According to the Company’s FORM 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2003, on October 9, 2002, the claims against the Individual Defendants were dismissed without prejudice on consent of the parties. In addition, counsel for the plaintiffs, liaison counsel for the issuer defendants and counsel for insurers of the issuer defendants have taken part in discussions mediated by a former federal district court judge to explore a possible settlement of the claims against all of the issuer defendants in the IPO Allocation Litigation, including Netro. In June 2003, a memorandum of understanding was entered into by and among the plaintiffs, liaison counsel for the issuer defendants and counsel for the insurers which would result in dismissal of the action against the issuers, including Netro, on terms that would not require any current payment by Netro and would carry only a remote risk that any future payment by Netro would be required. On July 14, 2003, Netro’s Audit Committee approved the memorandum of understanding and authorized Netro to enter into the proposed settlement. The memorandum of understanding and proposed settlement are expected to be submitted to the Court for its required approval shortly.

As summarized by the same SEC filing, the actions filed against the Company are part of more than 1,000 lawsuits filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against more than 300 different issuers, certain officers and directors of these issuers and more than 45 different underwriters arising out of initial public offerings occurring between December 1997 and December 2000 (collectively “IPO Allocation Litigation”). By Order dated August 9, 2001, Chief Judge Michael B. Mukasey assigned the IPO Allocation Litigation to the Honorable Shira A. Scheindlin for all pre-trial purposes. On September 7, 2001, Judge Scheindlin adjourned the time for all defendants in the IPO Allocation Litigation, including Netro and the Individual Defendants, to answer, move or otherwise respond to current and future complaints indefinitely pending further instruction from the court. On or about March 2002, actions were consolidated into a single action styled In re Netro Corp. Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation, No. 01 Civ. 7035, 21 MC 92 (SAS) (“Netro Litigation”). Other lawsuits alleging similar claims arising out of Netro’s August 1999 initial public offering against the Underwriter Defendants — but not against Netro or the Individual Defendants — were also consolidated into the Netro Litigation. Those actions are styled Gutner v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Incorporated et al., No. 01 Civ. 7035 (S.D.N.Y.) and Bryant v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Incorporated et al., No. 01 Civ. 9184 (S.D.N.Y.). On April 19, 2002, plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended class action complaint in the Netro Litigation (“Complaint”). The Complaint alleges claims against Netro arising under Section 11 of the Securities Act and Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act, and Rule l0b-5 promulgated thereunder, and against the Individual Defendants under Section 10(b), Rule l0b-5 and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act, and Section 15 of the Securities Act. The claims allege various misconduct arising from Netro’s August 1999 initial public offering and March 2000 follow-on offering of its common stock, including, among other things, that the disclosures made in connection with the offerings were incomplete or misleading in various respects. The Complaint seeks to certify a class of stockholders who purchased Netro common stock between August 18, 1999 and December 6, 2000, and to recover monetary damages from defendants in an unspecified amount, as well as plaintiff’s attorneys’ fees and expenses in bringing the action.

The complaint alleges violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. On or about August 18, 1999, Netro commenced an initial public offering of 5,000,000 of its shares of common stock at an offering price of $8 per share (the "Netro IPO"). In connection therewith, Netro filed a registration statement, which incorporated a prospectus (the "Prospectus"), with the SEC. The complaint further alleges that the Prospectus was materially false and misleading because it failed to disclose, among other things, that: (i) defendants had solicited and received excessive and undisclosed commissions from certain investors in exchange for which defendants allocated to those investors material portions of the restricted number of Netro shares issued in connection with the Netro IPO; and (ii) defendants had entered into agreements with customers whereby defendants agreed to allocate Netro shares to those customers in the Netro IPO in exchange for which the customers agreed to purchase additional Netro shares in the aftermarket at pre-determined prices.

NOTE: In September 2003, the Company was acquired by SR Telecom Inc.