The original lawsuit alleges that the defendants violated the federal securities laws by, among other things, materially misrepresenting the Company's business condition and failing to disclose material facts concerning the impact of the business decline of its United Kingdom operations. The lawsuit names as defendants AES Corp., Dennis Bakke, Roger Sant and Barry Sharp. The lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana.

Note: The class corresponds to all persons who exchanged shares of IPALCO Enterprises common stock for shares of AES Corp. common stock pursuant to the Exchange Offering conducted by AES Corp. pursuant to a Registration Statement dated August 16, 2000, as amended, and pursuant to the Proxy Statement/Prospectus dated September 8, 2000, and who suffered damages as a result thereof.

On September 24, 2002, a complaint was filed contending that IPALCO insiders misled investors about the financial condition of the energy company AES Corporation and the volatile nature of its stock, a sale that has led to IPALCO investors losing hundreds of millions of dollars. Filed on behalf of four IPALCO investors, the suit seeks to represent all IPALCO investors who held IPALCO stock as of Sept. 8, 2000. The suit claims that the defendants violated various sections of the Securities Act, and seeks compensatory damages for class members.

According to an Indianapolis Business Journal article dated October 27, 2003, former shareholders of IPALCO Enterprises Inc. have relinquished control of their complaint to others after a federal judge consolidated 13 class-action lawsuits accusing the utility and its parent of securities fraud. The class action brought by local shareholders against IPALCO has been lumped together with three other cases naming AES as a defendant. Seven lawsuits brought against AES in Virginia and two others filed in California also have been combined. The trio of class actions now falls under the jurisdiction of the federal District Court's Southern District in Indianapolis. The lead plaintiff in the IPALCO case now is a class of AES shareholders represented by local firm Cohen & Malad LLP and a New York City firm. The AES shareholders brought their case first, in July 2002. The defendants, who include former IPALCO director and Indiana Republican gubernatorial candidate Mitch Daniels, asked the court to consolidate the cases. Lawyers for IPALCO and AES filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit in which IPALCO is named and plan to ask the court to dismiss the other two class actions next month.

According to the FORM 10-Q For the Quarterly Period Ended June 30, 2005, in July 2002, the Company, Dennis W. Bakke, Roger W. Sant, and Barry J. Sharp were named as defendants in a purported class action filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana. In September 2002, two virtually identical complaints were filed against the same defendants in the same court. All three lawsuits purport to be filed on behalf of a class of all persons who exchanged their shares of IPALCO common stock for shares of AES common stock issued pursuant to a registration statement dated and filed with the SEC on August 16, 2000, (the “Share Exchange”). The complaints purport to allege violations of Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 based on statements in or omissions from the registration statement concerning, among other things, an alleged breach by AES of obligations AES owed to Williams Energy Services Co. (“Williams”) under an agreement between the two companies in connection with the California energy market. On September 26, 2003, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. By Order dated November 17, 2004, the Court dismissed all of the claims asserted in the amended and consolidated complaint against all defendants except for the claim alleging that the registration statement and prospectus disseminated to the IPALCO stockholders for purposes of the Share Exchange failed to disclose AES’s purported temporary default on its contract with Williams. On December 15, 2004, the AES Defendants filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings dismissing the remaining claims. On July 7, 2005, the district court granted defendants’ motion for judgment on the pleadings and entered an order dismissing all claims and thereby terminating this action in the district court. The time to file an appeal to the action has expired without the filing of an appeal.