MATTER NAME/CASE/TRADE	DESCRIPTION
PARAMETRIC	The Firm represented Parametric Technology Corporation and certain individual defendants named in securities class action suits filed on behalf of purchasers of Parametric stock. In January 2002, Parametric restated its revenues and earnings for the preceding four fiscal years after discovering, and voluntarily disclosing, an error in its accounting for maintenance revenue. Shortly thereafter, nine separate class actions were filed against it, each alleging that the company and certain of its senior officers had violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5. A consolidated amended class action complaint was filed in September 2003. The Firm moved to dismiss the complaint in its entirety. On November 3, 2004, Chief Judge Young of the District of Massachusetts granted the motion to dismiss, finding many of the allegedly false or misleading statements at issue to be non-actionable as a matter of law and that plaintiffs had failed to allege facts giving rise to a strong inference that Parametric or any of the individual defendants acted with intent to defraud.
IMCLONE	The Firm represented the outside directors of ImClone Systems Incorporated in federal securities and derivative litigation which arose from ImClone’s surprise announcement in December 2001 that the FDA had refused to accept for filing ImClone’s application for regulatory approval of Erbitux, a drug used in the treatment of cancer. On June 4, 2003, the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York granted the Firm’s motion to dismiss all of the federal securities law claims against the outside directors. The Firm also briefed and argued motions to dismiss the derivative claims against the outside directors. While that motion was pending, the case was settled without any contributions from the outside directors. On July 29, 2005, the Court approved the settlement of the derivative litigation.
DYNEGY	The Firm represented two underwriters in a putative class action in the Southern District of Texas arising from accounting errors in 2001 Dynegy offering documents. One underwriter client was dismissed from the case. The remaining underwriter client faced strict liability under the 1933 Act for alleged false and misleading statements. Before the Court ruled on our summary judgment motion, the parties reached a settlement in which our client paid nothing, while other defendants (principally Dynegy) funded a $474 million global settlement.
FLEMING COMPANIES	The Firm represented Deutsche Bank, Lehman Brothers, Morgan Stanley, and Wachovia sued under the 1933 Act in connection with simultaneous equity and debt offerings made by the Fleming Companies, a food distributor and operator of price impact grocery stores that filed for bankruptcy in March 2003. In November 2005, a global settlement was approved by the Eastern District of Texas.
TURKCELL	The Firm represented Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, Credit Suisse First Boston, Deutsche Bank, Lehman Brothers and UBS in a class action in the Southern District of New York arising out of the July 11, 2000 IPO of 96,000,000 American Depository Shares of Turkcell Iletisim Hizmetleri A.S., the leading provider of mobile communications services in Turkey. At the time, the offering was the largest in Turkish history and Turkcell became the first Turkish company listed on the NYSE. The case was settled in February 2004.
KEYSPAN	The Firm represented KeySpan in connection with federal securities litigation and shareholder derivative suits arising out of certain accounting inaccuracies at an acquired subsidiary. On KeySpan’s motion, the Eastern District of New York dismissed certain of the federal securities claims, leading to the settlement of the class action claims on terms favorable to the Company. In September 2005, the Court entered a final order approving the settlement. After KeySpan moved to dismiss the two shareholder derivative suits filed in the same Court based upon the Company’s acquisition of the subsidiary and the eventual special charge, plaintiffs in those actions voluntarily dismissed their claims. The Firm also represented KeySpan in a separate shareholder derivative suit in New York state court arising from the same facts. Following KeySpan's motion to dismiss, the parties executed a stipulation of settlement, which was approved by the Court in April 2006.
BRE-X MINERALS	The Firm represented Lehman Brothers in federal securities litigation in Texas and state court litigation in California arising from the collapse of Bre-X Minerals. In March 2001, all claims in the federal action against Lehman were dismissed with prejudice. A related action, pending in San Diego Superior Court, settled in 2004 on terms very favorable to Lehman.
KKR/SAFEWAY	The Firm represented KKR in a putative derivative suit brought by Safeway shareholders in California state court. KKR, a former majority shareholder of Safeway, was accused of aiding and abetting various breaches of fiduciary duty allegedly committed by Safeway directors from 1997 to 2003. The parties settled the case with no payment by KKR.
