PROPOSAL TO PROVIDE SECURITIES LITIGATION COUNSEL TO … · 2 f. the year the firm first began...

PROPOSAL TO PROVIDE

SECURITIES LITIGATION COUNSEL

TO THE

STATE BOARD OF ADMINISTRATION OF FLORIDA

submitted by

BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP

Contact Persons:

Gerald H. Silk E-Mail: [email protected] 1285 Avenue of the Americas New York, New York 10019 Telephone: (212) 554-1282 Facsimile: (212) 554-1444

G. Anthony Gelderman, III E-Mail: [email protected]

2727 Prytania Street New Orleans, Louisiana 70130

Telephone: (504) 899-2339 Facsimile: (504) 899-2342

Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP (“BLB&G” or the “Firm”) is pleased to submit this proposal to serve as securities litigation counsel to the State Board of Administration of Florida (the “SBA” or the “Board”) in response to the Invitation to Negotiate (“ITN”) issued by the Board. BLB&G would be honored to be selected to serve as a member of the SBA’s pool of securities litigation attorneys and we believe that we are qualified in all respects to provide all of the securities litigation and advisory services that the Board may require. As requested, our response to the ITN is presented in the order of the ITN, with each of the Board’s questions repeated in full below. A. Firm Background Information 1. Provide the full name of the firm, the address of the principal place of business, the name, phone number, and email of the primary contact, and the primary location from which the firm would provide legal services to the SBA. Attach a copy of the firm’s resume or brochure.

The Firm’s New York City headquarters is the primary location from which BLB&G would provide

legal services to the SBA. The address is:

Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP 1285 Avenue of the Americas New York, New York 10019

(212) 554-1400 The primary contact at the Firm’s New York City offices will be BLB&G partner Gerald H. Silk. In addition, counsel G. Anthony (“Tony”) Gelderman, III, who is based in New Orleans, Louisiana, will also serve as a principal contact person for the SBA. Their contact information is:

Gerald H. Silk Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP

1285 Avenue of the Americas New York, New York 10019 Telephone: (212) 554-1282 Facsimile: (212) 554-1444

[email protected]

G. Anthony Gelderman, III Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP

2727 Prytania Street New Orleans Louisiana 70130

Telephone: (504) 899-2339 Facsimile: (504) 899-2342

[email protected]

A copy of the Firm resume is attached as Exhibit A. In addition, a copy of the Firm brochure is attached as Exhibit B. 2. Briefly describe the firm, including the following information:

a. the year the firm was established; b. office locations, including the number of attorneys that are resident in each office; c. the firm’s ownership structure (include a chart detailing the structure); d. the total number of employees by practice area and category, including the number of licensed lawyers, the number of partners and associates, the number of legal and other support staff, and the number of women and minorities by practice area and category; e. a breakdown of the type of clients the firm represents, (e.g. public funds, corporate, endowments, etc.);

2

f. the year the firm first began securities litigation work; and g. the number of attorneys that specialize in securities litigation.

BLB&G is a law firm of 50 attorneys specializing in representing public pension funds and other

institutional investors in securities litigation. The Firm has offices in New York City, San Diego California, and New Orleans, Louisiana, with 37, 12, and 1 attorneys in each office, respectively, at this time. The Firm is organized as a limited liability partnership and is owned by its equity partners. The Firm has been performing securities litigation work since it was founded in 1983. Virtually all the Firm’s attorneys specialize in securities litigation. The Firm regularly advises and/or represents approximately 120 institutional investors, consisting principally of public and other pension funds, mutual funds, hedge funds, and other similar investment entities. The majority of the Firm’s client base consists of public pension funds like the SBA. The Firm presently employs 128 people. A breakdown of these employees, including the number of women and minorities, is as follows:

Position Number of Individuals Number of Women/Minorities Partners 13 2/0 Associates/Counsel 38 12/5 Paralegals 16 9/7 Portfolio Monitoring, Financial Analysis, & Investigations

11 7/1

Secretarial and Office Support 42 28/23 Technology 8 1/6 3. In the past three years (as of the issuance date of this ITN), have there been any significant developments in your firm, including changes in ownership, a merger and/or substantial sale or purchase of assets/practice or restructuring?

On October 15, 2009, a senior partner of the Firm, John P. (“Sean”) Coffey, announced his resignation from the Firm in order to explore seeking election to the Office of Attorney General for the State of New York.

4. Do you anticipate any of the significant changes described in No. 3 above in the future? If so, please describe. The Firm anticipates none of the significant changes described in No. 3 in the future. 5. Identify any relevant special services the firm provides, particularly those that may not be offered by other law firms.

BLB&G provides our institutional investor clients with an all-inclusive portfolio monitoring service that we believe is unique from other law firms for its comprehensive coverage, its convenience, and its capacity to be customized to the particular needs of each institutional client. BLB&G was one of the first—if not the first—firms in the field to begin providing formal portfolio monitoring services to institutional investors after the enactment of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (“PSLRA”), a statute designed to encourage institutional investors to play an important leadership role in

3

securities class actions. As a result, the depth and breadth of our experience providing portfolio monitoring services are virtually unparalleled in the field and we believe that our highly successful litigation record on behalf of our institutional clients is the result not only of our ability as litigators, but also on the ability of our portfolio monitoring practice to identify the very best cases and present them to our clients. The Firm maintains a dedicated portfolio monitoring team—consisting of attorneys, financial analysts, and other professionals—whose exclusive focus, as discussed in response to Question B.3., infra, is providing portfolio monitoring and associated advisory services to our institutional clients. BLB&G recently introduced our third-generation portfolio monitoring system, PortfolioWatch, a secure electronic portfolio monitoring program that allows our clients direct, on-line access to their portfolio information. All of the Firm’s portfolio monitoring and advisory services are provided at no cost to our clients.

BLB&G’s portfolio monitoring program allows our institutional clients to stay well-informed

about their interests in and options with respect to securities and other shareholder lawsuits with a minimal commitment of resources and effort. In principal, our portfolio monitoring service is designed to identify potential market misconduct that has an adverse impact on our clients’ investment portfolios and, once identified, to investigate the matter and provide our analysis and recommendations to our clients. To this end, BLB&G monitors our institutional clients’ portfolios on an ongoing basis to evaluate whether any material losses are caused by fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, or other violations of applicable corporate and/or securities laws. In order to effectively perform this function, we continuously review and update our clients’ securities holdings and trading records, normally through a direct electronic connection with the fund’s custodial banks that requires no ongoing involvement from the client. At the same time, we continuously monitor and evaluate market news and other information that may cause a material loss or other negative impact to our clients’ investment portfolios. This monitoring includes scrutiny of all class action notices under the PSLRA, all corporate transactions (such as mergers, executive compensation and stock option grants), and monitoring of bankruptcy proceedings to determine their impact on our clients.

BLB&G conveys the results of our portfolio monitoring to our clients in several convenient ways.

BLB&G provides our monitoring clients with periodic reports—typically quarterly—concerning significant developments in securities and shareholder litigation. These reports are tailored to the specific needs and conditions of each of our clients and may include, as the circumstances require, information regarding lawsuits, investigations, and/or other legal developments that materially impact our clients’ portfolios, updates on any lawsuits that are presently pending on our clients’ behalf, and updates on cases in which our clients retain an interest or are otherwise concerned with monitoring.

BLB&G’s portfolio monitoring program is also available to our clients through PortfolioWatch,

our secure proprietary internet platform that allows our clients to conveniently access their information with the push of a button. Our electronic portfolio monitoring platform allows our clients to identify, among other things and in “real time,” all pending deadlines for seeking appointment as Lead Plaintiff in securities class actions; the fund’s financial interest with respect to all such actions, including based on alternative class periods; and all pending deadlines for submitting claim forms, objecting, or opting out of class action settlements. Our electronic portfolio monitoring service also provides news and other updates regarding the field of securities and shareholder litigation. Our clients can access the system 24 hours a day and the interface is highly customizable to the particular needs and preferences of each client. We would be pleased to offer the SBA a live demonstration of our online portfolio monitoring capabilities.

4

Our advisory practice is also unique among other firms in the field because the capabilities and skill sets of our attorneys, analysts, investigators and other professionals allow us to advise our clients with respect to legal claims and issues beyond the traditional scope of securities and shareholder litigation. We encourage our clients to view us as trusted counsel, and we are readily available to consult, advise, and assist our clients with respect to any matter in which our litigation skills and experience could be of service. As with all the portfolio monitoring and advisory services performed by BLB&G, these advisory services are offered to our clients at no cost. 6. What arrangement does the firm have in place or expect to use regarding retention and compensation of experts and third parties?

The Firm has established relationships with numerous experts and other third parties commonly retained in the course of securities litigation, including experts in the fields of economics, statistics, damages analysis, and forensic accounting. The Firm compensates such experts based on the terms of retention agreements particular to each retention. The Firm compensates any such experts out of its own funds and, where appropriate, seeks court-approved reimbursement of such expenses upon the successful conclusion of a litigation.

7. Does the firm have a diversity policy? If so, please describe.

The Firm has a strong commitment to diversity and equal opportunity in the workplace. The Firm maintains a written equal employment opportunity policy, which is distributed to all employees as part of the Employee Handbook. All employees are responsible for meeting its standards, and all Firm partners and supervisors are responsible for enforcing compliance with its terms. Although the Firm does not maintain a formal “diversity” policy, the Firm has made a concerted effort in recent years to recruit young attorneys from minority backgrounds, especially through on-campus recruiting and through our summer associate recruitment programs.

8. What is the firm’s policy and practice as to continuing legal education for its attorneys? The Firm funds all of our attorneys’ continuing legal education (“CLE”) requirements and likewise funds our attorneys’ memberships in bar societies, bar associations, and similar legal organizations through which CLE requirements can be fulfilled. In addition, the Firm regularly hosts on-site speakers in connection with our attorneys’ CLE requirements and our attorneys are generally able to fulfill all or a significant proportion of their CLE requirements through these presentations. B. The Firm’s Securities Litigation Experience 1. Provide a representative list of the institutional investors the firm actively represented in securities litigation matters in the last ten (10) years; including the following information for each:

a. the type of case/claim (e.g. class action, individual and/or opt-out case and/or derivative litigation); b. the name of the firm’s lead attorney on a case/claim; c. the type of client (i.e. whether public fund or other institutional investor), and d. include a brief description of the litigation and the outcome (e.g. dismissal, settlement, win, or loss), including whether your firm filed a motion for Lead Plaintiff status, the name and contact

5

information of all defendants and their counsel. The list should be limited to no more than 20 clients.

BLB&G has extensive experience representing public pension funds and other institutional investors as lead or co-lead counsel in securities litigation dating back to well before the passage of the PSLRA. BLB&G has successfully prosecuted actions against some of the largest companies, banks and audit firms in the world, and we have repeatedly demonstrated our ability to initiate, manage, and successfully litigate complex legal actions on behalf of institutional investors, including complex briefing, discovery efforts, trial preparation and appeals. BLB&G has acted and continues to act as lead or co-lead counsel for many large state-wide public pension funds, like the SBA, with combined assets in the hundreds of billions of dollars.

Presently, the Firm acts as counsel in some of the most significant securities class actions pending in U.S. federal courts. The Firm is co-lead counsel in In re Bank of America Securities Litigation, the action arising from Bank of America’s acquisition of Merrill Lynch, which was accompanied by numerous fraudulent statements to investors. The Firm is also lead counsel in the securities class action on behalf of investors in Washington Mutual, involving the largest bank failure in U.S. history. The Firm also presently serves as co-lead counsel in the securities class actions against Merck & Co. Inc. and Schering-Plough Corporation arising from those companies’ false disclosures concerning the cholesterol drug, Vytorin. In addition, the Firm is also representing Merck investors in their claims related to Vioxx, which (as discussed in response to Question B.7, infra) are now pending before the United States Supreme Court after BLB&G successfully petitioned the Third Circuit Court of Appeals to reverse the trial court’s dismissal. These and other present representations—all of which are on behalf of public pension funds as lead or co-lead plaintiffs—reflect the significant recognition of our experience and capabilities in securities litigation.

Below is a representative list of 20 institutional investors—all of which are public pension

funds—represented by the Firm during the last 10 years, setting forth all requested information. The list is provided in alphabetical order:

1. Anchorage Police and Fire Retirement System

! In re Advanced Fibre, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 98-cv-20697 (N.D. Cal.) The client was appointed as a lead plaintiff in the securities class action pursuant to a lead plaintiff motion filed by BLB&G on its behalf. Lead attorneys were Max W. Berger and Gerald H. Silk. The case settled for $20,000,000. The Company and individual defendants in this matter were represented by Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP (650-233-4500) and Paul Hastings Janofsky & Walker LLP (415-856-7000).

! In re Conseco, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 00-cv-585 (S.D. Ind.) The client was appointed as a lead plaintiff in the securities class action pursuant to a lead plaintiff motion filed by BLB&G on its behalf. Lead attorneys were Max W. Berger and Steven B. Singer. The case settled for $120,000,000. The Company and individual defendants in this matter were represented by Law Offices of Gregory Joseph (212-407-1200). The Underwriters in this matter were represented by Cadwalader Wickersham & Taft LLP (212-504-5555).

