According to the Company’s FORM 10-K For The Fiscal Year Ended December 31, 2001, in February 2001, an amended complaint was dismissed with prejudice by the District Court, and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals recently affirmed this dismissal.

As summarized by the docket posted, on May 3, 2000, the Court entered the Order by Judge Gary L. Taylor granting the plaintiff’s motion to be appointed lead plaintiff and for approval of his selection of law firms of Rabin & Peckel and the Law Office of Leo W. Desmond as co-lead counsel. On June 22, 2000, the plaintiff filed an Amended Class Action Complaint, and on August 7, 2000, the defendants responded by filing a motion to dismiss the Amended Class Action Complaint. On October 30, 2000, the Court entered the Order granting the defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint with leave to amend. On November 16, 2000, the plaintiff filed a Second Amended Class Action Complaint, and on December 18, 2000, the defendants responded by filing a motion to dismiss the Second Amended Class Action Complaint.

The original Complaint alleges that Onyx and certain of its officers and directors violated section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by issuing a series of false and misleading statements concerning, among other things, Onyx's reported financial results during the Class Period. In particular, it is alleged that the revenue, net income, and earnings per share reported in these financial statements were materially inflated by valuing certain assets of Onyx in a manner which violated GAAP and require restatement. The Complaint alleges that, as a result of these material false and misleading statements, Onyx's stock price was artificially inflated throughout the Class Period.