Brad Greenspan, Pro Se 264 South La Cienega Suite 1016 Beverly Hills, CA 90211 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA WESTERN DIVISION

JIM BROWN Plaintiff, v. BRETT C. BREWER Defendants

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

CASE NO: 2:06-cv-03731-GHK-SH CLASS ACTION MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGEMENT OR ADJUDICATION FOR DEFENDANTS VIOLATION OF THE CLAYTON ACT 8, 15 U.S.C. 1; STATUE FOR INTERLOCKING DIRECTORATES AND OFFICERS

DATE: TBD TIME: TBD COURTROOM: The Honorable George H. King

PLAINTIFF MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Pro Se, Brad Greenspan, and pursuant to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Rule 56.1, hereby move for Summary Judgment for violations of Section 8 of the Clayton Act which Makes working as Director on two companies competing largely in the same industry or with a significant amount of overlap in at least one business line. MySpace, Inc. was tracking to generate 70%+ of its revenue from Paid Search in 2006 and AskJeeves, Inc. generated 100% of its revenue from online Paid Search in 2006. For example, based on the Section 8 rules, Carlick had one year ending sometime in May 2005 to resign from one of the two board. Carlick failed to comply. A Memorandum of Points and Authorities (Memorandum) setting forth the grounds for Plantiffs Motion is filed with and in support of this Motion. For the reasons explained in the Memorandum, Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court grant its Motion for Summary Judgment.

DATED:

August 9, 2011

Respectfully submitted,

Brad Greenspan, in Pro Per

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

Brad Greenspan, Pro Se 264 South La Cienega Suite 1016 Beverly Hills, CA 90211 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA WESTERN DIVISION

JIM BROWN V. BRETT C. BREWER Defendants Plaintiff,

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

CASE NO: 2:06-cv-03731-GHK-SH CLASS ACTION MOTION FOR THE COURT TO TAKE JUDICIAL NOTICE

DATE: December 6, 2011 TIME: TBD COURTROOM: The Honorable George H. King Room: 650

1
NOTICE OF ERRATA

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

TO THE COURT, ALL PARTIES, AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD: PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on December 6, 2011, Brad Greenspan (Intervener) Filed documents entitled: i) Exhibit A-H In addition, the Petitioner would like the court to take judicial notice of the following as all being facts that are Undisputed by all parties: 1) That News Corporation today and now and its legal counsel including Hogan & Lovell as its current SEC outside counsel currently and worked in such or similar capacity over the last 7 or more years and Defendants at the time of the 2005 Acquisition all are today and all involved parties in 2005 would have and must comply with Sarbanes Oxley Requirements. The summary listed on page 17-18 under Exhibit D email include listings consisting of a header with then text after each header of: 301, 402, 404, 409, 802 and such section begins with the heading, Sarbanes-Oxley Act Section 302. 2. The employees of News Corp must comply with Sarbanes Oxley Requirements

because they are working for a Public Corporation listed on the U.S. exchange of either or both the NYSE and the Nasdaq National Market. The employees of News Corp must comply with Sarbanes Oxley Requirement 802 which states, Summary of Section 802 and This section imposes penalties of fines and/or up to 20 years imprisonment for altering, destroying, mutilating, concealing, falsifying records, documents or tangible objects with the intent to obstruct, impede or influence a legal investigation. This section also imposes penalties of fines and/or imprisonment up to 10 years on any accountant who knowingly and wilfully violates the requirements of maintenance of all audit or review papers for a period of 5 years 4. After both News Corporations current SEC Counsel and one of News Corporation

top paid financial investigative journalists were aware by at least November 7, 2011 that News Corporation had omitted from its 10Q filing published 11/4/11 that the 2
NOTICE OF ERRATA

