit charged that in 2001 the Company and its Chief Executive Officer, Thomas M. Ryan, improperly delayed announcement of its intention to close approximately 200 underperforming stores, and that an industry-wide pharmacist shortage would have a materially negative impact on the Company’s performance. Settlement was reached just days prior to the commencement of trial, and shortly after the district court had denied the defendants’ motions for summary judgment. This substantial recovery represents the third-largest settlement in a securities class action case in the First Circuit.

In re Delphi Corp. Sec. Litig., Master File No. 1:05-MD-1725 (E.D. Mich. 2005): In early 2005, various securities class actions were filed against auto-parts manufacturer Delphi Corporation in the Southern District of New York. Barroway Topaz its client, Austria-based mutual fund manager Raiffeisen Kapitalanlage-Gesellschaft m.b.H. (“Raiffeisen”), were appointed as Co-Lead Counsel and Co-Lead Plaintiff, respectively. The Lead Plaintiffs alleged that (i) Delphi improperly treated financing transactions involving inventory as sales and disposition of inventory; (ii) improperly treated financing transactions involving “indirect materials” as sales of these materials; and (iii) improperly accounted for payments made to and credits received from General Motors as warranty settlements and obligations. As a result, Delphi’s reported revenue, net income and financial results were materially overstated, prompting Delphi to restate its earnings for the five previous years. Complex litigation involving difficult bankruptcy issues has potentially resulted in an excellent recovery for the class, but is awaiting Delphi’s exit from bankruptcy before the settlement of cash and stock, can be finalized. In addition, Co-Lead Plaintiffs have also reached a settlement of claims against Delphi’s outside auditor, Deloitte & Touche, LLP, for $38.25 million on behalf of Delphi investors, which has already been approved.

Royal Dutch Shell European Shareholder Litigation: Barroway Topaz was instrumental in achieving a landmark settlement worth at least $352million in cash on behalf of non-US investors with Royal Dutch Shell plc relating to Shell’s 2004 restatement of oil reserves. This settlement of securities fraud claims on a class-wide basis under Dutch law was the first of its kind, and sought to resolve claims exclusively on behalf of European and other non-United States investors. Uncertainty over whether jurisdiction for non-United States investors existed in a 2004 class action filed in federal court in New Jersey prompted a significant number of prominent European institutional investors from nine countries, representing more than one billion shares of Shell, to actively pursue a potential resolution of their claims outside the United States. Among the European investors which actively sought and supported this settlement were Alecta pensionsförsäkring, ömsesidigt, PKA Pension Funds Administration Ltd., Swedbank Robur Fonder AB, AP7 and AFA Insurance, all of which were represented by Barroway Topaz. This settlement was approved by Order dated 6/26/08.

In re The Interpublic Group of Companies Sec. Litig., No. 02 Civ. 6527 (S.D.N.Y. 2002): Barroway Topaz served as sole Lead Counsel in this action on behalf of an institutional investor and received final approval of a settlement consisting of $20 million in cash and 6,551,725 shares of IPG common stock. As of the final hearing in the case, the stock had an approximate value of $87 million, resulting in a total settlement value of approximately $107 million. In granting its approval, the Court praised Barroway Topaz for acting responsibly and noted the firm’s professionalism, competence and contribution to achieving such a favorable result.

In re Digital Lightwave, Inc. Sec. Litig., Consolidated Case No. 98-152-CIV-T-24E (M.D. Fla. 1999): The firm served as Co-Lead Counsel in one of the nation’s most successful securities class actions in history measured by the percentage of damages recovered. After extensive litigation and negotiations, a settlement consisting primarily of stock was worth over $170 million at the time when it was distributed to the Class. Barroway Topaz took on the primary role in negotiating the terms of the equity component, insisting that the class have the right to share in any upward appreciation in the value of the stock after the settlement was reached. This recovery represented an astounding approximately two hundred percent (200%) of class members’ losses. Case 2:07-cv-01603-SRB Document 116-5 Filed 11/15/10 Page 5 of 31 In re Initial Public Offering Sec. Litig., Master File No. 21 MC 92 (SAS) (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 12, 2002): Barroway Topaz holds a prominent position as an Executive Committee member in this action. Of the sixty plaintiffs firms which originally filed actions in these coordinated proceedings, Barroway Topaz was one of only six firms selected to serve on the Executive Committee. The coordinated actions, which have been filed against 309 separate issuers of publicly traded securities, challenge the legality of the practices which accompany the allocations of shares in initial public offerings. In addition to suing the issuers of such securities, the 309 coordinated actions also name as defendants the primary investment banking firms which underwrote the offerings. This case, which has received a great deal of national and international media attention, is widely considered the largest securities class action litigation in history and has resulted in numerous important rulings by the Court.

In re Global Crossing, Ltd. ERISA Litigation, No. 02 Civ. 7453 (S.D.N.Y. 2004): Barroway Topaz served as Co-Lead Counsel in this novel, complex and high-profile action which alleged that certain directors and officers of Global Crossing, a former high-flier of the late 1990’s tech stock boom, breached their fiduciary duties under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (“ERISA”) to certain company-provided 401(k) plans and their participants. These breaches arose from the plans’ alleged imprudent investment in Global Crossing stock during a time when defendants knew, or should have known, that the company was facing imminent bankruptcy. A settlement of plaintiffs’ claims restoring $79 million to the plans and their participants was approved in November 2004. At the time, this represented the largest recovery received in a company stock ERISA class action.

In re AOL Time Warner ERISA Litigation, No. 02-CV-8853 (S.D.N.Y. 2006): Barroway Topaz, which served as Co-Lead Counsel in this highly-publicized ERISA fiduciary breach class action brought on behalf of the Company’s 401(k) plans and their participants, achieved a record $100 million settlement with defendants. The $100 million restorative cash payment to the plans (and, concomitantly, their participants) represents the largest recovery from a single defendant in a breach of fiduciary action relating to mismanagement of plan assets held in the form of employer securities. The action asserted claims for breach of fiduciary duties pursuant to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (“ERISA”) on behalf of the participants in the AOL Time Warner Savings Plan, the AOL Time Warner Thrift Plan, and the Time Warner Cable Savings Plan (collectively, the “Plans”) whose accounts purchased and/or held interests in the AOLTW Stock Fund at any time between January 27, 1999 and July 3, 2003. Named as defendants in the case were Time Warner (and its corporate predecessor, AOL Time Warner), several of the Plans’ committees, as well as certain current and former officers and directors of the company. In March 2005, the Court largely denied defendants’ motion to dismiss and the parties began the discovery phase of the case. In January 2006, Plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification, while at the same time defendants moved for partial summary judgment. These motions were pending before the Court when the settlement in principle was reached. Notably, an Independent Fiduciary retained by the Plans to review the settlement in accordance with Department of Labor regulations approved the settlement and filed a report with Court noting that the settlement, in addition to being “more than a reasonable recovery” for the Plans, is “one of the largest ERISA employer stock action settlements in history.”

In re Honeywell International ERISA Litigation, No. 03-1214 (DRD) (D.N.J. 2004): Barroway Topaz served as Lead Counsel in a breach of fiduciary duty case under ERISA against Honeywell International, Inc. and certain fiduciaries of Honeywell defined contribution pension plans. The suit alleged that Honeywell and the individual fiduciary defendants, allowed Honeywell’s 401(k) plans and their participants to imprudently invest significant assets in company stock, despite that defendants knew, or should have known, that Honeywell’s stock was an imprudent investment due to undisclosed, wide-ranging problems stemming from a consummated merger with Allied Signal and a failed merger with General Electric. The settlement of plaintiffs’ claims included a $14 million payment to the plans and their affected participants, and significant structural relief affording participants much greater leeway in diversifying their retirement savings portfolios.

In re Remeron Antitrust Litigation, No. 02-CV-2007 (D.N.J. 2004): Barroway Topaz was Co-Lead Counsel in an action which challenged Organon, Inc.’s filing of certain patents and patent infringement lawsuits as an abuse of the Hatch-Waxman Act, and an effort to unlawfully extend their monopoly in the market for Remeron. Specifically, the lawsuit alleged that defendants violated state and federal antitrust laws in their efforts to keep competing products from entering the market, and sought damages sustained by consumers and third-party payors. After lengthy litigation, including numerous motions and over 50 depositions, the matter settled for $36 million. The settlement is pending final approval by the court. Case 2:07-cv-01603-SRB Document 116-5 Filed 11/15/10 Page 6 of 31 Henry v. Sears, et. al., Case No. 98 C 4110 (N.D. Ill. 1999): The firm served as Co-Lead Counsel for one of the largest consumer class actions in history, consisting of approximately 11 million Sears credit card holders whose interest rates were improperly increased in connection with the transfer of the credit card accounts to a national bank. Barroway Topaz successfully negotiated a settlement representing approximately 66% of all class members’ damages, thereby providing a total benefit exceeding $156 million. All $156 million was distributed automatically to the Class members, without the filing of a single proof of claim form. In approving the settlement, the District Court stated: “. . . I am pleased to approve the settlement. I think it does the best that could be done under the circumstances on behalf of the class. . . . The litigation was complex in both liability and damages and required both professional skill and standing which class counsel demonstrated in abundance.”

In re Transkaryotic Therapies, Inc. Sec. Litig., Civil Action No.: 03-10165-RWZ (D. Mass. 2003): After five years of hard-fought, contentious litigation, Barroway Topaz as Lead Counsel on behalf of the Class, has entered into one of largest settlements ever against a biotech company with regard to non-approval of one of its drugs by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”). Specifically, the Plaintiffs alleged that Transkaryotic Therapies, Inc. (“TKT”) and its CEO, Richard Selden, engaged in a fraudulent scheme to artificially inflate the price of TKT common stock and to deceive Class Members by making misrepresentations and nondisclosures of material facts concerning TKT’s prospects for FDA approval of Replagal, TKT’s experimental enzyme replacement therapy for Fabry disease. With the assistance of the Honorable Daniel Weinstein, a retired state court judge from California, Barroway Topaz secured a $50 million settlement from the Defendants during a complex and arduous mediation.

In re Assisted Living Concepts, Inc. Sec. Litig., Lead Case No. 99-167-AA (D. Or. 1999): Barroway Topaz served as Co-Lead Counsel and was instrumental in obtaining a $30 million recovery for class members from the Company, its executive officers and directors, and several underwriters for their role in an alleged complex accounting fraud involving the use of a purportedly independent joint venture to absorb the Company’s start-up losses. Even after this $30 million recovery, through counsel’s efforts, an additional $12.5 million was obtained from the auditors providing for a total recovery of $42.5 million.

Wanstrath v. Doctor R. Crants, et. al. Shareholders Litigation, No. 99-1719-111 (Tenn. Chan. Ct., 20th Judicial District, 1999): Barroway Topaz served as Lead Counsel in a derivative action filed against the officers and directors of Prison Realty Trust, Inc., challenging the transfer of assets from the Company to a private entity owned by several of the Company’s top insiders. Numerous federal securities class actions were pending against the Company at this time. Through the derivative litigation, the Company’s top management was ousted, the composition of the Board of Directors was significantly improved, and important corporate governance provisions were put in place to prevent future abuse. Barroway Topaz, in addition to achieving these desirable results, was able to effectuate a global settlement of all pending litigation against the backdrop of an almost certain bankruptcy. The case was resolved in conjunction with the federal securities cases for the payment of approximately $50 million by the Company’s insurers and the issuance of over 46 million shares to the class members.

In re PNC Financial Services Group, Inc. Sec. Litig., Case No. 02-CV-271 (W.D. Pa. 2002): Barroway Topaz served as Co-Lead Counsel in a securities class action case brought against PNC bank, certain of its officers and directors and its outside auditor, Ernst & Young, LLP (“E&Y”), relating to the conduct of defendants in establishing, accounting for and making disclosures concerning three special purpose entities (“SPEs”) in the second, third and fourth quarters of PNC’s 2001 fiscal year. Plaintiffs alleged that these entities were created by defendants for the sole purpose of allowing PNC to secretly transfer hundreds of millions of dollars worth of non-performing assets from its own books to the books of the SPEs without disclosing the transfers or consolidating the results and then making positive announcements to the public concerning the bank’s performance with respect to its non-performing assets. Barroway Topaz was instrumental in obtaining a $30 million recovery for class members from PNC and the assignment of certain claims it may have had against its audit and other third party law firms and insurance companies. An additional $6.6 million was recovered from the insurance company and the law firms and an agreement in principle has now been reached with the audit to resolve all claims for another $9.075 million, providing for a total recovery from the Sec. Litig. of $45.675. When coupled with the $156 million restitution fund established through government actions against some of the same defendants and third parties, the total recovery for class members exceeds $200 million, which has now been distributed with PNC paying all costs associated with notifying the Class of the settlement. Case 2:07-cv-01603-SRB Document 116-5 Filed 11/15/10 Page 7 of 31 In re New Power Holdings, Inc. Sec. Litig., No. 02 Civ. 1550 (S.D.N.Y. 2002): Barroway Topaz served as Co-Lead Counsel and was instrumental in obtaining a recovery of $41 million in cash for class members against a bankrupt company, certain of its officers and directors and the underwriters of the Company’s offering. Claims involved New Power, an offshoot of Enron, that was formed to re-enter the deregulated energy market and pursued an IPO with no viable plan to hedge against volatile energy prices.

In re Liberate Technologies Sec. Litig., No. C-02-5017 (MJJ) (N.D. Cal. 2005): Plaintiffs alleged that Liberate engaged in fraudulent revenue recognition practices to artificially inflate the price of its stock, ultimately forcing it to restate its earning. As sole Lead Counsel, Barroway Topaz successfully negotiated a $13.8 million settlement, which represents almost 40% of the damages suffered by the class. In approving the settlement, the district court complimented Lead Counsel for its “extremely credible and competent job.”

In re Sodexho Marriott Shareholders Litigation, Consol. C.A. No. 18640-NC (Del. Ch. 1999): Barroway Topaz was Class Counsel in this case which was pending in Delaware Chancery Court, in which Class Counsel was partially responsible for creating an aggregate financial benefit of approximately $166 million for members of the class.

