As summarized by the latest docket, on March 1, 2002, the plaintiffs filed a motion for an order to voluntarily dismiss the action without prejudice. On April 17, 2002, the Court entered the Order of Dismissal and the case was closed. On May 6, 2002, the Court entered an Amended Order of Dismissal. On May 17, 2002, an individual defendant filed a notice of appeal, and on July 7, 2003, the Court entered the Mandate of the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, affirming the judgment of the district court.

Earlier, on December 23, 1996, the Court entered the Orders granting the motion for an Order to consolidate cases and granting the motion to appoint lead plaintiffs and co-lead counsel. On February 28, 1997, the Court entered Case Management Order No. 1 establishing Master File 96 CIV. 7575 (LAP), captioned IN RE SOLV-EX CORPORATION SECURITES LITIGATION. On April 25, 1997, the plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Amended Class Complaint, and on July 21, 1997, filed a Second Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint. On August 26, 1997, Solv-Ex Corporation filed a Notice of Bankruptcy. On August 29, 1997, the Court entered the Order dismissing without prejudice all claims previously asserted against defendants Deutsche Morgan Grenfell Inc. and a certain individual defendant in the Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint. On June 30, 1999, the Court entered the Order of Confirmation of Plan of Reorganization of Solv-Ex Corporation. According to the Order, all claims in this action against the debtor, corporation defendant Solv-Ex Corporation, were dismissed with prejudice. On September 2, 1999, the remaining individual defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Second Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint. On September 7, 2000, the Court entered the Order signed by U.S. District Judge Richard M. Berman denying the defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint.

As previously reported by the Company’s FORM 10-Q For The Quarterly Period Ended March 31, 1999, the Company and certain officers of the Company were defendants in securities actions pending in the federal courts of New York and New Mexico and in state courts in Arizona and New Mexico. In October 1996, the Company was served with a complaint in the Sedita v. Solv-Ex Corporation, Butler, Campbell, Rendall and Deutsche Morgan Grenfell, Inc., case #96CIV7575, U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York, and in December 1996, the Company was also served with a complaint in Joseph B. Grossman and Stephen Disch v. Butler, Rendall, Campbell, Deutsche Morgan Grenfell, Inc., Charles Maxwell, and Solv-Ex Corporation, case #96CIV8744, United States District Court, Southern District of New York. On December 23, 1996 the New York federal court consolidated the two actions. The complaints in the consolidated actions allege, among other things, damage to shareholders of the Company by acts or conduct of the Company and its officers in violation of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and the New Mexico Securities Act. The plaintiffs asked that the court accord class action status to purchasers of the Company's common stock between February 15, 1995 and September 30, 1996. Two similar actions were filed in U.S. District Court, District of New Mexico, and served upon the Company in November 1996. These two cases, Fournier v. Solv-Ex Corporation, Butler, Campbell, Rendall and Deutsche Morgan Grenfell, Inc., case #CIV961526JC, and Boyer v. Solv-Ex Corporation, Rendall and Deutsche Morgan
Grenfell, Inc., case #CIV96602JC, were consolidated with the other actions in the U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York.

The original complaint charges Solv-Ex, certain officers and directors of Solv-Ex and Deutsche Morgan Grenfell, Inc. with violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and related state law, by, among other things, misrepresenting the business, technologies, reserves, business prospects and value of Solv-Ex and by failing to disclose certain material facts regarding those matters. Because of the issuance of a series of materially false and misleading statements, the price of Solv-Ex's common stock was artificially inflated throughout the Class Period, the complaint contends.