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

status of the Federal Brown V. Brewer Federal case had been materially changed when compared to the status of the Federal Brown v. Brewer Federal case which a reasonable fact finder would have believed was accurate and correct as of 10/1/11 and if News Corporation had published the 11/4/11 description on 10/1/11. 5. Therefore, News Corporation cannot prove its not in violation of at least one if

not more of the following at the current time and only will not be once it updates the same matter described last in News Corporations 10Q published or filed on 11/4/11 with the SEC. 6. Its in the public interest for reporters of national newspapers to report bona fide news. 7. Its not in the public interest and its illegal for a publicly listed corporation

to violate and its SEC corporate counsel or any executives or employees or Directors to violate Sarbanes Oxley Requirements and statues in the past or currently. 8. Julia Angwin is the recipient of email letter in Exhibit C along with another employee

at the Wall Street Journal & they work for adivision of parent publicly listed News Corporation
9. AP News reported on November 24, 2011 news similar or the same as the article stated in Exhibit H, titled, Australia

former senator welcomes News Corp. probe and was

published By ROD McGUIRK, of Associated Press out of CANBERRA, Australia A former Australian senator said Friday that Rupert Murdoch's eldest son was present when a News Corp. executive allegedly offered him favorable newspaper coverage and "a special relationship" in return for voting against government legislation. The Australian Federal Police are investigating former Sen. Bill O'Chee's allegations about Murdoch's media empire 10. That the position of News Corps Board and CEO on October 2010 was and is

undisputed consisted of the following positions and claims, stated at the News Corporation October 2010 Shareholder meeting in Exhibit (A) below (published and questions asked by reporter and Australian shareholder, Stephen Mayne), and that News Corps status as described under Exhibit (B) is uncontested by all parties. 3
NOTICE OF ERRATA

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 DATED: December 6, 2011 respectfully submitted,

Brad Greenspan, in Pro Per And on behalf and for benefit of Class and unincorporated association of the MySpace2006 Association which is a group of individual common stock holders that email and update each other periodically since 2005.

4
NOTICE OF ERRATA

1 2 3 4

EXHIBIT A(A) Stephen Mayne: what's your personal view of the phone bugging issue in the UK

Rupert Murdoch: we have very very strict rules. There was an incident more than 5 years ago. The person 5 who bought a bugged phone conversation was immediately fired and in fact he subsequently went to jail. There has been two parliamentary inquires, which have found no further evidence or any other thing at 6 all. If anything was to come to light, we challenge people to give us evidence, and no one has been able to. 7 If any evidence comes to light, we will take immediate action like we took before.
8

Stephen Mayne: did you read the 5000-word piece in the New York Times claiming they had spoken to no less than 9 12 former editors and reporters for the News of the World, confirming that the practice was wide spread?
10 11

Rupert: no.

12 Stephen Mayne: you haven't read that New York Times piece? 13 Rupert Murdoch: no. 14 16 18 19 20 21 22

Stephen Mayne: The actual committee said in its report, there was "deliberate obfuscation" by our executives, there 15 was "collective amnesia" by the executives and you've just demonstrated this again, Rupert Murdoch: I'm sorry. Journalists who have been fired, who are unhappy, or work for other organizations - I don't 17 take them as an authority, and least of all I don't take The New York Times as authority which is the most motivated of all. Stephen Mayne: I would like to refer to page 16 of the proxy statement, where you say "directors are encouraged to attend and participate" in the company's annual meeting to stockholders, I would like to direct a couple of questions now to both Viet Dinh and Sir Rod Eddington. Sir Rod is our lead independent director and Viet Dinh as our chair of our nomination and corporate governance committee. Gentlemen, could you please tell shareholders what steps you've taken to ensure that the code of ethics that this company has on its website and claims to adhere to, has been followed in relation to the phone hacking issue in the UK.

23 Viet Dinh: The code of ethics and standards of business conduct obviously describe the overall framework through which 24 we govern ourselves. We trust our executives, our management and our personnel to follow them, and where infractions are made, appropriate actions are taken as the chairman has indicated. At the board level the audit committee obviously 25 has oversight over any allegations of financial mismanagement or impropriety. The board, including its nominated 26 corporate governance committee has oversight over other risk areas and other allegations of impropriety. I think these procedures have served us well in the past, and will continue to serve us well into the future. 27 28