! In re Lucent Technologies, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 00-cv-621 (D.N.J.) The client was appointed as a lead plaintiff in the securities class action pursuant to a lead plaintiff motion filed by BLB&G on its behalf. Lead attorneys were Max W. Berger and Steven B. Singer. The case settled for $667,000,000. The Company and individual defendants in this matter were represented by Lindabury McCormick & Estabrook, PC (908-233-6800).

6

2. Arkansas Teacher Retirement System

! Atlas v. Accredited Home Lenders Holding Co., et al, Case No. 07-cv-448 (S.D. Cal) The client was appointed as a lead plaintiff in the securities class action pursuant to a lead plaintiff motion filed by BLB&G on its behalf. Lead attorneys were Chad Johnson and David R. Stickney. The case settled for $22,000,000. The Company was represented by Luce Forward Hamilton and Scripps (619-236-1414) and Kirkland and Ellis LLP (202-879-5069). The individual defendants in this matter were represented by Paul Hastings Janofsky and Walker LLP (858-458-3000).

! Glauser v. EVCI Career Colleges Holding Corp., et al., Case No. 05-cv-10240 (S.D.N.Y) The client was appointed as a lead plaintiff in the securities class action pursuant to a lead plaintiff motion filed by BLB&G on its behalf. Lead attorneys were Max W. Berger and Gerald H. Silk. The case settled for $7,725,000. The Company and individual defendants in this matter were represented by Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati (212-999-5853).

! In re MasTec, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 04-cv-20886 (S.D. Fla.) The client was appointed as a lead plaintiff in the securities class action pursuant to a lead plaintiff motion filed by BLB&G on its behalf. Lead attorneys were Steven B. Singer and Rochelle Feder Hansen. The case settled for $10,000,000. The Company and individual defendants in this matter were represented by Holland & Knight (305-789-8500).

! In re Openwave Systems Securities Litigation, Case No. 07-cv-1309 (S.D.N.Y.) The client was appointed as a lead plaintiff in the securities class action pursuant to a lead plaintiff motion filed by BLB&G on its behalf. Lead attorneys were Chad Johnson and Laura H. Gundersheim. The case settled for $20,000,000. The Company and individual defendants in this matter were represented by Skadden Arps Slate Meagher & Flom (650-470-4500) and Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP (650-849-5300).

! In re SFBC International, Inc. Securities & Derivative Litigation, Case No. 06-cv-165 (D.N.J) The client was appointed as a lead plaintiff in the securities class action pursuant to a lead plaintiff motion filed by BLB&G on its behalf. Lead attorneys were Max W. Berger and John C. Browne. The case settled for $28,500,000. The Company and individual defendants in this matter were represented by Holland & Knight LLP (305-374-8500).

! In re Williams Securities Litigation, Case No. 02-cv-72 (N.D. Okla.) The client was appointed as a lead plaintiff in the securities class action pursuant to a lead plaintiff motion filed by BLB&G on its behalf. Lead attorneys were Chad Johnson, Mark Lebovitch, Blair A. Nicholas, Beata Gocyk-Farber, and Brett M. Middleton. The case settled for $311,000,000. The Company and individual defendants in this matter were represented by Crews Shepherd & McCarty LLP (214-432-7767), Gibson Dunn & Crutcher (415-393-8292), Hall Estill Hardwick Gable Golden & Nelson (918-594-0400), Skadden Arps Slate Meagher & Flom LLP (302-651-3000), Ryan Whaley Coldiron and Shancy PC (405-239-6040), Crowe & Dunlevy (918-592-9800), Frederic Dorwart Lawyers (918-583-9922), and Latham & Watkins (212-906-1200). The underwriters in this matter were represented by Cadwalader Wickersham & Taft 9212-504-6000), Fellers Snider Blankenship Bailey & Tippens (405-232-0621) and Walters Law Firm (405-601-7744).

3. California Public Employees’ Retirement System

! In re Cendant Corporation Securities Litigation, Case No. 98-cv-1664 (D.N.J.) The client was appointed as a lead plaintiff in the securities class action pursuant to a lead plaintiff motion filed by BLB&G on its behalf. Lead attorneys were Max W. Berger and Gerald H. Silk. The case settled for $3,200,000,000. The Company was represented by Budd, Larner PC (973-379-4800), Davis & Kuelthau (414-276-0200), Jones Walker Waechter Poitevent Carrere & Denegre (504-582-8000), Verner Liipfert Berhard Mcpherson & Hand (305-371-8801), Skadden Arps Slate Meagher & Flom, LLP (212-735-3000), and Lowenstein Sandler PC (973-597-6192). The individual defendants were represented by Robinson Wettre & Miller LLC (973-690-5400), Sills Cummis Epstein & Gross PC (973-643-7000), Saul Ewing (215-972-7777), Stern & Kilcullen, LLC (973-535-1900), Post Polak Goodsell MacNeill & Strauchler, PA (973-228-9900), Saiber Schlesinger Satz & Goldstein, LLC (973-622-3333), Dornbush Mensch Mandelstam & Venaglia, LLP (212-759-3300), Edwards & Caldwell (973-636-0500), Tressler LLP (973-848-2900), Greenberg Dauber Epstein & Tucker PC (973-643-3700), Walder Hayden & Brogan PA (973-992-5300), Greenbaum Rowe Smith & Davis LLP (732-549-5600), Mayer Brown Rowe & Maw (312-701-7621), Lowenstein Sandler PC (973) 597-2500, and Hughes Hubbard & Reed LLP (201-845-9772). The underwriter defendants were represented by McGuire Woods LLP (704-343-2000), Sills Cummis Epstein & Gross PC (973-643-7000), Edwards & Caldwell (973-636-0500), and Stern & Kilcullen, LLC (973-535-1900).

7

4. City of Miami General Employees’ & Sanitation Employees’ Retirement Trust

! In re Symbol Technologies, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 02-cv-1383 (E.D.N.Y.) The client was appointed as a lead plaintiff in the securities class action pursuant to a lead plaintiff motion filed by BLB&G on its behalf. Lead attorneys were Blair A. Nicholas and Niki Mendoza. The case settled for $102,000,000. The Company in this matter were represented by Swidler Berlin Shereff Friedman, LLP (212)-973-0111 and Dechert LLP (212-698-3500). The individual defendants in this matter were represented by DLA Piper US LLP (212-835-6000), Fried Frank Harris Shriver & Jacobson LLP (212-859-8312), Hogan & Hartson LLP (212-918-3000), Shearman & Sterling LLP (212-848-4000), Andrew M. Lawler, P.C. (212-832-3160), and Corbett & Steelman (949-553-9266).

! Angeloni v. SmartForce, PLC, d/b/a SkillSoft PLC, Case No. 02-cv-544 (D.N.H.) The client was appointed as a lead plaintiff in the securities class action pursuant to a lead plaintiff motion filed by BLB&G on its behalf. Lead attorneys were Max W. Berger and John P. Coffey. The case settled for $38,500,000. The Company in this matter were represented by Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati (650-493-9300) and Sheehan Phinney Bass & Green (603-668-0300). The individual defendants in this matter were represented by Heller Ehrman LLP (650-324-7000), Wadleigh Starr & Peters (603-669-4140), and Skadden Arps Slate Meagher & Flom LLP (617-573-4800).

! The Louisiana Municipal Police Employees’ Retirement System et al v. Deloitte & Touche LLP, Case No. 04-cv-621 (E.D.N.Y.) The client was appointed as a lead plaintiff in the securities class action pursuant to a lead plaintiff motion filed by BLB&G on its behalf. Lead attorneys were Max W. Berger and Niki Mendoza. The case settled for $24,000,000. The Company in this matter was represented by Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP (212-735-3000).

! In re Sunrise Senior Living, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 07-cv-102 (D.D.C.) The client was appointed as a lead plaintiff in the securities class action pursuant to a lead plaintiff motion filed by BLB&G on its behalf. Lead attorneys were William Fredericks and Laura Gundersheim. The case settled for $13,500,000. The Company in this matter was represented by Hogan & Hartson LLP (703-610-6156). The individual defendants in this matter were represented by Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati (650-493-9300) and Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld, LLP (202-887-4393).

5. Department of the Treasury of the State of New Jersey and its Division of Investment

! In re Electronic Data Systems Corp. Securities Litigation, Case No. 03-cv-110 (E.D. Tex.) The client was appointed as a lead plaintiff in the securities class action pursuant to a lead plaintiff motion filed by BLB&G on its behalf. Lead attorneys were Edward A. Grossmann and Niki L. Mendoza. The case settled for $137,500,000. The Company and individual defendants in this matter were represented by Jones Day (214-969-3700), Baker Botts (214-953-6500), Smith Anderson Blount Dorsett Mitchell & Jernigan (919-821-6621), Ireland Carroll & Kelley (903-561-1600).

! In re Nortel Networks Corporation Securities Litigation, Case No. 04-cv-2115 (S.D.N.Y.) The client was appointed as a lead plaintiff in the securities class action pursuant to a lead plaintiff motion filed by BLB&G on its behalf. Lead attorneys were Max W. Berger, John P. Coffey and Noam Mandel. The case settled for $1,074,265,298. The Company was represented by Shearman & Sterling LLP (212-848-5364). The individual defendants in this matter were represented by Morvillo Abramowitz Grand Iason Anello & Bohrer, PC (212-880-9560) and Richards Kibbe & Orbe, LLP (212-530-1800).

6. Jacksonville Police & Fire Pension Fund

! Goldfarb v. El Paso Corp., Case No. 02-cv-2717 (S.D. Tex.) The client was appointed as a lead plaintiff in the securities class action pursuant to a lead plaintiff motion filed by BLB&G on its behalf. Lead attorneys were David R. Stickney and Niki L. Mendoza. The case settled for $285,000,000. The Company in this matter was represented by Baker & Botts (713-229-1255), Susman Godfrey (713-651-9366). The individual defendants in this matter were represented by Beck Redden and Secrest (713-951-3700), Bracewell & Giuliani (713-221-1213), Smyser Kaplan Veselka LLP (713-221-2300), Haynes and Boone LLP (713-547-2673), Gibbs & Bruns (713-650-8805), Berg & Androphy (713-529-5622), Cravath Swaine (212-474-1000) and Fulbright & Jaworski (713-651-5447).

! Ballati v. Nextcard, Inc., Case No. 01-cv-21029 (N.D. Cal.) The client was appointed as a lead plaintiff in the securities class action pursuant to a lead plaintiff motion filed by BLB&G on its behalf. Lead attorneys were David R. Stickney and Niki L. Mendoza. The case settled for $23,835,000. The Company in this matter were represented by Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP (650-849-5300). The individual defendants in this matter were represented by DLA Piper LLP (650-833-2000), Solomon

8

Ward Seidenwurm & Smith LLP (619-231-0303), Morrison & Foerster LLP (415-268-7000), Covington & Burling (415-591-6000), McManis Faulkner (408-279-8700), Williams & Connolly LLP (202-434-5260), Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP (415-983-1000), and Latham & Watkins (415-391-0600).

! Sands Point Partners, L.P. v. Pediatrix Medical Group, Inc., et al., Case No. 99-cv-6181 (S.D. Fla.) The client was appointed as a lead plaintiff in the securities class action pursuant to a lead plaintiff motion filed by BLB&G on its behalf. Lead attorneys were John P. Coffey and Rochelle Feder Hansen. The case settled for $12,000,000. The Company and individual defendants in this matter were represented by Hunton & Williams (305-810-2539) and Davis Polk & Wardell (212-450-4512).

7. Louisiana Municipal Police Employees’ Retirement System

! In re 3Com Corp. Securities Litigation, Case No. 97-cv-21083 (N.D. Cal.) The client was appointed as a lead plaintiff in the securities class action pursuant to a lead plaintiff motion filed by BLB&G on its behalf. Lead attorneys were Max W. Berger and Steven B. Singer. The case settled for $259,000,000. The Company and individual defendants in this matter were represented by Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati (650)-493-9300 and Sachnoff & Weaver (312) 207-3921 and Bergeson & Eliopoulos LLP (408-291-6200).

! Louisiana Sheriffs’ Pension and Relief Fund et al v. Merrill Lynch & Co. Inc., et al., Case No. 08-cv-9063 (S.D.N.Y.) The client was appointed as a lead plaintiff in the securities class action pursuant to a lead plaintiff motion filed by BLB&G on its behalf. Lead attorneys were Max W. Berger, John P. Coffey and Mark Lebovitch. The case settled for $150,000,000. The Company and individual defendants in this matter were represented by Skadden Arps Slate Meagher & Flom LLP (212-735-3000).