TELEGLOBE	The Firm represented Teleglobe, a major Canadian telecommunications company, and certain of its officers and directors in consolidated federal securities class actions. Plaintiffs alleged that Teleglobe failed to make timely disclosure of material information regarding problems relating to the integration of its acquisition of EXCEL, reduced call volumes, company-wide underperformance, and large losses from currency fluctuations. In January 2002, the Southern District of New York dismissed a consolidated amended complaint in its entirety.
STEWART ENTERPRISES	The Firm represented Stewart Enterprises, a major owner and operator of funeral homes, in federal securities litigation arising out of the Company’s 1999 secondary public offering. In December 2000, a federal district court in Louisiana granted Stewart’s motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. The plaintiffs withdrew an appeal that was subsequently filed in the Fifth Circuit.
FORD/FIAT ARBITRATION	The Firm represented Ford Motor Company in an international arbitration with Fiat under the UNCITRAL Rules, involving a securities fraud claim under Rule 10b-5 in connection with the sale of Ford’s tractor manufacturing subsidiary to Fiat. Fiat abandoned its securities fraud claim as part of a settlement between the parties.
DSC COMMUNICATIONS	The Firm represented DSC Communications in a class action securities lawsuit arising out of a temporary interruption of telephone service in certain service areas of the U.S. A federal district court in Texas dismissed the action and the Fifth Circuit affirmed.
ULTRALIFE	The Firm represented underwriters sued in connection with a common stock offering by Ultralife, a manufacturer of lithium batteries. In September 1999, a federal district court in New Jersey dismissed all claims against all defendants, including the underwriters. In September 2000, the court dismissed an amended complaint.
POLAROID	The Firm represented Polaroid in federal securities litigation in Massachusetts arising from Polaroid’s sales and marketing of its instant film. The complaint alleged that Polaroid should have made additional disclosures about its revenue recognition practices and the market for instant film in its press releases and SEC filings. In March 2001, Judge Saris granted Polaroid’s motion to dismiss. No appeal was filed.
PARAMETRIC TECHNOLOGY	The Firm represented Parametric Technology Corporation in federal securities litigation in Massachusetts arising out of allegations that the Company withheld material information about its revenues and operations. In March 2001, Judge O’Toole granted Parametric’s motion to dismiss the complaint with prejudice. No appeal was filed.
PRISON REALTY	The Firm represented the country’s largest owner-operator of privately-run prisons and its directors in multiple federal securities class actions and derivative litigation in Tennessee. These actions were filed in the aftermath of a nearly $1 billion drop in the Company’s market capitalization following its public announcement of restructured financial arrangements with certain affiliated companies. The various complaints alleged claims under Rule 10b-5 and state law breach of fiduciary duty claims. The case was settled.
SHAW V. DIGITAL	The Firm represented eight co-manager underwriters and a purported class of 65 underwriters of a $400 million offering of preferred stock of Digital Equipment Corporation. The offering took place a few weeks before Digital announced unexpectedly high losses for its third quarter. Twelve lawsuits were consolidated in federal district court in Boston. The consolidated case was dismissed in part and the remaining claims were ultimately settled.
KKR/DPL	The Firm represented two KKR partners in connection with federal securities and shareholder derivative actions against DPL (the parent company of Dayton Power & Light) and its officers and directors in state and federal court in Ohio. The two KKR partners joined the DPL Board after KKR made an investment in DPL in March 2000. The cases were settled in December 2003 without a payment by our clients.
PEPSICO INC.	The Firm represented PepsiCo in connection with securities litigation in the Southern District of New York alleging fraud by an Argentine Pepsi bottler in which PepsiCo then held a minority interest. The complaint was dismissed for failure to adequately plead scienter under the Reform Act. Plaintiffs repled but did not name PepsiCo in the amended complaint.
KREDITANSTALT FÜR WIEDERAUFBAU	The Firm represented Kreditanstalt für Wiederaufbau (“KfW”), a German government entity, in federal securities litigation in the Southern District of New York arising out of a secondary offering of its shares in Deutsche Telekom. In February 2002, a consolidated complaint was dismissed against KfW on the basis that KfW was not a “seller” under the securities laws.