According to the docket posted, on March 26, 2004, the Court entered the Mandate from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. The judgment of the District Court was affirmed.

Previously, on February 20, 2001, a Notice/Stipulation of Dismissal was filed as to party Intrenet, Inc. On January 21, 2001, the Court entered the Order by Judge Sandra S. Beckwith granting the motions for appointment of lead plaintiffs and for approval of co-lead counsels. On August 17, 2001, the plaintiffs filed a Consolidated First Amended Complaint against the remaining individual defendants and adding Arthur Andersen as a defendant. On October 10, 2001, the defendants responded by filing a motion to dismiss the Amended Class Action Complaint. On February 26, 2002, the Court entered the Order granting in part and denying in part the individual defendants' motion to dismiss and granting defendant Arthur Andersen's motion to dismiss. The action proceeded on plaintiffs’ Section 20(a) claims against the two individual defendants while dismissing party Arthur Andersen. In May 2005, the plaintiffs filed a motion to certify as a class action, and the defendants filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings. On July 17, 2002, the Court entered the Memorandum and Order and Judgment granting the defendants’ motion for judgment on the pleadings and denying as moot plaintiffs’ motion to certify as a class action. The case was terminated, but the plaintiffs soon after filed a notice of appeal.

The original Complaint alleges that defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, by issuing materially false and misleading statements to the market. On October 13, 2000, Intrenet announced that it was investigating certain accounting irregularities which could result in a restatement of the Company's 1998 financial statements, 1999 financial statements and its Form 10Qs, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, for the first and second quarters of 2000. The Company acknowledged that it may have overstated its net income by approximately $1.3 million and its earnings by approximately $0.09 per share in violation of Generally Accepted Accounting Principles. The Company also said that until the investigation is completed, its previously reported financial results for the affected periods should not be relied upon.