The Firm brings together a unique array of talent, including former government prosecutors and former SEC trial attorneys, as well as attorneys with accounting backgrounds, and a wealth of experience in securities and class action litigation, to pursue three goals on behalf of its clients: to recover losses in securities and consumer fraud class litigation, to enforce and improve shareholder rights, and to ensure the accountability of corporate wrongdoers. With the support of the Firm's investigative staff, the attorneys and paralegals at Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz, LLP have pursued hundreds of securities and consumer cases, recovering approximately two billion dollars for our clients and effecting corporate governance changes that are intended to strengthen corporate responsibility, as well as the democratic rights of public shareholders. The Firm typically represents large individual and institutional investors - including public and multi-employer pension funds - in securities and corporate litigation.

The attorneys at Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz, LLP enjoy a national reputation for quality and integrity. We have an established track record of success and the respect of the defense bar and D&O insurance carriers. Our reputation has been built not only on the Firm's successes, but also on the expectation that we will mount a vigorous prosecution; defense counsel know that we will take our cases to trial to achieve the maximum result obtainable for our clients. We take pride in our accomplishments and our Firm's leadership role in protecting the interests of aggrieved shareholders and consumers.

BERNSTEIN LIEBHARD & LIFSHITZ, LLP HAS SIGNIFICANT EXPERIENCE IN PROSECUTING SECURITIES CLASS ACTIONS

OUTSTANDING TRACK RECORD OF CLIENT RECOVERIES

We have significant experience in prosecuting complex securities class actions. For example, the Firm, as a lead counsel, has successfully recovered approximately two billion dollars in the settlement of securities class actions and complex cases. These cases include:

OUTSTANDING TRACK RECORD OF CORPORATE GOVERNANCE CHANGES

The Firm has had particular success in using litigation to accomplish corporate governance improvements for shareholders. We have served as lead counsel in numerous corporate governance and corporate takeover litigations (both hostile and friendly) on behalf of the shareholders of public corporations, and have prosecuted actions challenging numerous highly publicized corporate transactions that violated fair process and fair price, as well as the applicability of the business judgment rule. These efforts have brought about multi-million dollar improvements in transaction terms and in strengthening the democratic rights of public shareholders.

In In re Sears & Roebuck Derivative Litigation, founding partner Stanley Bernstein pioneered the use of litigation to achieve corporate governance reform in the early 1990s, requiring the addition of outside directors to Sears's board, and expanding the role of outside directors in the company's nominating committee.

In In re Cablevision Systems Corp. Shareholder Litigation, the Firm (along with co-lead counsel) successfully deterred a going-private transaction proposed by Cablevision's controlling shareholder at an inadequate price. The proposal was ultimately converted to a $2.5 billion special dividend payable ratably to all cablevision shareholders.

In In re MONY Group, Inc. Shareholders Litigation, the Delaware Chancery Court issued a preliminary injunction enjoining the shareholder vote on a merger pending the issuance of curative disclosures by the MONY defendants. The Firm (along with co-lead counsel) acheived a settlement that included the forfeiture of approximately $7.4 million in change-of-control payments from MONY executives, which increased the consideration received by MONY's shareholders in the merger.

In In re Plains Resources, Inc. Shareholders Litigation, the Firm (along with co-lead counsel) successfully increased the consideration offered in a buyout of the public shares of Plains Resources by two of the company's senior executives and Vulcan Energy, an affiliate of Paul Allen.

In In re Archer Daniels Midland Corp. Derivative Litigation, the Firm, as lead counsel, effected important corporate governance improvements, such as requiring the majority of the board to be comprised of outside directors, creating a nominating committee, requiring the audit committee to oversee corporate compliance, and requiring the audit committee to be composed of outside directors.

In Arco Chemical Company Shareholders Litigation, the Firm's advocacy led the Delaware Supreme Court to require the company to broaden the rights of public shareholders in change-of-control transactions.

In Shapiro v. Quickturn Systems, Inc., the Firm successfully represented the public shareholders of Quickturn Design Systems in a trial in the Delaware Chancery Court, which invalidated a modified "dead-hand" poison pill anti-takeover provision. The Delaware Supreme Court affirmed the trial verdict, paving the way for a takeover of Quickturn at a premium of approximately $51 million.

The Firm's efforts in In re Foamex International Inc. Shareholders Litigation achieved numerous corporate governance improvements, such as the requirement that the company appoint two independent directors and constitute a nominating committee to search for and recommend new independent directors, as well as the requirement that any related-party transaction be reviewed and approved by a majority of disinterested directors.

OUTSTANDING REPUTATION WITH THE JUDICIARY

Courts have repeatedly praised the efforts of the Firm and its partners. For example:

• In a consumer action brought in federal court under the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, Magistrate Judge (now District Court Judge) Marcia Morales Howard wrote that the settlement achieved by the Firm “accomplish[ed] an exceptional result because of the nationwide benefit to all women diagnosed with [Polycystic Ovarian Syndrome] and the benefit to the medical community . . . . The result is also exceptional given the uphill battle Plaintiffs would have encountered in certifying a class and proving Defendants’ knowledge that their product did not work for women with PCOS.” Wagner v. Inverness Medical Innovations Inc., No. 3:03-cv-404-J-20MMH (M.D. Fl. Aug. 14, 2006).