5
NOTICE OF ERRATA

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

EXHIBIT B(B) Exhibit F is an article from the Guardian written by Mark Hughes, Gordon Rayner, and Martin Evans on November 1, 2011 which is titled, Murdoch faces questions after memo reveals hacking was widespread and the article states,

i) James Murdoch faces further questions after it emerged that the

News of the Worlds own barrister warned three years ago that there was overwhelming evidence that senior journalists were involved in phone hacking.
ii) Exhibit The QCs opinion Before Mr Crone and Mr Myler met Mr Murdoch in person, they sought the opinion of the barrister Michael Silverleaf QC. On June 3, 2008, he sent them his expert view, making it clear that News Group Newspapers was in deep trouble. At first, it had intended to fight Mr Taylors legal action on the grounds that Mulcaire was acting on his own initiative. But, said Mr Silverleaf: The position has now changed, because material obtained by Mr Taylor has disclosed that at least three NGN journalists (Greg Miskiw, xxxxxxxx and Ross Hindley [another name used by Ross Hall]) appear to have been intimately involved in Mr Mulcaires illegal researching into Mr Taylors affairs. He refers to a document dated Feb 4, 2005, in which Mr Miskiw agreed to pay 7,000 to Paul Williams, an alias of Mulcaire, and concludes that News Group Newspapers chances of winning any legal action are slim to the extent of being non-existent. He adds that there is overwhelming evidence of the involvement of a number of senior NGN journalists in the illegal enquiries in the light of these facts there is a powerful case that there is (or was) a culture of illegal information access used at NGN in order to produce stories for publication to have this paraded at a public trial would, I imagine, be extremely damaging to NGNs public reputation.

6
NOTICE OF ERRATA

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

EXHIBIT CFwd: To the analysts & WSJ's Julia Angwin - here are latest filings put into court yesterday (I fixed the motions to get them under the 25pg limit)
Brad Greenspan sent it to me on Nov 21, 2011, 5:51 AM 3 attachments A0000000.html (31 KB) and 2 more ReplyReply AllForwardTrashSpamMore actions...
Begin forwarded message: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > From: Brad Greenspan <bspan@earthlink.net> Date: November 16, 2011 10:19:39 AM PST To: Julia Angwin <julia.angwin@gmail.com>, jessica.reif@baml.com, spencer.wang@credit-suisse.com, lmartin@needhamco.com, drew.borst@gs.com, doug.mitchelson@db.com, dclemente@barcap.com, fraser.mcleish@rbs.com, james.dix@wedbush.com, adam.alexander@gsjbw.com, mmy@bby.com.au, david.bank@rbccm.com, michael.nathanson@nomura.com, jason.bazinet@citigroup.com, jeffrey.logsdon@bmo.com, rgreenfield@btig.com, imran.t.khan@jpmchase.com, alice.bennett@cba.com.au, djoyce@millertabak.com, digby.gilmour@clsa.com, barton.crockett@lazardcap.com, alan.gould@evercore.com, alex.pollack@macquarie.com, benjamin.swinburne@morganstanley.com, teagan@collinsstewartllc.com, feedback@wsj.com, julia.angwin@wsj.com, shayndi.raice@wsj.com