BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER BARRACK, RODOS & BACINE & …securities.stanford.edu/filings-documents/1004/MCK99/... · 2005-08-08 · DAVID R. STICKNEY (Bar No. 188574) TIMOTHY A. DeLANGE

2

4

6

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

1. 7

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER& GROSSMANN LLP

ALAN SCHULMAN (Bar No. 128661)ROBERT S. GANS (Bar No . 214420)DAVID R. STICKNEY (Bar No . 188574)TIMOTHY A. DeLANGE (Bar No . 190768)12544 High Bluff Drive, Suite 15 0San Diego, CA 92130Tel : (858) 793-0070Fax: (858) 793-0323

-and-MAX W . BERGERROCHELLE FEDER HANSEN1285 Avenue of the AmericasNew York, NY 1001 9Tel : (212) 554-1400Fax : (212) 554-1444

Attorneys for Lead PlaintiffThe New York State Common RetirementFund and Co-Lead Counsel for the Class

BARRACK, RODOS & BACINELEONARD BARRACKGERALD J . RODOSM. RICHARD KOMINSJEFFREY A. BARRACK3300 Two Commerce Square2001 Market StreetPhiladelphia, PA 1910 3Tel : (215) 963-0600Fax : (215) 963-0838

-and-STEPHEN R. BASSER (Bar No . 121590)402 West Broadway, Suite 85 0San Diego, CA 92101Tel : (619) 230-0800Fax : (619) 230-1874

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

In re McKESSON HBOC, INC. Master File No. 99-CV-20743 RMW (PVT)SECURITIES LITIGATION And Related Cases

CLASS ACTION

This Document Relates To :

ALL ACTIONS .

Date: N/ATime: N/APlace: Courtroom 6, 41h FloorBefore : Hon. Ronald M . Whyte

LEAD PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO BEAR, STEARNS & CO . INC .'SOPPOSITION TO THE STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER

(1) SUBSTITUTING THE FORM OF PROPOSED FINAL JUDGMENT AND ORDER OFDISMISSAL AND 2 PRELIMINARILY APPROVING SETTLEMEN T

LEAD PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO BEAR, STEARNS & CO ., INC .'SOPPOSITION TO THE STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDERMaster F ile No . 99-CV-20743 RMW (PVT)

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Pne

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .ii

1 . INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2II. ARGUMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

A. The Proposed Judgment Addresses The ConcernsExpressed In The Court's May 23 Order- . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2

1 . The Bar Order . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2

2. The Judgment Reduction Provision . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

B. The Proposed Judgment Does Not Violate Bea rStearns' Contract Rights And Is Not Unfair . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Ili . CONCLUSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 0

LEAD PLAINTIFF'S MEM, FURTHER SUPPORT . PRELIM . APPROVALOF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMEN

T Master File No. 99-CV-,20743 RMW (PVT)

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Case Page

148 Inv . Group, Inc . v. Elvis Presley Enter ., Inc . (unpublished) ,No . 93 -6444, 1995 WL 283785 (6th Cir . May 10, 1995) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7

American Broadcasting Cos. v. Wolf,

430 N.Y.S .2d 275 (N.Y . A.D . 1980 ) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7

Cipriano v. Glen Cove Lodge ,769 N .Y.S .2d 168 (N.Y. 2003 ) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7

In re Consolidated Pinnacle West Sec . Litig./Resolution Trust Corp.-Merabank Litig. ,51 F .3d 194 (9th Cir. 1995 ) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

Degree Sec. Sys., Inc. v. F.A.B . Land Corp. ,756 N .Y.S .2d 248 (N.Y.A.D . 2003 ) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7

Eichenholtz v. Brennan,52 F.3d 478 (3d Cir . 1995) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6

FDIC v. McSweeney ,976 F .2d 532 (9th Cir . 1992) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Franklin v . Kaypro Corp. ,884 F .2d 1222 (9th Cir . 1989) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Gerber v . MTC Elec. Tech. Co. ,329 F .3d 297 (2d Cir. 2003) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 ,3,5

Golden Gate Acceptance Corp. v. General Motors Corp. ,597 ' . 2d 676 (9th Cir . 1979) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

Gould v. American-Hawaiian S. S. Co . ,387 F . Supp. 163 (D. Del. 1974) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6 ,6,7

In re Jiffy Lube Sec . Litig. ,927 F .2d 155 (4th Cir . 1991) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4,5

Laventhol, Krekstein , Horwath & Horwath v. Horwitch,637 F .2d 672 (9th Cir. 1980) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6 ,6,7

Local No. 93 Intl Assn of Firefighters v. City of Cleveland,478 U .S. 501 ( 1986) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8

Lucas v. Hackett Assocs., Inc. ,18 F. Supp. 2d 531 (E.D . Pa . 1998) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

LEAD PLAINTIFF' S MEM . FURTHER SUPPORT . PRELIM . APPROVALOF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMEN TMaster File No. 99-CV-20743 RMW (PVT)

In re MTC Elec. Tech, S"holder Litig. ,No . MDL 1059, 2005 U .S. Dist . LEXIS 10312 (E .D.N.Y. May 3I, 2005) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3

In re Masters elates & Pilots Pension Plan ,957 F .2d 1020 (2d Cir. 1992) ., . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

Neuberger v. Shapiro ,110 F . Supp . 2d 373 (L D . Pa. 2000 ) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3

Norfolk Redevelopment & Hous . Auth . v . Chesapeake & Potomac Tel. Co. of Va . ,464 U.S. 30 (1983) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3

In re Rite Aid Corp . Sec. Lixig. ,146 F . Supp. 2d 706 (E.D . Pa. 2001 ) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2

Stewart v . American Intl Oil & Gas Co. ,845 F .2d 196 (9th Cir . 1988) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

In re US. Oil & Gas Litig. ,967 F .2d 489 (11th Cir . 1992) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

In re Wilshire Tech. Sec. Litig. ,887 F . Supp . 236 (S .D. Cal. 1995) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6

Wisconsin Inv. Bd. v . Ruttenberg,300 F . Supp . 2d 1210 (N.D. Ala. 2004 ) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3

In re WorldCom , Inc. Sec. Litig. ,No. 02 Civ. 3288 , 2005 U.S . Dist . LEXIS 3791 (S.D.N.Y . Mar. 14,2005) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3,8,9

STATUTES

15 U.S .C . § 78u-4(f)(7)(A) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,9

15 U.S .C . § 78u-4(f)(7)(B) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

LEAD PLAINTIFF'S MEM . FURTHER SUPPORT. PRELIM. APPROVA LOF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT -iii-

Master File No. 99-CV-20743 RMW (PVT)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

1 2

13

14

15

16

17

1 8

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

II INTRODUCTION

On July 12, 2005, the New York State Common Retirement Fund (the "Lead Plaintiff" )

[ and McKesson Corporation ("McKesson") submitted a Second Revised Proposed Final

I Judgment and Order of Dismissal ("Second Revised Proposed Judgment") to address the

[ concerns expressed in the Court's May 23, 2005 Order Denying Preliminary Approval of Clas s

[ Action Settlement ("May 23 Order"), Only Bear, Steams & Co ., Inc . ("Bear Stearns") continue s

[ to object .

