1:44PM NATIONAL ARCH:VESMAY. I. 2009 NO, 0240 P . 3/20jk)UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

MANISHA PATEL, on behalf orherself end &litCivil Action No JUDGE WOOD

others similarly situated,

Plaintiff,FEDERAL SECURITIESCLASS ACTEON COMPLAINT

-against.

CREDIT SUISSE FIRST BOSTON LLC, Fa/AC.TREDIT SUBS F FIRST BOSTON

jury Trial Demanded03 cv

CORPORATION and CURT LAU-NER, 3 7 4 4Defendants.

Plaintiff, individually and on behatf of all other persons similarly situated, by her

undersigned attorneys, .for her complaint, alleges upon personal knowledge as to herself and her own_

acts and upon information and belief' as to all her maiLers, based upon the investigation made

and through her attorneys, which investigation included a review of analyst reports publisl-4 and

disseminated to the investing public by Credit Suisse First Boston LLC, f/lea CrediEuisse First -

Boston Corporation ("CSFB") on NewPower Hoidins, Inc. {"NPW" or the "Company"), 1nitern4l

communications of CSFB employees and recent public filings by the United States Securities and

Exchange Commission ("SEC") attacking the in(..ependence and accuracy of CSPB's research

reports, as well as additional publicly available information:

NATURE OF ACTION

1. This is a securities class action on behalf ofpublic investors who purchased the. common

stock of NP Vyr during the period From October 5, 2000 through December 5. 2001 (the -Class

Period .). Named as defendants are CSFB and CSFB lead energy analyst C.'urt Launer. The•

defendants arc charged with violations of Section 10(h) oldie Securities Exchange Act of 1934

MAY. 1. 206'9 '1:4PM NATION.AL ARCHIVES NO. 0240

("Exchange Act") and Rule 10'.-)-5 promulgated thereunder. C.S.FB is also charged with violations

of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act_

2. During the Class Period, defendants issued to the investing public false and misleading

analyst reports on NPW , an energy company, without disclosing. at tirnes, that CSFB held a 7.9%

proprietary interest in NPW and never disclosing that Laurier and another analyst also owned stock

in NPW.

3. As a result of defendants' false and misleading statements, the market price or NPW

common stock was arti fciaI1y inflated, maintained or stabilized during the Class Period, to the injury

o fplainti if and the other Class members who purchased the stock at Ow time relying on the inlegrity

of the market price of the stock.

4. On or about April 28, 2003, the SEC issued a complaint charging CSFB with violatine

numerous rulosoCconduct of the National Association ofSecurities Dealers, Inc. ("NASD") and the

New York Stock Exchange, Inc. ("NYSE"), by issuing false and misleading analyst reports on

numerous companies, including NPW_ The complaint describes the influence and control exerted

by CSFEt's investment bankers on its supposedly independent research analysts, and details now

positive ratings and research reports on NPW issued by defendants to the public were influenced by

defendants' conflict of interests in owning stock 0 r NPW, which were often not disclosed.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

5. The lanris asserted below arise under §§10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C.

§§78,t(b) and 78t(a), and Rule 10h-S promulgated thereunder by the Securities and Exchange

Commission ("SEC"), 17 C_F.R. §240.10b-5_

-2-

'AY. 1. 2009 1:46PM NATIONAL A.=;CHlvES C. 0241 F. 5/20

6. Jurisdiction is conferred upon this Court by §27 of the Exchange Act, 15 USC.§7baa,

and 28 U_S_C. §§1331 and 1337.

7. Venue is proper in this District pursuant to §27 of the Exchange Act and 28 LT S.C.

§1391(b) since defendants have their principal place of business in this District, and many of the acts

alleged herein. including the dissemination of the misleading statements to the investing public,

occurred in substantial part in this District.

8. n connection with the acts, conduct and other wrongs alleged herein, defendants,

directly and Indirectly, used the moans and instrumentalities or interstate commerce, including the

United States mai ls, interstate telephonic communications and the facilities of the national securities

exchanges.

