back

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

IN RE SUMMIT TECHNOLOGY SECURITIES LITIGATION THIS DOCUMENT RELATES TO: THE EXCHANGE ACT ACTION And THE BURKE ACTION

) ) )                                                 Civil Action No. 96-11589-JLT ) ) ) ) ) ) )

 

 

 

 

TO: ALL PERSONS AND ENTITIES WHO PURCHASED OR OTHERWISE ACQUIRED SUMMIT TECHNOLOGY, INC. ("SUMMIT") COMMON STOCK OR CALL OPTIONS OR SOLD SUMMIT PUT OPTIONS DURING THE PERIOD FROM MARCH 31, 1995 THROUGH JULY 3, 1996, INCLUSIVE (THE "EXCHANGE ACT ACTION") OR WHO PURCHASED SUMMIT COMMON STOCK ISSUED IN CONNECTION WITH SUMMIT'S OCTOBER 1995 SECONDARY OFFERING OF SUMMIT STOCK (THE "BURKE ACTION").

The purpose of this Notice is to inform you of the proposed Settlement of certain related Class Actions and of the hearing to be held by the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts (the "Court") to consider the fairness, reasonableness and adequacy of the proposed Settlement. Defendants have agreed to pay $10 million to settle these lawsuits. The proposed Settlement, the terms of which are only summarized in this Notice, is provided for in a Settlement Agreement dated February 16, 2001 (the "Settlement Agreement") which has been filed with the Court. A hearing (the "Settlement Approval Hearing") to consider whether the proposed Settlement is fair, reasonable and adequate and should be approved, will be held by the Court on April 25, 2001 at 10:00 a.m.

Capitalized terms used herein shall have the same meaning as defined in the Settlement Agreement unless expressly defined herein.

A.Statement of Plaintiffs' Recovery

Pursuant to the Settlement described herein, a Settlement Fund totaling $10,000,000 in cash plus interest accrued after December 4, 2000, has been established.
Plaintiffs estimate that there were approximately 51 million shares of Summit common stock purchased during the Class Period which were damaged as a result of the alleged wrongdoing described below. Plaintiffs estimate that the average recovery per damaged share of Summit common stock in the Exchange Act Action and the Burke Action will be approximately $0.20 per share before the deduction for attorneys'fees and expenses, as approved by the Court.¹ Depending on the number of claims filed, when during the Class Period a Class Member purchased shares of Summit common stock, and whether those shares were held at the end of the Class Period, and if sold, when they were sold, an individual Class Member may receive more or less than this average amount.

A Class Member's distribution from the Settlement Fund will be governed by the Plan of Allocation, set forth in Section VII below as approved by the Court. A detailed explanation of how each Class Member's claim will be calculated is set forth in Section VII below.

B. Statement of Potential Outcome

An expert retained by Plaintiffs' Lead Counsel has opined that, if Plaintiffs prevailed on all of their claims against the Defendants, the average amount of damages recoverable by each member of the Exchange Act Action and the Burke Action would be approximately $5.88 per share, before the deduction of any Court-awarded fees and expenses and without regard to actual liability or other discounts. Overall class-wide damages are estimated in excess of $285 million in the Exchange Act Action and $16 million in the Burke Action.

Defendants contest all of Plaintiffs' claims and maintain that no class member was injured as a result of any conduct of any defendant. In addition, an expert retained by Defendants' counsel has opined that class members suffered no damages as a result of the actions that are the subject of Plaintiffs' claims.

C. Statement of Attorneys' Fees and Costs Sought

Plaintiffs' Lead Counsel intend to apply for an award of attorneys' fees in an amount not to exceed thirty-three percent (33%) of the Settlement Fund, or $0.06 per share, as well as reimbursement for its expenses incurred in the prosecution of this litigation in an amount not to exceed $1.25 million, or approximately $0.02 per share. See Section IX.

D. Reasons for Settlement

The parties to this Settlement believe that it is fair, reasonable, and adequate to the members of the Classes. The parties have reached this conclusion after investigating and considering, among other things, the strengths and weaknesses of the Classes' claims against the Defendants, the uncertainties inherent in this complex Litigation, and the substantial benefit provided by the Settlement to the members of the Classes. See Section III.