As explained below, the Second Revised Proposed Judgment directly addresses the

concerns expressed in the Court's May 23 Order . The bar order has been revised to preserve

Bear Steams' contract-based claims, as well as defenses to such claims, and is consistent with

the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 ("PSLRA") .' In addition, the Second

Revised Proposed Judgment eliminates the previous judgment reduction provision that was

disapproved in the Court's May 23 Order . ¶12 .

Not satisfied, Bear Stearns adds invective to prior unsuccessful arguments, accusing the

Settling Parties of violating Bear Stearns' purported contract rights .2 Again, Bear Steams is

wrong. The Settling Parties included special provisions to accommodate Bear Stearns' contrac t

and specifically preserved Bear Stearns' contract-based claims . ¶ 10, 13. Bear Stearns'

purported rights under its contract are not prejudiced in any way .

The validity of such rights is not an issue before this Court . Thus, while Bear Steams'

claimed rights are in fact unenforceable for multiple reasons, the Court need not decide the issue

in order to preliminarily approve the Settlement because that contested issue is specifically

preserved . ' 10. It would be unprecedented to deny preliminary approval of a class actio n

E Second Revised Proposed Judgment, ¶10 . Throughout, "T,-" refers to paragraphs of theSecond Revised Proposed Judgment .

2 "Settling Parties" refers collectively to Lead Plaintiff, McKesson and McKesson InformationSolutions, Inc. ("HBO & Company" or "HBOC") .

LEAD PLAINTIFFS RESPONSE TO BEAR, ST EARNS & CO., INC.'SOPPOSITION TO THE STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDERMaster File No . 99-CV-20743 RMW (PVT)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

1 3

1 4

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

settlement based on the contested assertion of a non-settling defendant that it has veto power

over any settlement or, alternatively, must be released as part of any settlement .

ARGUMENTf II .

A. The Proposed Judgment Addresses TheConcerns Expressed In The Court's May 23 Order

The Second Revised Proposed Judgment addresses the two concerns expressed in th e

Court's May 23 Order . First, with respect to the bar order provisions, the Second Revise d

I Proposed Judgment makes clear that the bar order shall not "bar any claim by Bear Stearn s

against McKesson based on any contract (other than claims for contribution that are barred by §

1 21D(0(7)(A) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U .S .C. § 78u-(f)(7)(A)) . . ." ¶i0.

Second, the Second Revised Proposed Judgment eliminates the judgment reduction provision

that the Court disapproved and leaves unaffected the judgment reduction provision of th e

PSLRA. !12.

1 . The Bar Order

In its May 23 Order, the Court concluded that "the contribution bar section of th e

I PSLRA . . .is not intended to bar claims for contractual indemnity ." May 23 Order [Doc . No.

1351] at 1 . Paragraph 10 of the Second Revised Proposed Judgment addresses that concern by

expressly excluding from the bar order claims based on contract, including contractua l

indemnity . Bear Stearns nevertheless contends that the bar order remains impermissibly broad .

Bear Stearns is wrong . Having excluded claims for contractual indemnity from the bar order, th e

Second Revised Proposed Judgment cures the issue addressed in . the May 23 Order .

Moreover, as previously established, the overwhelming majority of courts hold that the

I contribution bar mandated by the PSLRA is not the exclusive bar and that orders barrin g

indemnity claims are necessary to effectuate partial settlements .3 Such courts have explaine d

3 See In re Rite Aid Corp. Sec, Litig ., 146 F . Supp. 2d 706, 726 (E .D. Pa. 2001) (approving a barorder broader than the language of the PSLRA and holding that the statute does not limit thescope of a bar order) ; Lucas v . Hackett Assocs ., Inc., 18 F. Supp. 2d 531, 535 (E .D. Pa. 1998)(stating that it was unnecessary for Congress to expressly bar indemnification claims becauseLEAD PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO BEAR, STEARNS & CO . . INC'SOPPOSITION TO THE STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDERMaster File No. 99-CV-20743 RMW (PVT)

-2-

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

1 9

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

that Congress did not indicate any intention to supplant the well-established case law o n

settlement bar orders . Like the bar orders approved in Rite Aid, Ruttenberg, MTC Elec., and the

host of additional decisions, the proposed bar in this case is constitutional .`'

Bear Stearns also complains that paragraph 10 of the Second Revised Proposed Judgmen t

does not preserve Bear Stearns' (unidentified) claims sounding in equity or tort agains t

[ McKesson. The Second Revised Proposed Judgment, however, bars only claims fo r

I "-contribution or indemnity . . . however denominated . . . by which such Person seeks to recove r

. . . any portion of any amount such Person is required to, or agrees to, pay to Lead Plaintiff or to

any Settlement Class Member . . . " ¶10. In other words, the only equity and tort claims that ar e

barred are those that are veiled claims for contribution and indemnity . '

In addition, Bear Stearns complains that the Second Revised Proposed Judgment does no t

preserve contract-based claims against any of the "Settling Parties' Released Persons." Bear

Stearns, however, fails to identify any contract with any of the Settling Parties' Release d

Persons, much less any contract-based claim. Also, Bear Stearns objects to the words "by itself"

such claims violated federal policy) ; Wisconsin Inv. Bd. v. Ruttenberg, 300 F. Supp. 2d 1210,1216-1217 (N.D. Ala. 2004) (holding that a court may enter a bar order broader than the expresslanguage of the PSLRA) ; In re hTTC Elec. Tech. S'holder Litig., No. MDL 1059, 2005 U .S . Dist.LEXIS 10312, at * 16 {E .D.N .Y. May 31, 2005) (approving order barring claims for contributionand indemnity ) ; In re WorldCom, Inc . Sec. Litig., No. 02 Civ. 3288, 2005 U.S . Dist . LEXIS3791, at *37-*40 (S .D .N.Y. Mar. 14, 2005) (approving order barring claims for contribution,indemnity and contractual contribution ) ; Neuberger v. Shapiro, 110 F. Supp. 2d 373, 381 (E .D.Pa. 2000) (approving settlement that proposed an order barring claims for indemni ficationamong other claims) .