In re Riverstone Networks, Inc. Sec. Litig., Case No. CV-02-3581 (N.D. Cal. 2002): Barroway Topaz served as Lead Counsel on behalf of plaintiffs alleging that Riverstone and certain of its officers and directors sought to create the impression that the Company, despite the industry-wide downturn in the telecom sector, had the ability to prosper and succeed and was actually prospering. In that regard, plaintiffs alleged that defendants issued a series of false and misleading statements concerning the Company’s financial condition, sales and prospects, and used inside information to personally profit. After extensive litigation, the parties entered into formal mediation with the Honorable Charles Legge (Ret.). Following five months of extensive mediation, the parties reached a settlement of $18.5 million.

In re McLeod USA Inc. Sec. Litig., No. C02-0001-MWB (N.D. Iowa 2002): Barroway Topaz served as Co-Lead Counsel on behalf of plaintiffs, alleging that McLeod USA and certain of its officers misrepresented the health and prospects of the company’s business. After more than three years of litigation, Barroway Topaz helped obtain a settlement of $30 million from the defendants.

In re Viacom, Inc. Shareholder Derivative Litig., Index No. 602527/05 (New York County, NY 2005): Barroway Topaz represented the Public Employees Retirement System of Mississippi and served as lead counsel in a derivative action alleging that the members of the Board of Directors of Viacom, Inc. paid excessive and unwarranted compensation to Viacom’s Executive Chairman and CEO, Sumner M. Redstone, and co-COOs Thomas E. Freston and Leslie Moonves, in breach of their fiduciary duties. Specifically, Barroway Topaz alleged that in fiscal year 2004, when Viacom reported a record net loss of $17.46 billion, the board improperly approved compensation payments to Redstone, Freston, and Moonves of approximately $56 million, $52million, and $52million, respectively. Judge Ramos of the New York Supreme Court denied Defendants’ motion to dismiss the action as Barroway Topaz overcame several complex arguments related to the failure to make a demand on Viacom’s Board; Defendants then appealed that decision to the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York. Prior to a decision by the appellate court, a settlement was reached in early 2007. Pursuant to the settlement, Sumner Redstone, the company’s Executive Chairman and controlling shareholder, agreed to a new compensation package that, among other things, substantially reduces his annual salary and cash bonus, and ties the majority of his incentive compensation directly to shareholder returns.

In re Computer Associates Sec. Litig., No. 02-CV-1226 (E.D.N.Y. 2002): Barroway Topaz served as Co-Lead Counsel on behalf of plaintiffs, alleging that Computer Associates and certain of its officers misrepresented the health of the company’s business, materially overstated the company’s revenues, and engaged in illegal insider selling. After nearly two years of litigation, Barroway Topaz helped obtain a settlement of $150 million in cash and stock from the company. Case 2:07-cv-01603-SRB Document 116-5 Filed 11/15/10 Page 8 of 31 Kaltman, et. al. v Key Energy Services, Inc., et. al., No. 04-CV-082-RAJ (W.D. Tex. 2004): Barroway Topaz served as sole Lead Counsel on behalf of plaintiffs, alleging that Key Energy, as well as certain of its officers and directors, had made materially false and misleading statements in the company’s public filings and press releases relating to its financial results, particularly its net income and fixed asset records. After nearly four years of litigation, Barroway Topaz secured a settlement of $15.425 million, which was recently approved by the Court.

In re Family Dollar Stores, Inc. Derivative Litig., Master File No. 06-CVS-16796 (Mecklenburg County, NC 2006): Barroway Topaz served as Lead Counsel, derivatively on behalf of Family Dollar Stores, Inc., and against certain of Family Dollar’s current and former officers and directors. The actions were pending in Mecklenburg County Superior Court, Charlotte, North Carolina, and alleged that certain of the company’s officers and directors had improperly backdated stock options to achieve favorable exercise prices in violation of shareholder-approved stock option plans. As a result of these shareholder derivative actions, Barroway Topaz was able to achieve substantial relief for Family Dollar and its shareholders. Through Barroway Topaz’s litigation of this action, Family Dollar agreed to cancel hundreds of thousands of stock options granted to certain current and former officers, resulting in a seven-figure net financial benefit for the company. In addition, Family Dollar has agreed to, among other things: implement internal controls and granting procedures that are designed to ensure that all stock options are properly dated and accounted for; appoint two new independent directors to the board of directors; maintain a board composition of at least 75 percent independent directors; and adopt stringent officer stock- ownership policies to further align the interests of officers with those of Family Dollar shareholders. The settlement was approved by Order of the Court on August 13, 2007.

In re Barnes & Noble, Inc. Derivative Litig., Index No. 06602389 (New York County, NY 2006): Barroway Topaz served as Lead Counsel, derivatively on behalf of Barnes & Noble, Inc., and against certain of Barnes & Noble’s current and former officers and directors. This action was pending in the Supreme Court of New York, and alleged that certain of the company’s officers and directors had improperly backdated stock options to achieve favorable exercise prices in violation of shareholder-approved stock option plans. As a result of this shareholder derivative action, Barroway Topaz was able to achieve substantial relief for Barnes & Noble and its shareholders. Through Barroway Topaz’s litigation of this action, Barnes & Noble agreed to re-price approximately $2.64 million unexercised stock options that were alleged improperly granted, and certain defendants agreed to voluntarily repay approximately $1.98 million to the Company for the proceeds they received through exercise of alleged improperly priced stock options. Furthermore, Barnes & Noble has agreed to, among other things: adopt internal controls and granting procedures that are designed to ensure that all stock options are properly dated and accounted for; at least once per calendar year, preset a schedule of dates on which stock options will be granted to new employees or to groups of twenty (20) or more employees; make final determinations regarding stock options at duly-convened committee meetings; and designate one or more specific officer(s) within the Company who will be responsible for, among other things, compliance with the Company’s stock option plans. The settlement was approved by Order of the Court on November 14, 2007.

In re Sepracor, Inc. Derivative Litig., Case No. 06-4057-BLS (Suffolk County, MA 2006): Barroway Topaz served as Lead Counsel, derivatively on behalf of Sepracor, Inc., and against certain of Sepracor’s current and former officers and directors. This action was pending in the Superior Court of Suffolk County, Massachusetts, and alleged that certain of the company’s officers and directors had improperly backdated stock options to achieve favorable exercise prices in violation of shareholder-approved stock option plans. As a result of this shareholder derivative action, Barroway Topaz was able to achieve substantial relief for Sepracor and its shareholders. Through Barroway Topaz’s litigation of this action, Sepracor agreed to cancel or re-price more than 2.7 million unexercised stock options that were alleged to have been improperly granted. Furthermore, Sepracor has agreed to, among other things: adopt internal controls and granting procedures that are designed to ensure that all stock options are properly dated and accounted for; not alter the exercise prices of stock options without shareholder approval; hire an employee responsible for ensuring that the Company’s complies with its stock option plans; and appoint a director of internal auditing. The settlement was approved by Order of the Court on January 4, 2008. Case 2:07-cv-01603-SRB Document 116-5 Filed 11/15/10 Page 9 of 31

PARTNERS

RAMZI ABADOU, a partner in the firm’s San Francisco office, received his Bachelor of Arts from Pitzer College in Claremont, California in 1994 and his Master of Arts from Columbia University in the City of New York in 1997. Prior to attending law school, Mr. Abadou was a political science adjunct professor at Foothill College in Los Altos Hills, California. Mr. Abadou graduated from the Boston College Law School and clerked for the United States Attorney’s Office in San Diego, California. Prior to joining the firm, Mr, Abadou was a partner with Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP in San Diego, California.

Mr. Abadou concentrates his practice on prosecuting securities class actions and is also a member of the firm’s lead plaintiff litigation practice group. Mr. Abadou has been responsible for a number of significant rulings and/or recoveries, including: In re UnitedHealth Group, Inc. Sec. Litig., 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 40623 (D. Minn. 2007); In re Cardinal Health, Inc. Sec. Litig., 22 6 F.R.D. 298 (S.D. Ohio 2005); In re North Western Corp. Sec. Litig., 299 F. Supp. 2d 997 (D.S.D. 2003); Borochoff v. GlaxoSmithKline PLC, 246 F.R.D. 201 (S.D.N.Y.2007); Kuriakose v. Federal Home Loan Mortgage Co., 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 95506 (S.D.N.Y. 2008); In re Direct Gen. Corp. Sec.Litig., 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 56128 (M.D. Tenn. 2006); Ross v. Abercrombie & Fitch Co., 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 24903 (S.D. Ohio 2007) and In re Unumprovident Corp. Sec. Litig., 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 24633 (E.D. Tenn. 2003).

Mr. Abadou was a featured panelist at the American Bar Association’s 11th Annual National Institute on Class Actions and was a faculty member at the Practicing Law Institute’s 2008 Advanced Securities Litigation Workshop. Mr. Abadou was named as one of the Daily Journal’s Top 20 lawyers in California under age 40 for 2010. Mr. Abadou has also lectured on securities litigation at the University of San Diego and Boston College law schools. He is admitted to the California Bar and is licensed to practice in all California state courts, as well as the United States District Courts for the Southern, Northern, and Central Districts of California.

ANDREW L. BARROWAY, a partner of the firm, received his law degree from the University of Pennsylvania Law School, where he was a member of the ABA Negotiation team. He is licensed to practice law in Pennsylvania and New Jersey, and has been admitted to practice before the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. Mr. Barroway frequently lectures on securities class action and lead plaintiff issues, and spoke at the 2005 Institutional Investor Hedge Fund Workshop in New York City and the Public Funds Summit 2005 in Phoenix, Arizona. Mr. Barroway has been actively involved in all aspects of litigation on behalf of the firm and has played pivotal roles in the resolutions of In re The Interpublic Group of Companies Sec. Litig., No. 02Civ. 6527 (S.D.N.Y. 2002) (settled — settlement value of approximately $107 million); In re Digital Lightwave, Inc. Sec. Litig., Consolidated Case No. 98-152-CIVT-24E (M.D. Fla. 1999) (settled — settlement value of $170 million); In re Tyco International, Ltd. Sec. Lit., No. 02-1335-B (D.N.H. 2002) (settled — $3.2 billion); and Kaltman, et al. v Key Energy Services, Inc., et al., No. 04-CV-082-RAJ (W.D. Tex. 2004) (settled — $15.425 million). Mr. Barroway also represents numerous public pension funds, private investment funds, money management firms, and individuals in securities fraud litigation in which Barroway Topaz has been appointed as Lead or Co-Lead Counsel.

STUART L. BERMAN, a partner of the firm, concentrates his practice on securities class action litigation in federal courts throughout the country, with a particular emphasis on representing institutional investors active in litigation. Mr. Berman regularly counsels and educates institutional investors located around the world on emerging legal trends, new case ideas and the rights and obligations of institutional investors as they relate to securities fraud class actions and individual actions. In this respect, Mr. Berman has been instrumental in courts appointing the firm’s institutional clients as lead plaintiffs in class actions as well as in representing institutions individually in direct actions. Mr. Berman is currently representing institutional investors in direct actions against Vivendi and Merck, and took a very active role in the precedent setting Shell settlement on behalf of many of the firm’s European institutional clients. Case 2:07-cv-01603-SRB Document 116-5 Filed 11/15/10 Page 10 of 31 In connection with these responsibilities, Mr. Berman is a frequent speaker on securities issues, especially as they relate to institutional investors, at events such as The European Pension Symposium in Florence, Italy; the Public Funds Symposium in Washington, D.C.; the Pennsylvania Public Employees Retirement (PAPERS) Summit in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania; the New England Pension Summit in Newport, Rhode Island; the Rights and Responsibilities for Institutional Investors in Amsterdam, Netherlands; and the European Investment Roundtable in Barcelona, Spain.

Mr. Berman is an honors graduate from Brandeis University and received his law degree from George Washington University National Law Center.

MICHAEL J. BONELLA, a partner in the firm, concentrates his practice on intellectual property litigation and particularly complex patent litigation. He earned his law degree magna cum laude from the Duke University School of Law. Michael is one of a few attorneys who is both registered to practice before the Patent and Trademark Office and that also holds an LLM degree in Trial Advocacy, which he obtained from Temple University. In addition, Michael obtained a bachelor of science degree cum laude in mechanical engineering from Villanova University. Michael also served five years in the U.S. Naval Submarine program. While serving in the Navy, Michael was certified by the U.S. Navy as a nuclear engineer and received advance training in electrical engineering.

Michael is currently the co-chair of the firm’s intellectual property department. Michael has served as the lead lawyer on patent litigations involved pharmaceutical and consumer products. Michael was the case manager for TruePosition, Inc. and was instrumental in achieving a settlement valued at about $45 million for TruePosition, Inc. in TruePosition, Inc. v. Allen Telecom, Inc., No. 01-0823 (D. Del.). Michael has also been the attorney that was primarily responsible for obtaining favorable settlements for defendants ( e.g., Codman & Shurtleff, Inc. v. Integra LifeSciences Corp., No. 06-2414 (D. N.J.) (declaratory judgment action). Michael has litigated patent cases involving a wide range of technologies including balloon angioplasty catheters, collagen sponges, neurosurgery, sutures, shoulder surgery, knee surgery, orthopedic implants, pump technology, immunoassay testing, cellular telephones, computer software, signal processing, and electrical hardware. Michael has also served as a case manager for a plaintiff in a multidistrict patent litigation (MDL) involving multiple defendants and complex signal processing

Michael has written numerous articles and most recently authored an article entitled Valuing Patent Infringement Actions After the Supreme Court’s eBay Decision (2008). In 2005, Michael was named a Rising Star by Pennsylvania SuperLawyer.

GREGORY M. CASTALDO, a partner of the firm, received his law degree from Loyola Law School, where he received the American Jurisprudence award in legal writing. He received his undergraduate degree from the Wharton School of Business at the University of Pennsylvania. He is licensed to practice law in Pennsylvania and New Jersey.