E. Identification of Plaintiffs' Lawyers

Any questions regarding the Settlement should be directed in writing to the following Plaintiffs' Lead Counsel:

Glen DeValerio, Esq. Jeffrey C. Block, Esq. Kathleen M. Donovan-Maher, Esq. Berman, DeValerio & Pease LLP One Liberty Square Boston, MA 02109

Sherrie R. Savett, Esq. Jeanne A. Markey, Esq. Berger & Montague, P.C. 1622 Locust Street Philadelphia, PA 19103

I. DESCRIPTION OF THE LITIGATION

A. History of the Litigation and Plaintiffs' Claims
The litigation was commenced in August 1996 when a series of class actions were filed against Summit and others. By order dated August 11, 1998, the Court appointed The Teachers' Retirement System of Louisiana, Donald V. Roberts, George A. Jabara, Joseph Conzola, Gail Manning, and Peter and Gloria Babigian as Lead Plaintiffs in the Exchange Act Action, Scott Burke as Lead Plaintiff in the Burke Action, and approved Lead Plaintiffs' choice of Berman, DeValerio & Pease, LLP, One Liberty Square, Boston, MA 02109, and Berger & Montague, P.C., 1622 Locust Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103, as Plaintiffs' Lead Counsel. The action was filed pursuant to the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995.
The Exchange Act Complaint alleges generally that Summit and certain of its officers and directors violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule 10b-5. In particular, the Exchange Act Complaint alleges that Summit pre-sold its Excimer laser to conduct photorefractive keratectomy ("PRK") prior to receiving approval from the Food and Drug Administration ("FDA") to commercially market and sell that product in the U.S. and that Summit misled its investors with regard to its pre-selling of this laser. Plaintiffs allege that thirty million dollars worth of revenue was generated based on the demand for the PRK Excimer and that, during the Class Period, Summit's stock price was artificially inflated because investors did not know that Summit had already tapped into its PRK Excimer laser hardware market prior to FDA approval. Plaintiffs allege that investors were misled into believing that Summit's ability to generate revenues was impaired because it had not obtained regulatory approval to market and sell the PRK Excimer in the U.S., and that, as of October 1995, Summit investors reasonably believed that Summit had not yet generated any PRK Excimer related revenue.
The Exchange Act Complaint also alleges that various other false and misleading statements were disseminated with respect to Summit's business affairs, revenues, obligations and prospects.
The Burke Action Complaint alleges generally that Summit, its directors and underwriters violated Sections 11, 12 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933. In particular, the Burke Action alleges that the Registration Statement issued in connection with Summit's October 1995 Secondary Offering contained false and misleading statements and material omissions. In particular, the Burke Act Complaint alleges that Summit's October 1995 Secondary Offering Registration Statement failed to disclose the following material facts, among others: the number of upgradeable Holmium lasers sold from mid-1992 through March 1995; demand for the Holmium laser was driven by the Holmium's ability to be upgraded to include an Excimer laser after FDA approval; sales of the Holmium laser prior to FDA approval of the Excimer laser were representative of the demand for the Excimer laser; and the amount of revenue Summit recognized from sales of upgradeable Holmium lasers which reduced the potential revenue pool for Excimer laser sales after FDA approval.

B. Defendants' Denial of All Allegations
Defendants have denied the allegations of the Exchange Act Action Complaint and the Burke Action Complaint and do not acknowledge any fault, wrongdoing or liability. Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, Defendants deny that they issued or made any materially false and misleading public statement concerning Summit or its business affairs, financial condition, financial performance or prospects; and Defendants deny that any member of the Classes was damaged in any way by any conduct of Defendants.

THE COURT, BY SENDING THIS NOTICE OR OTHERWISE, HAS NOT EXPRESSED ANY OPINION AS TO THE MERITS OF ANY OF PLAINTIFFS' CLAIMS OR ALLEGATIONS, OR ANY OPINION AS TO ANY OF DEFENDANTS' DENIALS OR DEFENSES. THIS NOTICE SHALL NOT BE CONSTRUED AS EXPRESSING ANY SUCH OPINION, BUT IS PROVIDED ONLY SO THAT YOU MAY DECIDE WHAT STEPS, IF ANY, TO TAKE IN RELATION TO THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT.