4 See also FDIC v. McSweeney, 976 F.2d 532, 538 (9th Cir . 1992) (absent a clear congressionalstatement to the contrary, preexisting legal principles are not displaced by a statute's enactment),citing Norfolk Redevelopment & Hous. Auth. v. Chesapeake & Potomac Tel. Co. of Va., 464 U.S .30, 35 (1983) .

See Gerber v, MTC Elec . Tech. Co., 329 F.3d 297, 306-307 (2d Cir . 2003) (barring claims inwhich the injury is the non -settling defendant ' s liability to the plaintiff, while preserving claimsfor "independent" damages) ; In re US Oil & Gas Litig., 967 F.2d 489, 495-96 (11th Cir . 1992)(fraud and negligence claims properly barred because those claims were simply another theory torecover the amount the non-settling defendant paid the plaintiff) .

LEAD PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO BEAR, STEARNS & CO ., ENC .'SOPPOSITION TO THE STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDERMaster File No. 99-CV-20743 RMW (PVT)

-3-

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

1 1

12

13

14

1.5

16

17

18

19

20

2 1

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

in paragraph 10 of the Second Revised Proposed Judgment as somehow ambiguous .6 Lead

Plaintiff does not agree with, nor understand, the perceived ambiguity Bear Stearns claims . "By

itself" makes clear that all available defenses and challenges to Bear Stearns' purported contrac t

[ claim are unaffected by the exclusion from the bar order of Bear Stearns' contract-based claims .

As explained below, there are complete defenses to Bear Stearns' claims, but the Court need no t

[ decide them now in order to preliminarily approve the settlement .

2 . The Judgment Reduction Provisio n

The Second Revised Proposed Judgment eliminates the provision that was disapproved i n

the May 23 Order and leaves unaffected the judgment reduction provision of the PSLRA . I11 .

Bear Stearns does not openly object to paragraph 11 . Rather, Bear Stearns requests that the

Court enter an order elaborating how the judgment reduction provisions of the PSLRA will apply

to this Settlement . Bear Stearns Mem . at 5 . Such an order is unnecessary, however, because the

method for determining the credit is governed by the PSLRA . The PSLRA does not require, an d

no case holds, that non-settling defendants must know the amount of the judgment credit unde r

the PSLRA method . The Second Revised Proposed Judgment actually gives more to the Non-

Settling Defendants than set forth in the PSLRA by providing that each of Defendants' Release d

Persons shall be considered "a covered settling person enter[ing] into a settlement with th e

plaintiff ' in determining the appropriate judgment reduction credit under 15 U.S .C. § 78u-

4(f)(7)(B) . '11 .

Bear Stearns repeats its argument that it requires a final determination of the judgmen t

reduction at this time because such information "will affect the intended trial strategies of Bear

Steams and the dynamics of any potential settlement discussions ." Id. at 6 . Bear Stearns agai n

mistakenly relies on In re Jiffy Lube See. Litig., 927 F.2d 155 (4th Cir. 1991 ) . In Jiffy Lube, the

6 See Bear Stearns & Co. Inc .'s Memorandum Of Points And Authorities In Opposition To The"Stipulation And [Proposed] Order (1) Substituting The Form Of Proposed Final Judgment AndOrder of Dismissal, Attached As Tab A, In Place Of The Form That Is Accompanied (sic) TheMotion For Preliminary Approval Of Class Action Settlement ; And Preliminarily ApprovingSettlement As Submitted" ("Bear Stearns Mem .") at 4 .

LEAD PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO BEAR, STEARNS & CO ., INC.'SOPPOSITION TO THE STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDERMaster File No . 99-CV-20743 RMW (PVT)

-4-

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

1 0

11

12

13

1 4

1 5

1 6

1 7

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

trial court deferred until after trial, not just the amount of the judgment credit, but the method to

be used to determine how the judgment credit would be calculated . Id. at 158 . The Fourth

( I Circuit reversed, stating only that the non-settling defendants were entitled to know the method

I I to be used . Id. at 161 .

Here, the method is plain - the judgment reduction provisions of the PSLRA will apply,

except that Bear Steams will receive the added benefit of the proportionate fault of Defendants '

Released Persons . ¶11 . Bear Stearns, therefore, can develop its trial strategy taking into account

the fault of all such persons . Gerber, 329 F .3d at 305 .

B. The Proposed Judgment Does Not Violat eBear Steams' Contract Rights And Is Not Unfai r

Bear Steams again contends that the Settlement deprives it of contractual rights, namely ,

the purported right to veto any McKesson settlement or, alternatively, to an unconditional

release . See Bear Steams Merry . at 8 . The Court has twice considered this very contention and

found it to be insufficient to prevent preliminary approval .

First, in advance of the March 25, 2005 hearing on Lead Plaintiffs motion for

preliminary approval, the Court summarized the Settlement Agreement's "special provisions to

accommodate the contract between Bear Steams and McKesson" and concluded that, for

purposes of granting preliminary approval, the provisions are not unduly unfair . See [Tentative]

Order re : Bear Stearns' And Arthur Andersen's Objections To Preliminary Approval of Class

Action Settlement (dated March 24, 2005) at 14-15 . As the Court explained, "an unconditional

release of claims against Bear Stearns without any sort of review as to the substance of those

claims is not legally required . . . ." Id. at 15 (emphasis added) . Second, after the next round o f

briefing and argument, the Court identified two grounds for denying preliminary approval

without prejudice - but requiring a blanket release for Bear Steams was not among them . See

May 23 Order .

Far from depriving Bear Stearns of its contract rights, the Second Revised Proposed

Judgment specifically preserves Bear Steams' contract claims, and all of McKesson's defense s

to such claims. ¶14 . Bear Stearns' contract rights are not prejudiced . Likewise, the Second

LEAD PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO BEAR, STEARNS & CO„ INC .'SOPPOSITION TO THE STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER -5-Master File No . 99-CV-20743 RMW (PVT)

I

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

1 4

1 5

16

17

18

19

20

2 1

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Revised Proposed Judgment also preserves McKesson's contract claims against Bear Steams ,

[ and Bear Stearns' defenses to such claims .

Bear Stearns also has a mechanism to obtain the release to which it claims entitlement i f

its contract is valid . That is : If a court of competent jurisdiction determines that Bear Steam s

I has a valid indemnification claim against McKesson, Lead Plaintiff and the Settlement Class wil l

I release their § 14(a) claim against Bear Stearns . ¶1 3

The Court need not decide now (for purposes of preliminary approval) whether th e

purported contractual obligations to obtain a release for Bear Steams are valid and enforceable .