Mr. Castaldo served as Barroway Topaz’s lead litigation partner in In re Tenet Healthcare Corp., No. 02-CV- 8462 (C.D. Cal. 2002), securing an aggregate recovery of $281.5 million for the class, including $65 million from Tenet’s auditor. Mr. Castaldo also played a primary litigation role in the following cases: In re Liberate Technologies Sec. Litig., No. C-02-5017 (MJJ) (N.D. Cal. 2005) (settled — $13.8 million); In re Sodexho Marriott Shareholders Litig., Consol. C.A. No. 18640-NC (Del. Ch. 1999) (settled — $166 million benefit); In re Motive, Inc. Sec. Litig., 05-CV-923 (W.D.Tex. 2005) (settled — $7 million cash, 2.5 million shares); and In re Wireless Facilities, Inc., Sec. Litig., 04-CV-1589 (S.D. Cal. 2004) (settled — $16.5 million).

DARREN J. CHECK, a partner of the firm, concentrates his practice in the area of securities litigation and institutional investor relations. He is a graduate of Franklin & Marshall College and received his law degree from Temple University School of Law. Mr. Check is licensed to practice in Pennsylvania and New Jersey.

Currently, Mr. Check concentrates his time as the firm’s Director of Institutional Relations and heads up the firm’s Portfolio Monitoring and Business Development departments. He consults with institutional investors from Case 2:07-cv-01603-SRB Document 116-5 Filed 11/15/10 Page 1 1 of 31 around the world regarding their rights and responsibilities with respect to their investments and taking an active role in shareholder litigation. Mr. Check assists clients in evaluating what systems they have in place to identify and monitor shareholder and consumer litigation that has an effect on their funds, and also assists them in evaluating the strength of such cases and to what extent they may be affected by the conduct that has been alleged. He currently works with clients in the United States, Canada, the Netherlands, United Kingdom, France, Italy, Sweden, Denmark, Finland, Norway, Germany, Austria, and Switzerland.

Mr. Check regularly speaks on the subject of shareholder litigation, corporate governance, investor activism, and recovery of investment losses. Mr. Check has spoken at or participated in panel sessions at conferences around the world, including MultiPensions; the European Pension Symposium; the Public Funds Summit; the European Investment Roundtable; The Rights & Responsibilities of Institutional Investors; the Corporate Governance & Responsible Investment Summit; the Public Funds Roundtable; The Evolving Fiduciary Obligations of Pension Plans: Understanding the New Era of Corporate Governance; the International Foundation for Employee Benefit Plans Annual Conference; the Florida Public Pension Trustees Association Annual Conference, the Pennsylvania Association of Public Employees Retirement Systems Annual Meeting; and the Australian Investment Management Summit.

Mr. Check has also been actively involved in the precedent setting Shell settlement, direct actions against Vivendi and Merck, and the class action against Bank of America related to its merger with Merrill Lynch.

EDWARD W. CIOLKO, a partner of the firm, received his law degree from Georgetown University Law Center, and an MBA from the Yale School of Management. He is licensed to practice law in the State of New Jersey, and has been admitted to practice before the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey and the United States Courts of Appeals for the First, Fourth, Ninth and Eleventh Circuits. Mr. Ciolko concentrates his practice in the areas of ERISA, Antitrust, RESPA and Consumer Protection.

Mr. Ciolko is counsel in several pending nationwide ERISA breach of fiduciary duty class actions, brought on behalf of retirement plans and their participants alleging, inter alia, imprudent investment of plan assets which caused significant losses to the retirement savings of tens of thousands of workers. These cases include: In re Beazer Homes USA, Inc. ERISA Litig., 07-CV-00952-RWS (N.D. Ga. 2007); Nowak v. Ford Motor Co., 240 F.R.D. 355 (E.D. Mich. 2006); Gee v. UnumProvident Corp., 03-1552(E.D. Tenn. 2003); Pettit v. JDS Uniphase Corp. et al., C.A. No. 03-4743 (N.D. Ca. 2003); Hargrave v. TXU, et al., C.A. No. 02-2573 (N.D. Tex. 2002); Evans v. Akers, C.A. No. 04-11380 (D. Mass. 2004); Lewis v. El Paso Corp. No. 02-CV-4860 (S.D. Tex. 2002); and In re Schering-Plough Corp. ERISA Litig. No. 03-CV-1204 (D.N.J. 2003).

Mr. Ciolko’s efforts have also helped achieve a number of large recoveries for affected retirement plan participants: In re Sears Roebuck & Co. ERISA Litig., C.A. No. 02-8324 (N.D. Ill. 2002) (settled — $14.5 million recovery); and In re Honeywell Intern’l ERISA Litig., No. 03-CV-1214 (DRD) (D.N.J. 2003) (settled — $14 million recovery, as well as significant structural relief regarding the plan’s administration and investment of its assets).

Mr. Ciolko has also concentrated part of his practice to the investigation and prosecution of pharmaceutical antitrust actions, medical device litigation, and related anticompetitive and unfair business practices including In re Wellbutrin SR Antitrust Litigation, 04-CV-5898 (E.D. Pa. Dec. 17, 2004); In re Remeron End-Payor Antitrust Litigation, Master File No. 02-CV-2007 (D.N.J. Apr. 25, 2002); In re Modafinil Antitrust Litigation, 06-2020 (E.D. Pa. May 12, 2006); In re Medtronic, Inc. Implantable Defibrillator Litigation, 05-CV-2700 (D. Minn. 2005); and In re Guidant Corp. Implantable Defibrillator Litigation, 05-CV-2883 (D. Minn. 2005).

Before coming to Barroway Topaz, Mr. Ciolko worked for two and one-half years as a Law Clerk and Attorney Advisor to Commissioner Sheila F. Anthony of the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”). While at the FTC, Mr. Ciolko reviewed commission actions/investigations and counseled the Commissioner on a wide range of antitrust and consumer protection topics including, in pertinent part: the confluence of antitrust and intellectual property law; research and production of “Generic Drug Entry Prior to Patent Expiration: An FTC Study,” and an administrative complaint against, among others, Schering-Plough Corporation regarding allegedly unlawful Case 2:07-cv-01603-SRB Document 116-5 Filed 11/15/10 Page 12 of 31 settlements of patent litigation which delayed entry of a generic alternative to a profitable potassium supplement (K-Dur).

SEAN M. HANDLER, a partner of the firm, received his Bachelor of Arts degree from Colby College, graduating with distinction in American Studies. Mr. Handler then earned his Juris Doctor, cum laude, from Temple University School of Law.

After law school, Mr. Handler practiced labor law at Reed Smith, LLP in Philadelphia. Since joining Barroway Topaz, Mr. Handler has concentrated his practice in the area of securities litigation, with a particular emphasis on litigation strategy and lead plaintiff litigation. In this role, Mr. Handler has been responsible for numerous reported decisions.

In addition to these responsibilities, Mr. Handler also spends considerable time litigating ongoing securities litigation matters on behalf of institutional clients including In re Delphi Corporation Sec. Litig., No. 06-10026 (GER) (E.D. MI. 2006); Smajlaj v. Brocade Communications Systems, Inc., et al., No. 05-cv-02042(CRB) (N.D. Cal. 2005); and State of New Jersey and Its Division of Investment v. Sprint Corporation, et al., No. 03-2071-JWL (D. Kan. 2003).

MICHAEL J. HYNES, a partner of the firm, received his law degree from Temple University School of Law, and is a graduate of Franklin and Marshall College. Mr. Hynes is licensed to practice law in Pennsylvania, New Jersey and Montana, and has been admitted to practice in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, and the United States District Courts for the Eastern and Middle Districts of Pennsylvania. Prior to joining Barroway Topaz, Mr. Hynes practiced law at Cozen O’Connor, where he concentrated on bankruptcy and commercial litigation. He was an attorney with the Defenders’ Association of Philadelphia from 1991 to 1996, where he defended thousands of misdemeanor and felony cases. At Barroway Topaz, Mr. Hynes concentrates his practice in the area of shareholder derivative litigation.

JOHN A. KEHOE, a partner of the firm, received his B.A. from DePaul University and M.P.A., with high honors, from the University of Vermont. He earned his J.D., magna cum laude, from Syracuse University College of Law, where he was Associate Editor of the Syracuse Law Review, Associate Member of the Moot Court Board, and Alternate Member on the National Appellate Team.

Mr. Kehoe has litigated many high profile securities and antitrust actions in state and federal courts, including Ohio Public Employees Retirement System et al. v. Freddie Mac et al., 03-CV-4261 (S.D.N.Y.) (resulting in a $410 million combined class and derivative settlement); In re Bristol-Myers Squibb Sec. Litig., 02-CV-22 51 (S.D.N.Y.) (resulting in a $300 million class settlement); In re Adelphia Communications Corp.Sec. & Der. Litig., No. 03 MD 1529 (S.D.N.Y.) (resulting in a $460 million class settlement); and In re Vitamins Antitrust Litig., MDL No. 1285 (D.D.C.) (resulting in more than $2 billion in federal and state class and direct action settlements). Mr. Kehoe is currently among the lead trial attorneys representing individual and institutional investors in 309 separate class actions that have been consolidated for pretrial purposes in In re Initial Public Offering Sec. Litig., No. 21 MC 92 (S.D.N.Y.).

Prior to joining Barroway Topaz Kessler Meltzer & Check, Mr. Kehoe spent six years as a litigation associate with Clifford Chance LLP, where he represented Fortune 100 corporations and their officers and directors in complex commercial litigation and criminal or civil actions brought by the Department of Justice, the Securities and Exchange Commission, and the Federal Trade Commission. From 1986 to 1994, he served as a police officer in the State of Vermont, where he was a member of the Special Reaction Team and Major Accident Investigation Team.

Mr. Kehoe is currently admitted to practice before the courts of New York State, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, and the Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. Case 2:07-cv-01603-SRB Document 116-5 Filed 11/15/10 Page 13 of 31 DAVID KESSLER, a partner of the firm, graduated with distinction from the Emory School of Law. He is licensed to practice in Pennsylvania, New Jersey and New York, and has been admitted to practice before the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, and the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. Prior to practicing law, Mr. Kessler was a Certified Public Accountant in Pennsylvania. In addition, Mr. Kessler often lectures on securities litigation related topics. Mr. Kessler also manages the firm’s nationally recognized securities department and in this capacity, has achieved or assisted in obtaining Court approval for the following outstanding results in federal securities and consumer class action cases: In re Tyco International, Ltd. Sec. Lit., No. 02-1335-B (D.N.H. 2002) (settled — $3.2 billion); In re PNC Financial Services Group, Inc. Sec. Litig., Case No. 02-CV-271 (W.D. Pa. 2002) (settled — $45.675million); Henry v. Sears, et al., Case No. 98 C 4110 (N.D. Ill. 1999) (settled — $156 million); In re Assisted Living Concepts, Inc. Sec. Litig., Lead Case No. 99-167-AA (D. Or. 1999) (settled — $42.5 million); In re Tenet Healthcare Corp. Sec. Litig., No. CV-02-8462-RSWL (Rx) (C.D. Cal. 2002) (settled — $216.5 million with Company and $65 million with auditor). Mr. Kessler is also currently serving as the firm’s primary litigation partner in what is widely recognized as the largest securities class action case in history in In re Initial Public Offering Sec. Litig., Master File No. 21 MC 92(SAS) (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 12, 2002).

PETER (“Tad”) H. LeVAN, Jr., a partner of the firm, graduated with distinction from the University of Cincinnati College of Law, where he was a member of the University of Cincinnati Law Review and received the Awards for Excellence in Criminal Law and Conflicts of Law. Mr. LeVan received his undergraduate degree, cum laude and Phi Beta Kappa, from Miami University. Upon graduating from law school, Mr. LeVan served as judicial clerk to the Honorable John M. Manos of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio. Mr. LeVan is licensed to practice law in Pennsylvania, New Jersey and Ohio. In addition, he is admitted to practice before the United States District Courts for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, the Middle District of Pennsylvania, the District of New Jersey, and the Northern District of Ohio, as well as the United States Courts of Appeals for the Third, Sixth and Federal Circuits.

Mr. LeVan’s practice focuses on ERISA and other complex litigation. A Fellow of the Academy of Advocacy at the Temple University School of Law, Mr. LeVan was the Recipient of the Equal Justice Award, given in recognition of his outstanding dedication and pro bono service to the cause of equal justice.

Prior to joining Barroway Topaz, Mr. LeVan was a shareholder at the law firm of Hangley Aronchick Segal & Pudlin, where he also served on the firm’s Board of Directors.

JOSEPH H. MELTZER, a partner of the firm and a member of Barroway Topaz’s Management Committee, concentrates his practice in the areas of ERISA and Antitrust complex litigation.

Mr. Meltzer leads the firm’s ERISA Litigation Department, which has excelled in the highly specialized area of prosecuting claims on behalf of participants in 401(k) and other retirement savings plans. Mr. Meltzer is lead counsel in numerous nationwide class actions brought under ERISA, including Lewis v. El Paso Corp., 02-CV- 4860 (S.D. Tex. Dec. 19, 2002); In re Loral Space ERISA Litig., 03-CV-9729 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 8, 2003) and In re Schering-Plough Corp. ERISA Litig., 03-CV-1204 (D.N.J. Mar. 18, 2003). Since founding the ERISA Litigation Department, Mr. Meltzer has recovered well over $250 million for retirement plan participants, including in In re AOL Time Warner ERISA Litig., C.A. No. 02-8853 (S.D.N.Y. 2002) (settled — $100 million) and In re Global Crossing Ltd. ERISA Litig., No. 02-7453 (S.D.N.Y. 2002) (settled — $79 million).

A frequent lecturer on ERISA litigation and employee benefits issues, Mr. Meltzer is a member of the ABA’s Section Committee on Employee Benefits and has been recognized by numerous courts for his ability and expertise in this complex area of the law.