• THE PARTIES

• Plaintiff

9. Plaintiff purchased shares or 1\1PW common stock during the Class Period as set forth

in the accompanying certification and has been damaged as a result of defendants misconduct as

described herein.

Defendants

10, Defendant CSFB is a global investment bank serving institutional, corporate,

government and individual clients. CSF13 is also a broker-dealer registered with the SEC and is a

member of all principal securities and commodity exchanges, including the NYSE and NASD.

CSF13's businesses include securities underwriting, sales and trading, investment banking, private

equity. financial advisory services, investment research, venture capital, correspondent brokerage

-3-

MAY. 1. N09 1:44PM NATIONAL ARCHIVES NO. 0240 P. 6/20

services and asset management. csra has corporate headquarters at 11 Madison Avenue, New

York, New York 10010.

11. Defendant Curt Laurier ("Launer") is a Senior Analyst in CSFEi's Energy Group.

Defendant Launer authored many of the false and misleading reports on NTPW.

CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS

12. Plaintiff brings this action as a class action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

23(a) and (b)(3) on behalf of all persons who purchased shares of NPW common stock during the

period from October 5, 2000 through December 5, 2001, both dates inclusive (the "Class")

Excluded from the Class are defendants; members of the individual defendant's immediate family;

officers; directors, subsidiaries or affiliates of CSFB; any entity in which any excluded person has

a controlling interest; and legal representatives, heirs, successors or assigns of any of the foregoing.

13. The members of the Class are so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable.

While the exact number of Class members is unknown to plaintiff at tbis time and can only be

ascertained through appropriate discovery, plaintiff believes there are, at a minimum, thousands of

members of thc Class who purchased NPW common stock during the Class Period.

14, Common questions °flaw and fact exist as to all members o ['the Class and predominate

over any questions affecting solely individual members of the Class. Among the questions of law

and fact common to the Class are

• whether defendants engaged in acts or conduct in violation of the federalsecurities laws as alleged herein;

• whether defendants participated in and pursued the common course of conductcomplained of herein;

-4-

MAY. 1, 20(19 1:45 1D M NATIONAL ARCHIVES NO. 024.0' P. 7/20

• whether defendants issued false and misleading statements during the ClassPeriod;

• . whether the market prices of the Company's common stock during the ClassPeriod was artificially inflated because of the defendants conduct complained ofherein; and

• whether the members of the Class have sustained damases and, if so, what is theproper measure of damages.

1.5. Plaintiffs claims are typical of the claims of the members of the Class, as plaintiff and

members of the Class sustained damages arising out of dclendants' wrongful conduct in violation

of federal law as complained of herein.

16. Piainti ffwill Fairly and adequately protect the interests of the members of the Class and

has retained counsel competent and experienced in class and securities litigation. Plaintiff has no

interests antagonistic to or in conflict with those of the Class.

17. A class action is superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient

adjudication of this controversy because joinder of all members of the Class is impracticable.

Furthermore, because the damages suffered by individual Class members may be relatively small,

the expense and burden of individual litigation make it impossible for the Class members

individually to redress the wrongs done to them. There will be no difficulty in the management of

this action as a class action_

• 18. Plaintiff will rely, in part, upon the presumption of reliance established by the fraud-on-

the-market doctrine in that:

defendants made public misrepresentations or failed to disclose material factsduring the Class Period;

• the omissions and misrepresentations were material;

-5-

MAY. 2009 ',:5PM NATIONAL ARCH:MS NC. 024 P..9/20

• the common stock of the Company traded on the NASDAQ, an efficient market;

• the market reacted to public information disseminated by defendants;

▪ the misrepresentations and omissions alleged would tend to induce a reasonableinvestor to misjudge the value of the Company's securities; and

• plaintiff and the members of the Class purchased their Company stock betweenthe time the defendants failed to disclose or misrepresented material facts and thetime the true facts were disclosed, without knowledge of the omitted atrns rep resent cd facts.

19. Based upon the ibregoing, plaintiff and the members of the Class are entitled to a

presumption of reliance upon the integrity of the market.