That issue is preserved . The reality, however, is that Bear Steams most assuredly is not entitle d

to its claimed release for multiple reasons . For instance, it is well-settled that violators of the

federal securities laws cannot claim indemnification . As the Ninth Circuit has explained ,

I indemnity is unavailable because such an arrangement "tends to frustrate and defeat" the policies

of the securities laws by permitting a wrongdoer "to escape loss by shifting his entire

responsibility to another party ." Laventhol, Krekstein, Horwath & Horvath v . Horwitch, 637

F.2d 672, 676 (9th Cir. 1980) . This prohibition against indemnification for violators of the

federal securities laws applies to claims that sound in mere negligence, like Lead Plaintiffs

§ 14(a) claim, and to contractual indemnification. 7

The provision purporting to obligate McKesson to obtain a release from Bear Steams i s

included in the "Indemnification Provisions" attached to the October 14, 1998 Retention Letter .

On its face, the purported right is an indemnity provision that would "frustrate and defeat" th e

policies of the securities laws by permitting violators to escape responsibility through indemnity .

7 See Eichenholtz v. Brennan, 52 F.3d 478, 484 (3d Cir . 1995) (rejecting contractual indemnitybecause "such claims run counter to the policies underlying the federal securities acts .") ;Franklin v. Kaypro Corp., 884 F .2d 1222, 1232 (9th Cir. 1989) ("One of the most importantchanges brought about by [the Securities Act of 1933 and the Exchange Act of 1934] was that[the legislation] made accountable all parties who were responsible for public reports .") ; Stewartv, American Int'l Oil & Gas Co., 845 F.2d 196, 200 (9th Cir . 1988) ; Laventhol, 637 F.2d 672; Inre Wilshire Tech. Sec. Litig., 887 P. Supp. 236 (S .D . Cal . 1995) ; Gould v. American-HawaiianS.S. Co ., 387 F . Supp . 163, 166-68 (D. Del . 1974) (disallowing indemnity for violations of §14(a)), vacated on other grounds, 535 F .2d 761 (3d Cir . 1976) .

LEAD PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO BEAR, STEARNS & CO ., INC,'SOPPOSITION TO THE STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDERMaster File No . 99-CV-20743 RMW (PVT)

-6-

1

2

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

2 1

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

The only way that McKesson could have obtained a release for Bear Stearns, other than th e

release in ¶13, would have been to pay additional consideration on Bear Stearns' behalf (i .e ., to

indemnify Bear Stearns). That the purported release is an indemnity provision is evident fro m

J the remedy Bear Stearns could attempt to seek against McKesson. Any claimed contract

damages would be measured by the amount Bear Stearns would be required to pay to Lea d

Plaintiff by way of settlement or judgment in this case . Indeed, Bear Stearns confirrns in it s

opposing brief that any claim against McKesson will be to recover amounts it pays to Lead

Plaintiff. See Bear Stearns Merv . at 11 . Such indemnity is void as against public policy . See,

e .g., Laventhol, 637 F.2d at 676 . In other words, Bear Stearns has attempted to write itself a

"free pass" to violate the federal securities laws, and it demands that this Court now accept it ,

At the May 20, 2005 hearing, counsel for McKesson suggested an additional way in

C which a court of competent jurisdiction may find that Bear Stearns would not be entitled t o

indemnification of the § 14(a) claims, namely, proof that Bear Stearns acted with gross

negligence or willful misconduct . See Bear Stearns Mem. 10. That is true, and the record

developed through discovery establishes Bear Stearns' knowing misconduct . Gross negligence

or willful misconduct is by no means the exclusive grounds on which Bear Stearns has no right to

indemnity from McKesson and will not be released - as explained above, negligent violators of

§14(a) cannot seek to avoid responsibility through indemnity . See, e.g., Gould, 387 F. Supp. at

1 b6-68. It is worth repeating that the Court need not decide at this juncture the validity of Bear

Stearns' purported contract rights because the claims and defenses are preserved .

Bear Stearns argues in a footnote that "`written consent' contract terms are routinel y

enforced." Bear Stearns Mem. at 9, n .8 . None of the cases that Bear Stearns cites, however, ar e

even remotely relevant to this case .$ Indeed, Bear Stearns cites no precedent in which a cour t

8 See American Broadcasting Cos, v. Wolf, 430 N.Y.S.2d 275 (N .Y .A.D . 1980) (employmentcontract providing right of first refusal to match other offers) ; Degree Sec. Sys., Inc. v. F.A .B .Land Corp., 756 N.Y .S.2d 248 (N.Y.A.D. 2003) (contract for sale of real estate granting right offirst refusal ) ; Cipriano v . Glen Cove Lodge, 769 N.Y.S.2d 168 (N .Y . 2003) ( same ) ; 148 Inv .Group, Inc. v. Elvis Presley Enter., Inc., No. 93-6444, 1995 WL 283785 (6th Cir . May 10, 1995)LEAD PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO BEAR, STEARN'S & CO., INC.' SOPPOSITION TO THE STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER -7-Master File No . 99-CV-20743 RMW (PVT)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

1 4

15

16

17

1 8

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

rejected a class action settlement based on a non-settling defendant's contested contractual clai m

to be released as part of any settlement . 9

Bear Stearns further contends that it is being treated "unfairly" because it was not invite d

to participate in the settlement on the same terms as the Individual Defendants , with whom it

claims to be similarly situated . Bear Stearns ' s contention that Lead Plaintiff must offer the same

settlement terms to all similarly situated parties is not supported by the authorities it cites . In In

re Consolidated Pinnacle West Sec. Litig./Resolution Trust Corp .-Merabank Litig., 51 F.3d 194,

196-97 n.6 (9th Cir. 1995), cert. denied 516 U.S . 1071 (1996 ), the court merely observed in a

footnote that the district court made a factual finding that the non-se ttling parties were offered an

opportunity to participate in the settlement on the same terms as the settling parties .'() Nothing in

that decision establishes this as a requirement .

In re WorldCom, Inc. Sec . Litig., No. 02 Civ . 3288 , 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3791, at *37-

*40 (S .D.N .Y. Mar . 14, 2005), is similarly unhelpful to Bear Steams . The WorldCom decision

(unpublished) (lease of personal property restricting certain commercial uses without expressconsent and written agreement) ; Golden Gate Acceptance Corp . v. General Motors Corp., 597F .2d 676 (9th Cir . 1979) (franchise agreement requiring consent of franchisor to change inlocation) .