Mr. Meltzer also manages the firm’s Antitrust and Pharmaceutical Pricing practice groups. Here, Mr. Meltzer focuses on helping clients that have been injured by anticompetitive and unlawful business practices, including with respect to overcharges related to prescription drug and other health care expenditures. Mr. Meltzer serves as lead counsel in numerous nationwide actions representing such clients as the Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission, Case 2:07-cv-01603-SRB Document 116-5 Filed 11/15/10 Page 14 of 31 the Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority (SEPTA) and the Sidney Hillman Health Center of Rochester. Mr. Meltzer also serves as special assistant attorney general for the state of Montana. Examples of his success in these areas include In re Remeron Antitrust Litig., 02-CV-2007 (D.N.J.) (settled — $36 million) and In re Augmentin Antitrust Litig., 02-442(E.D. Va.) (settled — $29 million). Mr. Meltzer lectures on issues related to antitrust litigation and is a member of the ABA’s Section Committee on Antitrust Law.

Mr. Meltzer is an honors graduate of the University of Maryland and received his law degree with honors from Temple University School of Law. Honors include being named a Pennsylvania Super Lawyer in 2008.

PAUL B. MILCETIC, a partner in the firm, concentrates his practice in the area of patent and intellectual property litigation. He earned his law degree from the Cornell Law School, received an LLM in trial advocacy from the Temple University School of Law and also holds a degree in Computer Science from Rutgers University, summa cum laude. Paul is licensed to practice law in Pennsylvania, New York and New Jersey.

He is currently co-chair of the firm intellectual property litigation department. Paul has been the lead trial lawyer on multiple patent litigations. In 2007, Paul achieved a $45 million patent infringement verdict as lead trial lawyer in TruePosition v Andrew Corp. and in 2009 he successfully argued for a $20 million post verdict punitive damages award. Paul was quoted in the following articles that spotlighted some recent achievements: “Philadelphia Lawyers Win $45 Mil in Patent Case,” The Legal Intelligencer, September 19, 2007 and “Cell Phone Co. Loses Gamble, Ordered to Pay $20 Mil. More in Damages,” Delaware Law Weekly, May 20, 2009. According to Chambers USA 2010, Paul is “confident and assertive in the courtroom.”

Paul is a frequent speaker on topics relating to intellectual property. He was recently interviewed by the Law Business Inside Radio Show. He is also the author of a book about standards related patent litigation that was published in January 2008 entitled “Technology Patent Infringement Case Strategies.” In 2009 and 2010, Paul was named a Pennsylvania Superlawyer.

PETER A. MUHIC, a partner of the firm, is a graduate of Syracuse University and an honors graduate of the Temple University School of Law, where he was Managing Editor of the Temple Law Review and also was a member of the Moot Court Board. He is licensed to practice law in Pennsylvania and New Jersey and also is admitted to practice before the United States Courts of Appeals for the Third, Fifth Circuits and Ninth Circuits, the United States District Courts for the Eastern and Middle Districts of Pennsylvania and the District Court of New Jersey.

Mr. Muhic has substantial trial experience involving complex actions in federal and state courts throughout the country. In 2009, Mr. Muhic was co-lead trial counsel in one of the few class action ERISA cases ever to be tried, which involved claims against the fiduciaries of the 401k plan of an S&P 500 company for imprudent investment in company stock and misrepresentations to plan participants. In addition to his significant trial recoveries, he has successfully resolved numerous actions through arbitrations and mediations in an array of forums. Mr. Muhic currently prosecutes class actions and/or collective actions concerning the FLSA, ERISA, FHA, ECOA and numerous state consumer protection statutes and laws. Prior to joining Barroway Topaz Kessler Meltzer and Check, Mr. Muhic was a senior member of a prominent national firm based in Philadelphia.

Mr. Muhic serves as a Judge Pro Tem for the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, is a former Board Member of the SeniorLAW Center in Philadelphia and a past recipient of the White Hat Award for outstanding pro bono contributions to the Legal Clinic for the Disabled, a nonprofit organization in Philadelphia.

MATTHEW L. MUSTOKOFF, a partner of the firm, is an experienced securities and corporate governance litigator. He has represented clients at the trial and appellate level in the federal and state courts and before arbitration panels. Mr. Mustokoff has litigated numerous high-profile shareholder class actions and derivative lawsuits involving a wide array of matters, including accounting irregularities and financial fraud, market manipulation, market timing and late trading of mutual funds, and backdating of stock options. He is also Case 2:07-cv-01603-SRB Document 116-5 Filed 11/15/10 Page 15 of 31 experienced in mergers and acquisitions cases and other corporate transactional litigation implicating the fiduciary responsibilities of directors and officers.

Prior to joining the firm, Mr. Mustokoff practiced at Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP in New York, where he represented public companies and financial institutions in SEC enforcement and white collar criminal matters, shareholder litigation and contested bankruptcy proceedings. He also conducted internal investigations on behalf of boards of directors, audit committees and special litigation committees in connection with parallel civil, criminal and regulatory actions.

Mr. Mustokoff currently serves as Co-Chair of the American Bar Association's Subcommittee on Securities Class Actions and Derivative Litigation. He writes frequently on developments in corporate and securities litigation. His articles include: "The Pitfalls of Waiver in Corporate Prosecutions: Sharing Work Product with the Government and the Future of Non-Waiver Agreements," Securities Regulation Law Journal (Fall 2009); "Scheme Liability Under Rule 10b-5: The New Battleground in Securities Fraud Litigation," The Federal Lawyer (June 2006); "District Court Weighs Novel Theories of Rule 10b-5 Liability in Mutual Fund Market Timing Litigation," Securities Regulation Law Journal (Spring 2006); "Sovereign Immunity and the Crisis of Constitutional Absolutism: Interpreting the Eleventh Amendment After Alden v. Maine," Maine Law Review (2001).

Mr. Mustokoff is a Phi Beta Kappa honors graduate of Wesleyan University. He received his law degree from the Temple University School of Law, where he was the articles and commentary editor of the Temple Political and Civil Rights Law Review and the recipient of the Raynes, McCarty, Binder, Ross and Mundy Graduation Prize for scholarly achievement in the law. As a third year law student, he served as intern law clerk to The Honorable Anthony J. Scirica, Chief Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.

Mr, Mustokoff is admitted to practice in the courts of the State of New York and before the United States District Courts for the Southern and Eastern Districts of New York.

SHARAN NIRMUL, a partner of the firm, focuses on securities and corporate governance litigation. He has represented investors successfully in major securities fraud litigation including financial frauds involving Global Crossing Ltd, Qwest Communications International, WorldCom Inc., Delphi Corp., Marsh and McLennan Companies, Inc. and Able Laboratories. Mr. Nirmul has also represented shareholders in derivative and direct shareholder litigation in the Delaware Chancery Court and in other state courts around the country. Prior to joining the firm, Mr. Nirmul was associated with the Wilmington, Delaware law firm of Grant & Eisenhofer, P.A.

Sharan Nirmul received his law degree from The George Washington University Law School (J.D. 2001) where he served as an articles editor for the Environmental Lawyer Journal and was a member of the Moot Court Board. He was awarded the school’s Lewis Memorial Award for excellence in clinical practice. He received his undergraduate degree from Cornell University (B.S. 1996).

Mr. Nirmul is admitted to practice law in the state courts of New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania and Delaware and in the U.S. District Courts for the Southern District of New York, District of New Jersey, District of Delaware, and District of Colorado.

KAREN E. REILLY, a partner of the firm, received her law degree from Pace University School of Law, where she was a member of the Moot Court Board and National Moot Court Team. Ms. Reilly received her undergraduate degree from the State University of New York College at Purchase. She is licensed to practice law in Pennsylvania, New Jersey, New York, Connecticut and Rhode Island, and has been admitted to practice before the United States District Courts for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, District of New Jersey, Southern and Eastern Districts of New York, and the District of Connecticut. Prior to joining Barroway Topaz, Ms. Reilly practiced at Pelino & Lentz, P.C., in Philadelphia, where she litigated a broad range of complex commercial cases. Ms. Reilly concentrates her practice in the area of securities litigation. Case 2:07-cv-01603-SRB Document 116-5 Filed 11/15/10 Page 16 of 31 In addition to actively litigating and assisting in achieving the historic Tyco settlement, Ms. Reilly has also assisted in achieving settlements in the following cases in which Barroway Topaz has served as lead or co- lead counsel: In re Liberate Technologies Sec. Litig., No. C-02-5017 (N.D. Cal. 2005) (settled - $13.8 million); In re Vodafone Group, PLC Sec. Litig., 02-CV-7592 (S.D.N.Y. 2002) (settled – $24.5 million); In re Check Point Technologies Ltd. Sec. Litig., 03-CV-6594 (S.D.N.Y. 2003) (settled – $13 million); In re Cornerstone Propane Partners LP Sec. Litig., 03-CV-2522 (N.D. Cal. 2003) (settled – $13.5 million); In re CVS Corporation Sec. Litig., C.A. No. 01-11464 JLT (D.Mass. 2001) (settled – $110 million); and In re ProQuest Company Sec. Litig., No. 2:06-CV-10619 (E.D. Mich. 2006) (settled - $20 million).

LEE D. RUDY, a partner of the firm, concentrates his practice in the areas of mergers and acquisition litigation and shareholder derivative actions. Most recently, Mr. Rudy has served as lead counsel in numerous high profile derivative actions relating to the “backdating” of stock options, including In re Monster Worldwide, Inc. Derivative Litigation, Index No. 06-108700 (New York County, NY); In re Barnes & Noble, Inc. Derivative Litig., Index No. 06-602389 (New York County, NY); In re Affiliated Computer Services, Inc. Derivative Litig., Cause No. 06-3403 (Dallas County, TX); In re Sepracor, Inc. Derivative Litig., Case No. 06-4057-BLS (Suffolk County, MA); and In re Family Dollar Stores, Inc. Derivative Litig., Master File No. 06-CVS-16796 (Mecklenburg County, NC). Settlements of these, and similar actions, have resulted in significant monetary and corporate governance improvements for those companies and their public shareholders.

Mr. Rudy has also served as lead counsel on behalf of shareholders of companies challenging mergers and other going-private transactions, including In re William Lyon Homes Shareholder Litigation, Consol. CA No. 2015-N (DE Ch. 2006) ($35 million class benefit); and In re Insight Communications Company, Inc. Shareholders Litigation, Consol. CA No. 1154-N (DE Ch. 2005) ($53.5 million class benefit).

Mr. Rudy has significant courtroom experience, both in trial and appellate courts across the country. Prior to civil practice, Mr. Rudy served for several years as an Assistant District Attorney in the Manhattan (NY) District Attorney’s Office, and as an Assistant United States Attorney in the US Attorney’s Office (DNJ). He has tried dozens of cases before juries in state and federal court, including several major fraud cases. He received his law degree from Fordham University, and his undergraduate degree, cum laude, from the University of Pennsylvania.

BENJAMIN J. SWEET, a partner of the firm, received his juris doctor, cum laude, from The Dickinson School of Law of the Pennsylvania State University, and his BA, cum laude, from the Schreyer Honors College of The Pennsylvania State University. While in law school, Mr. Sweet served as Articles Editor of the Dickinson Law Review, and was also awarded Best Oral Advocate and Best Team in the ATLA Mock Trial Competition.

Mr. Sweet concentrates his practice exclusively in the area of securities litigation and has helped obtain significant recoveries on behalf of class members in several nationwide federal securities class actions, including In re Tyco, Int’l Sec. Litig., No. 02-1335-B (D.N.H.) ($3.2 billion total recovery for class members), In re CVS, Inc. Sec. Litig., No. 01-11464-JLT (D. Mass.) ($110 million recovery for class members), In re PNC Fin. Svcs. Group Inc. Sec. Litig., No. 02-CV-271 (W.D. Pa.) ($39 million recovery for class members) and In re Wireless Facilities, Inc. Sec. Litig., No. 04-cv-01589, (S.D. Ca.) ($12 million recovery for class members).

Mr. Sweet is currently serving as one of the litigating partners in several nationwide federal securities class actions, including In re Pfizer Inc. Sec. Litig., No. 04-Civ 9866 (LTS) (S.D.N.Y.), In re Thornburg Mortgage, Inc. Sec. Litig., 1:07-cv-00815-JB-WDS (D.N.M.), In re Citigroup Inc. Bond Litigation, No. 08-Civ-9522 (SHS), (S.D.N.Y.), In re Wachovia Preferred Securities and Bond/Notes Litig., No. 09-Civ. 6351 (RJS), (S.D.N.Y.) and In re NeuroMetrix Inc. Sec. Litig., No. 08-cv-10434-RWZ (D. Mass.).

Prior to joining Barroway Topaz, Mr. Sweet practiced with Reed Smith LLP in Pittsburgh, where he specialized in antitrust and complex civil litigation. Mr. Sweet is licensed to practice law in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania, and the United States Courts of Appeals for the Second, Third and Ninth Circuits. Case 2:07-cv-01603-SRB Document 116-5 Filed 11/15/10 Page 17 of 31 Honors include being selected by his peers as a Pennsylvania Super Lawyers Rising Star, a distinction bestowed annually on no more than 2.5% of Pennsylvania lawyers under the age of 40.

MARC A. TOPAZ, a partner of the firm, received his law degree from Temple University School of Law, where he was an editor of the Temple Law Review and a member of the Moot Court Honor Society. He also received his Master of Law (L.L.M.) in taxation from the New York University School of Law, where he served as an editor of the New York University Tax Law Review. He is licensed to practice law in Pennsylvania and New Jersey, and has been admitted to practice before the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. Mr. Topaz oversees the firm’s derivative, transactional and case development departments. In this regard, Mr. Topaz has been heavily involved in all of the firm’s cases related to the subprime mortgage crisis, including cases seeking recovery on behalf of shareholders in companies affected by the subprime crisis, as well as cases seeking recovery for 401K plan participants that have suffered losses in their retirement plans. Mr. Topaz has also played an instrumental role in the firm’s option backdating litigation. These cases, which are pled mainly as derivative claims or as securities law violations, have served as an important vehicle both for re-pricing erroneously issued options and providing for meaningful corporate governance changes. In his capacity as the firm’s department leader of case initiation and development, Mr. Topaz has been involved in many of the firm’s most prominent cases, including In re Initial Public Offering Sec. Litig., Master File No. 21 MC 92(SAS) (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 12, 2002); Wanstrath v. Doctor R. Crants, et al., No. 99-1719-111 (Tenn. Chan. Ct., 20th Judicial District, 1999); In re Tyco International, Ltd. Sec. Lit., No. 02-1335-B (D.N.H. 2002) (settled — $3.2 billion); and virtually all of the 80 options backdating cases in which the firm is serving as Lead or Co-Lead Counsel. Mr. Topaz has played an important role in the firm’s focus on remedying breaches of fiduciary duties by corporate officers and directors and improving corporate governance practices of corporate defendants.