C. Class Action Certification
The Court certified the Exchange Act Action and the Burke Action as class actions pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. For purposes of the proposed Settlement the Court has, by order dated August 11, 1998, certified the following "Class":

All persons and entities who purchased or otherwise acquired Summit Technology, Inc. ("Summit") common stock or call options, or sold Summit put options, during the period from March 31, 1995 through July 3, 1996, inclusive (the "Exchange Act Action") or who purchased Summit common stock issued in connection with Summit's October 1995 Secondary Offering of Summit common stock (the "Burke Action") and sustained a loss thereon. Excluded from the Exchange Act Action and the Burke Action are the Defendants, members of Summit's Board of Directors, their immediate families and any subsidiary, affiliate, controlling or controlled person of any such person or entities or any Related Parties. Also excluded from the Classes are any Persons who submit valid and timely requests for exclusion from the Exchange Act Action or the Burke Action in accordance with the requirements set forth in the Notice.

If you purchased or otherwise acquired Summit common stock or call options, or sold Summit put options, during the Class Period as described above, and are not a Defendant herein, or other excluded person, you are a member of the Class. You may request exclusion from the Class in a writing mailed by first class mail addressed to:

Your request for exclusion must be signed, must clearly indicate that you request to be excluded from the Class, and must state the name, address and social security or taxpayer identification number of the person seeking exclusion and the amount or number of shares of Summit common stock or Summit call options you purchased, or Summit put options you sold, during the Class Period. Your request for exclusion should also include the amount or number of shares of Summit common stock, put options, or call options, if any, held as of March 30, 1995, and for all purchases, other acquisitions or sales of Summit common stock, put options, or call options during the applicable Class Period: (a) the amount or number of Summit common stock or call options purchased or otherwise acquired during the Class Period, the date of each purchase; and the purchase price or value of consideration paid in each purchase; (b) the amount or number of shares of Summit common stock or options sold or otherwise transferred during the Class Period, the date of each sale or transfer, and the amount or value of consideration obtained in connection with each such sale or transfer; (c) the name(s) in which such shares, put options, or call options were registered; and (d) the reason as to why you request exclusion. You must also include documentation, such as brokerage statements, establishing your trading in Summit securities. The request for exclusion will not be valid unless all of the required information is provided and unless the request for exclusion is mailed by first-class mail and postmarked no later than April 10, 2001.

If you request exclusion, you will not be entitled to share in the benefits of any Court-approved settlement or be bound by any Judgment entered in this litigation. Any Class Member who does not request exclusion may, if he or she desires, enter an appearance through his or her counsel by sending such entry of appearance to the Court.

Glen DeValerio, Esq. Jeffrey C. Block, Esq. Kathleen M. Donovan-Maher, Esq. Berman, DeValerio & Pease LLP One Liberty Square Boston, MA 02109

Sherrie R. Savett, Esq. Jeanne A. Markey, Esq. Berger & Montague, P.C. 1622 Locust Street Philadelphia, PA 19103

III. REASONS FOR THE SETTLEMENT

Plaintiffs' Lead Counsel entered into the Settlement after reviewing over three hundred thousand pages of documents produced by Defendants, taking approximately thirty depositions, conducting third party discovery involving in excess of forty nonparties, exchanging a total of nine expert reports with the defendants, and filing a motion for summary judgment as to certain claims in the Burke Action and the Defendants' filing five motions for summary judgment as to claims asserted in the Exchange Act Action, two motions for summary judgment as to claims asserted in the Burke Action, and two motions for summary judgment as to claims asserted in both actions. Plaintiffs' Lead Counsel engaged in extensive and intensive arm's-length negotiations with Counsel for the Settling Defendants with respect to the settlement of the litigation, which negotiations were supervised by a professional settlement mediator, highly experienced in mediating settlements of complex lawsuits. Plaintiffs' Lead Counsel have made a thorough study of the legal principles applicable to the claims asserted, and have carefully reviewed the facts and circumstances underlying the allegations made in these actions. Plaintiffs' Lead Counsel also evaluated the expense and length of time necessary to prosecute this action, taking into account the uncertainties of predicting the outcome of such complex litigation, including the possibility of lengthy and costly appeals. Based upon consideration of all these factors, and balancing them against the certain and substantial benefits that will be received as a result of the Settlement, the Lead Plaintiffs and Plaintiffs' Lead Counsel have concluded that the Settlement is fair, reasonable, adequate and that it is in the best interests of the Classes to settle all of the claims against Defendants on the terms and conditions set forth hereinafter.
While denying any fault, wrongdoing, or liability, and relying on the provisions of the Settlement Agreement that the Settlement shall in no event be construed as or deemed to be evidence of an admission or a concession on the part of Defendants or any of their respective officers, directors, members, partners, limited partners, principals, shareholders, officers, directors, joint venturers, investors, underwriters, accountants, auditors, employees, successors, assigns, agents, insurers, attorneys, heirs, executors or representatives, of any fault, wrongdoing, or liability whatsoever, or that any of the allegations in the litigation are true, and without conceding any infirmity in its defenses, Defendants, to avoid burdensome, protracted and uncertain litigation, have agreed, by and through their counsel, to settle the claims against them and terminate the litigation.