9 Bear Stearns' authority is off point . See Bear Steams Mem. at 7-8 . Bear Stearns cites In reMasters Mates & Pilots Pension Plan, 957 `.2d 1020 (2d Cir . 1992), for the point that thesettlement cannot be approved if it violates Bear Stearns' due process rights . Master Mates isnot remotely similar . There, the court reversed approval of an ERISA settlement because thedistrict court failed to consider the relative fault of the settling parties when approving thesettlement credit . That is not the case here . Bears Stearns also attempts to rely on Civil Rightsand environmental law cases involving objections to consent decrees . Such cases are inappositeand easily distinguished . Among other differences, none of those eases involved a contestedcontract or a settlement agreement that specifically preserved the objector's contract-basedclaims . See, e.g., Local No . 93 Int'l Assn of Firefighters v. City of Cleveland 478 U.S . 501,528-530 (1986) (affirming consent decree over objection of the Union because the "consentdecree does not purport to resolve any claims the Union might have . . . as a matter of contract"and stating "[i]t has never been supposed that one party . . . could preclude other parties fromsettling their own disputes and thereby withdrawing from litigation . . . [the objector] does nothave power to block the decree merely by withholding its consent") .

1° In its opposition, Bear Stearns invents a list of "factors" and asserts that courts consider themwhen a non-settling defendant objects to a settlement . See Bear Stearns Mem. at 6-7 ( listingfactors and citing Pinnacle and WorldCom) . Bear Stearns' cases do not support its assertion .

LEAD PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO BEAR, STEARNS & CO ., INC,' SOPPOSITION TO THE STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER -&

Master File No. 99-CV-20743 RMW (PVT)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

1 5

16

17

18

19

20

21

2 2

23

24

25

26

27

28

involved a settlement by co-underwriters of bond offerings, each of whom underwrote a

percentage of the same offerings . The issue raised by the non-settling underwriter was whethe r

the judgment reduction formula provided in the settlement treated it unfairly . It was in that

I context that the court stated in dictum that a showing of procedural unfairness, such as a showin g

by the non-settling defendant that the plaintiff had refused to settle with it on the same terms as

the other underwriters, might require the court to give the settlement "a higher degree of scrutiny

to assure that there was no collusion involved." 2005 U.S . Dist . LEXIS 3791, at *34 . The

decision simply cannot be read to suggest that Lead Plaintiff here is required to treat Bea r

Stearns, the investment bank that promoted the merger between McKesson and HBOC, the same

as McKesson, HBOC and the Individual Defendants .

Unlike the co-underwriters in WorldCom, who were similarly situated because they wer e

liable for underwriting percentages of the same bond offerings, Bear Stearns' situation is no t

remotely similar to McKesson, HBOC or the Individual Defendants . The mere fact that Bear

Stearns claims a purported right to indemnity from McKesson does not make it "similarly

situated." Among other things, the Individual Defendants are former and current employees of

HBOC and McKesson . McKesson's and HBOC's liability, therefore, is derived from the

liability of the Individual Defendants ." Bear Stearns, however, is liable for its own fals e

statements and its own misconduct . Clearly, no authority requires Lead Plaintiff to ignore suc h

differences .

11 It should be noted in this connection that McKesson has expressly reserved the right to pursueclaims against the Individual Defendants, which right is provided by § 2ID(f)(7)(A)(ii) of thePSLRA, 15 U .S.C . § 78u-4(f)(7)(A)(ii) . 112.

LEAD PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO BEAR, STEARNS & CO ., INC.'SOPPOSITION TO THE STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDERMaster File No . 99-CV-20743 RMW (PVT)

-9-

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

I I

1 2

1 3

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

2 1

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

III . CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, Lead Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court accept the

Settling Pa rt ies' Second Revised Proposed Judgment and preliminarily approve the Settlement .

Dated : August 5, 2005 BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGE R& GROSSMANN LLP

DAV R. STIC 'EY

ALAN SCHULMANROBERT S . GANSDAVID R. STICKNEYTIMOTHY A . DeLANGE12544 High Bluff Drive, Suite 150San Diego , CA 92130Tel : (858) 793-0070Fax : (858) 793-0323

-and-MAX W. BERGERROCHELLE FEDER HANSEN1285 Avenue of the AmericasNew York, NY 1001 9Tel : (212) 554-1400Fax : (212) 554-144 4

Dated: August 5, 2005 BARRACK, RODOS & BACIN E

:k,- 4lz c . -f " r //fi t

M. RICHARD KOMIN S

LEONARD BARRACKGERALD J . RODOSM . RICHARD KOMINSJEFFREY A. BARRACK3300 Two Commerce Square2001 Market StreetPhiladelphia , PA 19103Tel: (215) 963-0600Fax: (215) 963 0838

-and-

LEAD PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO BEAR, STEARNS & CO ., INC.'SOPPOSITION TO THE STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDERMaster File No . 99-CV-20743 RMW (PVT)

..10-

STEPHEN R. BASSER402 West Broadway, Suite 850San Diego , CA 9210 1Tel : (619) 230-0800Fax : (619) 2' )0 1874

Attorneys for Lead Plaintiff The New YorkState Common Retirement Fund andCo-Lead Counsel for the Clas s

. .ODMA''CDOCS LHOCWa9349 .

LEAD PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO BEAR, STEARNS & CO ., INC.'SOPPOSITION TO THE STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDERMaster File No. 99-CV-20743 R.MW (PVT)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

1.0

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER BARRACK, RODOS & BACINE& GROSSMANN LLP LEONARD BARRACK

ALAN SCHULMAN (Bar No . 128661) GERALD J . RODOSROBERT S. GANS (Bar No . 214420) M. RICHARD KOMIN SDAVID R. STICKNEY (Bar No . 188574) JEFFREY A. BARRACKTIMOTHY A . DeLANGE (Bar No. 190768) 3300 Two Commerce Square12544 High Bluff Drive, Suite 150 2001 Market Stree tSan Diego, CA 92130 Philadelphia, PA 1910 3Tel: (858) 793-0070 Tel : (215) 963-0600Fax : (858) 793-0323 Fax : (215) 963-083 8

-and- -and-MAX W. BERGER STEPHEN R. BASSER (Bar No. 121590 )ROCHELLE FEDER HANSEN MARISA C. LIVESAY (Bar No . 223247 )1285 Avenue of the Americas 402 West Broadway, Suite 85 0New York, NY 10019 San Diego, CA 9210 1Tel: (212) 554-1400 Tel: (619) 230-0800Fax : (212) 554-1444 Fax: (619) 230-1874

Attorneys for Lead PlaintiffThe New York State Common Retiremen tFund and Co-Lead Counsel for the Class

UNITED STATES D ISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

In re McKESSON HBOC, INC . Master File No . 99-CV-20743 RM WSECURITIES LITIGATION And Related Case s

CLASS ACTION

This Document Relates To :

ALL ACTIONS .