SUBSTANTIVE ALLEGATIONS

Background

20. NPW was originally incorporated in November 1999 as BMW Energy Services

Corporation, a di vision of Enron Energy Services (a division of Enron Corporation ("Enron")). Until

January 6, 2000, Enron held all issued and outstanding shares of NPW. In .Tanuary and July 2000,

Donaldson, Lufkin & Jenrette ("DU") assisted with two private placements for NPW and received

approximately S1 million in investment banking Fees. DLI invested $42.5 million in the two private

placcmcmts through its affiliated partnerships, known as the "DLT Merchant Banking Partnerships,-

in return for approx imately 9.7% o f NPW_

21 , On October 5, 2000, NPW conducted an IPO and offered 27.6 million shares at 521 per

share. The stated business purpose of NPW was TO supply natural gas and electricity to consumers

in a growing number o fstates thal, were in the process or clregulatitig the energy market. DU and

• CSFB were the joint lead underwriters and earned approximately $15.7 million in fees. After the

WO, CSFB, through its acquisition of 1)1....T, owned 7,9% of NPW, while Enron owned 44% of the

-6-

MP. 1. 2009 :45PM NATIONAL ARCHIVES NO 0240 F. 9/20

Company. In 2000. CS1 and DLJ received more than $12.1 million in investment banking

revenues from Enron. In 2001, CSFB received approximately $21,6 million in investment banking

revenues from Enron..

Defendants Misleading Statements And FailureTo Disclose Their Conflicts Of Interest

22. From October 2000 to November 2001, CS I'D issued 18 "buy" or "strong buy" research

•reports on NPW despite a dramatic decline in the stock price. Defenda_nt Launcr was onc of the

more bullish anal ysts on NPW (and alsc one of the last to maintain a "buy" recommendation on

Enron stock).

23. Also during that period, defendant Launer, the senior research analyst covering NPVv'.

held undisclosed investments in NPW, having invested approximately $21,000 of his own money,

which was leveraged 5:1 by CSFB, in NPW through D1_,J partnerships that owned NPW shares. In

addition, an associate research analysl who assisted in preparing the reports, and whose name

appeared on the reports, held 200 shares of NPW from November 7, 2000 to „Tune 14, 2001. From

October 2000 to November 2001, CSI'13 did not disclose in the 18 NPW research reports issued

during that period either Launer's or the associate research analysts' stock holdings in NPW.

Moreover, in Four of the reports issued during this period, CSFB failed to disclose its own 7.9%

proprietary interest in NIPW.

24. On December 5, 2001, NPW's stock closed at S1.05 per share, only 14 months after the

Company went public at $21 per share and closed at $27 a share on its first day oftridin NPW

filed for bankruptcy in June 2002.

-7-

MAY. ',200 :65PM NATiONAL ARCH:VES O. 1)24 0/2

Defendants' Overall Scheme To IssueMiskadiiig Analyst Re arts

25_ CSFB's misleading reports and conflicts of interests regarding NPW arose from the

• undisclosed holdings in 'KM of CSFB and its analysts, CSFB's receipt of significant investment

banking fees from the Company's offer, and also the receipt of substantial investment banking fees

from Enron which maintained a44% ownership interest in NPW after its WO. Such conflicts were

also patt ()Ca larger systemic scheme at CSFB to ske w analyst research in order to curry favor with

current or prospective investment banking clients, who were responsible for the overwhelming

majority of CSFB's revenues. More specifically, in its complaint against CSFB, the SEC alleged

widespread institutionalized practices which presented serious conflicts of interest that led to the

issuance of materially misleading information to the public:

From July 1998 through December 2001 CSFB used its equity researchanalysts to help solicit and conduct investment banking business. Byproviding incentives for equity research analysts to assist in the generationof investment banking revenues, CSFB created and fostered an environmentwith conflicts of interest that, in some circumstances, undermined theindependence ofresearch analysts and affected the objectiviiy ofthe reportsthey issued.

