According to the US District Court Civil Docket as of 09/30/2003, on September 30, 2003, the Court issued an Order granting defendant Physicians Resource Group, Inc.'s 46 Motion to Strike, and denying as moot defendant Physicians Resource Group, Inc.'s 46 Motion to Dismiss the Original Complaint, granting defendant Emmett E. Moore's 50 Motion to Strike Lead Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint, denying as moot defendant Emmett E. Moore's 50 Motion to Dismiss Lead Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint. In light of striking lead plaintiffs' amended complaint this action is hereby dismissed with prejudice.

The final Judgment, issued pursuant to the Court's Order, adjudged and decreed that plaintiffs take nothing by their suit against defendants; that all relief requested therein is denied; that this action is hereby dismissed with prejudice; that all relief not expressly granted herein is denied; and that all allowable and reasonable costs are taxed against plaintiffs.

Five more securities class actions were filed against this company. Soon after they were amended and filed in two groups. The first group included the Longman, Peltz, and Hall actions (collectively the 'Longman Action'), which was the first complaint filed. And the second group comprised the Schiller, City of Philadelphia, and Rutherford actions (collectively the 'Schiller Action').

These cases all raise claims under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the '1934 Act') and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The plaintiffs seek compensatory damages, legal interest and attorneys' fees. The procedural history of these cases is complex because of the number of cases at issue, the theories of liability raised, the number of plaintiffs' counsel involved, and the unique requirements of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995.

The plaintiffs in the Longman Action claim that when Physicians Resource Group (PRG) filed a counterclaim for fraud against EquiMed in an arbitration proceeding in June 1997, PRG knew that the Eyecare Practices it had previously acquired from EquiMed in late 1996 were overvalued and would have to be written-down but that PRG delayed doing so in order to continue to appear to be a fast growing company and an attractive acquisition candidate.

In the original complaint, among other things, plaintiff claims that defendants issued a series of materially false and misleading statements, and omitted to make other statements they were under a duty to make, regarding PRG's financial condition and the value of medical practices purchased by PRG from EquiMed Inc. and that as a result of these false and misleading statements and omissions, PRG's common stock was artificially inflated during the Class Period.

NOTE: On February 1, 2000, the Company filed for bankruptcy pursuant to Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code in the Northern District of Texas.