Cc: president@nytimes.com, nytnews@nytimes.com, abramson@nytimes.com, aestes@theatlantic.com, eheffter@seattletimes.com, anjumniaz@rocketmail.com, rhalstead@marinij.com, jgreiff@bloomberg.net, tony@wbai.org, mitchelcohen@minrspring.com, james.rainey@latimes.com, Lester Kok WM <lesterk@sph.com.sg>, cchellel@bloomberg.net, aaarons@bloomberg.net, skydancingblog@gmail.com, features@ap.org, martyk@jewishjournal.com, s.glover@independent.co.uk, michael.white@guardian.co.uk, bmoshinsky@bloomberg.net, maria.bartiromo@cnbc.com, grmorgenson@nytimes.com, gretchen@nytimes.com, qjarvis@gelaw.com, ekaq@churchofengland.org, letters@guardian.co.uk, gretmorgenson@hotmail.com, reader@guardian.co.uk, bryantc@parliament.uk, bryantc@parliament.co.uk, watson@parliament.co.uk, milibande@parliament.co.uk, bercowj@parliament.co.uk, james.robinson@guardian.co.uk, amelia.hill@guardian.co.uk, gogginsp@parliament.uk, gogginsp@parliament.co.uk, john.leech.mp@parliament.co.uk, kaufmang@parliament.uk, contact@tonylloydmp.co.uk, simon@simonsmithlawyer.com, helenboaden.complaints@bbc.co.uk, peter.horrocks@bbc.co.uk, peter.barron@bbc.co.uk, craig.oliver@bbc.co.uk, steve.herrmann@bbc.co.uk, ceri.thomas@bbc.co.uk, peter.rippon@bbc.co.uk, nick.robinson01@bbc.co.uk, andrew.marr@bbc.co.uk, mark.easton@bbc.co.uk, paul.mason.01@bbc.co.uk, kirsty.wark@bbc.co.uk, gavin.esler@bbc.co.uk, john.humphrys@bbc.co.uk, jonathan.munro@itn.co.uk, ian.rumsey@itn.co.uk, robert.moore@itn.co.uk, jim.gray@itn.co.uk, jane.dougall@fivt.tv, s.keiner@independent.co.uk, larry.elliott@guardian.co.uk, r.norton-taylor@guardian.co.uk, roger.alton@observer.co.uk, cdolmetsch@bloomberg.net, pmilford@bloomberg.net, mhytha@bloomberg.net, editorial@thedailybeast.com, letters@nytimes.com, contact@tonylloydmp.com, norton-taylor@guardian.co.uk, richard.sambrook@bbc.co.uk, r.fisk@independent.co.uk, robert.mccrum@observer.co.uk, r.alton@independent.co.uk, sarah.montague@bbc.co.uk, pparija@bloomberg.net, milibande@parliament.uk, kewing@netvigator.com, koehlercw@gmail.com, bottomline@sfchronicle.com, farrellyp@parliament.uk, will.heaven@telegraph.co.uk, grusso@citizensforethics.org, jhayward@eaglepub.com, Matt Taibbi <matt.taibbi@rollingstone.com>, grmorgenson@hotmail.com, deanstarkman@gmail.com, newsdesk@smh.com.au, Nir Natan <nir-natan@msn.com>, a.whittamsmith@independent.co.uk, editor@guardian.co.uk, netnet@cnbc.com, watsont@parliament.uk, congressman.issa@mail.house.gov, jarowley@bloomberg.net, scoops@sundaymirror.co.uk, "gstohr@bloomber.net ; gmacnicol@businessinsider.com ; public@nytimes.com ; senator@feinstein.senate.gov ; editor@guardian.co.uk ; stephen@maynereport.com ; david.wallacewells@nymag.com" <gstohr@bloomber.net>, gmacnicol@businessinsider.com, public@nytimes.com, stephen@maynereport.com, david.wallacewells@nymag.com, alterjonathan@gmail.com, frankrich@nytimes.com, frankrich@nybag.com,