CSFB's efforts to attract potential and continued investment bankingbusiness created pressure on equity research analysts to initiate andmaintain favorable coverage on investment banking clients. This pressureat times undermined equity research analyst objectivity and independence.In certain instances, (a) CSFB's marketing, or "pitch," materials implicitly.promised that a company would receive favorable research if it agreed touse CSFB for its investment banking business; (b) companies pressuredanalysts to continue coverage or maintain a certain rating or else risk losingthe company as an investment banking cIicn:; and (c) these factorscompromised the independence of equity research analysts arid impaired theobjectivity of research reports_

•The independence of some of CSFB 's equity research analysts was alsoimpaired by the facts that they were evaluated, in part, by investment

,

MAY, 1, 2009 1:45pmN1 ATIONAL ARCHIVES NO. 020

banking professionals and that their compensation was influenced by theircontribution to investment banking revenues. indeed, the vast majority oftheir overall compensation, in the form of bonuses, was based on the

investment banking revenues generated by the f i rm, in many instances,bonuses for non-technology equity research analysis were directly linked torevenue generated by the firm on speci fie investment banking Transactions.The fact that an equity research analyst's bonus was in part related torevenue from investment banking business created pressure on analysts tohelp generate more investment banking revenue.

26. Internal CUB e-mails reveal that a research analyst who downgraded a compimy Wa'S

informed &two "unwritten rules" by his investment banking counterpart_ The first rule was:

you can'tcan't say something positive, don't say anything at all." The second rule: "Why couldn't you

just go with the flow of the other analysis, rather than try to be a contrarian?"

27. (menial reviews of CSFB analysts also revealed their biased approach in support of the

firm's investment banking business. In one such evaluation, an investment hanker wrote ihat the

research analyst's:

input and track record was critical to winning this business—. [The analyst)performed at her normal high level making a lot of investor calls.... [Theanalyst's1 initiation of research coverage was timely arid insightful. She has

been a supporter or the stock despite difficult Internet environment.[Emphasis added.]

28_ In addition, the SEC complaint Further alleges that the:

CSEB Technology Group allowed its research analysts to provideexecutives of companies for which they were about to issue research withcopies of- analyses and proposed ratings of their reports for editorialcomment prior to dissemination. Technology Group research analystsprovided this information, in part, in an attempt to maintain their goodstanding with the company, This typeofdirect interaction between analystsand issuers put additional pressure on the equity research analysts and attimes compromised the independence of the research ana]ysts.

29_ CSFB paid SI 50 million to settle these charges.

-9-

NlAY. 1.2O 1:45PM NATIONAL ARCHIVES NO. g240 P. 2/21)

CLAIMS FOR RELIEF

COUNT I (Against All Defendants For Violations of

Section 10(b) of the Exchange Actarid Rule 10b-5f al and (c)Promulgated Thereunder)

30. Plaintiff incorporates by reference the allegations set forth above as if fully set forth

herein.

31. During the Class Period, Defendants carried out a plan, scheme and course of conduct

that was intended to and did: (i) deceive the investing public, including Plaintiff and other Class

members, as alleged herein; (ii) artificially inflate the market prices of NPW securities; and (iii)

cause Plaintiff and other Class members to purchase or otherwise acquire NPW securities at

artificially inflated prices.

32. In furtherance of this unlawful plan, scheme and course of conduct. Defendants

employed devices, schemes, and artifices to defraud and engaged in acts, practices and a courso of

business which operated as a fraud and deceit upon the investing public, in connection with the

purchase o INPW securities, in violation ofsection 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5(a) and

(c) promulgated thereunder.