! The Louisiana Municipal Police Employees’ Retirement System et al v. Deloitte & Touche LLP, Case No. 04-cv-621 (E.D.N.Y.) The client was appointed as a lead plaintiff in the securities class action pursuant to a lead plaintiff motion filed by BLB&G on its behalf. Lead attorneys were Blair A. Nicholas and Niki L. Mendoza. The case settled for $24,000,000. The Company in this matter was represented by Skadden Arps Slate Meagher & Flom LLP (212-735-3000).

! In re Symbol Technologies, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 02-cv-1383 (E.D.N.Y.) The client was appointed as a lead plaintiff in the securities class action pursuant to a lead plaintiff motion filed by BLB&G on its behalf. Lead attorneys were Blair A. Nicholas and Niki L. Mendoza. The case settled for $102,000,000. The Company in this matter were represented by Swidler Berlin Shereff Friedman, LLP (212)-973-0111 and Dechert LLP (212-698-3500). The individual defendants in this matter were represented by DLA Piper US LLP (212-835-6000), Fried Frank Harris Shriver & Jacobson LLP (212-859-8312), Hogan & Hartson LLP (212-918-3000), Shearman & Sterling LLP (212-848-4000), Andrew M. Lawler, P.C. (212-832-3160), and Corbett & Steelman (949-553-9266).

8. Louisiana School Employees’ Retirement System

! In re 3Com Corp. Securities Litigation, Case No. 97-cv-21083 (N.D. Cal.) The client was appointed as a lead plaintiff in the securities class action pursuant to a lead plaintiff motion filed by BLB&G on its behalf. Lead attorneys were Max W. Berger and Steven B. Singer. The case settled for $259,000,000. The Company and individual defendants in this matter were represented by Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati (650)-493-9300 and Sachnoff & Weaver (312) 207-3921 and Bergeson & Eliopoulos LLP (408-291-6200).

! In re Accredo Health, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 03-cv-2216 (W.D. Tenn.) The client was appointed as a lead plaintiff in the securities class action pursuant to a lead plaintiff motion filed by BLB&G on its behalf. Lead attorneys were Blair A. Nicholas, Timothy A. DeLange and Brett M. Middleton. The case settled for $33,000,000. The Company in this matter was represented by Burch Porter & Johnson (901-524-5000), Alston & Bird, LLP (404-881-7000). The individual defendants were represented by Burch Porter & Johnson (901-524-5000), Alston & Bird, LLP (404-881-7000), Jones Day (202-879-3939), and Glankler Brown, PLLC (901-525-1322).

! Larky, et al. v. DJ Orthopedics Inc., et al., Case No. 01-cv-2238 (S.D. Cal.) The client was appointed as a lead plaintiff in the securities class action pursuant to a lead plaintiff motion filed by BLB&G on its behalf. Lead attorneys were Max W. Berger and Blair A. Nicholas. The case settled for $5,500,000. The Company and individual defendants in this matter were represented by Paul Hastings Janofsky and Walker (858-720-2500). The underwriter defendants were represented by

9

O’Melveny & Myers (213-430-6000) and Fried Frank Harris Shriver and Jacobson (213-473-2000), Wingert Grebing Brubaker and Goodwin (619-232-8151), O’Melveny and Myers (213-430-6000), Ungaretti and Harris (312-977-4400), and Paul Hastings Janofsky & Walker (858-720-2500).

! In re Finova Group Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 00-cv-619 (D. Ariz.) The client was appointed as a lead plaintiff in the securities class action pursuant to a lead plaintiff motion filed by BLB&G on its behalf. Lead attorneys were Max W. Berger and Blair A. Nicholas. The case settled for $40,000,000. The Company and individual defendants in this matter were represented by Bryan Cave LLP (602-364-7000) and Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP (212-351-4000).

! In re Lucent Technologies, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 00-cv-621 (D.N.J.) The client was appointed as a lead plaintiff in the securities class action pursuant to a lead plaintiff motion filed by BLB&G on its behalf. Lead attorneys were Max W. Berger and Steven B. Singer. The case settled for $667,000,000. The Company and individual defendants in this matter were represented by Lindabury McCormick & Estabrook, PC (908-233-6800).

! In re Motorcar Parts & Accessories Securities Litigation, Case No. 99-cv-7971 (C.D. Cal.) The client was appointed as a lead plaintiff in the securities class action pursuant to a lead plaintiff motion filed by BLB&G on its behalf. Lead attorneys were Max W. Berger. The case settled for $7,500,000. The Company in this matter was represented by Joseph C Markowitz Law Offices (213-437-1720), Parker Chapin (212-704-6000), and Stroock Stroock & Lavan (310-556-5800). The individual defendants were represented by Skadden Arps Slate Meagher & Flom (213-687-5000) and Sheldon M. Jaffe Law Offices (310-826-2848), Proskauer Rose (310-557-2900) and Morvillo Abramowitz Grand Iason & Silberberg (212-856-9600).

9. Louisiana State Employees’ Retirement System

! In re Sykes Enterprises, Inc. Securities Litigation, No. 00-cv-212 (M.D. Fla.) The client was appointed as a lead plaintiff in the securities class action pursuant to a lead plaintiff motion filed by BLB&G on its behalf. Lead attorneys were Gerald H. Silk and Steven B. Singer. The case settled for $30,000,000. The Company in this matter was represented by GrayRobinson, PA (813)-273-5000 and Holland & Knight, LLP (305)-374-8500. The individual defendants in this matter were represented by Haight Gardner Holland & Knight (212)-513-2000.1

! Sands Point Partners, L.P. v. Pediatrix Medical Group, Inc., et al., Case No. 99-cv-6181 (S.D. Fla.) The client was appointed as a lead plaintiff in the securities class action pursuant to a lead plaintiff motion filed by BLB&G on its behalf. Lead attorneys were Rochelle Feder Hansen and John P. Coffey. The case settled for $12,000,000. The Company and individual defendants in this matter were represented by Hunton & Williams (305-810-2539) and Davis Polk & Wardell (212-450-4512).

10. Municipal Employees Annuity and Benefit Fund of Chicago

! In re DaimlerChrysler Securities Litigation, Case No. 00-cv-0993 (D. Del.) The client was appointed as a lead plaintiff in the securities class action pursuant to a lead plaintiff motion filed by BLB&G on its behalf. Lead attorneys were Max W. Berger and Rochelle Feder Hansen. The case settled for $300,000,000. The Company and individual defendants in this matter were represented by Skadden,Arps Slate Meagher & Flom (302-651-3000) and Potter Anderson & Corroon, LLP (302-984-6037).

11. New York State Common Retirement Fund

! In re Cendant Corporation Securities Litigation, Case No. 98-cv-1664 (D.N.J.) The client was appointed as a lead plaintiff in the securities class action pursuant to a lead plaintiff motion filed by BLB&G on its behalf. Lead attorneys were Max W. Berger and Gerald H. Silk. The case settled for $3,200,000,000. The Company was represented by Budd, Larner PC (973-379-4800), Davis & Kuelthau (414-276-0200), Jones Walker Waechter Poitevent Carrere & Denegre (504-582-8000), Verner Liipfert Berhard Mcpherson & Hand (305-371-8801), Skadden Arps Slate Meagher & Flom, LLP (212-735-3000), and Lowenstein Sandler PC (973-597-6192). The individual defendants were represented by Robinson Wettre & Miller LLC (973-690-5400), Sills Cummis Epstein & Gross PC (973-643-7000), Saul Ewing (215-972-7777), Stern & Kilcullen, LLC (973-535-1900), Post Polak Goodsell MacNeill & Strauchler, PA (973-228-9900), Saiber Schlesinger Satz & Goldstein, LLC (973-622-3333), Dornbush Mensch Mandelstam & Venaglia, LLP (212-759-3300), Edwards & Caldwell (973-636-0500),

1 Notably, the Louisiana State Employees’ Retirement System was co-lead plaintiff with the SBA in this action.

10

Tressler LLP (973-848-2900), Greenberg Dauber Epstein & Tucker PC (973-643-3700), Walder Hayden & Brogan PA (973-992-5300), Greenbaum Rowe Smith & Davis LLP (732-549-5600), Mayer Brown Rowe & Maw (312-701-7621), Lowenstein Sandler PC (973) 597-2500, and Hughes Hubbard & Reed LLP (201-845-9772). The underwriter defendants were represented by McGuire Woods LLP (704-343-2000), Sills Cummis Epstein & Gross PC (973-643-7000), Edwards & Caldwell (973-636-0500), and Stern & Kilcullen, LLC (973-535-1900).

! In re McKesson HBOC, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 99-cv-20743 (N.D. Cal.) The client was appointed as a lead plaintiff in the securities class action pursuant to a lead plaintiff motion filed by BLB&G on its behalf. Lead attorneys were Max W. Berger, David R. Stickney and Rochelle Feder Hansen. The case settled for $1,042,500,000. The Company in this matter was represented by Skadden Arps Slate Meagher & Flom (212-735-3000), Bingham McCutchen LLP (415-393-2000), McCutchen Doyle Brown Enersen LLP (415-393-2626), and Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP (415-434-9100). The individual defendants were represented by Kirtland & Packard LLP (310-536-1000), Fried Frank Harris Shriver & Jacobson LLP (212-859-8000), Dla Piper LLP (415-836-2500), Baker & Hostetler LLP (213-975-1600), Weiss & Lurie (310-208-2800), Simpson Thacher & Bartlett (212-455-2000), Holme Roberts & Owen LLP (415-268-2000), Paul Weiss Rifkind Wharton & Garrison LLP ((212-373-3000), Hogan & Hartson LLP (415-244-8684), Bryan Cave LLP (415-675-3400), Folger Levin & Kahn LLP (415-986-2800), Paul, Hastings, Janofsky & Walker, LLP Litigation (415-856-7000), Trainor Fairbrook (916-929-7000), Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP (415-773-5700), Flaster/Greenberg PC (856-661-1900), Brooks & Raub (650-321-1400), Farella Braun & Martel LLP (415-954-4400), Kirkley & Payne (404-892-8781), Cooley Godward LLP (415-693-2000), Bingham McCutchen LLP the Water Garden (310-907-1000), Alschuler Grossman Stein & Kahan LLP (310-277-1226), Krieg Keller Sloan Reilley & Roman LLP (415-249-8330), Keesal Young & Logan, PC (415-398-6000), Jones & Day (415-626-3939), Rogers & Hardin (404-522-4700), Kasowitz, Benson, Torres & Friedman LLP (415-421-6140), Morrison & Foerster (415-268-7000), Securities and Exchange Commission (415-705-2321), Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP (415-434-9100), Folger Levin & Kahn LLP (415-986-2800), Munger Tolles & Olson (415-512-4000), and Womble Carlyle Sandridge & Rice, PLLC (408-872-7000). The underwriter defendants were represented by Quinn Emanuel Urquhart Oliver & Hedges (415-875-6600), Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft LLP (212-504-6000), Carr, McClellan, Ingersoll, Thompson & Horn (650-342-9600), Latham & Watkins (650-463-2626), and Law Office of Philip J Wang (650-508-8655).

! In re WorldCom, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 02-cv-3288 (S.D.N.Y.) The client was appointed as a lead plaintiff in the securities class action pursuant to a lead plaintiff motion filed by BLB&G on its behalf. Lead attorneys were Max W. Berger, John P. Coffey and Steven B. Singer. The case was resolved for a total settlement of $6,156,100,714, including after a partial trial against the company’s auditor. The Company in this matter was represented by Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP (212-455-2000). The individual defendants were represented by Skadden Arps Slate Meagher & Flom LLP (212 735-3000), Paul, Hastings, Janofsky & Walker (202-508-9500), Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP (212-455-2861), Allen & Overy (212-610-6300), Fish & Richardson PC (212-765-5070), Curtis Mallet-Prevost Colt & Mosle (212-696-6000), Allen Matkins Leck Gamble & Mallory LLP (213-622-5555), Janis, Schuella & Wechsler (202-861-0600), Paul Weiss Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP (212-373-3150), Troutman Sanders LLP (202-274-2897), and Liddle & Robinson LLP (212-687-8500). The underwriter defendants were represented by Paul Weiss Rifkind Wharton & Garrison LLP (212-373-2384), Skadden Arps Slate Meagher & Flom LLP (212-735-3000), and Kelley Drye & Warren, LLP (212-808-7800).

12. Ohio Public Employees Retirement System

! In re Bank of America Corp. Securities, Derivative and Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) Litigation, Case No. 09-md-2058 (S.D.N.Y.) The client was appointed as a lead plaintiff in the securities class action pursuant to a lead plaintiff motion filed by BLB&G on its behalf. Lead attorneys are Max W. Berger, Steven B. Singer and Gerald H. Silk. The case is currently pending. The Company is represented by Wachtell Lipton Rosen & Katz (212-403-1237). The individual defendants in this matter are represented by Dechert, LLP (212-698-3500).

! In re Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corp. Securities Litigation, Case No. 03-cv-4261 (S.D.N.Y.) The client was appointed as a lead plaintiff in the securities class action pursuant to a lead plaintiff motion filed by BLB&G on its behalf. Lead attorneys were Max W. Berger, John P. Coffey and Hannah Greenwald Ross. The case settled for $410,000,000. The Company was represented by Covington & Burling LLP (212-841-1000). The individual defendants in this matter were represented by Fried Frank Harris Shriver & Jacobson (212-859-8005), Proskauer Rose LLP (212-969-3000), Zuckerman Spaeder Goldstein Taylor & Kolker, LLP (212-704-9600) and Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP (212-351-3811).

