On August 4, 2005, the Court entered the Order of Dismissal signed by U.S. District Judge Denise L. Cote. According to the Order, given that complete relief has been accorded to the parties in 00-2284 and 00-2498, the Clerk of the Court shall close these cases.

On July 30, 2001, the plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Complaint. On September 20, 2001, the Court issued the Opinion and Order #86099 denied the defendants’ motions to dismiss. On May 8, 2002, the plaintiffs filed a Third Amended Complaint. On July 10, 2002, the Court preliminarily approved a settlement with the FASB Defendants (Fund Administration Services (Bermuda) Ltd., Ernest & Young International, Ernest & Young Bermuda, and Kempe & Whittle Associates Ltd.). On October 7, 2002, the Court approved the settlement. The case continued as to the remaining defendants. On June 23, 2003, the Court issued the Opinion and Order # 88664, denying Defendant Deloitte Touche Bermuda's motions for summary judgment. On November 6, 2003, the Court issued the Order preliminarily approving the proposed settlement with Defendants Deloitte & Touche (Bermuda) (“Deloitte Bermuda”) and Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu. On January 20, 2004, the Court issued the Final Order and Judgment approving settlement and dismissal of claims against Deloitte. On March 23, 2004, Default Judgment was entered in favor of plaintiffs against Michael Berger, Financial Asset Management, Inc. in the amount of
$296,694,862.71.

According to the Company’s FORM 10-K For The Fiscal Year Ended November 30, 2001, there were two similar class action complaint filed that were later handled together. On June 21, 2000, an amended complaint was filed adding nine shareholders of Manhattan Investment Fund Limited as plaintiffs and asserting the same claims against the same defendants as were named in the original complaint. Compensatory damages in excess of $93.5 million, and $1 billion in punitive damages from each defendant, are sought. On May 15, 2001, the court granted the Bear Stearns defendants' motion to dismiss this action.

As summarized by the same SEC filing, there two similar class action complaints filed that were later handled together. On March 24, 2000, a purported class action, Cromer Finance Ltd. v. Michael Berger, et al., was commenced in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York by Cromer Finance, Ltd., a shareholder of MIFL, on behalf of a purported class consisting of all persons who purchased securities of MIFL and suffered damages between September 1, 1996 through January 18, 2000. On September 8, 2000, plaintiff filed an amended complaint. Named as defendants are a director of MIFL, Deloitte & Touche, FASB, Ernst & Young LLP, and BSSC. The complaint alleges, among other things, that BSSC aided and abetted common law fraud in connection with providing clearing services for MIFL. Compensatory and punitive damages in unspecified amounts are sought. On April 17, 2001, the court granted BSSC's motion to dismiss this action.

On March 31, 2000, an action, Argos, et al. v. Michael Berger, et al., was commenced in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York by 17 shareholders of MIFL. Named as defendants are a director of MIFL, Financial Asset Management, Inc., FASB, Ernst & Young International, Deloitte & Touche, Bear Stearns and BSSC. The complaint alleges, among other things, that the Bear Stearns defendants aided and abetted a breach of fiduciary duty in connection with BSSC providing clearing services and financing for MIFL. Compensatory damages in excess of $53 million, and $1 billion in punitive damages from each defendant, are sought.

The original action arises from allegations of a massive fraud involving the overstatement of the fund's investment performance, misrepresentations of the assets held in the fund's portfolio, and undisclosed activities that generated in excess of $400 million in trading losses which were hidden from investors. Claims are asserted for violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by reason of material misrepresentations and omissions, as well as for common law fraud, professional malpractice and aiding and abetting fraud.