MICHAEL C. WAGNER, a partner of the firm, handles class-action transactional litigation and shareholder derivative litigation for the Firm’s individual and institutional clients. Since joining Barroway Topaz, Mr. Wagner has enjoyed success in cases that achieved substantial monetary recoveries for stockholders of public companies in cases arising from corporate mergers and acquisitions, including: In re Genentech, Inc. Shareholders Litigation, Consolidated C.A. No. 3911-VCS (Del. Ch.) (settlement achieved a $3.9 billion benefit for Genentech’s stockholders in a merger with Roche); In re Anheuser Busch Companies, Inc. Shareholders Litigation, Consolidated C.A. No. 3851-VCP (Del. Ch.) (settlement required enhanced disclosures to stockholders and resulted in a $5 per share increase in the price paid by InBev in its acquisition of Anheuser-Busch).

Mr. Wagner has also had a lead role in litigation that resulted in enhanced shareholder rights and corporate reforms in merger contexts, including: In re SkyTerra Communications, Inc. Shareholder Litigation, Consolidated C.A. No. 4987-CC (Del. Ch.) (settlement requires that a going-private merger with a controlling stockholder be approved by a majority vote of unaffiliated minority stockholders) (pending); In re Emulex Shareholder Litigation, Consolidated C.A. No. 4536-VCS (Del. Ch.) (litigation caused company to redeem “poison pill” stock plan and rescind supermajority bylaw); Solomon v. Take-Two Interactive Software, Inc., C.A. No. 3064-VCL (Del. Ch.) (settlement required substantial enhanced disclosures to stockholders regarding executive compensation matters in advance of director elections, and litigation caused company to redeem “poison pill” stock plan). Mr. Wagner has also been involved in shareholder derivative cases involving executive compensation matters, such as In re KV Pharmaceutical Co., Inc., Derivative Litigation, Case No. 4:07-cv-00384- HEA (E.D. Mo.) (litigation caused executives to make financial remediation of approximately $3 million and resulted in enhanced internal controls at the company concerning financial reporting); In re Medarex, Inc. Derivative Litigation, Case No. MER-C-26-08 (N.J. Super.) (settlement resulted in approximately $9 million in financial remediation and substantial corporate governance reforms related to executive compensation).

A graduate of Franklin and Marshall College and the University of Pittsburgh School of Law, Mr. Wagner has clerked for two appellate court judges and began his practice as a commercial litigator at a Philadelphia-based litigation firm, representing clients in business and corporate disputes across the United States. Mr. Wagner has also represented Fortune 500 companies in employment litigation. He has extensive nationwide litigation experience and is admitted to practice in the courts of Pennsylvania, the United States Court of Appeals for the Case 2:07-cv-01603-SRB Document 116-5 Filed 11/15/10 Page 18 of 31 Third Circuit, and the United States District Courts for the Eastern and Western Districts of Pennsylvania, the Eastern District of Michigan, and the District of Colorado.

ROBIN WINCHESTER, a partner of the firm, received her Bachelor of Science degree in Finance from St. Joseph’s University. Ms. Winchester then earned her Juris Doctor degree from Villanova University School of Law, and is licensed to practice law in Pennsylvania and New Jersey. After law school, Ms. Winchester served as a law clerk to the Honorable Robert F. Kelly in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

After joining BTKMC, Ms. Winchester concentrated her practice in the areas of securities litigation and lead plaintiff litigation. Presently, Ms. Winchester concentrates her practice in the area of shareholder derivative actions, and, most recently, has served as lead counsel in numerous high-profile derivative actions relating to the backdating of stock options, including In re Eclipsys Corp. Derivative Litigation, Case No. 07-80611-Civ- MIDDLEBROOKS (S.D. Fla.); In re Juniper Derivative Actions, Case No. 5:06-cv-3396-JW (N.D. Cal.); In re McAfee Derivative Litigation, Master File No. 5:06-cv-03484-JF (N.D. Cal.); In re Quest Software, Inc. Derivative Litigation, Consolidated Case No. 06CC00115 (Cal. Super. Ct., Orange County); and In re Sigma Designs, Inc. Derivative Litigation, Master File No. C-06-4460-RMW (N.D. Cal.). Settlements of these, and similar, actions have resulted in significant monetary returns and corporate governance improvements for those companies, which, in turn, greatly benefits their public shareholders.

MICHAEL K. YARNOFF, a partner of the firm, received his law degree from Widener University School of Law. Mr. Yarnoff is licensed to practice law in Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and Delaware and has been admitted to practice before the United States District Courts for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania and the District of New Jersey. In addition to actively litigating and assisting in achieving the historic Tyco settlement, Mr. Yarnoff served as the primary litigating partner on behalf of Barroway Topaz in the following cases: In re CVS Corporation Sec. Litig., C.A. No. 01-11464 JLT (D.Mass. 2001) (settled — $110 million); In re Transkaryotic Therapies, Inc. Sec. Litig., Civil Action No. 03-10165-RWZ (D.Mass. 2003) (settled — $50 million); In re Riverstone Networks, Inc. Sec. Litig., Case No. CV-02-3581 (N.D. Cal. 2002) (settled — $18.5 million); In re Zale Corporation Sec. Litig., 06-CV-1470 (N.D. Tex. 2006) (settled — $5.9 million); Gebhard v. ConAgra Foods Inc., et al., 04-CV-427 (D. Neb. 2004) (settled — $14 million); Reynolds v. Repsol YPF, S.A., et al., 06-CV-733 (S.D.N.Y. 2006) (settled — $8 million); and In re InfoSpace, Inc. Sec. Litig., 01-CV-913 (W.D. Wash. 2001) (settled — $34.3 million).

ERIC L. ZAGAR, a partner of the firm, received his law degree from the University of Michigan Law School, cum laude, where he was an Associate Editor of the Michigan Law Review. He has practiced law in Pennsylvania since 1995, and previously served as a law clerk to Justice Sandra Schultz Newman of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. He is admitted to practice in Pennsylvania, California, and New York. In addition to his extensive options backdating practice, Mr. Zagar concentrates his practice in the area of shareholder derivative litigation. In this capacity, Mr. Zagar has served as Lead or Co-Lead counsel in numerous derivative actions in courts throughout the nation, including David v. Wolfen, Case No. 01-CC-03930 (Orange County, CA 2001) (Broadcom Corp. Derivative Action); and In re Viacom, Inc. Shareholder Derivative Litig., Index No. 602527/05 (New York County, NY 2005). Mr. Zagar has successfully achieved significant monetary and corporate governance relief for the benefit of shareholders, and has extensive experience litigating matters involving Special Litigation Committees. Mr. Zagar is also a featured speaker at Barroway Topaz’s annual symposium on corporate governance.

ANDREW L. ZIVITZ, a partner of the firm, received his law degree from Duke University School of Law, and received a Bachelor of Arts degree, with distinction, from the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.

Prior to joining Barroway Topaz, Mr. Zivitz practiced at Drinker Biddle & Reath, LLP, litigating complex commercial and environmental matters.

Mr. Zivitz concentrates his practice in the area of securities litigation. In this respect, Mr. Zivitz has served as one of the litigating partners on the following settled matters in which Barroway Topaz was Lead or Co-Lead Case 2:07-cv-01603-SRB Document 116-5 Filed 11/15/10 Page 19 of 31 Counsel: In re Tenet Healthcare Corp., 02-CV-8462 (C.D. Cal. 2002) (settled — $281.5 million); In re Computer Associates Sec. Litig., No. 02-CV-122 6 (E.D.N.Y. 2002) (settled — $150 million); In re McLeod USA Inc. Sec. Litig., No. C02-0001-MWB (N.D. Iowa 2002) (settled — $30 million); In re Barrick Gold Sec. Litig., 03-cv- 04302 (S.D.N.Y. 2003) (settled — $24 million), In re Friedman’s, Inc. Sec. Litig., 03-CV-3475 (N.D. Ga. 2003) (settled — $14.95 million); In re Check Point Technologies Ltd. Sec. Litig., 03-CV-6594 (S.D.N.Y. 2003) (settled — $13 million); In re Avista Corporation Sec. Litig., 03-CV-328 (E.D. Wash. 2003) (settled — $9.5 million); and In re Ligand Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Sec. Litig., 3:04 cv 01620 (S.D. Cal. 2004) (settled — $8 million).

Mr. Zivitz is admitted to practice law in Pennsylvania and New Jersey, and has been admitted to practice before the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania and the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. Mr. Zivitz also has litigated cases in federal district and appellate courts throughout the country, including two successful appeals before the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in In re Merix Sec. Litig., 04-cv-00826 (D.Or. 2004) and In re Leadis Sec. Litig., 05-cv-00882 (N.D.Ca. 2005). Mr. Zivitz also lectures and serves on discussion panels concerning securities litigation matters. Mr. Zivitz recently was a faculty member at the Pennsylvania Bar Institute’s workshop entitled, “Securities Liability in Turbulent Times: Practical Responses to a Changing Landscape.”

ASSOCIATES AND OTHER PROFESSIONALS

JULES D. ALBERT, an associate of the firm, concentrates his practice in mergers and acquisition litigation and stockholder derivative litigation. Mr. Albert is licensed to practice law in Pennsylvania, and has been admitted to practice before the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

Mr. Albert has litigated in state and federal courts across the country, and has represented stockholders in numerous actions that have resulted in significant monetary recoveries and corporate governance improvements, including: In re Sunrise Senior Living, Inc. Deriv. Litig., No. 07-00143 (D.D.C.); Mercier v. Whittle, et al., No. 2008-CP-23-8395 (S.C. Ct. Com. Pl., 13th Jud. Cir.); In re K-V Pharmaceutical Co. Deriv. Litig., No. 06-00384 (E.D. Mo.); In re Progress Software Corp. Deriv. Litig., No. SUCV2007-01937-BLS2 (Mass. Super. Ct., Suffolk Cty.); In re Quest Software, Inc. Deriv. Litig. No 06CC00 1 15 (Cal. Super. Ct., Orange Cty.); and Quaco v. Balakrishnan, et al., No. 06-2811 (N.D. Cal.).

Mr. Albert received his law degree from the University of Pennsylvania Law School, where he was a Senior Editor of the University of Pennsylvania Journal of Labor and Employment Law and recipient of the James Wilson Fellowship. Mr. Albert also received a Certificate of Study in Business and Public Policy from The Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania. Mr. Albert graduated magna cum laude with a Bachelor of Arts in Political Science from Emory University.

NAUMON A. AMJED, an associate of the firm, has significant experience conducting complex litigation in state and federal courts including federal securities class actions, shareholder derivative actions, suits by third-party insurers and other actions concerning corporate and alternative business entity disputes. Mr. Amjed has litigated in numerous state and federal courts across the country, including the Delaware Court of Chancery, and has represented shareholders in several high profile lawsuits, including: LAMPERS v. CBOT Holdings, Inc. et al., C.A. No. 2803-VCN (Del. Ch.); In re Alstom SA Sec. Litig., 454 F. Supp. 2d 187 (S.D.N.Y. 2006); In re Global Crossing Sec. Litig., 02— Civ. — 910 (S.D.N.Y.); In re Enron Corp. Sec. Litig., 465 F. Supp. 2d 687 (S.D. Tex. 2006); and In re Marsh McLennan Cos., Inc. Sec. Litig. 501 F. Supp. 2d 452 (S.D.N.Y. 2006).

Prior to joining the firm, Mr. Amjed was associated with the Wilmington, Delaware law firm of Grant & Eisenhofer, P.A. Mr. Amjed is a graduate of the Villanova University School of Law, cum laude, and holds an undergraduate degree in business administration from Temple University, cum laude. Mr. Amjed is a member of the Delaware State bar and is admitted to practice before the United States Court for the District of Delaware. Case 2:07-cv-01603-SRB Document 116-5 Filed 11/15/10 Page 20 of 31

ANTHONY ANDREOLI, a staff attorney at the firm, received his law degree from Villanova University School of Law. Mr. Andreoli received his undergraduate degree, cum laude, from the University of Pennsylvania, where he concentrated in finance.

Prior to joining the firm Mr. Andreoli was employed with Dechert LLP, where he worked in the Securities and White Collar Litigation department. Mr. Andreoli is licensed to practice law in Pennsylvania and New Jersey, and concentrates his practice on securities fraud.

ALI M. AUDI, a staff attorney at the firm, received his law degree from The Pennsylvania State University, Dickinson School of Law, where he was a member of the Trial and Appellate Moot Court boards. He received his Bachelor of Arts in Journalism from The Pennsylvania State University. Mr. Audi is licensed to practice before the state courts of Pennsylvania and New Jersey, and the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. He concentrates his practice in the area of securities litigation.

KRYSTN AVDOVIC, a staff attorney at the firm, received her law degree from the University of Miami School of Law and her undergraduate degree in Political Science and Spanish, cum laude, from Mount Saint Mary’s University.

Prior to joining Barroway Topaz, Ms. Avdovic practiced employment law and was in-house counsel at Philadelphia Corporation for Aging. Ms. Avdovic is licensed to practice law in Pennsylvania and Nevada and is admitted to practice in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. She now concentrates her practice in the area of securities litigation.

DANIELL A. BROTTMAN, a staff attorney at the firm, received his J.D. from Rutgers School of Law - Camden. Mr. Brottman received a Bachelor of Science degree in Management Science and Information Systems from Rutgers University, New Brunswick. He is admitted to practice law in New Jersey and Pennsylvania.

Prior to joining Barroway Topaz, he was an associate at the Freehold, NJ based firm of Britt, Riehl & Spudic, P.C. Mr. Brottman now concentrates his practice in the area of securities litigation.