11

13. Ontario Teachers’ Pension Plan Board

! In re Biovail Corporation Securities Litigation, Case No. 03-cv-8917 (S.D.N.Y.) The client was appointed as a lead plaintiff in the securities class action pursuant to a lead plaintiff motion filed by BLB&G on its behalf. Lead attorneys were Steven B. Singer, Rochelle Feder Hansen and Katherine McCracken Sinderson. The case settled for $138,000,000. The Company and individual defendants in this matter were represented by Brochett and Lentz (212-835-6000), Howrey Simon Arnold & White LLP (202-783-0800), Schindler Cohen & Hochman (212-277-6323), and Curtis Mallet-Prevost Colt & Mosle LLP (212-696-6000).

! In re Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. Securities Litigation, Case No. 07-cv-5867 (S.D.N.Y.) The client was appointed as a lead plaintiff in the securities class action pursuant to a lead plaintiff motion filed by BLB&G on its behalf. Max W. Berger was the lead attorney on the case. The case settled for $125,000,000. The case settled for $300,000,000. The Company was represented by Debevoise & Plimpton LLP (212-909-6000). The individual defendants in this matter were represented by Weil Gotshal & Manges LLP (212-310-8000) and Morvillo Abramowitz Grand Iason Anello & Bohrer PC (212-880-9300).

! In re Cable & Wireless, PLC Securities Litigation, Case No. 02-cv-1860-A (E.D. Va.) The client was appointed as a lead plaintiff in the securities class action pursuant to a lead plaintiff motion filed by BLB&G on its behalf. Lead attorneys were Max W. Berger and Gerald H. Silk. The case settled for $7,000,000. The Company and individual defendants in this matter was represented by Howrey Simon Arnold & White LLP (202-783-0800).

! In re Nortel Networks Corporation Securities Litigation, Case No. 04-cv-2115 (S.D.N.Y.) The client was appointed as a lead plaintiff in the securities class action pursuant to a lead plaintiff motion filed by BLB&G on its behalf. Lead attorneys were Max W. Berger, John P. Coffey and Noam Mandel. The case settled for $1,074,265,298. The Company was represented by Shearman & Sterling LLP (212-848-5364). The individual defendants in this matter were represented by Morvillo Abramowitz Grand Iason Anello & Bohrer, PC (212-880-9560) and Richards Kibbe & Orbe, LLP (212-530-1800).

! In re Washington Mutual, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 08-md-1919 (W.D. Wash.) The client was appointed as a lead plaintiff in the securities class action pursuant to a lead plaintiff motion filed by BLB&G on its behalf. Lead attorneys are Chad Johnson, Hannah Greenwald Ross and Jerald Bien-Willner. The case is currently pending. The Company in this matter is represented by Simpson Thacher & Bartlett (NY: 212-455-2000; CA: 310-407-7500), Weil Gotshal & Manges (212-310-8000), Davis Wright Tremaine (206-757-8136), and Wolfe Wrenn & Zariski (206-467-9088). The individual defendants are represented by Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP (310-407-7500), Davis Wright Tremaine (206-757-8136), Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati (650-493-9300), Perkins Coie (206-359-8440), Bishop White & Marshall (206-622-5306), Dla Piper US LLP (212-335-4533), Thacher Proffitt & Wood (212-912-8339), Latham & Watkins LLP (213-485-1234), Yarmuth Wilsdon Calfo PLLC (206-516-3800), and SMYTH & Mason PLLC (206-621-7100). The underwriter defendants are represented by Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP 9 (213-229-7000), K&L Gates LLP (206-623-7580), Dla Piper US LLP (206-839-4800), and Sidley Austin (312-853-7000).

! In re Williams Securities Litigation, Case No. 02-cv-72 (N.D. Okla.) The client was appointed as a lead plaintiff in the securities class action pursuant to a lead plaintiff motion filed by BLB&G on its behalf. Lead attorneys were Chad Johnson, Mark Lebovitch and Blair A. Nicholas. The case settled for $311,000,000. The Company and individual defendants in this matter were represented by Crews Shepherd & McCarty LLP (214-432-7767), Gibson Dunn & Crutcher (415-393-8292), Hall Estill Hardwick Gable Golden & Nelson (918-594-0400), Skadden Arps Slate Meagher & Flom LLP (302-651-3000), Ryan Whaley Coldiron and Shancy PC (405-239-6040), Crowe & Dunlevy (918-592-9800), Frederic Dorwart Lawyers (918-583-9922), and Latham & Watkins (212-906-1200). The underwriters in this matter were represented by Cadwalader Wickersham & Taft 9212-504-6000), Fellers Snider Blankenship Bailey & Tippens (405-232-0621) and Walters Law Firm (405-601-7744).

14. Policemen’s Annuity and Benefit Fund of Chicago

! In re DaimlerChrysler Securities Litigation, Case No. 00-cv-0993 (D. Del.) The client was appointed as a lead plaintiff in the securities class action pursuant to a lead plaintiff motion filed by BLB&G on its behalf. Lead attorneys were Max W. Berger and Rochelle Feder Hansen. The case settled for $300,000,000. The case settled for $300,000,000. The Company and individual defendants in this matter were represented by Skadden,Arps Slate Meagher & Flom (302-651-3000) and Potter Anderson & Corroon, LLP (302-984-6037).

12

! In re ICG Communications, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 00-cv-1864 (D. Colo.) The client was appointed as a lead plaintiff in the securities class action pursuant to a lead plaintiff motion filed by BLB&G on its behalf. Lead attorneys were David R. Stickney and Jerald Bien-Willner. The case settled for $18,000,000. The case settled for $18,000,000. The Company was represented by Baker & Hostetler, LLP-Denver (303-764-4045). The individual defendants in this matter were represented by Burns, Figa & Will, PC (303-796-2626), Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, LLP, (303-223-1100), and O’Melveny & Myers, LLP (212-326-2000).

15. Public Employees’ Retirement System of Mississippi

! In re Converium Holding AG Securities Litigation, Case No. 04-cv-7897 (S.D.N.Y.) The client was appointed as a lead plaintiff in the securities class action pursuant to a lead plaintiff motion filed by BLB&G on its behalf. Lead attorneys were Steven B. Singer and Beata Gocyk-Farber. The case settled for $84,600,000. The Company in this matter is represented by Skadden Arps Slate Meagher & Flom LLP (212-735-3000) and Willkie Farr & Gallagher LLP (212-728-8000). The individual defendants are represented by Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP (212-858-1000), Golenbock Eiseman Assor Bell & Peskoe LLP (212-907-7300) Cahill Gordon & Reindel LLP (212-701-3823), Cravath Swaine & Moore LLP (212-474-1000) and Dewey & LeBoeuf LLP (212-259-8000).

! In re Delphi Corp. Securities, Derivative, & ERISA Litigation, Case No. 05-md-1725 (E.D.Mich.) The client was appointed as a lead plaintiff in the securities class action pursuant to a lead plaintiff motion filed by BLB&G on its behalf. Lead attorneys were Max W. Berger, John P. Coffey and Hannah Greenwald Ross. The case settled for $322,350,000. The Company and individual defendants in this matter were represented by Shearman & Sterling LLP (212-848-4000), Stites & Harbison (502-587-3400), Baker Botts LLP (202-639-7788) and Kerr Russell and Weber (313-961-0200). The underwriters in this matter were represented by Sidley Austin LLP (212-839-5397), Miller Canfield (313-496-7531), Paul Weiss Rifkind Wharton & Garrison LLP (212-373-3000), Dykema Gossett PLLC (734-214-7660), Foley & Lardner LLP (313-234-7100), Pepper Hamilton LLP (313-259-7110), and McDermott Will & Emery (617-535-4000).

! In re The Mills Corporation Securities Litigation, Case No. 06-cv-77 (E.D. Va.) The client was appointed as a lead plaintiff in the securities class action pursuant to a lead plaintiff motion filed by BLB&G on its behalf. Lead attorneys were Steven B. Singer, Hannah Greenwald Ross and Bruce Bernstein. The case settled for $202,750,000. The Company in this matter is represented by Hogan & Hartson LLP (703-610-6100). The individual defendants are represented by Jones Day (202-879-3939), K & L Gates (202-778-9000, Latham & Watkins LLP (202-637-1020), Arnold & Porter LLP (202-942-6406), Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale & Dorr LLP (202-663-6000), Covington & Burling (202-662-6000), McGuireWoods LLP (202-857-1715), and Hughes Hubbard & Reed LLP (202-721-4600). The underwriter defendants in this matter were represented by Trout Cacheris PLLC (202-464-3300).

16. Retirement Systems of Alabama

! In re HealthSouth Corp. Bondholder Litigation, Case No. 03-cv-1502; (N.D. Ala.) The client was appointed as a lead plaintiff in the securities class action pursuant to a lead plaintiff motion filed by BLB&G on its behalf. Lead attorneys were Max W. Berger, John P. Coffey and Beata Gocyk-Farber. The case settled for $445,000,000. The Company and individual defendants in this matter were represented by Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP (205-521-8810), Skadden Arps Slate, Meagher & Flom (302-651-3000), Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP (212-455-2000), Williams & Connolly LLP (202-434-5000), Helmsing Leach Herlong Mewman & Rouse PC (251-432-5521), Kilpatrick Stockton LLP (202-824-1415), Adams & Reese LLP (205-250-5000), Haskel Slaughter Young & Rediker LLC (205-251-1000), Rumberger Kirk & Caldwell PA (205-327-5550), Fawal & Spina (205-939-0590), Choy Lichenstein LLC (205-401-2389), and Maynard Cooper & Gale PC (205-254-1000).

! In re ICG Communications, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 00-cv-1864 (D. Colo.) The client was appointed as a lead plaintiff in the securities class action pursuant to a lead plaintiff motion filed by BLB&G on its behalf. Lead attorneys were David R. Stickney and Jerald Bien-Willner. The case settled for $18,000,000. The Company was represented by Baker & Hostetler, LLP-Denver (303-764-4045). The individual defendants in this matter were represented by Burns, Figa & Will, PC (303-796-2626), Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, LLP, (303-223-1100), and O’Melveny & Myers, LLP (212-326-2000).

17. State Teachers Retirement System of Ohio

! In re Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corp. Securities Litigation, Case No. 03-cv-4261 (S.D.N.Y.) The client was appointed as

13

a lead plaintiff in the securities class action pursuant to a lead plaintiff motion filed by BLB&G on its behalf. Lead attorneys were Max W. Berger, John P. Coffey and Hannah Greenwald Ross. The case settled for $410,000,000. The Company was represented by Covington & Burling LLP (212-841-1000). The individual defendants in this matter were represented by Fried Frank Harris Shriver & Jacobson (212-859-8005), Proskauer Rose LLP (212-969-3000), Zuckerman Spaeder Goldstein Taylor & Kolker, LLP (212-704-9600) and Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP (212-351-3811).

! In re Scottish Re Group Securities Litigation, Case No. 06-cv-5853 (S.D.N.Y.) The client was appointed as a lead plaintiff in the securities class action pursuant to a lead plaintiff motion filed by BLB&G on its behalf. Lead attorneys were Salvatore J. Graziano and Rochelle Feder Hansen. The case settled for $37,500,000. The Company was represented by Dewey & LeBoeuf, LLP (202-986-8000) and LeBoeuf Lamb Greene & MacRae LLP (202-986-8241). The individual defendants in this matter were represented by Davis Polk & Wardwell (212-450-4900), Smith Anderson Blount Dorsett Mitchell & Jernigan (919-821-6681), and Hughes Hubbard & Reed LLP (212-837-6000). The underwriters in this matter were represented by Latham & Watkins LLP (212-906-1200).


18. Teacher Retirement System of Texas


19. Teachers’ Retirement System of Oklahoma

! In re Connetics Securities Litigation, Case No. 07-cv-2940 (N.D. Cal.) The client was appointed as a lead plaintiff in the securities class action pursuant to a lead plaintiff motion filed by BLB&G on its behalf. Lead attorneys were Chad Johnson, David R. Stickney and Niki L. Mendoza. The case settled for $12,750,000. The Company and individual defendants in this matter were represented by Fenwick & West LLP (415-875-2300), Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft LLP (212-504-6112), and Severson & Werson (415-398-3344). The underwriters in this matter were represented by DLA Piper US LLP (619-699-3650).

