By the Order entered on July 25, 2007, on July 20, 2007, the Court approved the Motion for Final Approval of Settlement and Payment of Litigation Expenses filed by Lead Plaintiffs Jacksonville Police & Fire Pension Fund and M. Richard Andrews. During the July 20, 2007 hearing, Co-Lead Counsel informed the Court that the remaining individual defendants would be dismissed from the action after the Court granted final approval. Accordingly, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(2), it is hereby ordered that defendants John V. Hashman, Yinzi Cai and Bruce G. Rigione are dismissed from this action.

Individual Defendant Jeremy Lent agreed to a Stipulation of Settlement of April 25, 2007, totaling $635,000.00. On July 23, 2007, the Court entered the Final Judgment and Order of Dismissal with Prejudice as to Jeremy Lent. According to the Order, the settlement was approved.

On March 20, 2006, the court denied motions to dismiss the second amended complaint for certain individual defendants, and granted motion to dismiss the second amended complaint, without leave to amend, for another individual defendant.

According to a law firm’s website, on December 2, 2005 and Judge Jeremy Fogel signed Orders that same day granting final approval of the Settlement and approving the Plan of Allocation. Earlier, on October 30, 2003, Lead Plaintiffs filed a separate action against Ernst & Young, LLP (“E&Y”), NextCard’s former auditor, alleging that E&Y fraudulently deceived investors during the Class Period. On November 5, 2003, the Court issued an Order relating the case filed against E&Y to In re NextCard, Inc. Securities Litigation. On March 10, 2004, E&Y filed a Motion to Dismiss the complaint filed against it, which Lead Plaintiffs opposed. Prior to a ruling of E&Y’s motion, the parties agreed to settle the claims against E&Y and entered into a Stipulation of Settlement. Pursuant to the terms of the proposed settlement with E&Y, which was preliminarily approved by the Court on October 4, 2005, a settlement fund in the amount of $23,200,000 has been created for the benefit of the Class.

On April 27, 2005 Lead Plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Second Amended Class Action Complaint (the “2nd Amended Complaint”), which Defendants moved to dismiss on June 27, 2005. Lead Plaintiffs filed their opposition to Defendants’ motions on August 31, 2005. A hearing on Defendants’ motions was held on October 28, 2005, and Judge Jeremy Fogel took the motions under submission.

On January 28, 2002 the Court issued an order appointing Lead Plaintiffs and Co-Lead Counsel. On January 30, Judge Fogel issued an order consolidating all related cases into one class action lawsuit entitled In re NextCard, Inc. Securities Litigation. Lead Plaintiffs filed their Consolidated Class Action Complaint (the “Consolidated Complaint”) on June 17, 2002. On April 23, 2004, Lead Plaintiffs filed their Consolidated First Amended Class Action Complaint (the “1st Amended Complaint”) on behalf of persons and entities who purchased NextCard securities between April 19, 2000 and October 30, 2001. NextCard is not named as a Defendant due to its bankruptcy filing in November of 2002. On May 24, 2004 Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss the 1st Amended Complaint. On October 15, 2004 the Court heard arguments on Defendants’ motion and on February 7, 2005 issued an Order granting the motion and granting Lead Plaintiffs leave to amend their complaint.

The original complaint was filed alleging that NextCard and certain of its officers and directors violated the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The complaint alleges that defendants disseminated false and misleading statements concerning the Company's operations and prospects for 2000 and 2001. In fact, defendants knew NextCard's reserves were materially underfunded and that as a result, its 2000 and 2001 projections and/or results were false. During the Class Period, taking advantage of the inflation in NextCard stock, defendants Lent, Cai, Qureshey and Hashman sold almost $9 million worth of their own NextCard stock at artificially inflated prices of as much as $10.89 per share. Then, on October 31, 2001, it was revealed that, among other things, defendants had concealed that during the Class Period: (a) due to the deteriorating quality of NextCard's portfolio, the Company would need to dramatically increase its reserves for loan losses in fiscal 2000 and Q1, Q2 and Q3 2001 and as a result its reported value of its loans for fiscal 2000 and Q1 and Q2 2001 was overstated; (b) the Company had improperly recorded "credit losses" as "fraud losses" and as a result the Company's "securitization activities" during the Class Period did not qualify for "low level recourse treatment." Defendants knew that as a result, such would dramatically increase the Company bank division's risk weighted assets, and would decrease the Company's "risk based capital ratio" below federal banking guidelines – rendering the Company "significantly under capitalized"; (c) because the Company's risk-based capital ratio had plummeted below acceptable levels, it had been technically subject to a Prompt Correction Action Order and thereby restricted from accepting or reviewing any brokened deposits; (d) as a result of the above, the Company's 2000 and 2001 results and projections were materially false and misleading. These disclosures shocked the market, causing NextCard's stock to decline to $0.84 per share before closing at $0.87 per share on October 31, 2001 on volume of more than 43 million shares, inflicting millions of dollars of damage on plaintiff and the Class.