According to the Company’s FORM 10-Q For The Quarter Ended September 30, 2000, on January 27, 1999, in response to a motion to dismiss filed by the Company, the plaintiffs consolidated the three complaints and filed a consolidated amended class action complaint. On November 1, 2000, the Court granted the Company’s motion to dismiss the complaint and entered judgment in the Company’s favor.

As summarized by the same SEC filing, on October 5, 1998, a purported class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts against the Company and certain of its officers and directors, on behalf of purchasers of the Company’s common stock between April 28, 1998 and October 2, 1998. This lawsuit is identified here as the Van Ormer Complaint. The lawsuit seeks an unspecified amount of damages and claims violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act, alleging that the Company issued a series of materially false and misleading statements concerning the Company’s financial condition, its operations and its integration of several acquisitions. On October 26, 1998, a second purported class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts against the Company and certain of its officers and directors, on behalf of purchasers of the Company’s common stock between April 28, 1998 and October 2, 1998. This second lawsuit was identical to the Van Ormer Complaint except for the named plaintiff. This second lawsuit is identified here as the Clancey Complaint. On November 20, 1998, a third purported class action lawsuit was filed in the same court against the same defendants. This third lawsuit was identical to the Van Ormer and Clancey Complaints except for the named plaintiff, the expansion of the class action period to include purchasers of the Company’s common stock from January 27, 1998 to October 2, 1998 and the addition of references to statements made between January 27, 1998 and April 28, 1998. This third lawsuit is identified here as the Marucci Complaint.

The original complaint charges Aspen and certain officers and directors of the Company during the relevant time period with violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The complaint alleges that defendants issued a series of materially false and misleading statements concerning the Company's costs and revenues, its business, products, operations, financial condition and the integration of several acquisitions. Because of the issuance of a series of false and misleading statements, the price of Aspen common stock was artificially inflated during the Class Period. Prior to the disclosure of the adverse facts described above, Aspen used its common stock as currency to complete a $146.6 million acquisition and issued more than $75 million in convertible debt on favorable terms.