! In re Delphi Corp. Securities, Derivative, & ERISA Litigation, Case No. 05-md-1725 (E.D.Mich.) The client was appointed as a lead plaintiff in the securities class action pursuant to a lead plaintiff motion filed by BLB&G on its behalf. Lead attorneys were Max W. Berger, John P. Coffey and Hannah Greenwald Ross. The case settled for $322,350,000. The Company and individual defendants in this matter were represented by Shearman & Sterling LLP (212-848-4000), Stites & Harbison (502-587-3400), Baker Botts LLP (202-639-7788) and Kerr Russell and Weber (313-961-0200). The underwriters in this matter were represented by Sidley Austin LLP (212-839-5397), Miller Canfield (313-496-7531), Paul Weiss Rifkind Wharton & Garrison LLP (212-373-3000), Dykema Gossett PLLC (734-214-7660), Foley & Lardner LLP (313-234-7100), Pepper Hamilton LLP (313-259-7110), and McDermott Will & Emery (617-535-4000).

20. Teachers’ Retirement System of Louisiana

! Teachers’ Retirement System of Louisiana v. A.C.L.N. Limited, Case No. 01-cv-11814 (S.D.N.Y.) The client was appointed as a lead plaintiff in the securities class action pursuant to a lead plaintiff motion filed by BLB&G on its behalf. Lead attorneys were Max W. Berger and Rochelle Feder Hansen. The case settled for $15,500,000. The Company and individual defendants in this matter were represented by Robbins Russell Englert Orseck Untereiner & Sauber LLP (202-775-4500), Alston & Bird LLP (212-210-9400), Quinn Emanuel Urquhart Oliver & Hedges LLP (212-702-8154), Coudert Brothers LLP (212-626-4400), and Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP (212- 332-3800).

! In re Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. Securities Litigation, Case No. 07-cv-5867 (S.D.N.Y.) The client was appointed as a lead

14

plaintiff in the securities class action pursuant to a lead plaintiff motion filed by BLB&G on its behalf. Max W. Berger was the lead attorney on the case. The case settled for $300,000,000. The Company was represented by Debevoise & Plimpton LLP (212-909-6000). The individual defendants in this matter were represented by Weil Gotshal & Manges LLP (212-310-8000) and Morvillo Abramowitz Grand Iason Anello & Bohrer PC (212-880-9300).

! In re Gateway, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 00-cv-2435 (S.D. Cal.) The client was appointed as a lead plaintiff in the securities class action pursuant to a lead plaintiff motion filed by BLB&G on its behalf. Max W. Berger was the lead attorney on the case. The case settled for $10,250,000. The Company was represented by Cooley Godward Kronish (858-550-6000). The individual defendants in this matter were represented by Sheppard Mullin Richter and Hampton (619-338-6500).

! In re Gemstar-TV Guide International, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 02-cv-2775 (C.D. Cal.) The client was appointed as a lead plaintiff in the securities class action pursuant to a lead plaintiff motion filed by BLB&G on its behalf. Lead attorneys were Blair A. Nicholas and Niki L Mendoza. The case settled for $92,500,000. The Company was represented by Munger Tolles & Olson (415-512-4000). The individual defendants in this matter were represented by Augustini Law Offices (213-629-8888), Frankfurt Kurnit Klein and Selz (212-705-4836), Wheeler and Sheehan (805-371-7700), Palmer Lombardi and Donohue (213-688-0430), Arkin & Kaplan (212-333-0200) and Crowell and Moring LLP (213-622-4750).

! Juenger v. King Pharmaceuticals, Case No. 03-cv-77 (E.D. Tenn.) The client was appointed as a lead plaintiff in the securities class action pursuant to a lead plaintiff motion filed by BLB&G on its behalf. Lead attorneys were Max W. Berger and John C. Browne. The case settled for $38,250,000. The Company and individual defendants in this matter were represented by Baker Donelson Bearman Caldwell & Berkowitz, PC (865-549-7000), Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher (202-955-8500), Wilmer, Cutler and Pickering, Hale and Dorr, LLP (202-663-6000), Miller & Martin, PLLC (423-756-6600). The underwriters in this matter were represented by Davis, Polk & Wardwell (212-450-4000) and Hunter, Smith & Davis (423-378-8800).

! In re Network Associates II Securities Litigation, Case No. 00-cv-4849 (N.D. Cal.) The client was appointed as a lead plaintiff in the securities class action pursuant to a lead plaintiff motion filed by BLB&G on its behalf. Lead attorneys were Max W. Berger and Blair A. Nicholas. The case settled for $70,000,000. The Company was represented by Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati (650-493-9300). The individual defendants in this matter were represented by Morrison & Foerster LLP (650-813-5600), Steefel Levitt & Weiss (415-788-0900), Halle and Dorr LLP (617-526-6000), Hogan & Hartson LLP (650-463-4000), O’Melveny & Myers LLP (415-984-8786), Green & Humbert (415-837-5433), and Pohls & Associates (925-973-0300).

! Angeloni v. SmartForce, PLC, d/b/a SkillSoft PLC, Case No. 02-cv-544 (D.N.H.) The client was appointed as a lead plaintiff in the securities class action pursuant to a lead plaintiff motion filed by BLB&G on its behalf. Lead attorneys were Max W. Berger and John P. Coffey. The case settled for $38,500,000. The Company and individual defendants in this matter were represented by Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati (650-493-9300), Sheehan Phinney Bass & Green (603-668-0300), Heller Ehrman LLP (650-324-7000), Wadleigh Starr & Peters (603-669-4140) and Skadden Arps Slate Meagher & Flom LLP (617-573-4800).

! Smith v. Suprema Specialties, Inc., et al., Case No. 02-cv-168 (D.N.J.) The client was appointed as a lead plaintiff in the securities class action pursuant to a lead plaintiff motion filed by BLB&G on its behalf. Lead attorneys were Max W. Berger, Mark Lebovitch and Rochelle Feder Hansen. The case settled for $19,000,000. The Company and individual defendants in this matter were represented by Sills Cummis & Gross PC (973-643-7000), Gibbons PC (973-596-4500), Mendes & Mount, Esqs. (973-639-7300), Huntington Bailey LLP (201-666-8282), Wolff & Samson PC (973-325-1500), Curtis Mallet-Prevost Colt & Mosle LLP (212-696-6000), Caron Constants & Wilson (201-507-3709), McCarter & English LLP (973-622-4444), Nixon Peabody LLP (212-940-3783), Greenbaum Rowe Smith & Davis LLP (732-549-5600), Pepper Hamilton LLP (609-452-0808), Wilentz Goldman & Spitzer PA (732-636-8000), Mayer Brown LLP (212-506-2500), Budd Larner PC (973-379-4800), Carella Byrne Bain Gilfillan Cecchi (973-994-1700), Marino Tortorella & Boyle PC (973-824-9300), Proskauer Rose LLP (973-274-3200), Franzblau Dratch PC (973-992-3700) and Platzer Swergold Karlin Levine Goldberg & Jaslow LLP (212-593-3000).

15

2. Please provide historical data related to fees awarded when serving as Lead Plaintiff for securities class action litigation and fees otherwise paid in individual or opt-out or derivative litigation. Historical data concerning fees awarded in all cases in which BLB&G has served as a lead counsel in securities class actions, as well as in all such derivative and/or corporate governance litigation, is provided in the tables below. Information concerning fees in individual or opt-out actions is not publicly available as with class or derivative litigation and, as a result, it is our view that information concerning fees in opt-out actions must be maintained on a privileged and confidential basis in the absence of explicit client permission to disclose the information. The below data is set forth in chronological order, with the earliest cases listed first.

Historical Fees in Securities Class Actions

Company Case Caption Counsel Fee

Discreet Logic, Inc. Freidberg, et al. v. Discreet Logic Inc., et al., Case No. 96-cv-11232 (D. Mass.) 30%

IMP, Inc. Azad, et al. v. IMP, Inc., et al., Case No. 96-cv-20862 (N.D. Cal.) 30%

Paracelsus Health Werner, et al., v. Paracelsus Health, et al., Case No. 96-cv-3464 (S.D. Tex.) 22.5%

Wellcare Management Wade v. Wellcare Management, et al., Case No. 96-cv-756 (N.D.N.Y.) 33.3%

Bennett Funding Group In re Bennett Funding Group Securities Litigation, Case No. 96-cv-2583 (S.D.N.Y.) 17.5%

Fleming Companies Mark v. Fleming Companies, et al., Case No. 96-cv-506 (W.D. Okla.) 30%

3Com Corp. In re 3Com Corp. Securities Litigation, Case No. 97-cv-21083 (N.D. Cal.) 18%

Retirement Care Associates

Shurkin v. Retirement Care Associates, et al., Case No. 97-cv-2458 (N.D. Ga.) 30%

Manchester Equipment Co.

Manguard v. Manchester Equipment Co., et al., Case No. 97-cv-1504 (E.D.N.Y.) 25%

Credit Suisse First Boston Corp.

Holmes v. Credit Suisse First, et al., Case No. 97-cv-4760 (S.D.N.Y.) 33%

SmarTalk Teleservices, Inc.

In re SmarTalk Teleservices, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 98-cv-814 (S.D. Ohio) 25%

Advanced Fibre, Inc. In re Advanced Fibre, Inc. Securities Litigation, No. 98-cv-20697 (N.D. Cal.) 18%

Physician Computer Network, Inc.

Spiegel v. Physician Computer Network, Inc., Case No. 98-cv-981 (D.N.J.) 15%

Cendant Corp. In re Cendant Corporation Securities Litigation, Case No. 98-cv-1664 (D.N.J.) 2%

Trimble Navigation Ltd. Wolfe, et al. v. Trimble, et al., Case No. 98-cv-20444 (N.D. Cal.) 30%

Altris Software, Inc. Reiger v. Altris Software Inc, et al., Case No. 98-cv-0528 (S.D. Cal.) 25%

16

Company Case Caption Counsel Fee Gametech International,

Inc. Weiss v. GameTech Intl Inc., et al.,

Case No. 98-cv-268 (D. Ariz.) 25%

Pediatrix Medical Group, Inc.

Sands Point Partners, L.P. v. Pediatrix Medical Group, Inc., et al., Case No. 99-cv-6181 (S.D. Fla.) 30%

Motorcar Parts & Accessories

In re Motorcar Parts & Accessories Securities Litigation, Case No. 99-cv-7971 (C.D. Cal.) 20%

Navigant Consulting, Inc.

In re Navigant Consulting, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 99-cv-07617 (N.D. Ill.) 20%

Assisted Living Concepts, Inc.

In re Assisted Living Concepts, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 99-cv-167 (D. Or.) 28%

McKesson HBOC, Inc. In re McKesson HBOC, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 99-cv-20743 (N.D. Cal.) 7%

Dura Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

In re Dura Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 99-cv-2641 (N.D. Ga.) 25%

CHS Electronics, Inc. Darby v. CHS Electronics Inc., Case No. 99-cv-8186 (S.D. Fla.) 30%

Arthur Andersen Baptist Foundation of Arizona Liquidation Trust v. Arthur Andersen, Case No. 015849 (Ariz. Sup. Ct.) 16%

Starnet Communications International, Inc.

Alan Fenster PC, et al. v. Starnet Communications International, Inc., et al., Case No. 99-cv-681 (D. Del.) 25%

Towne Services, Inc. In re Towne Services Securities Litigation, Case No. 99-cv-2641 (N.D. Ga.) 25%

ICG Communications, Inc.

In re ICG Communications, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 00-cv-1864 (D. Colo.) 12%

Sykes Enterprises, Inc. In re Sykes Enterprises, Inc. Securities Litigation, No. 00-cv-212 (M.D. Fla.) 24%

Conseco, Inc. In re Conseco, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 00-cv-585 (S.D. Ind.) 15%

Legato Systems, Inc. In re Legato Systems, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 00-cv-20111 (N.D. Cal.) 20%

Network Associates In re Network Associates II Securities Litigation, Case No. 00-cv-4849 (N.D. Cal.) 19%

Finova Group, Inc. In re Finova Group Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 00-cv-619 (D. Ariz.) 20%

Gateway, Inc. In re Gateway, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 00-cv-2435 (S.D. Cal.) 25%

Lucent Technologies, Inc.

In re Lucent Technologies, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 00-cv-621 (D.N.J.) 17%

DaimlerChrysler In re DaimlerChrysler Securities Litigation, Case No. 00-cv-0993 (D. Del.) 23%

DJ Orthopedics, Inc. Larky, et al. v. DJ Orthopedics Inc., et al., Case No. 01-cv-2238 (S.D. Cal.) 25%

Onyx Software Corp. Crawford v. Onyx Software Corp., Case No. 01-cv-1346 (W.D. Wash.) 20%

Independent Energy Holdings, PLC

In re Independent Energy Holdings, PLC, Securities Litigation,

Case No. 00-cv-6689 (S.D.N.Y.) 20%

17


Chronimed, Inc In re Chronimed, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 01-cv-1092 (D. Minn.) 25%

Critical Path, Inc. In re Critical Path, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 01-CV-551 (N.D. Cal.) 15%

Clarent Corp. In re Clarent Corp. Securities Litigation, Case No. 01-cv-3361 (N.D. Cal.) 17%

Nextcard, Inc. Ballati v. Nextcard, Inc., Case No. 01-cv-21029 (N.D. Cal.) 20%

A.C.L.N. Limited Teachers’ Retirement System of Louisiana v.