33_ Defendants' fraudulent devices, schemes, and artifices and deceptive acts, practices and

course of business included, inter cilia, the following: (i) issuing false and misleading research

analyst reports concerning NPW, which contained recommenda.lions and ratings that did not reflect

the analysts' true opinions of the Company; (i i) failing to disclose that CSFB, Launer and another

research analyst had proprietary interests in NPW through their ownership of stock in such

Company; OW using research analysts to act as quasi-investment bankers for companies such as

-10-

:

. MAY. L 2009 1 :45pm NAT:ONAL ARC'-.IVES NO. 0240

NPW, by often initiating, continuing and manipulating research coverage for the purpose of

attracting and keeping investment banking clients, thereby producing misleading ratings that were

neither independent nor objective; (iv) falsely holding out its research analysts as providing

independent recommendations and analysis of companies and stocks upon which investors could rely

in reaching investment decisions; (v) linking research analysts' compensation to investment banking

business they generated or participated in, thereby encouraging them to produce investment banking

business by currying favor with potential or actual investment banking clients by giving them special

treatment, including inter cilia, allowing officers of- clients or prospective clients to redraft their own

coverage, write quotations in which the analysts would tout their companies, and indicate which

ratings would be acceptable to them.

34. Consistent with this scheme, Defendants knowingly or recklessly issued the challenged

materiall y false and misleading analyst reports on NPW.

35. Defendants acted knowingly or recklessly and for the purpose and effect of attracting and

keeping lucrative investment banking business from NPW,

36. The members of the Class reasonably relied upon the integrity of the market in which

NPW securities traded.

37. Plaintiff and the other members of the Class were ignorant of Defendants fraudulent

scheme. liad Plaintiff and the other members of the Class known of Defendants' unlawful scheme,

they would not have purchased or otherwise acquired NPW securities or if they had, they would not

have purchased or otherwise acquired them at the artificially inflated prices.

38. Plaintiff and the members of the Class were injured because the risks that materialized

were risks of which they were unaware as a result of Defendants' scheme to defraud as alleged

-L I-

MAY, 2 03 9 : 46 PM NATIONAL ARCHIV'S NO 0243 F.,

herein, Absent Defendants' wrongful conduct, Plaintiff and the members of the Class would not

have been injured_

39. In connection with their unlawful plan, scheme and course of conduct alleged herein

Defendants used the means or instrumentalities of interstate commerce and the mails.

40. By virtue of the Foregoing. Defendants violated section 10(b) of the Exchange, Act and

Rule 10b-5(a) and (c).

4 1 . As a direct and proximate result of Defendants' scheme to defraud, Plaintiff and the

other members °ram Class suffered dainages in connection with their purchases or acquisitions of

NPW securities in an amount to be proven 'at trial.

COUNT H

(Against All Defendants For Violations of Section 10(1)of the Exch .n • e Act and Rule 10h-5 b Protnul • ated Thereunder

42, Plaint, rr repeats and reallegcs each and every allegation set forth above.

43, During the Class Period, Defendants made untrue statements o finateri al fact and onntted

to disclose material facts. that were intended to and did: (i) deceive the investing public, including

Plaintiff and other Class members, as alleged herein; (ii) artificially inflate and maintain the mark,et

price of NPW common stock; and (iii) cause Plaintiff and other members or the Class to purchase

or otherwise acquire NPW stock at artificially inflated prices.

44. The Defendants made untrue statements o Fmaterial fact and/or omitted to state material

facts necessary to make the statements made, in light o f the circumstances under which they were

made, not misleading, all in violation of section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10h-5(b).

Defendants' material misrepresentations and omissions concerned, inter alia: (i) the fact that the

ratings did not reflect the analysts' true opinions of NP W: (ii) failing to disclose that CSFB, Launer

-12-

MAY. 1. 2009 1:46FM NATIONAL ARCH:V'S NO. 0240 F.

and another research analyst had proprietary interests in NPW through their ownership of stock in

such Company; (iii) that the challenged ratines and reports o p NPW failed to disclosed that CSFS's

ratings were tarnished by an undisclosed conflict of interest in that the research analysts were acting

a_as quasi-investment bankers for NPW and the comp tan„es t Issue, often initiating, continuing, and/or

manipulating research coverage For the purpose of attracting and keeping investment banking

business with NPW and other covered clients, thereby producing misleading ratings that were neither

objective nor independent, as they purported TO be; and (iv) Defendants' tai lure to comply with the

rules and regulations of the SEC. NASD and other regulatory authorities regarding communications

to the investing public.