IV. SUMMARY OF THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT

The Settlement Fund consists of $10,000,000 in cash, plus accrued interest from December 4, 2000.
If the Settlement is approved by the Court, the "Settlement Fund" (net of any amounts paid out pursuant to the terms of the Settlement and orders of the Court, plus any interest earned) will be held for the benefit of the Classes to be distributed as set out in Section VII below.
Plaintiffs’ damages expert has estimated an average recovery from the Settlement of approximately $0.20 per share in the Exchange Act Action and the Burke Action during the Class Period. However, the actual recovery obtained by any member of the Class will vary from the average recovery per share depending upon numerous other factors, including (i) the actual number and amount of claims submitted by members of the Class; and (ii) the timing of the Class member's transactions in Summit securities during the Class Period. In addition, the portion of the Settlement Fund available for distribution to the Class members may be reduced for payment of various costs and expenses, including attorneys' fees and costs associated with the prosecution of the litigation.
The Settlement will become effective, if approved by the Court, after the Judgment entered by the Court becomes final, binding and non-appealable. Upon such approval, the Litigation shall be dismissed with prejudice and the members of the Classes, except those who shall have properly requested exclusion from the Classes as provided herein, shall have fully, finally and forever released, relinquished and discharged all Defendants and their Related Parties from any and all Released Claims, as provided in the Settlement Agreement.
This Notice is not intended to be a complete description of the Settlement Agreement. The Settlement Agreement contains the full and complete terms of the Settlement, and is available as set forth in Section XII below.

If the Court approves the proposed Settlement:
(a) Judgment shall be entered approving the Settlement as fair, reasonable, adequate and in the best interests of the Classes; the Court shall separately determine the reasonable amount of attorneys' fees and reimbursement of costs and disbursements to be awarded Plaintiffs' Counsel, and determine how the Net Settlement Fund shall be distributed; the Court shall also retain jurisdiction for the purposes of effectuating the terms and provisions of the Settlement; and
(b)The members of the Classes shall release or be deemed to have released Defendants and their Related Parties from each and every of the Released Claims; and the litigation against Defendants shall be dismissed with prejudice.²

VI. YOUR SHARE OF THE SETTLEMENT FUND

If the proposed Settlement becomes effective, Class Members will be entitled to share in the distribution of the proceeds of the Settlement Fund allocated to the Class, after payment of attorneys' fees, expenses, and expenses of the settlement administration, to the extent allowed by the Court.
Payments and distributions from the Settlement Fund on claims submitted by Class members shall be made in accordance with a plan of allocation (the 'Plan of Allocation') approved by the Court.