NICHOLE BROWNING, an associate in the firm’s San Francisco office, received her B.A. degree from Emory University in 1994 and her J.D. degree from The American University, Washington College of Law in 1997. Ms. Browning attended the Universidad de Chile in Santiago, Chile in 1995, where she studied human rights law. She completed her final year of law school at Emory University School of Law.

Ms. Browning has spent most of her legal career representing plaintiffs in federal securities fraud and corporate governance claims. At Barroway Topaz, Ms. Browning concentrates her practice in the area of shareholders’ derivative actions and securities class actions. Ms. Browning is admitted to practice law in California and Georgia and has been admitted to practice before the Ninth and Eleventh Circuit Courts of Appeals, all United States District Courts in California and the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia. Ms. Browning is the co-author of “Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (PSLRA) Update,” which was a chapter in the Class Actions ICLE of Georgia (2002).

MICHELLE A. COCCAGNA, an associate of the firm, received her law degree from Villanova University School of Law in 2007 and her Bachelor of Science degree, magna cum laude, in Finance and International Business from Villanova University in 2004. She is licensed to practice law in Pennsylvania and New Jersey and has been admitted to practice before the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey and the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. Prior to joining Barroway Topaz, Ms. Coccagna worked as in-house counsel for a financial services firm in New York City. She concentrates her practice in the areas of consumer protection and wage and hour litigation. Case 2:07-cv-01603-SRB Document 116-5 Filed 11/15/10 Page 21 of 31 JASON CONWAY, a staff attorney at the firm, received his law degree from the Queensland University of Technology, Australia in 2003, where he was published in the journal of the national plaintiff lawyers’ association. While completing his studies, Mr. Conway clerked for a criminal defense firm where he participated in trials and related litigation.

Prior to joining Barroway Topaz, Mr. Conway worked with the Philadelphia law firm of Sheller, Ludwig & Badey, P.C., where he litigated complex class action matters, including tobacco, environmental and product liability cases. Mr. Conway is licensed to practice law in the State of New York and has been admitted to practice before the United States Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit. Mr. Conway concentrates his practice in the area of FLSA and wage and hour litigation.

JOSHUA E. D’ANCONA, an associate of the firm, received his J.D., magna cum laude, from the Temple University Beasley School of Law in 2007, where he served on the Temple Law Review and as president of the Moot Court Honors Society. Before joining the firm in 2009, he served as a law clerk to the Honorable Cynthia M. Rufe of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. Mr. D’Ancona graduated with honors from Wesleyan University. He is licensed to practice in Pennsylvania and New Jersey, and practices in the securities litigation and lead plaintiff departments of the firm.

MARK S. DANEK, an associate of the firm, received his undergraduate degree in Architecture from Temple University in 1996, and his law degree from Duquesne University School of Law in 1999. Prior to joining Barroway Topaz, Mr. Danek was employed as in-house counsel of a real estate investment trust corporation that specialized in the collection of delinquent property tax receivables. He is licensed to practice law in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and has been admitted to practice before the Courts of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania and the Supreme Court of the United States of America. Mr. Danek concentrates his practice in the area of securities litigation.

JEFFERY S. DAVIDSON, a staff attorney at the firm, received his law degree, cum laude, from Temple University Beasley School of Law, where he was the Executive Editor of the Temple Political and Civil Rights Law Review. Mr. Davidson earned his undergraduate degree in Marketing, with honors, from York College of Pennsylvania in 1993. From 1997-1999, Mr. Davidson clerked for the Honorable Louis C. Bechtle of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. Prior to joining the firm, Mr. Davidson was an antitrust and commercial litigation associate with Howrey LLP and served as a consumer protection attorney with the U.S. Federal Trade Commission, including a rotation as an Assistant United States Attorney for the U.S. Department of Justice. He concentrates his practice at Barroway Topaz in the area of securities litigation.

JONATHAN R. DAVIDSON, an associate of the firm, is a graduate of The George Washington University where he received his Bachelor of Arts, summa cum laude, in Political Communication. Mr. Davidson received his Juris Doctor and Dispute Resolution Certificate from Pepperdine University School of Law and is licensed to practice law in the state of California. Prior to joining the firm, Mr. Davidson served as In-House Counsel for a real estate development company in Los Angeles.

Mr. Davidson concentrates his practice at Barroway Topaz in the area of securities litigation, working in the firm’s business development and portfolio monitoring departments. He consults with firm clients regarding their rights and responsibilities with respect to their investments and purchases and taking an active role in shareholder and consumer litigation.

BENJAMIN J. DE GROOT, a staff attorney at the firm, received his law degree from Columbia Law School where he was a Stone Scholar. He earned his B.A., with honors, in Philosophy and German Studies from the University of Arizona. Mr. de Groot is licensed to practice law in New York.

Prior to joining Barroway Topaz, Mr. de Groot was V.P. of Operations and counsel at AISG, a security integration company he helped establish in New York. Prior to that he practiced litigation as an associate at Cleary Gottlieb Steen and Hamilton, LLP. His practice focuses on managing the firm's ongoing litigation discovery. Case 2:07-cv-01603-SRB Document 116-5 Filed 11/15/10 Page 22 of 31

DONNA EAGLESON, a staff attorney at the firm, received her law degree from the University of Dayton School of Law in Dayton, Ohio. Prior to joining Barroway Topaz, Ms. Eagleson worked as an attorney in the law enforcement field, and practiced insurance defense law with the Philadelphia firm Margolis Edelstein. Ms. Eagleson is licensed to practice law in Pennsylvania and concentrates in the area of securities litigation discovery matters.

JENNIFER L. ENCK, an associate of the firm, received her law degree, cum laude, from Syracuse University College of Law in 2003 and her undergraduate degree in International Politics from The Pennsylvania State University in 1999. Ms. Enck also received a Masters degree in International Relations from Syracuse University’s Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs.

Prior to joining Barroway Topaz, Ms. Enck was an associate with Spector, Roseman & Kodroff, P.C. in Philadelphia, where she worked on a number of complex antitrust, securities and consumer protection cases. Ms. Enck is licensed to practice law in Pennsylvania. She concentrates her practice in the areas of securities litigation and settlement matters.

WARREN GASKILL, a staff attorney at the firm, received his law degree from the Widener University School of Law, Wilmington, DE and his undergraduate degree from Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey, New Brunswick, NJ. Immediately following law school, Mr. Gaskill served as a law clerk for The Honorable Valerie H. Armstrong, A.J.S.C., New Jersey Superior Court, in Atlantic City, NJ. Prior to joining Barroway Topaz, Mr. Gaskill was an associate at the Atlantic City, NJ based law firm of Cooper, Levenson, April, Neidelman, and Wagenheim PA. Mr. Gaskill concentrates in the area of securities law and is admitted to bar in New Jersey and the U.S. District Court, District of New Jersey.

TYLER S. GRADEN, an associate of the firm, received undergraduate degrees in Economics and International Relations, cum laude, from American University, and his Juris Doctor degree, cum laude, from Temple Law School. Mr. Graden is licensed to practice law in Pennsylvania and New Jersey. In addition, he is admitted to practice before the United States District Courts for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, the Western District of Pennsylvania, and the District of New Jersey. Mr. Graden concentrates his practice in the areas of ERISA, employment law and consumer protection litigation.

Prior to joining Barroway Topaz, Mr. Graden practiced with the Philadelphia law firm Conrad O’Brien where he litigated various complex commercial matters. Mr. Graden also has experience working in the legal department of a Fortune 500 company and prosecuting criminal matters on behalf of the Philadelphia District Attorney’s Office. Prior to attending law school, Mr. Graden served as an investigator at the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, where he investigated and resolved individual and systemic claims of employment discrimination.

ROBERT J. GRAY, an associate of the firm, received his law degree from the Temple University School of Law. Mr. Gray received a Bachelor of Sciences degree from La Salle University with a dual major of Accounting and Finance. Prior to joining Barroway Topaz, Mr. Gray was an associate at a Philadelphia boutique litigation firm practicing in the areas of complex commercial litigation and corporate transactions. Mr. Gray also worked as in-house counsel for a small, publicly-traded holding company. Prior to beginning his law career, Mr. Gray worked as a forensic accountant for six years, conducting a variety of investigations for numerous governmental agencies and law firms. He received his CPA license in 1997. Mr. Gray is licensed to practice law in Pennsylvania and New Jersey, and has been admitted to practice before the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. He concentrates his practice in the area of consumer protection.

JOHN J. GROSS, an associate of the firm, received his law degree from Widener University School of Law, and his undergraduate degree from Temple University. Mr. Gross is licensed to practice law in Pennsylvania, and has been admitted to practice before the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and the United States Supreme Court. Mr. Gross concentrates his practice in the area of securities litigation. Case 2:07-cv-01603-SRB Document 116-5 Filed 11/15/10 Page 23 of 31 MARK K. GYANDOH, an associate of the firm, received his undergraduate degree from Haverford College and his law degree from Temple University School of Law. While attending law school, Mr. Gyandoh served as the research editor for the Temple International and Comparative Law Journal. He also interned as a judicial clerk for the Honorable Dolores K. Sloviter of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit and the Honorable Jerome B. Simandle of the U.S. District Court for New Jersey.

After graduating from law school Mr. Gyandoh was employed as a judicial clerk for the Honorable Dennis Braithwaite of the Superior Court of New Jersey Appellate Division. Mr. Gyandoh is the author of “Foreign Evidence Gathering: What Obstacles Stand in the Way of Justice?” 15 Temp. Int’l & Comp. L.J. (2001) and “Incorporating the Principle of Co-Equal Branches into the European Constitution: Lessons to Be Learned from the United States” found in Redefining Europe (2005).

Mr. Gyandoh is licensed to practice in New Jersey and Pennsylvania and concentrates in the area of ERISA, antitrust and consumer protection. Mr. Gyandoh litigates ERISA fiduciary breach class actions across the country and was recently part of one of the few trial teams that have ever tried a “company stock” imprudent investment case to verdict in Brieger et al. v. Tellabs, Inc., No. 06-CV-01882 (N.D. Ill.).

LIGAYA T. HERNANDEZ, an associate of the firm, received her J.D. and a Health Law Certificate from Loyola University Chicago. While in law school she served as Senior Editor for the Annals of Health Law Journal, received the CALI Award for highest grade in Appellate Advocacy, and was on the Dean’s List. Ms. Hernandez also served as a judicial extern for the Honorable Mary Anne Mason of the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois.

Ms. Hernandez received a Master in Health Services Administration in Health Policy from The George Washington University and a Bachelor of Science degree in Biology from the University of Pittsburgh. She is licensed to practice law in Pennsylvania and New Jersey and is admitted to practice before the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania and the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. Ms. Hernandez concentrates her practice in the areas of mergers and acquisitions and shareholder derivative actions.

JENNIFER L. JOOST, an associate of the firm, received her law degree, cum laude, from Temple University Beasley School of Law, where she was the Special Projects Editor for the Temple International and Comparative Law Journal. Ms. Joost earned her undergraduate degree in History, with honors, from Washington University in St. Louis in 2003. She is licensed to practice in Pennsylvania and New Jersey and admitted to practice before the United States Courts of Appeals for the Second, Fourth, Ninth, and Eleventh Circuits, and the United States District Courts for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania and the District of New Jersey. She concentrates her practice at Barroway Topaz in the area of securities litigation.

Ms. Joost has served as an associate on the following matters: In re Wireless Facilities, Inc., No. 04-CV-1589- JAH (NLS) (S.D. Cal.) and In re ProQuest Inc. Securities Litigation, No. 2:06-cv-10619 (E.D. Mich.). Additionally, she is currently serving as an associate on the following matters: In re UBS AG Securities Litigation, No. 1:07-cv-11225-RJS, currently pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York; Luther, et al. v. Countrywide Financial Corp., No. BC 380698, currently pending in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles; and In re Citigroup, Inc. Bond Litig., No. 08 Civ. 9522 (SHS), currently pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York.

TARA P. KAO, an associate of the firm, received her J.D. from Villanova University School of Law, where she was a Managing Editor of Student Works for the Villanova Law Review. During law school, she also published an article, titled “They Can Take Your Body But Not Your Soul — Or So You Thought — The Third Circuit’s Application of the Turner Standard in Prisoners’ Free Exercise Cases,” in the Berkeley Journal of Criminal Law in December 2005. Ms. Kao received her Bachelor of Science in Business/Finance, with honors, from Carnegie Mellon University. She is licensed to practice law in Pennsylvania and New Jersey, and concentrates her practice in the areas of shareholder derivative actions and mergers and acquisitions. Case 2:07-cv-01603-SRB Document 116-5 Filed 11/15/10 Page 24 of 31 STACEY KAPLAN, an associate in the firm’s San Francisco office, received her Bachelor of Business Administration from the University of Notre Dame in 2002, with majors in Finance and Philosophy. Ms. Kaplan received her J.D. from the University of California at Los Angeles School of Law in 2005.

During law school, Ms. Kaplan served as a Judicial Extern to the Honorable Terry J. Hatter, Jr., United States District Court, Central District of California. Prior to joining the firm, Ms. Kaplan was an associate with Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP in San Diego, California.

Ms. Kaplan concentrates her practice on prosecuting securities class actions. She is admitted to the California Bar and is licensed to practice in all California state courts, as well as the United States District Courts for the Northern and Central Districts of California.

D. SEAMUS KASKELA, an associate of the firm, received his B.S. in Sociology from Saint Joseph’s University, his M.B.A. from The Pennsylvania State University, and his law degree from Rutgers School of Law – Camden. Mr. Kaskela is licensed to practice law in Pennsylvania and New Jersey, and is admitted to practice before the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania and the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. Mr. Kaskela works in the firm’s case development department.

MATTHEW R. KAUFMANN, a staff attorney of the firm, received his JD/MBA from Temple University's Beasley School of Law and Fox School of Business, where he won the Terrence H. Klasky Memorial Award for outstanding achievement in banking, negotiable instrument, and consumer protection law. Mr. Kaufmann received his Bachelor of Science in Mathematics and Economics from Duke University. He is licensed to practice law in Pennsylvania, and concentrates his practice in the area of securities litigation.

