According to the Company’s Form 10-K, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2004, on July 31, 2003, the Company agreed, together with over three hundred other companies similarly situated, to settle with the Plaintiffs. A Memorandum of Understanding (“MOU”), along with a separate agreement and a performance bond of $1 billion issued by the insurers for these companies is a guarantee, allocated pro rata amongst all issuer companies, to the plaintiffs as part of an overall recovery against all defendants including the underwriter defendants who are not a signatory to the MOU. Any recovery by the plaintiffs against the underwriter defendants reduces amount to be paid by the issuer companies. The settlement documents are in process and it is anticipated that we will execute the settlement documents in 2005. This settlement will require approval of the members of the class of plaintiffs and the court.

According to the same SEC filing, in June 2001, three putative stockholder class action lawsuits were filed against Accelerated Networks, certain of its then officers and directors and several investment banks that were underwriters of Accelerated Networks’ initial public offering. The cases, which have since been consolidated, were filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The Court appointed a lead plaintiff on April 16, 2002, and plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint (the “Complaint”) on April 19, 2002. The Complaint was filed on behalf of investors who purchased Accelerated Networks’ stock between June 22, 2000 and December 6, 2000 and alleged violations of Sections 11 and 15 of the 1933 Act and Sections 10(b) and 20(a) and Rule 10b-5 of the 1934 Act against one or both of Accelerated Networks and the individual defendants. The claims were based on allegations that the underwriter defendants agreed to allocate stock in Accelerated Networks’ initial public offering to certain investors in exchange for excessive and undisclosed commissions and agreements by those investors to make additional purchases in the aftermarket at pre-determined prices. Plaintiffs alleged that the prospectus for Accelerated Networks’ initial public offering was false and misleading in violation of the securities laws because it did not disclose these arrangements. These lawsuits are part of the massive “IPO allocation” litigation involving the conduct of underwriters in allocating shares of successful initial public offerings. The Company believes that over three hundred other companies have been named in more than one thousand similar lawsuits that have been filed by some of the same plaintiffs’ law firms. In October 2002, the plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed the individual defendants without prejudice. On February 19, 2003 a motion to dismiss filed by the issuer defendants was heard and the court dismissed the 10(b), 20(a) and Rule 10b-5 claims against Occam.

The original securities class action lawsuit charges defendants with violations of the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 for issuing a Registration Statement and Prospectus (the"Prospectus") that contained materially false and misleading information and failed to disclose material information. The Prospectus was issued in connection with Accelerated Networks' IPO. The complaint alleges that the Prospectus was false and misleading because it failed to disclose (i) the Underwriter Defendants' agreement with certain investors to provide them with significant amounts of restricted Accelerated Networks shares in the IPO in exchange for exorbitant and undisclosed commissions; and (ii) the agreement between the Underwriter Defendants and certain of its customers whereby the Underwriter Defendants would allocate shares in the IPO to those customers in exchange for the customers' agreement to purchase Accelerated Networks shares in the after-market at pre-determined prices.