By the Order and Final Judgment entered on June 8, 2006, the settlement was approved and the action was dismissed with prejudice.
According to the Notice of Pendency and Proposed Settlement of Class dated March 24, 2006, a settlement fund in the amount of $8 million has been established.
As summarized by same Notice, on October 24, 2003, the Court entered an order consolidating the securities cases for all purposes and ap-pointing Robert Ahearn and Almar Sales Company as lead plaintiffs and its attorneys, Shapiro Haber & Urmy LLPand Berger & Montague, P.C., as co-lead counsel. On March 5, 2004, a consolidated amended complaint was filed(the “Complaint,”). The Complaint alleged that CSFB violated §§ 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Actof 1934 (“Exchange Act”) (15 U.S.C. §§ 78j(b) and 78t(a) and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder), causing damages to purchasers of Winstar common stock during the Class Period. By order dated August 12, 2004, the Court denied the Defendant’s motion to dismiss the Complaint. On August 17, 2005, the Court granted Lead Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification. The Defendant subsequently filed a petition for leave to appeal the Class Certification decision, which was denied shortly before the parties agreed tosettle the action. After engaging in substantial discovery,the parties agreed to a mediation. The mediation was held on January 5,2006. Through the mediation, the parties agreed to a settlement, the terms of which are embodied in a Settlement Agreement and described in this Notice.
The complaint alleges that defendant violated section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by the Securities and Exchange Commission. In particular, the complaint alleges that defendants issued and maintained a "Buy" recommendation on Winstar securities without any rational economic basis; failed to disclose that they were issuing and maintaining these recommendations to obtain investment banking business; and concealed significant, material conflicts of interest that prevented them from providing independent and objective analysis. The Complaint alleges that as a result of these false and misleading statements and omissions of material fact, the price of Winstar securities was artificially inflated throughout the Class Period causing plaintiff and the other members of the Class to suffer damages.