JOHN Q. KERRIGAN, an associate of the firm, received his J.D. in 2007 from the Temple University Beasley School of Law. Before joining the firm in 2009, he was an associate in the litigation department of Curtin and Heefner LLP in Morrisville, Pennsylvania. Mr. Kerrigan graduated Phi Beta Kappa from Johns Hopkins University and received an MA in English from Georgetown University. He is licensed to practice law in Pennsylvania and New Jersey and concentrates his practice in the areas of mergers and acquisitions and shareholder derivative actions.

SHANNON O. LACK, an associate of the firm, received her law degree from the University of Pittsburgh School of Law and her undergraduate degree in International Relations and French from Bucknell University. While a law student, Ms. Lack served as a judicial clerk for the Honorable Max Baer of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania. She also served as a Managing Editor of the University of Pittsburgh Journal of Law and Commerce. Ms. Lack has authored “Civil Rights for Trafficked Persons: Recommendations for a More Effective Federal Civil Remedy,” University of Pittsburgh School of Law, Journal of Law and Commerce, Vol. 26 (2007). Ms. Lack is licensed to practice law in Pennsylvania and New Jersey. She concentrates her practice in the areas of ERISA and consumer protection litigation.

SETH A. LINEHAN, a staff attorney at the firm, received his law degree from the Widener University School of Law. Mr. Linehan received his Bachelor of Arts degree, magna cum laude, from Rider University. He served as law clerk to the Honorable Stephen B. Rubin, J.S.C., in both Somerset and Hunterdon Counties in New Jersey. Mr. Linehan is licensed to practice law in New Jersey and is admitted to practice before the United States District Court, District of New Jersey. He concentrates his practice in the area of securities litigation.

RONALD G. LOPIT II, an associate of the firm, received his Juris Doctor degree from Villanova University School of Law and graduated cum laude with a Bachelor of Arts in Politics from The Catholic University of America. Mr. Lopit has focused his career as an attorney in the areas of complex commercial litigation, including class action antitrust litigation and securities fraud. He is licensed to practice law in the State of New Jersey and has been admitted to practice before the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. Presently, Mr. Lopit concentrates his practice in the areas of consumer protection and antitrust litigation. Case 2:07-cv-01603-SRB Document 116-5 Filed 11/15/10 Page 25 of 31 JAMES A. MARO, JR., an associate of the firm, received his law degree from the Villanova University School of Law in 2000. He received a B.A. in Political Science from the Johns Hopkins University in 1997. Mr. Maro is licensed to practice law in Pennsylvania and New Jersey and is admitted to practice in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. He concentrates his practice in the area of ERISA, antitrust and consumer protection and also has experience in the areas of mergers and acquisitions and shareholder derivative actions.

KATRICE TAYLOR MATHURIN, a staff attorney at the firm, received her law degree from the University of Richmond School of Law. She received her undergraduate degree from The Johns Hopkins University. During law school, Ms. Mathurin practiced as an intern in the office of the United States Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia, where she represented the United States in matters before the District Court. She also practiced in the University of Richmond Children’s Law Center Disability Clinic. Prior to joining Barroway Topaz, Ms. Mathurin practiced in the areas of real estate and construction litigation. Ms. Mathurin is licensed to practice law in Pennsylvania and concentrates in the area of securities litigation.

LISA A. McNEELEY, a staff attorney at the firm, received her law degree from Temple University Beasley School of Law in 2008. She received her Bachelor of Arts in Sociology from the University of Pennsylvania in 2003. Ms. McNeeley is licensed to practice law in Pennsylvania and New Jersey, and concentrates her practice in the area of securities litigation.

JAMES H. MILLER, an associate of the firm, received his J.D. in 2005 from Villanova University School of Law, where he was enrolled in Villanova University’s JD/MBA program. Mr. Miller received his Master of Business Administration from Villanova University in 2005, and received his Bachelor of Chemical Engineering from Villanova University in 2002. Mr. Miller is licensed to practice law in Pennsylvania and concentrates his practice in the areas of mergers and acquisitions and shareholder derivative actions.

LOUIS E. MOYA, an associate of the firm, received his law degree in 2008 from Rutgers School of Law – Camden, where he was the Managing Technical Editor of the Rutgers Journal of Law and Public Policy. While a law student, Mr. Moya served as an intern to the Office of the Attorney General for the State of New Jersey, Division of Law and Public Safety. Mr. Moya also served as an intern to Hon. Nitza Quinones-Alejandro, Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania. He earned his undergraduate degree, magna cum laude, with honors, at the University of New Mexico, receiving a Bachelor of Arts in Film and Media Arts.

Prior to joining the firm Mr. Moya served as an Attorney Advisor to Hon. Adele H. Odegard, District Chief Judge, U.S. Department of Labor, Office of Administrative Law Judges, where he addressed labor and employment issues and claims arising in federally regulated industries under statutes such as the Sarbanes-Oxley Act. Mr. Moya is licensed to practice in New Jersey and concentrates his practice in the area of mergers and acquisition litigation and shareholder derivative litigation.

CASANDRA A. MURPHY, an associate of the firm, received her law degree from Widener University School of Law and her undergraduate from Gettysburg College. Prior to joining Barroway Topaz, Ms. Murphy was an associate at Post & Schell, P.C. where she practiced general casualty litigation. Ms. Murphy is licensed to practice in Pennsylvania and New Jersey, and has been admitted to practice before the United State District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. Ms. Murphy has lectured for the Pennsylvania Bar Institute and the Philadelphia Judicial Conference. She concentrates her practice in the areas of consumer protection, ERISA, pharmaceutical pricing and antitrust litigation.

CHRISTOPHER L. NELSON, an associate of the firm, received his law degree from Duke University School of Law in 2000, and his undergraduate degree in Business, Economics, and the Law from Washington University in St. Louis in 1997.

Prior to joining Barroway Topaz, Mr. Nelson practiced with the Philadelphia law firm of Berger & Montague, P.C., where he was a securities litigator. Mr. Nelson is admitted to practice law in the Commonwealth of Case 2:07-cv-01603-SRB Document 116-5 Filed 11/15/10 Page 26 of 31 Pennsylvania, the Supreme Court of the United States, the United States Courts of Appeals for the Second, Third, Fourth, Fifth, Ninth, and Eleventh Circuits, and the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

Mr. Nelson has litigated in federal district and appellate courts across the country in numerous actions that have resulted in significant monetary recoveries, including: Johnson v. Aljian et al., 394 F. Supp. 2d 1184 (C.D. Cal. 2004) (lead counsel, successfully argued opposition to defendants’ motion to dismiss in insider trading case), 490 F.3d 778 (9th Cir. 2007) (successfully drafted and argued opposition to defendants’ appeal before Ninth Circuit), cert. denied, 2008 U.S. LEXIS 2481 (U.S. Mar. 17, 2008). Class certified February 13, 2009, over defendants’ opposition; Safron Capital Corp. v. Leadis Tech., Inc. (In re Leadis Tech. Inc. Sec. Litig.), No. 06-15623, 274 Fed. Appx. 540; 2008 U.S. App. LEXIS 8699 (9th Cir. 2008) (lead counsel, successfully appealed decision of District Court granting motion to dismiss, $4,200,000 recovery), cert. denied, 2009 U.S. LEXIS 1778 (U.S. Mar. 6, 2009); Cent. Laborers Pension Fund v. Merix Corp. (In re Merix Corp. Sec. Litig.), No. 06-35894, 275 Fed. Appx. 599; 2008 U.S. App. LEXIS 9073 (9th Cir. 2008) (lead counsel, successfully appealed decision of District Court granting motion to dismiss), cert. denied, 2008 U.S. LEXIS 9162 (U.S. Dec. 15, 2008); Kaltman v. Key Energy Servs. (In re Key Energy Sec. Litig.), 447 F. Supp. 2d 648 (W.D. Tex. 2006) (lead counsel, $15,425,000 recovery); In re Martek Biosciences Sec. Litig., No. MJG-05-122 4 (D.Md. June 14, 2006) (co-lead counsel, $6,000,000 recovery); Brody v. Zix. Corp., No. 3-04-CV-1931-K, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 69302 (N.D.Tex. Sept. 26, 2006) (co-lead counsel, $5,600,000 recovery); In re NUI Sec. Litig., 314 F. Supp. 2d 388 (D.N.J. 2004) (lead counsel, $3,500,000 recovery).

MICHELLE M. NEWCOMER, an associate of the firm, received her law degree from Villanova University School of Law in 2005. Ms. Newcomer received her undergraduate degrees in Finance and Art History from Loyola College in Maryland in 2002. Throughout her legal career, Ms. Newcomer has concentrated her practice in the area of securities litigation, representing individual and institutional investors and helping them to recover millions against corporate and executive defendants for violations of the federal securities laws. In this respect, Ms. Newcomer helped secure the following recoveries for investors: In re Tenet Healthcare Corp. Sec. Litig., No. 02-8462 (C.D. Cal.) (settled – $281.5 million); In re Acclaim Entertainment, Inc. Sec. Litig., No. 2:03-CV-1270 (JS) (ETB) (E.D.N.Y.) (settled – $13.65 million); In re Zale Corp. Sec. Litig., No. 3:06-CV-01470-N (settled – $5.9 million); and In re Leadis Tech., Inc. Sec. Litig., No. C-05-0882-CRB (N.D. Cal.) (settled – $4.2 million). Ms. Newcomer is also currently involved in several high profile securities fraud suits, including: In re Lehman Brothers Sec. & ERISA Litig., No. 09 MD 2017 (LAK) (S.D.N.Y.) and In re SemGroup Energy Partners, L.P. Sec. Litig., No. 08-MD-1989-GFK-FHM (N.D. Olka.).

Ms. Newcomer is licensed to practice law in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and the State of New Jersey and has been admitted to practice before the Supreme Court of the United States, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth and Tenth Circuits, and the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey.

VIVIAN BENZ PEIKIN, a staff attorney with the firm, received her law degree from Temple Law School. She is licensed to practice law in Pennsylvania and New Jersey and admitted to practice before the United States District Courts for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania and the District of New Jersey. She concentrates her practice at Barroway Topaz in the area of securities litigation.

Prior to joining Barroway Topaz, she worked as an associate representing plaintiffs in consumer product litigation and later as a staff attorney at Dechert, LLC representing a defendant in a mass-tort litigation.

Ms. Peikin was named a Pennsylvania Rising Star Super Lawyer in 2006. She currently serves on the Upper Merion Township Environmental Advisory Council.

ERIK PETERSON, an associate in the firm’s San Francisco office, received his Bachelor of Arts from James Madison University and his Master of Public Administration, concentrating in public finance, with honors, from the University of Kentucky. Mr. Peterson graduated cum laude from the University of Kentucky College of Law, where he was Editor-in-Chief of the Journal of Natural Resources and Environmental Law. There he received the Case 2:07-cv-01603-SRB Document 116-5 Filed 11/15/10 Page 27 of 31 CALI Award in Federal Taxation and authored Navigating the Waters of Informational Standing in American Canoe Ass’n, Inc. v. City of Louisa, 20 J. Nat. Resources & Envtl. L. 291 (2006).

During law school, Mr. Peterson served as Judicial Intern to United States District Court Judge T.S. Ellis, III, Eastern District of Virginia. Following law school, Mr. Peterson served as Law Clerk to United States District Court Judge Gregory F. Van Tatenhove, Eastern District of Kentucky. Prior to joining the firm, Mr. Peterson was associated with Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP in San Diego, California.

Mr. Peterson concentrates his practice on prosecuting securities class actions. He is licensed to practice in California and Kentucky and is admitted to practice before all United States District Courts in California, as well as the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, and is also a member of the firm’s lead plaintiff litigation practice group.

DAVID PROMISLOFF, an associate of the firm, received his law degree from the University of Michigan in 2005. While in law school, he served as an associate editor of the Michigan Telecommunications and Technology Law Review. Mr. Promisloff received his undergraduate degree from Emory University in 2002, double majoring in political science and history. Mr. Promisloff is licensed to practice in Pennsylvania, and works in the firm’s case development department.

STEVEN D. RESNICK, an associate of the firm, received his law degree from The Dickinson School of Law of The Pennsylvania State University, and his undergraduate degree, cum laude, from West Chester University. Mr. Resnick is licensed to practice law in Pennsylvania and New Jersey, and has been admitted to practice before the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey and the United States District Court for the District of Nebraska. Prior to joining Barroway Topaz, Mr. Resnick was an associate at the firm of German, Gallagher & Murtagh, where his practice concentrated in the defense of medical malpractice, products liability and premises liability. Mr. Resnick is active in the American Association for Justice and serves on the Board of Governors of the New Lawyers Division. Mr. Resnick has broad experience in Mass Tort litigation and now concentrates his practice in the area of securities litigation.

KRISTEN L. ROSS, an associate of the firm, concentrates her practice in shareholder derivative actions. Ms. Ross received her J.D., with honors, from the George Washington University Law School, and B.A., magna cum laude, from Saint Joseph’s University, with a major in Economics and minors in International Relations and Business.

Ms. Ross is licensed to practice law in Pennsylvania and New Jersey, and has been admitted to practice before the United States District Courts for the District of New Jersey and the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. Prior to joining Barroway Topaz, Ms. Ross was an associate at Ballard Spahr LLP, where she focused her practice in commercial litigation, particularly foreclosure and bankruptcy proceedings. She also has experience in commercial real estate transactions. During law school, Ms. Ross served as an intern with the United States Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

KIRK D. RUECKMANN, a staff attorney of the firm, received his J.D. from the University of Pittsburgh School of Law, where he was Managing Editor of the Journal of Law & Commerce. Mr. Rueckmann received his Bachelor of Arts in History and Political Science from the University of Rochester. He is licensed to practice law in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, and concentrates his practice in the area of securities litigation.