DECLARATION OF SERVICE

DECLARATION OF SERVICEMaster File No . 99-CV-20743 RMW

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

DECLARATION OF SERVICE

1, the undersigned, declare :

That I am and was, at all. times herein mentioned , a citizen of the United States

and a resident of the County of San Diego, over the age of 18 years, and not a party to or

interested in the within action.; that declarant's business address is 12544 High Bluff Drive, Suit e

150, San Diego , CA 92130 .

2 . That on August 5, 2005, 1 caused to be served the following documents :

+ LEAD PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO BEAR STEARNS & CO .INC.'S OPPOSITION TO THE STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED]ORDER (1) SUBSTITUTING THE FORM OF PROPOSE DFINAL JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF DISMISSAL AND(2) PRELIMINARILY APPROVING SETTLEMENT ASSUBMITTED; and

DECLARATION OF SERVICE .

by placing a true copy(i.es) thereof enclosed in sealed envelopes addressed as follows :

SEE ATTACHED SERVICE LIS T

(BY U.S. MAIL) I am personally and readily familiar with the business practiceof Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP for collection and processing ofcorrespondence for mailing with the United States Postal Service, and I causedsuch envelope(s) with postage thereon filly prepaid to be placed in the UnitedStates Postal Service at San Diego, California .

❑ (BY FACSIMILE) I am personally and readily familiar with . the businesspractice of Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP for collection. andprocessing of document(s) to be transmitted by facsimile and I caused suchdocument(s) on this date to be transmitted by facsimile to the offices ofaddressee(s) at the numbers listed below (as indicated by * on attached ServiceList) .

❑ (BY OVERNIGHT MAIL) I am personally and readily familiar with thebusiness practice of Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP for collectionand processing of correspondence for overnight delivery, and I caused suchdocument(s) described herein to be deposited for delivery to a facility regularlymaintained by Federal Express for overnight delivery (as indicated by * onattached Service List) .

❑ (BY ELECTRONIC MAIL) Pursuant to Civil L .R. 5-5(a)(1) and F.R.C .P. 5(b),I am personally and readily familiar with . the business practice of BernsteinLitowitz Berger & Grossmann LLB' for collection and processing of document(s)to be transmitted electronically in Portable Document Format (PDF), and 1. causedsuch document(s) on this date to be transmitted electronically to the offices of theemail addressee(s) listed below .

DECLARATION OF SERVICEMaster File No . 99-CV-20743 RMW

_1-

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

® (FEDERAL) I declare that I am employed in the office of a member of the bar ofthis Court at whose direction the service was made .

3. That there is a regular communication by mail between the place of mailing and

the places so addressed .

4. I further declare, pursuant to Civil L .R. 23-2, that on this date I served a copy of

the above-listed document(s) on the Securities Class Action Clearinghouse by electronic mail

through the following electronic mail address provided by the Securities Class Action

Clearinghouse :

[email protected]

I declare under penalty of perjury, under the laws of the State of California, that the

foregoing is true and correct. Dated this 5th day of August 2005 .

YE A. MARTIN

DECLARATION OF SERVICEMaster File No. 99-CV-20743 RMW

-2-

IN RE McKESSON HBOC INC .SERVICE LISTAugust 5, 200 5Page 1

ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS :

Martin D . ChitwoodDavid J . WorleyStuart GuberCHITWOOD & HARLEY LLP

2900 Promenade 1.11230 Peachtree Street, N.E.Atlanta, GA 30309Tel : (404) 873-3900Fax : (404) 876-4476

Linda M . FongKAPLAN FOX & KILSHEIMER LL P555 Montgomery StreetSan Francisco , CA 94111Tel : (415) 772-4700Fax : (415) 772-4707

Samuel P. SpornChristopher LomettiSCHOENGOLD & SPORN, PC19 Fulton Street, Suite 406New York, NY 10038Tel : (212) 964-0046Fax : (212) 267-8137

Jeffrey C . ZwerlingZWERLING, SCHACTER

& ZWERLING, LLP41 Madison AvenueNew York, NY 1001 0Tel : (516) 832-9600Fax: (516) 832-960 5

ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANTS :Ellen M. DoyleMALAKOFF DOYLE & FINEBERG P C437 Grant Stree tFrick Building, Suite 200Pittsburgh, PA 15219-6002Tel: (412) 281-8400Fax : (412) 281-3262

Steven J . RossROSS LAW FIR M1015 Atlantic Blvd., Suite 306Atlantic Beach, FL 32233Tel : (904) 249-8799Fax: (309) 413-9137

Gwyn Quillen*ALSCHULER GROSSMAN STEIN

& KAHAN LL PThe Water Garden, North Tower1620 26th Street, Fourth FloorSanta Monica, CA 90404-4060Tel : (310) 907-1000Fax: (310) 907-2000gquillen vagsk.cornAttorneys for Defendant Arthur Andersen

LLP

IN RE McKESSON HBOC, NC.-SERVICE LISTAugust 5, 2005Pane 2

Jonathan M. HoffGregory Zimme r*CADWALADER, WICKERSHAM

& TAFT LLPI World Financial CenterNew York, NY 10281Tel : (212) 504-6000Fax: (212) 504-6666jonathan.hoff@cwt [email protected] for Defendant Bear Stearns & Co .