A.C.L.N. Limited, Case No. 01-cv-11814 (S.D.N.Y.)

20%

Suprema Specialties, Inc.

Smith v. Suprema Specialties, Inc., et al., Case No. 02-cv-168 (D.N.J.) 22%

Williams Companies, Inc.

In re Williams Securities Litigation, Case No. 02-cv-72 (N.D. Okla.) 25%

Symbol Technologies, Inc.

In re Symbol Technologies, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 02-cv-1383 (E.D.N.Y.) 10%

Bristol-Myers Squibb Co.

In re Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. Securities Litigation, Case No. 02-cv-2251 (S.D.N.Y.) 7.50%

Gemstar-TV Guide International, Inc.

In re Gemstar-TV Guide International, Inc. Securities Litigation,

Case No. 02-cv-2775 (C.D. Cal.) 18%

WorldCom, Inc. In re WorldCom, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 02-cv-3288 (S.D.N.Y.) 5%

El Paso Corp. Goldfarb v. El Paso Corp., Case No. 02-cv-2717 (S.D. Tex.) 15.28%

OM Group, Inc. Sheth, et al v. OM Group Inc. et al., Case No. 02-cv-2163 (N.D. Ohio) 18%

Electronic Data Systems Corp.

In re Electronic Data Systems Corp. Securities Litigation, Case No. 03-cv-110 (E.D. Tex.) 17.48%

SmartForce, PLC Angeloni v. SmartForce, PLC, d/b/a SkillSoft PLC, Case No. 02-cv-544 (D.N.H.) 20%

Cable & Wireless, PLC In re Cable & Wireless, PLC Securities Litigation, Case No. 02-cv-1860-A (E.D. Va.) 20%

King Pharmaceuticals Juenger v. King Pharmaceuticals, Case No. 03-cv-77 (E.D. Tenn.) 17%

Accredo Health, Inc. In re Accredo Health, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 03-cv-2216 (W.D. Tenn.) 28%

Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corp.

In re Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corp. Securities Litigation,

Case No. 03-cv-4261 (S.D.N.Y.) 20%

Biovail Corp. In re Biovail Corporation Securities Litigation, Case No. 03-cv-8917 (S.D.N.Y.) 16%

Levi Strauss & Co. Orens v. Levi Strauss & Co. et al., Case No. 03-cv-5605 (N.D. Cal) 25%

18


HealthSouth Corp. In re HealthSouth Corp. Bondholder Litigation, Case No. 03-cv-1502; (N.D. Ala.) 10%

Advanced Marketing Services

In re Advanced Marketing Services Securities Litigation, Case No. 04-cv-121 (S.D. Cal.) 18%

Nortel Networks Corp. In re Nortel Networks Corporation Securities Litigation, Case No. 04-cv-2115 (S.D.N.Y.) 8%

MasTec, Inc. In re MasTec, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 04-cv-20886 (S.D. Fla.) 27.5%

Converium Holding AG In re Converium Holding AG et al., Case No. 04-cv-7897 (S.D.N.Y.) 20%

Symbol Technologies The Louisiana Municipal Police Employees’ Retirement System et al v.

Deloitte & Touche LLP, Case No. 04-cv-621 (E.D.N.Y.)

15%

Bennett Environmental, Inc.

In re Bennett Environmental, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 04-cv-5852 (S.D.N.Y.) 20%

SFBC International, Inc.

In re SFBC International, Inc. Securities & Derivative Litigation,

Case No. 06-cv-165 (D.N.J) 18%

Delphi Corp. In re Delphi Corp. Securities, Derivative, &

“ERISA” Litigation, Case No. 05-md-1725 (E.D.Mich.)

18%

R&G Financial Corp. In re R&G Financial Corporation Securities Litigation, Case No. 05-cv-4186 (S.D.N.Y.) 22.5%

HCA, Inc. In re HCA Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 05-cv-960 (M.D. Tenn.) 20%

EVCI Career Colleges Holding Corp.

Glauser v. EVCI Career Colleges Holding Corp., et al., Case No. 05-cv-10240 (S.D.N.Y) 18%

Refco, Inc. Mazur et al v. Refco, Inc. et al, Case No. 05-cv-8625 (S.D.N.Y.) 5%

Merge Technologies, Inc.

Maiden v. Merge Technologies Inc., et al., Case No. 06-cv-349 (E.D. Wis.) 25%

Scottish Re Group In re Scottish Re Group Securities Litigation, Case No. 06-cv-5853 (S.D.N.Y.) 15%

Sunrise Senior Living, Inc.

In re Sunrise Senior Living, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 07-cv-102 (D.D.C.) 25%

Openwave Systems In re Openwave Systems Securities Litigation, Case No. 07-cv-1309 (S.D.N.Y.) 23%

WSB Financial Group, Inc.

In re WSB Financial Group Inc., et al., Case No. 07-cv-1747 (W.D. Wash.) 25%

Isolagen, Inc. In re Isolagen, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 06-md-1741 (E.D.Pa.) 25%

The Mills Corp. In re The Mills Corporation Securities Litigation, Case No. 06-cv-77 (E.D. Va.) 18%

Bristol-Myers Squibb Co.

In re Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. Securities Litigation, Case No. 07-cv-5867 (S.D.N.Y.) 20%

Connetics Corp. In re Connetics Securities Litigation, Case No. 07-cv-2940 (N.D. Cal.) 25%

19


Accredited Home Lenders Holding Co.

Atlas v. Accredited Home Lenders Holding Co., et al, Case No. 07-cv-448 (S.D. Cal) 25%

International Rectifier Corp.

In re International Rectifier Corp. Securities Litigation, Case No. 07-cv-2544 (C.D. Cal.) 25%

RAIT Financial Trust In re RAIT Financial Trust Securities Litigation, Case No. 07-cv-3148 (E.D. Pa.) 20%

Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc.

Louisiana Sheriffs’ Pension and Relief Fund et al v. Merrill Lynch & Co. Inc., et al.,

Case No. 08-cv-9063 (S.D.N.Y.) 15%

Historical Fees in Derivative/Corporate Governance Litigation


Warner-Lambert Co. In re Warner-Lambert Company Shareholders Litigation, C.A. No. 17519 (Del. Chancery Ct.) $9,450,000

Columbia/HCA Healthcare Corp.

McCall v. Scott, et al., Case No. 97-cv-838 (M.D. Tenn.) $3,500,000

Caremark/CVS Louisiana Municipal Police Employees’ Retirement System, et al. v.

Crawford, et al., C.A. No. 2635 (Del. Chancery Ct.)

$20,000,000

FirstEnergy Corp. Teachers Retirement System of Louisiana v. Burg, et al., Case No. 03-cv-1826 (N.D. Ohio) $4,718,795

Dollar General Corp. In re Dollar General Corp., Case No. 07MD01 (Cir. Ct. Davidson County, Tenn.) $12,000,000

ICN Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

Silverberg v. ICN Pharmaceuticals, Inc. et al., No. 20362 (Del. Chancery Ct.) $375,000*

Reckson Associates Realty Corp. Tucker v. Rechler, et al., Case No. 03-cv-4917 (E.D.N.Y.) $2,102,094

Doral Financial Corp. Robert Fox vs. Levis et al. No.06-4814 (Puerto Rico State Court) (2006)

In re Doral Financial Corporation Derivative Litigation, Case No. 05-mdl-1706 (S.D.N.Y)

$1,000,000

Cablevision Systems Corp.

Louisiana Municipal Police Employees’ Retirement System, et al. v. Cablevision Systems Corp., et al.,

Index No. 06-017222 (New York Supreme Court) $2,100,000

CBOT Holdings, Inc. Louisiana Municipal Police Employees’ Retirement System v.

CBOT Holdings, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 2803 (Del. Chancery Ct.)

$6,000,000

Ceridian Corp. Minneapolis Firefighters’ Relief Assoc. v. Ceridian Corp., et al., C.A. No. 2996 (Del. Chancery Ct.) $5,140,000*

UnitedHealth Group, Inc.

In re UnitedHealth Group Inc. Shareholder Derivative Litigation, Case No. 06-cv-1216 (D. Minn.) $29,253,853

20

Company Case Caption Counsel Fee Commerce Bancorp,

Inc.* Lucas v. Hill, et al.,

Case No. 07-cv-349 (D.N.J.) $4,000,000

Affiliated Computer Services, Inc.

In re Affiliated Computer Services, Inc. Derivative Litigation, No. 06-03403 (193rd Judicial District, Dallas County, Tex.) $12,234,475

Yahoo!, Inc. In re Yahoo! Shareholder Litigation, Cons. C.A. No. 3561 (Del Chancery Ct.) $8,687,590

Monster Worldwide, Inc.

In re Monster Worldwide, Inc. Derivative Litigation, No. 06-108700 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., New York County) $4,741,377

Anheuser-Busch Cos. General Retirement System of the City of Detroit v. Busch III, et al., C.A. No. 3842 (Del Chancery Ct.) $2,500,000

Activision, Inc. In re Activision Shareholder Derivative Litigation, No. SC090343 (Cal. Sup. Ct., Los Angeles) $10,000,000*

Longs Drug Stores Corp.

Louisiana Municipal Police Employees’ Retirement System v. Longs Drug Stores Corp., et al.,

Case No. C08-02139 (Cal. Sup. Ct. Contra Costa) $1,750,000

Progress Software Corp. Arkansas Teacher Retirement System v. Alsop et al., Case No. 06-cv-11459 (D. Mass) $1,900,600

Apollo Alaska Electrical Pension Fund v. Sperling, et al., Case No. 06-cv-2124 (D. Ariz.) $2,559,643

*This fee includes reimbursement of expenses 3. Does the firm employ a professional team or department dedicated to securities litigation, evaluation, loss calculations, and analysis? If so, please describe. If not, please describe how your firm handles these matters.

The Firm maintains a dedicated team of professionals focused exclusively on performing securities portfolio monitoring, including evaluating and advising our clients with respect to securities and other forms of shareholder litigation, conducting loss calculations, and otherwise analyzing our clients’ financial interests and advising with respect to all potential legal options. The team devoted to portfolio monitoring is managed by two partners of the Firm, Gerald H. Silk and Salvatore Graziano, with the assistance of counsel Tony Gelderman, and is staffed by a team of associate attorneys and a staff of financial analysts led by a full-time Director of Financial Analysis, as well as a Director of Institutional Investor Services to assist our institutional clients with their various needs. For purposes of investigating claims on behalf of our clients, the Firm also maintains an in-house staff of investigators, consisting of a Director of Investigations and several full-time investigators. These investigators work closely with the team of attorneys and financial analysts to provide our clients with a comprehensive examination of their potential claims and other options.

21

4. List all the attorneys that would be expected to render legal services to the SBA if the firm is selected to be included in the updated pool of eligible securities litigation firms, including the number of years each has been litigating securities cases, the proposed role of each on the SBA team, and any other relevant experience. Provide a resume for each. Identify the attorney who will be the primary contact and lead counsel in providing services to the SBA. All legal services provided to the SBA would be conducted under the active leadership and involvement of the Firm’s highly experienced senior partners, Max W. Berger, Steven Singer, Chad Johnson, Gerald H. Silk, Salvatore Graziano and Blair Nicholas. The resumes of each of these attorneys (reflecting all required information), as well as the resumes of the Firm’s other lawyers, are provided in Exhibit A, in response to Question A.1, supra. These attorneys all specialize in securities and other forms of shareholder litigation on behalf of investors and have extensive experience in advising clients with respect to their rights and opportunities in litigation. Mr. Berger is a founding partner of the Firm and, together with the other partners mentioned, has obtained several of the largest securities fraud recoveries in history. As noted previously, portfolio monitoring and advisory services would be provided principally by Gerald H. Silk and Salvatore Graziano, who lead the Firm’s portfolio monitoring practice with the assistance of counsel, Tony Gelderman. 5. Describe the firm’s backup procedures in the event one or more attorneys assigned to the SBA leave the firm or is unavailable to work on a case. The departure or unavailability of an attorney in the midst of representing a client in litigation is an unfortunate occurrence that is rare, but sometimes unavoidable. BLB&G is confident, however, that no such occurrence would interfere with the continuity of representation offered to the SBA or to the Firm’s ability to continue successfully litigating on the SBA’s behalf. Any given litigation is typically staffed with multiple attorneys, including senior and junior partners, counsel, and associates, and the departure of any individual member of a litigation team would not, therefore, deprive the Firm of its ongoing and institutional knowledge of a pending representation. The Firm also maintains excellent records—including through both paper and electronic filing and document maintenance systems—which ensures that the departure of a lawyer from a would not disrupt the ability of the litigation team to continue its work unhindered. As a result of our layered staffing of cases and our record keeping procedures, we are aware of no incident in the history of our Firm in which the departure of an attorney due to the practical human realities of professional life in any way disrupted or interfered with our unwavering representation of any client. 6. Describe the evaluation process and methodology the firm currently has in place or that you would utilize to determine if any client generally should join a class action, pursue lead or co-lead plaintiff status in a class action, or choose to opt out and pursue an action independent of the class action suit. Specifically –

a. What factors should be considered in evaluating whether to advise a client to pursue an option other than lead plaintiff status? b. Should a threshold amount be utilized as a prerequisite to pursuing a case? c. Describe the process that your firm believes should be used to analyze potential damages and determine likely recovery projections.