RICHARD A. RUSSO, JR., an associate of the firm, received his J.D. from the Temple University Beasley School of Law, cum laude, where he was a member of the Temple Law Review. Mr. Russo received his Bachelor of Science in Business Administration, cum laude, from Villanova University. He is licensed to practice law in Pennsylvania and New Jersey, and concentrates his practice in the area of securities litigation. Case 2:07-cv-01603-SRB Document 116-5 Filed 11/15/10 Page 28 of 31 JOSHUA C. SCHUMACHER, an associate of the firm, received his undergraduate degree in Politics & Government from George Mason University, and his Juris Doctor degree, cum laude, from Case Western Reserve University. Mr. Schumacher concentrates his practice in the areas of ERISA and consumer protection litigation.

Prior to joining Barroway Topaz, Mr. Schumacher practiced with the Philadelphia law firms of Berger & Montague, P.C. and Duane Morris LLP, where he litigated numerous individual and class cases on behalf of major institutional and corporate clients. Mr. Schumacher is admitted to practice law in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and before the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, and has been admitted pro hac vice before numerous other state and federal courts.

Mr. Schumacher has litigated numerous successful actions involving significant recoveries on behalf of aggrieved individuals and investors, including In re CIGNA Corp. Securities Litigation ($93M recovery), In re Sepracor Securities Litigation ($52.5M recovery) and Ginsburg v. Philadelphia Stock Exchange, Inc. ($99M recovery). Mr. Schumacher has also represented a large state government in various civil enforcement proceedings against predatory and so-called “pay day” lenders. In addition, Mr. Schumacher has represented several Fortune 500 companies in wide reaching federal and state litigation, including federal multi-district litigation, employer non- compete clauses, and trademark infringement issues.

TRACEY A. SHREVE, a staff attorney at the firm, earned her Economics degree from Syracuse University where she was recognized as an International Scholar. Ms. Shreve received her law degree from California Western School of Law and was a member of the Pro Bono Honor Society. She is licensed to practice law in Pennsylvania and has been admitted to practice before the United States Supreme Court. Prior to joining Barroway Topaz, Ms. Shreve worked at a boutique litigation firm located in Center City Philadelphia, and worked as an Assistant Public Defender in Lehigh County. She now concentrates her practice in the area of ERISA and Consumer Rights.

JULIE SIEBERT-JOHNSON, an associate of the firm, received her law degree from Villanova University School of Law in 2008. She graduated cum laude from the University of Pennsylvania in 2003. Ms. Siebert- Johnson is licensed to practice law in Pennsylvania and New Jersey. She concentrates her practice in the area of ERISA and consumer protection litigation.

MEGHAN TIGHE, a staff attorney at the firm, received her law degree from Tulane University School of Law and has a L.L.M. in taxation from Villanova University. She received her undergraduate degree, with distinction, from the Eller College of Business at The University of Arizona. She is currently completing her L.L.M in Taxation at Villanova University.

Ms. Tighe is licensed to practice law in Pennsylvania and New Jersey and concentrates her practice in the area of securities litigation.

ALEXANDRA H. TOMICH, a staff attorney with the firm, received her law degree from Temple Law School and her undergraduate degree, from Columbia University, with a B.A. in English. She is licensed to practice law in Pennsylvania.

Prior to joining Barroway Topaz, she worked as an associate at Trujillo, Rodriguez, and Richards, LLC in Philadelphia. Ms. Tomich volunteers as an advocate for children through the Support Center for Child Advocates in Philadelphia and at Philadelphia VIP. She concentrates her practice in the area of securities litigation.

AMANDA R. TRASK, an associate with the firm, received her law degree from Harvard Law School and her undergraduate degree, cum laude, from Bryn Mawr College, with honors in Anthropology. She is licensed to practice law in Pennsylvania and has been admitted to practice before the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. Case 2:07-cv-01603-SRB Document 116-5 Filed 11/15/10 Page 29 of 31 Prior to joining Barroway Topaz, she worked as an associate at a Philadelphia law firm where she represented defendants in consumer product litigation. Ms. Trask has served as an advocate for children with disabilities and their parents and taught special education law. She currently serves on the Board of the Bryn Mawr College Club of Philadelphia. She concentrates her practice in the areas of ERISA, consumer protection and stockholder derivative actions.

NEENA VERMA, an associate of the firm, received her law degree, magna cum laude, from Rutgers School of Law – Camden, where she was the Executive Editor of the Rutgers Journal of Law and Public Policy. While a law student, Ms. Verma served as a Judicial Extern to the Honorable Barry T. Albin of the New Jersey Supreme Court and as a Judicial Pupil at the United Kingdom Information Tribunal. She earned dual degrees, cum laude, at the University of Pennsylvania, receiving a Bachelor of Arts in Architecture and a Bachelor of Science in Economics from the Wharton School. Ms. Verma is licensed to practice in the District of Columbia, New Jersey and Pennsylvania and concentrates her practice in the area of securities litigation.

JOSEPH A. WEEDEN, an associate of the firm, received his law degree from the University of North Carolina School of Law, where he received the Gressman-Politt Award for outstanding oral advocacy. Mr. Weeden also received his undergraduate degree from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, where he was a Joseph E. Pogue Scholar. Prior to joining the firm, Mr. Weeden was an associate at Kaufman & Canoles, P.C., where he practiced in the areas of commercial and business law. Mr. Weeden is licensed to practice law in Virginia, and concentrates his practice in the area of ERISA and consumer protection litigation.

KURT WEILER, a staff attorney at the firm, received his law degree from Duquesne University School of Law, where he was a member of the Moot Court Board and McArdle Wall Honoree. He received his undergraduate degree from the University of Pennsylvania.

Prior to joining Barroway Topaz, Mr. Weiler was associate corporate counsel for a Philadelphia-based mortgage company, where he specialized in the area of foreclosures and bankruptcy. Mr. Weiler is licensed to practice law in Pennsylvania and currently concentrates his practice in the area of securities litigation.

TERENCE S. ZIEGLER, an associate of the firm, received his law degree from the Tulane University School of Law and received his undergraduate degree from Loyola University. He has concentrated a significant percentage of his practice to the investigation and prosecution of pharmaceutical antitrust actions, medical device litigation, and related anticompetitive and unfair business practice claims. Specific examples include: In re Flonase Antitrust Litigation; In re Wellbutrin SR Antitrust Litigation; In re Modafinil Antitrust Litigation; In re Guidant Corp. Implantable Defibrillators Products Liability Litigation (against manufacturers of defective medical devices — pacemakers/implantable defibrillators — seeking costs of removal and replacement); and In re Actiq Sales and Marketing Practices Litigation (regarding drug manufacturer’s unlawful marketing, sales and promotional activities for non-indicated and unapproved uses).

Mr. Ziegler is licensed to practice law in the State of Louisiana, and has been admitted to practice before several courts including the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.

OF COUNSEL

LAUREN WAGNER PEDERSON, of Counsel to the firm, received a B.S. degree in Business Administration from Auburn University. She launched her legal career after working in sales and marketing for Fortune 500 companies such as Colgate-Palmolive Company and earned her J.D., summa cum laude, from the Cumberland School of Law where she was Associate Editor of the Cumberland Law Review. Lauren served as Law Clerk to the Honorable Joel F. Dubina for the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit and currently is enrolled at Georgetown University Law Center in the Securities and Financial Regulation LL.M. program.

In her practice, Lauren serves as counsel to public pension funds, shareholders and companies in a broad range of complex corporate securities and corporate governance litigation. She has represented individuals and institutional Case 2:07-cv-01603-SRB Document 116-5 Filed 11/15/10 Page 30 of 31 investors in many high profile securities class actions and other actions in state and federal courts. She has represented the Ohio Public Retirement Systems in securities fraud actions arising out of the collapse of Enron Corp. and WorldCom, Inc. and represented three institutional investors as lead plaintiffs in a groundbreaking case against Oxford Health Plans, Inc. that resulted in a $300 million settlement. In addition, Lauren has litigated accounting and legal malpractice actions and recently recovered a judgment in Delaware federal court on behalf of Trust Company of the West in a legal malpractice action arising out of an international private equity transaction. She also has successfully argued and defended appeals before the Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit and has represented individuals and companies in securities arbitrations before the NASD and New York Stock Exchange. Currently, Lauren is heavily involved in the firm’s cases related to the subprime mortgage crisis, including cases pending against Countrywide Financial Corporation and IndyMac Bancorp, Inc.

Lauren also is a certified mediator and a member of the State Bars of New York, Delaware, Maryland, Georgia and Alabama and is admitted to practice in numerous federal courts. She also has been an Adjunct Professor of Law at the Widener University School of Law in Wilmington, Delaware, teaching a securities litigation seminar.

DONNA SIEGEL MOFFA, of Counsel to the firm, received her law degree, with honors, from Georgetown University Law Center in May 1982. She received her undergraduate degree, cum laude, from Mount Holyoke College in Massachusetts. Ms. Siegel Moffa is admitted to practice before the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, the United States Courts for the District of New Jersey and the District of Columbia, as well as the Supreme Court of New Jersey and the District of Columbia Court of Appeals. Prior to joining the firm, Ms. Siegel Moffa was a member of the law firm of Trujillo, Rodriguez & Richards, LLC, where she litigated, and served as co-lead counsel, in complex class actions arising under federal and state consumer protection statutes, lending laws and laws governing contracts and employee compensation. Prior to entering private practice, Ms. Siegel Moffa worked at both the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC). At the FTC, she prosecuted cases involving allegations of deceptive and unsubstantiated advertising. In addition, both at FERC and the FTC, Ms. Siegel Moffa was involved in a wide range of administrative and regulatory issues including labeling and marketing claims, compliance, FOIA and disclosure obligations, employment matters, licensing and rulemaking proceedings.

Ms. Siegel Moffa continues to concentrate her practice in the area of consumer protection litigation. She served as co-lead counsel for the class in Robinson v. Thorn Americas, Inc., L-03697-94 (Law Div. 1995), a case that resulted in a significant monetary recovery for consumers and changes to rent-to-own contracts in New Jersey. Ms. Siegel Moffa was also counsel in Muhammad v. County Bank of Rehoboth Beach, Delaware, 189 N.J. 1 (2006), U.S. Sup. Ct. cert. denied, 127 S. Ct. 2032(2007), in which the New Jersey Supreme Court struck a class action ban in a consumer arbitration contract. She has served as class counsel representing consumers pressing TILA claims, e.g. Cannon v. Cherry Hill Toyota, Inc., 184 F.R.D. 540 (D.N.J. 1999), and Dal Ponte v. Am. Mortg. Express Corp., CV- 04-2152(D.N.J. 2006), and has pursued a wide variety of claims that impact consumers and individuals including those involving predatory and sub-prime lending, mandatory arbitration clauses, price fixing, improper medical billing practices, the marketing of light cigarettes and employee compensation. Ms. Siegel Moffa’s practice has involved significant appellate work representing individuals, classes, and non-profit organizations participating as amicus curiae, such as the National Consumer Law Center and the AARP. In addition, Ms. Siegel Moffa has regularly addressed consumer protection and litigation issues in presentations to organizations and professional associations. Ms. Siegel Moffa is a member of the New Jersey State Bar Association, the Camden County Bar Association, the District of Columbia Bar Association, the National Association of Consumer Advocates and the Public Justice Foundation.

CONSULTANTS

KEVIN P. CAULEY serves as an institutional liaison at the firm. Mr. Cauley has extensive experience working with public and Taft-Hartley pension funds regarding their rights and responsibilities with respect to their investments and purchases and taking an active role in shareholder and consumer litigation. In addition, Mr. Cauley assists clients in evaluating what systems they have in place to identify and monitor shareholder and Case 2:07-cv-01603-SRB Document 116-5 Filed 11/15/10 Page 31 of 31 consumer litigation that has an effect on their funds, and also assists them in evaluating the strength of such cases and to what extent they may be affected by alleged misconduct.

Mr. Cauley, a graduate of Temple University, also has prior experience at a multi-family office, in institutional fiduciary investment consulting, money manager selection, best trade executions, and asset allocation modeling. He has held the Series 7, 24, 63, and 65 licenses with the NASD. Mr. Cauley has also done political consulting in coordinating and directing various aspects of field operations for local, state, and national campaigns in Southeastern Pennsylvania. He is also an active member of The Pennsylvania Future Fund, A.O.H. Division 88 “Officer Danny Boyle Chapter,” The Clover Club of Philadelphia, The Foreign Policy Research Institute, The Princeton Committee on Foreign Relations, and is an elected member to The Pennsylvania Society and The Union League of Philadelphia, where he serves on the Armed Services Committee.

PETER KRANEVELD, an advisor to the firm, works with Barroway Topaz to analyze and evaluate corporate governance issues, shareholder rights and activism and how these fit into the interests of the firm’s large international client base of pension funds and other institutional investors. An economist by training, Mr. Kraneveld has a long history of working with pension funds and other institutional shareholders. He recently completed an eight year stint working with Dutch pension fund PGGM, a public pension fund for the healthcare sector in the Netherlands, and one of the largest pension funds in Europe. Mr. Kraneveld’s last three years at PGGM were spent as a Special Advisor for International Affairs where his main responsibilities included setting up a network among national and international lobbying organizations, domestic and foreign pension funds and international civil servants and using it to promote the interests of the pension fund industry. Mr. Kraneveld served as Chief Economist for PGGM’s Investments Directorate from 1999 until 2004 where his accomplishments included the Tactical Asset Allocation process and designing alternative scenarios for Asset Liability Management. Prior to his work with PGGM, Mr. Kraneveld worked with the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) and the Dutch Ministry of Economic Affairs.

DAVID RABBINER serves as Barroway Topaz’s Director of Investigative Services and leads investigations necessary to further and strengthen the firm’s class action litigation efforts. Although his investigative services are primarily devoted to securities matters, Mr. Rabbiner routinely provides litigation support, conducts due diligence, and lends general investigative expertise and assistance to the firm’s other class action practice areas. Mr. Rabbiner plays an integral role on the firm’s legal team, providing critical investigative services to obtain evidence and information to help ensure a successful litigation outcome. Before joining Barroway Topaz, Mr. Rabbiner enjoyed a broad based, successful career as an FBI Special Agent, including service as an Assistant Special Agent in Charge, overseeing multiple criminal programs, in one of the Bureau’s largest field offices. He holds an A.B. in English Language and Literature from the University of Michigan and a Juris Doctor from the University of Miami School of Law.