Paul A. RenneCharles M. Schaible

COOLEY GODWARD LLP1 Maritime Plaza, 20t Floor

San Francisco, CA 94111-3580

Tel: (415) 693-200 0

Fax : (415) 951-3699Attorneys for Defendant Albert J. Bergonz i

David J . RomanskiRachel E . Matteo-BoehmDLA PIPER RUDNICK GRAY

CARY US LLP333 Market Street, 32nd FloorSay. Francisco, CA 94105Tel: (415) 777-3999Fax : (415) 442-0856Attorneys for Defendant Mark A . Pulido

James T . FousekisDouglas R . YoungC. Brandon WisoffThomas MayhewFARELLA BRAUN & MARTEL LLP235 Montgomery Street, 30`h FloorSan Francisco, CA 94104Tel: (415) 954-4400Fax: (415) 954-4480 (4481 )Attorneys for Defendant Heidi F. Yodowitz

J . Philip KirchnerFLASTER GREENBERG, P .C .1810 Chapel Avenue West, 3rd FloorCherry Hill, NJ 08002-4609Tel: (856) 661-1900Fax : (856) 661-191 9Attorneys for Defendant Michael G .Smeraski

David B . HennesEric Hirsch.Simi Saran Ahuj aFRIED, FRANK, HARRIS,

SHRIVER & JACOBSON LLPOne New York PlazaNew York, NY 10004Tel: (212) 859-8000Fax: (212) 859-4000Attorneys for Defendant Mark A . Pulido

IN RE McKESSON HBOC INC.SERVICE LIS TAugust 5, 2005

Michael J . ShepardMichael L. CharlsonHoward S . CaroMichael A. ZwibelmanHELLER EHRMAN LLP333 Bush StreetSan Francisco, CA 94104-2878Tel: (415) 772-6000Fax : (415) 772-626 8Attorneys for Defendant Charles W. JVJcCal l

Dorothy Yates KirkleyPenn PayneKIRKLEY & HAWKER LL C999 Peachtree Street, NE, Suite 1640Atlanta, GA 30309Tel: (404) 892-8781Fax : (404) 892-3662Attorneys for Defendant Albert .I. Bergonzi

Stan G. RomanTracy Clement s*KRIEG, KELLER, SLOAN, REILLY

& ROMAN LLP114 Sansome Street , 7`h FloorSan Francisco , CA 94104Tel: (415) 249-833 0Fax: (415) 249-8333sroman @kksrr.comtc lernents@kksrr. comAttorneys for Defendant Arthur AndersenLLP

Paul H. DawesPatrick Gibbs

Jacqueline D . Molnar

*LATHAM & WATKINS LLP135 Commonwealth Driv eMenlo Park, CA 94025Tel: (650) 328-4600Fax : (650) 463-2600paul.dawes@iw [email protected] acqueline . molnar@lw. comAttorneys for Defendant Bear Stearns & Co .

William F . AldermanORRICK, H.ERRINGTON

& SUTCLIFFE LLPThe Orrick Building405 Howard Stree tSan Francisco, CA 941.05-2669Tel : (415) 773-5700Fax : (415) 773-5759Attorneys for Defendant Richard H.

Hawkins

Grace A. CarterEdward HanBraden Wilhel mPAUL, HASTINGS, JANOFSKY

& WALKER LLP55 Second Street, 24`h FloorSan Francisco , CA 94105-3441

Tel : (415) 856-7000

Fax : (415) 856-7100Attorneys for Defendant Jay P. Gilbertson

IN RE MCKESSON HBOC INC .SERVICE LISTAugust 5, 200 5Pane 4

John Parker

Eric Jon TaylorPAUL, HASTINGS, JANOFSKY

& WALKER LLP600 Peachtree Street, NE, Suite 240 0Atlanta, GA 30308Tel: (404) 815-2400Fax : (404) 815-2424Attorneys for Defendant Jay P. Gilbertson

Moses SilvermanAlex Young K. Oh.Farrah R. BersePAUL, WEISS, RIFKIND, WHARTON

& GARRISON LLP1285 Avenue of the AmericasNew York, NY 10019-6064Tel: (2.12) 373-3000Fax : (212) 757-399 0Attorneys for Defendant Charles W. McCall

Tony G. PowersKimberly L. MyersROGERS & HARDIN LLP2700 International Tower, Peachtree Center229 Peachtree Street, N .E .Atlanta, GA 30303-1601Tel: (404) 522-4700Fax : (404) 525-2224Attorneys for Defendant Jay M Lapane

Mark J . SteinSIMPSON THATCHER

& BARTLETT LLP425 Lexington AvenueNew York, NY 10017Tel: (212) 455-2310Fax : (212) 455-2502Attorneys, far Defendant Mark A . Pulido

James E . LyonsTimothy A . Miller*SKA.DDEN, ARPS, SLATE ,

MEAGHER & FLOM LL P4 Embarcadero Center, Suite 3800San Francisco, CA 94111-4144Tel: (415) 984-6400Fax: (415) 984-2698

jlyonsGskadden .cotmiller@skadden .com

Attorneys for Defendants McKesson HBOC,

Inc. and TIRO & Company

Jonathan J . Lerner*SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE ,

MEAGHER & FLOM LLP4 Times Squar eNew York, NY 10036-6522Tel: (212) 735-3000Fax: (212) 735-2000jlern.er aDskadden .comAttorneys for Defendants McKesson HBOC,

Inc. and HBO & Company

William. M. GoodmanLyn R. AgreTOPEL & GOODMAN832 Sansome Street, 4"' FloorSan Francisco, CA 94111Tel: (415) 421-61 .40Fax: (415) 398-503 0Attorneys for Defendant Jay M. Lapine

IN RE McKESSON HBOC, INC .SERVICE LIS TAugust 5, 2005

Page 5

ATTORNEYS FOR NON-PARTIES:

David C . AnsonLAW OFFICES OF DAVID C. ANSON2433 E. Avenida de Posad aTucson, AZ 85718Tel : (520) 299-5809Fax : (520) 529-0407Attorneys for Plaintiffs in Hess v . McKessonFLBOC, Inc.

Stephen H. KuppermanBARRASSO USDIN KUPPERMAN

FREEMAN & SARVER LLC909 Poydras Street, Suite 1800New Orleans, LA 7011 2Tel: (504) 589-9700Fax : (504) 589-970 1Attorneys for Plaintiffs in Baker v.

McKesson JIBOC, Inc.

John F . Cove, Jr .Kieran RinggenbergBOIES , SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP1999 Harrison Street, Suite 900Oakland, CA 94612Tel: (510) 874-1000Fax: (510) 874-1460Attorneys for WebMD Corporation in theMerrill Lynch Funds Action

H . Lamar MixsonJill A. PryorJason M . FreierBON-DL'RANT, MIXSON

& ELMORE, LLP3900 One Atlantic Center1201 West Peachtree StreetAtlanta, GA 3030 9Tel: (404 ) 881-4100Fax: (404) 881-411 1Attorneys for Holcombe T. Green

Frederick S . FieldsCOBLENTZ PATCH DUFFY & BAS SI Ferry Building, Suite 200San Francisco, CA 94111Tel : (415) 772-5709Fax : (415) 989-1663Attorneys for McKesson HBOC, Inc . andHBO & Company in the Merrill LynchFunds Action

Josef D. CooperTracy R. KirkhamJohn BogdanorCooper & Kirkham655 Montgomery Street , Suite 1700San Francisco , CA 9411 1Tel : (415) 788-3030Fax : (415 ) 882-7040Attorneys for Plaintiff State of Oregon, byand through the Oregon Public EmployeesRetirement Board in the Pension FundActions

IN RE McKESSON HBOC INC .SERVICE LIS TAugust 5, 2005

Page 6

Bruce L. SimonPeter E. BaranCOTCHETT, PITRE, SIMON &

MCCARTHY840 Malcolm Road , Suite 200Burlingame , CA 9401 0Tel: (650) 697-6000Fax : (650 ) 697-0577Attorneys for Plaintiffs in the Yurick Action

Samuel R . MillerDavid P . BartonFOLGER, LEVIN & KAHN, LLP275 Battery St ., 23rd Flr .San Francisco, CA 94111Tel : (415) 986-2800Fax : (415) 986-2827Attorneys for Defendants HBOC Outside

Directors and Michael Kappel and ChristineRumsey in In re McKesson LIBOC, Inc .