In evaluating cases for recommendation to our institutional clients, our single overriding concern is that our clients only pursue lawsuits that represent credible opportunities for substantial economic

22

recovery and/or corporate governance reform. The majority of our clients are public pension funds that, like SBA, are bound by fiduciary duties to become involved only in those cases that justify the application of scarce pension resources. Accordingly, the Firm uses tremendous discretion to ensure that we only recommend meritorious cases with a practical prospect of a successful outcome. In this regard, our analysis of any potential action considers the legal merits of investors’ claims, as well as the practical realities of the potential litigation, such as the defendants’ realistic ability to fund the recovery, the availability of insurance coverage, and numerous other factors. BLB&G has reviewed the SBA’s policy on securities litigation (the “Policy”) and we believe that our general practice is consistent with the Policy. Thus, in accordance with the Policy, BLB&G would generally only recommend that the SBA become involved in actions in which the SBA has a significant financial interest, there is a strong likelihood of material recovery, and/or there is otherwise an opportunity for the SBA to protect its interests. Once we have determined that a particular case is appropriate for institutional involvement, BLB&G will generally offer our recommendation as to whether the case warrants a motion for lead or co-lead plaintiff status, or whether seeking individual relief through a direct (i.e., “opt out”) action is an appropriate route. Fundamentally, and also consistent with the SBA’s Policy, our consideration of whether an investor should become active in a securities class action, remain a passive class member, or file an opt-out action, is based on a cost/benefit analysis of the available options in light of the facts and circumstances of each case. Factors considered in this regard include: the likely recovery to passive class members; the materiality of our clients’ financial interest and the likelihood of a substantial recovery through either the class or direct context; any value that our client might add through service as a lead or co-lead plaintiff; the costs and potential risks to our clients of proceeding with taking an active role in either a class or direct action; the extent of the burden placed on our clients’ staff and resources in connection with each potential option; the reputational impact of each course of action; the availability of additional claims or sources of recovery in the opt-out context that are not available in a class action; the ability to insist on corporate governance reform or other non-monetary benefits in the class action context that is generally unavailable in an opt-out; and numerous other factors related to the costs, benefits, and risks presented by our clients’ various options. BLB&G understands that, pursuant to the Policy, the SBA uses a $25 million materiality threshold for claims in which the SBA would consider becoming involved in the absence of special circumstances. BLB&G believes that this is an appropriate threshold for an institution the size of the SBA, as such a threshold will tend to limit the SBA’s consideration to only those cases that involve a material impact on the SBA’s finances and are also likely to be important cases appropriate for involvement by sophisticated institutions. We believe further that the $25 million threshold is especially appropriate in light of the exception set forth in the Policy for cases in which the SBA’s financial interest is below the formal $25 million threshold, but where there is some other compelling reason to become involved in the litigation. For purposes of calculating the potential recoverable damages in a securities class action, BLB&G generally conducts our analysis in accordance with the manner in which such determinations are typically made in the course of litigation. This process generally involves conducting complex statistical event studies to identify statistically significant market movements attributable to information concerning the underlying misconduct. Typically, we consider multiple scenarios—from the most to the least conservative—so that we and our clients are equipped with a range of analyses upon which to base our decisions.

23

7. List the instances during the last eight (8) years in which securities litigation cases initiated by the firm were dismissed. For each such dismissed case, describe the name and docket number of the case, the judge’s name, the type of motion, the date of the decision and citations to any published opinion. Securities lawsuits are subject to among the highest standards applicable to any form of civil litigation and, as a result, the dismissal of actions is not an infrequent occurrence. Such dismissals can occur at the initial pleading stage of an action, as well as at later procedural phases, such as upon motions for summary judgment. Dismissals can also be with prejudice, in which case the dismissal is final and the action is closed, or dismissals may be granted with leave to replead, in which the case remains opens and the plaintiffs are offered the opportunity to reallege their claims. In addition, dismissals are generally subject to appeal. Below is a list of actions in which BLB&G served as lead or co-lead counsel that were dismissed with prejudice or otherwise subject to a final dismissal. Of these, two are particularly noteworthy for their pending appeals. The Merck litigation is presently on appeal to the United States Supreme Court, after defendants appealed the Third Circuit Court of Appeals’ reversal of the district court’s dismissal. The critical issue on appeal concerns the relevant limitations period. In addition, the Omincom action is on appeal to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, where BLB&G is challenging the district court’s grant of summary judgment to defendants, principally on the basis of the “loss causation” doctrine. BLB&G is hopeful that the appellate courts will not uphold the dismissal of these actions and will, instead, create investor-friendly precedents with respect to the salient issues.

Case Caption Judge Dismissal Date

Type of Motion Citations

Cummings v. ADAC Laboratories, Case No. 02-cv-2298 (N.D. Cal.)

Susan Illston 4/30/2003 Motion to

Dismiss No published decision

In re Omnicom Group Inc. Securities Litigation

Case No. 02-cv-4483 (S.D.N.Y.)

William H. Pauley, III 1/29/2008

Motion for

Summary Judgment

541 F. Supp. 2d 546 (S.D.N.Y. 2008)

In re Merck & Co., Inc. Securities Litigation,

Case No. 02-cv-3185 (D.N.J.)

Stanley R. Chesler 7/7/2004 Motion to

Dismiss 483 F. Supp. 2d 407

(D.N.J. 2007)

In re The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company Securities Litigation,

Case No. 03-cv-2166 (N.D. Ohio)

John R. Adams 3/22/2006 Motion to


(N.D. Ohio 2006)

In re Adecco S.A. Securities Litigation, Case No. 04-cv-129 (S.D. Cal.)

M. James Lorenz 3/29/2006 Motion to


(S.D. Cal. 2007) In re Bausch & Lomb, Incorporated

Securities Litigation, Case No. 06-cv-6294 (W.D.N.Y)

Michael A. Telesca 11/13/2008 Motion to


(W.D.N.Y 2008)

Skubella v. CheckFree Corporation, et al., Case No. 07-cv-0796 (N.D. Ga.)

Thomas W. Thrash, Jr. 6/4/2008 Motion to


Johnson v. Pozen Inc., Case No. 07-cv-599 (M.D.N.C.)

N. C. Tilley, Jr. 9/28/2009 Motion to


24

8. Describe any innovative strategy the firm may have used to obtain recovery for a client in a securities litigation matter and provide a detailed explanation of the facts and circumstances. The Firm has repeatedly used innovative and creative strategies in connection with prosecuting securities actions to maximize and protect our clients’ interests. For example, BLB&G has served as lead counsel in several cases in which the settlements consisted of stock, warrants, and/or other securities of the defendant issuer. Such an approach to settlement can be particularly valuable where a defendant lacks the ability to pay a fair recovery without causing further undue harm to the company. As one illustration, in the In re Nortel Networks Corporation Securities Litigation, BLB&G obtained a substantial proportion of the settlement in the form of securities issued directly to class members by Nortel. To achieve this result, the Firm retained an independent investment bank to advise and consult with respect the offering, which contributed to the overall settlement value exceeding $1.2 billion. Another innovative strategy has been an insistence on personal contributions to settlements from officers and/or directors involved in egregious corporate misconduct. Although, in most cases, the majority of recoveries obtained in connection with securities frauds cannot be achieved through personal contributions, such contributions by individual wrongdoers significantly promote overall corporate governance and accountability and are, thus, an important method of achieving many of the larger goals of the institutional investor community. In the WorldCom litigation, for example, a substantial portion of the settlement with the company’s directors was paid from their personal wealth, rather than simply from insurers. Our goal was to insist upon the principle that the deterrent and corporate governance impact of securities litigation can only truly come to pass when individuals responsible for misconduct are held personally accountable. As Richard C. Breeden, former Chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission and WorldCom’s court-appointed corporate monitor, told the Washington Post, “[t]his is a watershed development by imposing personal liability on corporate directors beyond the scope of insurance coverage . . . . It will send a shudder through boardrooms across America and has the potential to change the rules of the game.” Along similar lines, specific corporate reforms also frequently play an important role as part of an overall settlement strategy. Indeed, the settlements in several of our largest securities class actions settlements also yielded significant corporate governance changes. In In re Cendant Corporation Securities Litigation, the over $3.2 billion settlement also resulted in corporate governance changes that were at that time the most significant changes ever agreed to by a public company in a class action, including the complete restructuring of Cendant’s board to ensure it would be effectively independent. As another example, the Nortel settlement exceeding $1.2 billion was also accompanied by numerous corporate governance initiatives, such as more transparent compensation practices and disclosures, annual elections for the board’s chairman, and a requirement that the company issue an annual report discussing and assessing its compliance with its corporate governance policies.

BLB&G has also represented numerous institutional investors in opt-out actions, which, under the appropriate circumstances, can represent a proactive opportunity to obtain significant financial recoveries that might otherwise not be forthcoming. Opt-out actions can offer investors numerous powerful benefits that may enable greater recoveries. For example, opt-out actions can allow plaintiffs to assert valuable claims—such as claims against certain third parties—that may be unavailable through the class action. As opt-out actions are essentially private lawsuits between civil litigants (as opposed to court-supervised public class actions), such cases can allow numerous opportunities to employ innovative strategies that are frequently unavailable in the class action context. As one example, where a client’s financial interest

25

is sufficiently large, an opt-out claim can sometimes be resolved prior to even formally filing a complaint by simply issuing a demand letter to the defendants’ counsel. This strategy has the benefit of allowing the matter to be resolved quickly, quietly, and with a minimum expenditure of resources. BLB&G has used such a strategy as part of our overall efforts on behalf of institutional investors in the context of opt-out litigation. 9. Describe the firm’s ability to finance litigation until resolution in connection with complex, large, lengthy and contentious securities litigation matters. The Firm has repeatedly represented, and regularly continues to represent, investors of a size and scale comparable to the SBA in highly complex securities litigation and related matters. The Firm funds such representations through its own assets and through other forms of financing, such as by drawing upon lines of credit. BLB&G assures the SBA that it possesses sufficient capacity to finance large, complex, lengthy, and contentious litigation matters until their resolution, and that questions concerning the financing of a litigation play no role whatsoever in the conduct of any litigation the Firm conducts. In the more than 25-year history of BLB&G, there has not been a single instance in which our financing of the litigations in which we are retained has ever posed a problem, and we believe that our regular reinvestment in the Firm to enable ourselves to fund complex litigations sets us apart from many of our competitors. 10. Describe the firm’s expertise in corporate governance matters. The Firm has significant expertise in corporate governance matters, including a long-standing and thriving practice challenging breaches of fiduciary duty in shareholder derivative litigation, as well as in challenging breaches of duty associated with mergers and acquisitions transactions involving terms that are unfair to shareholders. For example, BLB&G has been a leader in litigation concerning the unlawful backdating of stock options at U.S. public companies and other examples of improper executive compensation. The recent settlement in one of these actions—involving UnitedHealth Group, Inc.—represented a recovery of over $920 million at the time of the settlement, the largest derivative settlement in history by far. Presently the Firm acts as counsel on behalf of institutions in numerous shareholder derivative suits. These include the widely publicized litigation challenging the inappropriate authorization by the Board of Directors of Chesapeake Energy of $75 million in bonuses to the company’s CEO, as well as litigation against the board of directors of Pfizer for their involvement in extensive unlawful marketing of numerous drugs, which recently led to Pfizer’s receiving the largest criminal fine ever levied by the United States government. Along similar lines, the Firm actively pursues fair treatment for shareholders in the transactional context. For example, the Firm led the precedent-setting litigation arising from the takeover of Caremark Rx by the CVS Corporation, which resulted in shareholders receiving nearly $3.5 billion in additional compensation for their shares. The Firm regularly advises our clients with respect to such actions and we would be pleased to present further detailed information to the SBA about this important area of our practice. The Firm also regularly consults with prominent corporate governance experts to assist with advising our clients and to help prepare corporate governance plans for the company’s against whom we litigate. 11. Describe why the firm and the services offered by the firm are superior to the firm’s competitors and the firm’s competitive advantages (if any). There are numerous qualified law firms in the field of securities litigation that are capable of providing adequate litigation and/or portfolio monitoring and advisory services. We respectfully submit,