VII. PLAN OF ALLOCATION

The Settlement Fund, net of the costs of notice and administration of the settlement, and such attorneys' fees and costs as may be awarded by the Court (the "Net Settlement Fund"), shall be distributed to "Authorized Claimants", meaning those members of the Classes who timely submit a valid proof of claim in accordance with the following procedures and requirements:
(a)"Eligible Shares" shall be shares of Summit common stock purchased or otherwise acquired during the Class Period. Purchases of shares for the purpose of boxing or covering short sales should not be included. "Eligible Options" shall be call options on Summit shares purchased or put options on Summit shares sold during the Class Period.
(b)The calculation of the “Eligible Amount” for Summit common stock during the Class Period (subject to paragraphs (e) and (f) below) shall be as follows: (i) for shares purchased or otherwise acquired during the period March 31, 1995 through July 3, 1996 and held until July 3, 1996 the recognized loss shall be the difference between the purchase price, less commissions, and $7.37 per share; (ii) for shares purchased or otherwise acquired during the period March 31, 1995 through July 3, 1996 and sold prior to July 3, 1996, the recognized loss shall be the difference between the purchase price and sale price, less brokerage commissions.
(c)The calculation of the Eligible Amount for purchases of Summit call options during the Class Period (subject to paragraphs (e) and (f) below) shall be as follows: (i) the recognized loss shall be the difference between your purchase price and sale price, less brokerage commissions, for all call options purchased during the Class Period; or (ii) if you held your unexpired call options through July 3, 1996, the recognized loss shall be your purchase price per contract. If your contract expired during the Class Period, your recognized loss is zero.
(d)The calculation of the Eligible Amount for sellers of Summit put options during the Class Period (subject to paragraphs (e) and (f) below) shall be as follows: the recognized loss shall be the difference between your purchase price and sale price, less brokerage commissions, for all put options sold during the Class Period. If your contract expired during the Class Period, your recognized loss is zero.
(e)In processing Claims, the first-in, first-out basis (“FIFO”) will be applied to both purchases and sales. Each Claim must show the number of shares of Summit stock and put or call options held as of the close of business on March 30, 1995 and all purchases, other acquisitions and sales of Eligible Shares and Eligible Options made until July 3, 1996. The sales of Eligible Shares and Eligible Options will be matched in chronological order first against the shares and options so held on March 30, 1995 and then against the earliest in time purchases of Eligible Shares and Eligible Options during the applicable Class Period. Resulting match-ups which show a gain will be omitted in calculating the Eligible Amount of each Claim. For resulting match-ups which show an actual loss that is less than the Eligible Amount, the Eligible Amount will be limited to the actual loss.
(f)In the event that the Net Settlement Fund is less than the aggregate of all Authorized Claimants’ Eligible Amounts, each Claimant will receive a proportionate share of the Net Settlement Fund based upon the ratio of that Authorized Claimant’s Eligible Amount to the aggregate of all Authorized Claimants’ Eligible Amounts.
(g)The determinations of the Claims Administrator shall be subject to review and approval by the Court, as part of the Court’s review and approval of a proposed Order of Distribution.

The Court shall consider the Plan of Allocation and its fairness, reasonableness and adequacy to the Authorized Claimants separately from its consideration of the fairness, reasonableness and adequacy of the Settlement as a whole. The Plan of Allocation, and any modification thereof, shall be subject to the approval of the Court as fair, reasonable and adequate to the members of the Class only upon notice and opportunity to be heard by all parties.

DEFENDANTS TAKE NO POSITION WITH RESPECT TO THE PLAN OF ALLOCATION AND SHALL HAVE NO RESPONSIBILITY FOR ITS PROVISIONS OR TERMS.

VIII. TERMINATION OF PROPOSED SETTLEMENT

If the Settlement does not become effective, or if Defendants terminate the Settlement in accordance with the Settlement Agreement, or if the Settlement is not consummated for any other reason, the Settlement Agreement shall become null and void, and the parties shall resume their former positions in this action, all as described in the Settlement Agreement.

IX. APPLICATION FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND EXPENSES, AND COMPENSATORY AWARDS FOR LEAD PLAINTIFFS

At the hearing described below, Plaintiffs’ Lead Counsel will make an application for an award by the Court of attorneys’ fees in an amount not exceeding thirty-three percent (33%) of the Settlement Fund, and for reimbursement of expenses in an amount not to exceed $1.25 million, excluding costs of notice and administration subject to any opposition thereto and to determination by the Court. In addition, the Lead Plaintiffs will seek compensatory awards for undertaking representation of the Class and assistance provided to Plaintiffs’ Lead Counsel in the course of the litigation in an amount not to exceed $75,000 collectively (the “Compensatory Awards”). All such amounts as awarded by the Court shall be paid out of the Settlement Fund.
The recovery of legal fees is customary in actions brought on a contingency fee basis, and Plaintiffs’ Lead Counsel believe that the fees that they will seek are justified by the substantial time and effort already invested in the prosecution of these actions, as well as the time and effort that will be required for Counsel prior to final approval of this Settlement. The expense reimbursement sought by Plaintiffs’ Lead Counsel consists of expenses actually incurred in the prosecution of this action to date. Defendants take no position on the application for legal fees and expenses that Plaintiffs’ Lead Counsel will seek.