ERISA Litigatio n

Charles S . WeemsGOLD, WEEMS, BRUSER, SUES

& RUNDELL2001 MacArthur DriveAlexandria, LA 71307Tel : (318) 445-6471Fax : (318) 445-6476Attorneys for Plaintiffs in Baker v .McKesson HBOC, Inc.

Robert S . GreenGREEN WELLING595 Market Street, Suite 2750San Francisco , CA 94105Tel : (415) 477-6700Fax : (415) 477-671 0Attorneys for Plaintiffs in Cohen v. McCall

Michael P . ConwayGary M . EldenGRIPPO & ELDE N1 i 1 South Wacker DriveChicago, IL 60606Tel : (312) 704-7700Fax : (312) 558-119 5Attorneys for Plaintiffs in Bea v . McKesson

HBOC, Inc., Jacobs v. McKesson HBO C,

Inc. and Jacobs v. HBO & Company

Elizabeth J . CabraserRichard M. HeimannLIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN

& BERNSTEIN, LL PEmbarcadero Center West275 Battery Street, 30th FloorSan Francisco , CA 94111Tel: (415) 956-1000Fax: (415 ) 956-1008Attorneys for Plaintiffs in Merrill LynchFundamental Growth Fund, Inc. v.

McKesson HBOC, Inc.

Steven E. FinemanDavid S . StellingsDaniel P. ChiplockLIEFF, CABRASER, HEIMANN

& BERNSTEIN, LLP780 Third Avenue, 48th FloorNew York, NY 1001 7Tel : (212) 355-9500Fax: (212) 355-959 2Attorneys for Plaintiffs Merrill LynchFundamental Growth Fund, Inc. and Merrill

Lynch Global Value Fund, Inc. in the

Merrill Lynch Funds Action

IN RE McKESSON HBOC, INC .SERVICE LISTAugust 5, 2005

Pane 7

Ronald S . KravitzKim ZeldinLINER YANKELEVITZ SUNSHINE

& REGENSTREIF LLP199 Fremont Street, Suite 2000San Francisco, CA 9410 5Tel : (415) 489-7700Fax : (415) 489-770 1Attorneys for Plaintiffs In re McKessonHBOC, Inc . ERISA Litigation

Jerry SchreibsteinLOUDERBACH LAW FIRMOne Embarcadero Center, Suite 2300San Francisco, CA 9411 1Tel: (415) 398-7860Fax : (415) 398-7863Attorneys for Plaintiffs in Cater v .McKesson HBOC, Inc.

James McManisColleen Duffy SmithMCMANIS FAULKNER & MORGAN50 West San Fernando Street, 10`h FloorSan Jose, CA 9511 3Tel: (408) 279-8700Fax : (408) 279-3244Attorneys for Plaintiffs in Pacha v.McKesson HBOC, Inc.

J. Brian McTigueMCTIGUE LAW FIR __M.5301 Wisconsin Avenue, N .W., Suite 350Washington, D.C. 2001 5Tel: (202) 364-6900Fax (202) 364-9960Attorneys for Plaintiff In re McKesson

.IBOC, Inc. ERISA Litigation

Dorothy L . FernandezMelvin R. GoldmanPaul T . FriedmanMORRISON & FOERSTER LLP425 Market StreetSan Francisco , CA 94105Tel : (415) 268-7000Fax : (415) 268-7522Attorneys for Tully M. Friedman, John M.Pietruski, Carl Reichardt, Jane Shaw,Robert Waterman , Mary Bitterinan , DavidPottruck and Alan Seelenfreund

Michael J . FreedCarol V . GildenMUCH SHELIST FREED DENENBERG

AMENT & RUBENSTEIN, P .C .191 N. Wacker Drive, Suite 1800Chicago, IL 60606Tel: (312) 521-2000Fax: (312) 521-210 0Attorneys for Plaintiffs in Pacha v.

McKesson HBOC, Inc.

Jeffrey L . BleichHojoon HwangMUNGER, TOLLES & OLSON LLP560 Mission Street, 27`h FloorSan Francisco , CA 94105Tel : (415) 512-4000Fax : (415) 512-4077Attorneys for Holcombe T Green

IN RE McKESSON HBOC, INC .SERVICE LISTAugust 5, 200 5

D. M. "Chip" RawlingsThad A. DavisQUINN EMANUEL URQUHART

OLIVER & HEDGES, LLP865 Figueroa Street, 10th FloorLos Angeles , CA 9001.7-2543Tel: (213) 624-7707Fax: (213) 624-064 3Attorneys for General Electric CapitalCorporation , Inc. in the Merrill Lynch

Funds Action

Donald J . QuerioSEVERSON & WERSONI Embarcadero Center, 26th FloorSan Francisco, CA 9411 1Tel: (415) 398-3344Fax : (415) 956-0439Attorneys for Plaintiffs in Jacobs v.

McKesson I]BOC, Inc. and Jacobs v. HBO

& Company

N. Robert StollScott A. ShorrSTOLL STOLL BERNE LOKTING

& SHLACHTER P .C .209 S.W. Oak Street, Suite 500Portland, OR 97204Tel: (503) 227-1600Fax: (503) 227-6840Attorneys for Plaintiffs in State of Oregon v.

McKesson HBOC, Inc. and State of Oregon

v. Bear Stearns, et al.

Kevin. V. Ryan

C. Ben Burch

John H. Hemann

Timothy Crudo

U.S . ATTORNEY'S OFFICE450 Golden Gate AvenueSan. Francisco, CA 94102Tel: (415) 436-6991Fax : (415) 436-7234

* Designates service by e-mai l

_ :OI3MA\1 C DOCS`,BLf3G C1Ati3 2 S3',5