45. Defendants material misrepresentations and/or omissions were done knowingly or

recklessl y and for the purpose and effect of obtaining lucrative investment banking business from

• NM. Specifically, the analysts reports were represented to be both positive and objective, while

• internal CSFII e-mails have shown that the ratings and recommendations in the reports were both

artificially inflated and given merely in the hopes of obtaining future banking business.

46, Defendants, however, knew or recklessly disregarded that their statements concerning

the integrity and objectivity of their securities research and ratings system were false at the time they

made these statements, because those statements were flatly contradicted by the Defendants'

unlawIld plan, scheme and course of conduct alleged herein.

47. Defendants were required to comply with all relevant SEC and NASD regulations,

•addition, said Defendants had a duty to fully disclose the truth concerning their business practices

alleged herein by virtue of their issuance of research reports to investors, as a result of Defendant

CSFEt's status as a registered U.S. broker/dealer and its wrongful activities in such capacity alleged

herein, and as a result of the integrated disclosure provisions of the SEC as embodied in SEC

- 1 3-

. NIP. . 2009 1:46pm NAT:ONIAL ARVI1ES O. 0240

:

i Mt-1$ -Regulat .S X [17 . C.F.R. § 210.], et seq.}, S-. 1( [17 C.F.R. . § 229.10, et seq.], and other SEC

regulations,

. 48. Throughout the Class Period, Defendants material misrepresentations and omissions

!induced a disparity between the transaction price and the true "investment quality' of NPW. -

securities. As a result of the dissemination of thc materially false and misleading information and

. failure to disclose material facts, as set forth above, the market pnce of NPW securities were

artificially inflated during the Class Period and Plainti If and the Class were deceived as to the true

investment quality of NPW securities. In ignorance of the fact that the market price of NPW

:: securities was artificially inflated, and relying directly or indirectly on the false and misleading:: statements nriadc: by Defendants, or upon the integrity of the market in which the securities trade,

, and/or on the absence of material adverse information that was known to or recklessly disregarded;. by Defendants hut not disclosed in public statements by Defendants during the Class Period, Plaintiff::,, and the other members of the Class acquired NPW securities during the Class Period at artificially

1

inflated prices and were damaged thereby.

49. At the time of said misrepresentations and omissions, Plaintiff and the otter members

, of the Class were ignorant of their falsity, and believed them to be true. Had Plaintiff and the otheri

, members of the Class known of the omitted material facts, Plaint' IT and the other members of the

Class would not have purchased or otherwise acquired NPVV securities, or, if they had acquired NPW,

securities, they would not have done so at the artificially inflated prices,

50, Plainti IT and the members of the Class were injured because the risks that materializral

. were risks of which they were unaware as a result of Defendants' material misrepresentations and:i

omissions. Absent Defendants' wrongful conduct. Plaintiff and the members orthe Class win id not

i have been injured.1

-14-

11

• MAY 4 , 2009 1 : n 6pmhJATIONAL ACHIVE3 NO, ') 2 LI",.' P. i/1 2(.:' •

51. By virtue of the foregoing, Defendants each violated section10(b) of the Exchange Act

and Rule lOb-5(b) promulgated thereunder.

52, As a direct and proximate result o f Defendants' wrongful conduct, P fl and the other

members of the Class suffered dama g es in connection with their purchases or acquisitions of NPW

securities in an amount to be proved at trial-,

COUNT HI

(Violations of Section 20(a) ofThe Exchange Act Against Defendant CSFB)

53. Plaintiff repeats and real leges each and every allegation contained above as IF fully sit

forth herein_

54. Defendant CSFB acted as a controlling person of Launcr within the meaning of section

20(a) of the FAchance Act.