26

however, that BLB&G stands head and shoulders above our competitors for the quality and experience of our litigators, for our ability and willingness to take cases to trial, and for our unique portfolio monitoring capabilities. BLB&G’s attorneys are among the best and most experienced in the field. The Firm focuses its attorney recruitment on individuals with outstanding academic credentials and unique or pertinent experience to litigating complex securities litigations. Our attorneys include former prosecutors, Securities and Exchange Commission attorneys, and attorneys from some of the most prominent defense firms in the country. As a result, our attorneys come from diverse practice backgrounds that give them unique capabilities with respect to representing our institutional clients. BLB&G is also known for our unique trial capabilities. Throughout the Firm’s history, BLB&G has repeatedly demonstrated a willingness and ability to successfully take cases to trial. For example, the Firm represented the bankruptcy trustee of the Baptist Foundation of Arizona in claims against its auditor, Arthur Andersen, in the largest non-profit bankruptcy in U.S. history. BLB&G took the case to trial, winning $217 million from Arthur Andersen, part of an exceptional 70% recovery of investor losses. BLB&G conducted a securities class action trial on behalf of investors in the Clarent Corporation, in which the jury returned what was only the second verdict in favor of investors since the PSLRA was enacted. BLB&G also went to trial against Arthur Andersen for its role in the WorldCom fraud, an action which the auditor settled in the midst of trial. Our reputation for serious trial advocacy, and for preparing every case as though it were going to trial, are key features of our practice that we believe make a significant contribution to our ability to routinely obtain record settlements from defendants. The Firm’s portfolio monitoring practice is also a unique advantage offered by BLB&G in that the breadth and thoroughness of our monitoring capabilities frequently allow us to identify valuable claims that have been overlooked by many of our competitors. In this regard, BLB&G’s portfolio monitoring system has assisted our institutional clients in identifying millions of dollars in losses in unconventional investments, such as mortgage-backed securities, pass through certificates, as well as claims involving corporate bonds and preferred securities, that had not been asserted by other investors in related class actions covering common stock claims. For example, our monitoring service helped one of our state-wide public pension fund clients to identify millions of dollars in losses in securities, commonly referred to as “pass through certificates,” that were backed by pools of subprime mortgages. Following our research and investigation into potential claims regarding these securities, BLB&G initiated several class actions on behalf of this client that seek to recover potentially billions of dollars in losses suffered by similarly situated investors. In another recent example, our portfolio monitoring service discovered significant claims arising from investments in corporate bonds and preferred securities which had not been asserted by the lead plaintiffs appointed by the court to represent investors in the issuers of those securities, who filed claims primarily on behalf of common stock investors. Recognizing that the applicable statutes of limitations could potentially expire in these cases, BLB&G filed several securities class actions on behalf of our institutional clients and similarly situated investors in bonds and preferred securities that preserved these important claims and the ability of investors to recover potentially billions of dollars in losses. The superior services offered by BLB&G are reflected in our unparalleled record of success in securities litigation. The Firm can today claim to have served as counsel in several of the largest securities class action recoveries in history, as well as achieving landmark results in numerous other

27

cases on behalf of investors. For example, in 2000, BLB&G served as co-lead counsel in In re Cendant Securities Litigation, which resulted in a recovery of over $3.2 billion—the largest securities recovery until that time—as well as extensive reforms in the area of corporate governance, including a stringent requirement of board independence. In 2005, the Firm served as co-lead counsel in In re WorldCom Securities Litigation, in which the recovery of over $6 billion broke the Firm’s own record to become the largest recovery ever achieved until that time. The WorldCom litigation was also unique in that it helped establish the prevailing due diligence standards in connection with initial public offerings and, in addition, required personal payments from the company’s board of directors as a means of imposing real consequences for the disregard of corporate obligations. Since the WorldCom litigation, the Firm has also litigated In re Nortel Networks Securities Litigation and In re McKesson HBOC. Inc. Securities Litigation, each of which also settled for payments exceeding $1 billion, and, along with Cendant and WorldCom, represent four of the ten largest securities recoveries in history. BLB&G believes that no competitor firm can claim a similar distinction.

The strong capabilities of BLB&G’s securities litigators have also received widespread public

recognition. In 2009, the Best Lawyers Litigation Guide—one of the oldest and most-respected peer-review publications for the legal profession—ranked BLB&G as one of the top commercial litigation law firms in the United States. For the fourth year in a row, BLB&G was recently given top rankings in the field of plaintiff securities litigation in Chambers and Partners 2009 Guide to America’s Leading Lawyers for Business and for the third year in a row, BLB&G was named as the top firm in securities class action litigation by the Legal 500 USA Guide.

Finally, BLB&G also believes it has a competitive advantage with respect to serving as securities

counsel for the SBA based on the geographic location of our offices. With our headquarters in New York City, our Firm is based in the predominant jurisdiction for securities litigation, and therefore has an intimate knowledge of the relevant procedures and court officials, and our proximity to the most frequent site of litigation reduces costs. In addition, our Louisiana office is striking distance from Tallahassee, which will allow the Firm to easily meet in person with the SBA to provide any required advisory or legal services. 12. Please provide no less than four (4) securities litigation client references; preferably, at least two of the four should be public funds.

William “Bill” Kelley Jr., General Counsel Retirement Systems of Alabama 201 South Union Street Montgomery, Alabama 36104 Phone (334) 517-7180 E-mail: [email protected]

Ronnie Jung, Executive Director Teachers’ Retirement System of Texas 1000 Red River St. Austin, Texas 78701 Phone (512) 542-6400 E-mail: [email protected]

Maureen Westgard, Executive Director Teachers’ Retirement System of Louisiana 8401 United Plaza Boulevard Baton Rouge LA 70809-7017 Phone (225) 925-6454 E-mail: [email protected]

John Keane, Administrator Jacksonville Police & Fire Pension Fund One West Adams Street, Suite 100 Jacksonville, FL 322202-3616 Phone (904) 354-7373 E-mail: [email protected]

28

C. Disclosure and Mitigation of Conflicts of Interests 1. How does your firm identify and mitigate actual or potential conflicts of interest? Does the firm have its own distinct code of conduct? Identify the position or committee at your firm that is responsible for enforcing any code of conduct. BLB&G aims to adhere to the highest standards of ethical conduct in our practice of law. The Firm takes several steps to ensure that our attorneys fulfill this goal. All of our cases are prosecuted under the direct and active management of the Firm’s senior partners, who guide the conduct of all of our cases to ensure that no ethical breaches occur. The Firm also maintains a close relationship with several professors who are well-known experts in the field of legal ethics and regularly consults with these experts with respect to fulfillment of our own ethical obligations, including with respect to any potential conflicts of interest. In addition, the Firm maintains excellent records of all of our litigation activity and reviews these, as well as any potentially conflicting relationships our attorneys may have, before undertaking any particular case, to ensure that we are not in breach of the ethical rules concerning conflicts of interest. In this regard, the Firm makes use of the software, LegalKey Conflicts Management, to keep track of and avoid any potential conflicts of interest. In addition, the Firm’s written Employee Handbook is distributed to all employees and updated regularly. It governs, among other things, confidentiality, conflicts of interest, and proper standards of conduct. All employees are responsible for meeting its standards and all Firm partners and supervisors are responsible for enforcing compliance with its terms. In addition, the firm maintains a full-time Director of Human Resources who is also responsible for administering and enforcing strict compliance with our rules and regulations. 2. Are there any actual, potential or perceived conflict of interest issues that the firm may have in representing or working for the State Board of Administration of Florida (SBA)? If so, describe them and include responses to the following:

a. Has the firm or any person in the firm ever made any political contribution, directly or indirectly (including through committees covered by Section 527 of the Internal Revenue Code or otherwise), to any person in a position to exert any influence regarding this ITN (including to any member of the Board of Trustees). If so, please disclose to whom and the amount. b. Has the firm, or any person in the firm ever, directly or indirectly, paid or agreed to pay any one (e.g., lobbyist, third party marketer) to assist in obtaining business from or otherwise to contact for any reason whatsoever, the SBA. If so, please disclose to whom and the amount. c. Disclose any relationship(s), whether business or personal, that the firm, or any principal or employee (or any family member thereof) of the firm, has with a person known to work for or have substantial business dealings with the SBA, any employee of the SBA, any member of the Board of Trustees and their respective staffs, consultants or managers.

The Firm is aware of no actual, potential, or perceived conflicts of interest with respect to representing

or advising the SBA. The Firm has retained the law firm of Foley & Lardner LLP (“Foley”) to represent the Firm in public affairs matters concerning, among other things, the SBA. Pursuant to the terms of our engagement of Foley, the Firm pays fees to Foley in the amount of $5,000 monthly.

29

3. Indicate whether the firm is (a) currently a member of the SBA securities litigation pool or (b) has provided services to the SBA within the last ten (10) years. The Firm is not presently in the SBA securities litigation pool and has not directly represented the SBA during the stated period. 4. List and describe any services your firm has provided in the last three (3) years to the State of Florida, or any official of the State of Florida. During the past three years, BLB&G has not represented the State of Florida or any official of the State of Florida. BLB&G has, however represented numerous officials of Florida cities and municipalities, especially in connection with representing Florida public pension funds in connection with securities and shareholder actions. For example, the Firm currently represents the Jacksonville Police and Fire Pension Fund (“Jacksonville”) in the securities class action in the District of New Jersey on behalf of investors in Merck & Co. arising from the companies’ false disclosures concerning the cholesterol drug, Vytorin. The Firm also filed an initial complaint on behalf of Jacksonville in the securities class action against American International Group, Inc. arising from the Company’s credit default swap-related disclosures. In addition, the Firm acts for the City of Miami General Employees’ and Sanitation Employees’ Retirement Trust (“Miami”) in the securities class action on behalf of investors in Sunrise Senior Living, a nursing home company. The Firm also represents Miami as a named plaintiff in the pending Bank of America securities class action. 5. Describe whether the firm (or any attorney currently with the firm) has ever represented a client against the SBA, taken any action or position adverse to the SBA (either individually or in conjunction with another firm, entity, organization, association or person) or engaged or retained any firm, entity, organization, association or person to take any action or position adverse to the SBA. BLB&G is aware of no instance in which the Firm or any attorney with the Firm represented a client against the SBA, or otherwise asserted any position or taken any action adverse to the SBA. D. Disclosure of Disciplinary Actions and Mitigation of Liability 1. Has the firm, or an attorney in the firm, ever been disciplined or censured by any court or regulatory body, or been involved in any litigation, regulatory, legal or other proceeding (including relating to malpractice) or any state or federal investigation? If so, describe the principal facts and status, outcome and/or disposition. Neither the Firm nor any attorney of the Firm have been disciplined or censured by any court or regulatory body or been the subject of any regulatory or other proceeding, including any state or federal investigation.

The Firm has been the subject of malpractice claims in certain instances, which were either dismissed or settled for de minimus amounts. The Firm, together with co-lead counsel, was named as a defendant in Achtman v. Kirby McInerney & Squire, LLP, a lawsuit by certain members of a class in In re Bennett Funding Group Sec. Litig. The litigation, which was highly successful, settled for $165 million. The claims against the Firm alleged that the Firm’s decision to not pursue claims against Arthur Andersen on behalf of the class rose to the level of malpractice. The Firm’s motion to dismiss was granted by the District Court, and the Second Circuit affirmed dismissal of the action on appeal.

30

The Firm was also named as a defendant in Dunn, et al. v. Keith Hunt, et al., No. 02L 010310, and Warnell, et al v. Keith L. Hunt, et al., No. 02L 011036, two lawsuits filed in the Circuit Court of Cook County, State of Illinois, by, among others, five individuals that the Firm represented in a consolidated sexual harassment class action in the Northern District of Illinois, entitled Warnell, et al. v. Ford Motor Co. In that case, the Firm represented six women individually, as well as a class of all women who worked at two plants in the Chicago area between December 2, 1993 and December 10, 1999. The Warnell action—which was settled in August 2000 for $12 million and extensive programmatic relief—was widely praised as an extraordinary result for the named plaintiffs and the class. The individual plaintiffs received awards under the settlement ranging between $175,000 and $375,000. Two years later, in August 2002, several of the named plaintiffs that had been represented by our Firm and co-counsel in the consolidated actions, filed the two lawsuits alleging that class counsel had not represented them adequately in connection with the Warnell action against Ford due to an alleged conflict of interest. The Warnell action was dismissed and the Firm settled the Dunn action for a de minimus amount.

2. Describe the level of coverage for legal malpractice insurance and any other fiduciary or professional liability insurance the firm carries, including the name of the insurers, rating of insurers, insurance types and coverage amounts.

BLB&G maintains a malpractice insurance policy with a base amount of $10 million and excess coverage of $5 million. This coverage is applied to the Firm as a whole. BLB&G’s insurance provider is Lloyd’s of London. Lloyd’s currently enjoys an A rating from A.M. Best and A+ ratings from both Fitch Ratings and Standard & Poor’s.

Signed Affirmation Statement

Pursuant to point II.C of the ITN, the required signed Affirmation Statement is attached as Exhibit C. Required Information Concerning Fees and Handling of Costs

Pursuant to Point II.D of the ITN, the required information concerning fees and costs is attached as Exhibit D.

PROPOSAL TO PROVIDE SECURITIES LITIGATION COUNSEL TO … · 2 f. the year the firm first began...

Documents

Transcript of PROPOSAL TO PROVIDE SECURITIES LITIGATION COUNSEL TO … · 2 f. the year the firm first began...