X. THE SETTLEMENT HEARING

IF YOU DO NOT WISH TO OBJECT TO THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT, PLAN OF ALLOCATION OR REQUEST FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND EXPENSES, OR COMPENSATORY AWARDS FOR LEAD PLAINTIFFS, YOU NEED NOT APPEAR AT THE HEARING.
Pursuant to an Order of this Court, dated February 21, 2001, the Settlement Hearing with respect to the Settlement will be held in the United States Courthouse, One Courthouse Way, Boston, MA, 02210, at 10:00 a.m. on April 25, 2001, before the Hon. Joseph L. Tauro to determine whether the proposed Settlement of the Class Action is fair, reasonable and adequate and in the best interests of the Classes, and should be approved by the Court. At this hearing the Court will also consider separately Plaintiff Classes’ Counsels’ application for attorneys’ fees and reimbursement of costs and disbursements, the compensatory awards for Lead Plaintiffs and Plaintiffs’ proposed Plan of Allocation.
Any member of the Classes may appear at the Settlement Hearing in person, or through duly authorized counsel of his or her choice, and show cause, if any, why the proposed Settlement, the proposed Plan of Allocation, the Compensatory Awards for Lead Plaintiffs or the application for attorneys’ fees and reimbursement of costs and disbursements should not be approved. However, no such person shall be heard and no papers or briefs shall be considered unless that person has filed an objection with the Clerk of the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts, One Courthouse Way, Boston, MA 02210, no later than April 10, 2001, showing due proof of service, by hand or by first class mail, postage prepaid, on all of the following persons:

Glen DeValerio, Esq. Jeffrey C. Block, Esq. Kathleen M. Donovan-Maher, Esq. One Liberty Square Boston, MA 02109	Sherrie R. Savett, Esq. Jeanne A. Markey, Esq. Berger & Montague, P.C. 1622 Locust Street Philadelphia, PA 19103
Plantiffs' Lead Counsel
James S. Dittmar, Esq. Robert L. Kirby, Jr., Esq. HUTCHINS, WHEELER & DITTMAR A Professional Corporation 101 Federal Street Boston, MA 02110 Attorneys for Summit Technology, Inc., Rajiv P. Bhatt, Kimberley A. Doney, John G. Frantzis, Ray H. Krauss, Peter E. Litman, Jeffrey A. Bernfeld, Richard F. Miller, John A. Norris, and Robert M. Traskos
Deborah L. Thaxter, Esq. NIXON PEABODY, LLP 101 Federal Street Boston, MA 02110
Attorneys for David F. Muller
James R. Carroll, Esq. SKADDEN ARPS SLATE MEAGHER & FLOM, LLP One Beacon Street Boston, MA 02108 Attorneys for Smith Barney, Inc., Morgan Stanley & Co., Incorporated, Bear Stearns & Co., Inc., and Piper Jaffray, Inc.

XI. SPECIAL NOTICE TO BROKERS, BANKS AND OTHER NOMINEES

If you, as nominee, purchased Summit common stock or call options, or sold put options, during the Class Period on behalf of any beneficial owner, you have been directed by Order of the Court dated February 21, 2001 immediately to contact the Claims Administrator, at Summit Technology, Inc. Securities Litigation, c/o The Garden City Group, Inc., P.O. Box 9314, Garden City, NY 11530-9314, and either (a) promptly send by mail copies of the Notice and Proof of Claim and Release to the beneficial owners of the securities, providing written confirmation to the Claims Administrator of such mailing, or (b) provide the Claims Administrator with the names and addresses of such beneficial owners, in which case the Claims Administrator will then send copies of the Notice and Proof of Claim and Release to each such person. The Claims Administrator will provide nominees with additional copies of the Notice and Proof of Claim and Release upon the request of such nominees. The Claims Administrator will also offer reimbursement to nominees for the reasonable administrative costs of searching their records to find the names and addresses of the beneficial owners and for mailing the Notices.

XII. FURTHER INFORMATION

For a more detailed statement of the matters involved in this Litigation, you are referred to the papers on file in this action, including the Settlement Agreement, which may be inspected during regular business hours at the Office of the Clerk of the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts, One Courthouse Way, Boston, MA 02210.

PLEASE DO NOT CALL OR WRITE THE COURT DIRECTLY. IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, PLEASE WRITE TO THE FOLLOWING COUNSEL REPRESENTING PLAINTIFFS AND THE CLASSES:

BERMAN, DEVALERIO & PEASE LLP One Liberty Square Boston, MA 02109

BERGER & MONTAGUE, P.C. 1622 Locust Street Philadelphia, PA 19103

---

top