55. By reason ofsuch wrongful conduct, Defendant CSFB is liable pursuant to section 20(a)

of the Exchange Act. As a direct and proximate result of CS FB's wrongful conduct, Plaintiff and

the other members of the Class suffered damages in conreciion with their purchases or acquisitions

of Company stock during the Class Period, as already detailed.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for relief and judgment, as follows:

(I) Determining that this action is a proper class action, designating Plaintiff as Lead

Plaintiff and Plaintiff's counsel as Lead Counsel, and certifying Plaintiff as a class representative

under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure;

(2) Awarding compensatory damages in favor or Plaintiff and the other Class members

against all Defendants, jointly and severally, for all damages sustained as a result of Defendants'

wrongdoing, in an amount to be proven at trial, including interest thereon

-15-,

MAY. 1:2U9 1:47FM NATIONAL ARCHIVES O. 024C!

(3) Awarding Plaintiff and the Class their reasonable costs and expenses incurred in this

action, including counsel fees and expert fees; and

(4) Such other and further relief as the Court may deem just aud proper.

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

p lainii if demands a trial by jury.

DATEDi May 23, 2003POMERANTZ HAUDEK BLOCK

• GROSSMA GROSS LLP

By Mare 1. Gross (MG-8496)Donald G. Davis (DD-3282)

100 Park Avenue, 26th FloorNew York, New York 10017

• Telephone; (212) 661-1100Facsimile: (212) 661-8665

Attorneys for Plaintiff

•

-16-i

'vlAY. 1. 2009 :7F1Y1 NATIONAL A RCI-I YES NO. 0240 1 9/2[,'

CUILTIFICATEOP or PuknwrxrirIMEMEZ--12-ZENE

1. t banish& Patel, Takes this deciareelen pursuant to Cmccion 21.D1a)

(2, of tht 3mmurlr.ies Exchange Ace e! 1936,

2. I hove reviewed the Cceepleint againat Credit Suisem rinse Boston

LLQ, tik/a Credit Unieese First nescon corporAtton ( P tsrirl atai AutbDrize the

filing oE comp...cable) Complaint ma Ireholg.

O. I did hoc puTehmes mr Mtveereer Holdings, Inc. nocutitiee at the

• nirecryon0fplainriffe' counsel or in order to participate LA *I' pri-ve-te

action mriming ungtar Title T of the Occuritlem Ertl:Lange act Pt LOSe.

I es willing to serve as a tepremenmntive pmrry on behalf mf a

clams am met coven in ehe conplmJ..mt, including providing temtimony at

• dandeition and trial, if cecemmary. I 1.1000Seennd that the cmart hos Dhe

AuQbority to oelect the moot &deigns:2 /mad plaintiff in this &melon and them

the Pomerantz dtrm may exorcism itc discretion in Secerniels9 whether nn move

on my behalf efts apFclatmehe Kr lead plkiheiff.

5. Tie fnilow l.ngr are all mr my ermemactionm in mews :Power moldings.

Tric. mmouritiee purchmsed during thm period from July 15139 and June 10,

• Z002., the gleam Forimd, en mpecified in elm Compleintl

nmte Purchase et Bale Number/Type of SccuriCi•e price of Securities

05/25/D1 Purchase's 1,000 elt.OS

During the ttree rear period preceding the at 011 which 'Chic'

earrrieatieni nmd, L hive nor rougne to serve am I tePresanchtiVe PPS*

on behalf of 3 Cla g A Uhd e r the federal speteltite leN.m, except ac follows:

7ALGIL Y. Pr w2451.V.0 Ulaidibeit . Inc. et a/.

e2-CV-31/0

7. 3 agree net to accept any paymapt for serViAg AA A rePteDenthtive

patty en bohau vz the class am met forth in ehe Conplalne, beyond my pro rata

al:sax* of goy rEtnIfory , cACrin much rtmennahle emote and expootoa dirwatLY

Ivhf L 2,9 1 :47F1 slATIONAL ARCHIVES No. o n ari DL •.Lui

relating tc the reaprementeciets the cIecaa au erelereel RDProved by the

Court .

E 4eciarm pen43.ty ver;ury that the ZorespoLes Jar true, and

correct, Executed. I >3 •roi3,Itsa.tdi (Cis r , atetel

111—/-117)— rilignaturm)

madslaha Patt

;;