7
NOTICE OF ERRATA

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

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

caroline.humer@thomson.reuters.com, rc2538@columbia.edu, timothy.rutten@latimes.com, editorial@ft.com, altask@yahoo.com, gstohr@bloomberg.net, webmaster@johnpilger.com, steve.eder@thomsonreuters.com, contact@johnpilger.com, steve.hermann@bbc.co.uk, bravenewfilms.press@gmail.com, nancy.nathan@nbc.com, reliable@cnn.com, paul.friedman@abc.com, mzuckerman@usnews.com, letters@usnews.com, robert.doherty@reuters.com, info@ap.org, kurtzh@washpost.com, letters@washpost.com, editor@usatoday.com, jsawyer@post-dispatch.com, rgunter@post-dispatch.com, letters@post-dispatch.com, dalbert@seattletimes.com, opinion@seattletimes.com, dsneider@sjmercury.com, bvroman@sjmercury.com, letters@sfchronicle.com, readerrep@sfchronicle.com, george.condon@copleydc.com, letters@uniontrib.com, opinion@sacbee.com, dholwerk@sacbee.com, jhealy@orlandosentinel.com, voicers@edit.nydailynews.com, tdefrank@edit.nydailynews.com, hdefrank@edit.nydailynews.com, tim.phelps@newsday.com, letters@newsday.com, salbright@startribune.com, dwestphal@mcclatchydc.com, opinion@startribune.com, heralded@herald.com, joglesby@herald.com, stareditor@starnews.com, andrea.neal@indystar.com, viewpoints@chron.com, john.hemry@chron.com, frank.michel@chron.com, letters@rockymountainnews.com, carrollv@rockymountainnews.com, letters@detnews.com, abethel@detnews.com, letters@freepress.com, dzwonk@freepress.com, letters@denverpost.com, bmcallister@denverpost.com, sobrien@denverpost.com, letterstoeditor@dallasnews.com, cleubsdorf@dallasnews.com, editor@cleveland.com, skoff@cleveland.com, oped@csps.com, cookd@csps.com, world@csps.com, ctc-tribletter@tribune.com, wneikirk@tribune.com, vwalton@tribune.com, cmcmahon@tribune.com, letters@suntimes.com, sweet@dgsys.com, shuntley@suntimes.com, opinion@charlotteobserver.com, ewilliams@charlotteobserver.com, letter@globe.com, ombud@globe.com, d_shribman@globe.com, j_farrell@globe.com, jsmith@globe.com, pwest35012@aol.com, letters@baltsun.com, ed.hewitt@baltsun.com, jwooten@ajc.com, cynthia@ajc.com, ken.western@arizonarepublic.com, paul.schatt@arizonarepublic.com, phil.boas@arizonarepublic.com, opinions@arizonarepublic.com, louise.mensch.mp@parliament.uk, athomson6@bloomberg.net, corruptcourts@gmail.com, jr3@nyu.edu, editor@ft.com, letters@msnbc.com, dateline@nbc.com, jeff.zucker@nbc.com, matt.lauer@nbc.com, today@nbc.com, mtp@msnbc.com, sam.feist@cnn.com, robert.novak@turner.com, publicinfo@sec.gov, cerified@sec.gov, enf-search@sec.gov, eeo-events@sec.gov, 60II@cbsnews.com, 60m@cbsnews.com, evening@cbsnews.com, diane.sawyer@abc.com, barbara.walters@abc.com, niteline@abc.com, tom.bettag@abc.com, ted.koppel@abc.com, letters@time.com, whistleblower@judiciary-rep.senate.gov, letters@newsweek.com, inquirer.letters@phillynews.com, chris.satullo@phillynews.com, liberties@nytimes.com, carr@nytimes.com, national@nytimes.com, publisher@nytimes.com, kavier@nytimes.com, bizday@nytimes.com, magazine@nytimes.com, circuits@nytimes.com, onthejob@nytimes.com, viewpts@nytimes.com, yourmind@nytimes.com, mediabiz@nytimes.com, dcarr@nytimes.com, abelson@nytimes.com, ambrose@nytimes.com, frandrew@nytimes.com, apcar@nytimes.com, peappl@nytimes.com, randya@nytimes.com, barbanel@nytimes.com, dabarry@nytimes.com, barstow@nytimes.com, goldbehr@nytimes.com, belluck@nytimes.com, jabenn@nytimes.com, berenson@nytimes.com, miblum@nytimes.com, tbodkin@nytimes.com, gboyd@nytimes.com, brinkley@nytimes.com, brooke@nytimes.com, charney@nytimes.com, fclines@nytimes.com, adclym@nytimes.com, gcollins@nytimes.com, ancron@nytimes.com, bcrosset@nytimes.com, cushman@nytimes.com, daley@nytimes.com, dewan@nytimes.com, dicke@nytimes.com, suedge@nytimes.com, stenge@nytimes.com, fass@nytimes.com, fstone@nytimes.com, fisheri@nytimes.com, jwesley@nytimes.com, nickfox@nytimes.com, frantz@nytimes.com, french@nytimes.com, gearyd@nytimes.com, gefter@nytimes.com, glabe@nytimes.com, ligree@nytimes.com, hardenb@nytimes.com, harland@nytimes.com, jonhicks@nytimes.com, stholm@nytimes.com, davidk@nytimes.com, slabaton@nytimes.com, lewin@nytimes.com, markoff@nytimes.com, Kyle Massey <massey@nytimes.com>, onishi@nytimes.com, orme@nytimes.com, rpear@nytimes.com, raines@nytimes.com, reissc@nytimes.com, editorial@nytimes.com, executive-editor@nytimes.com, darose@nytimes.com, andyr@nytimes.com, dasang@nytimes.com, kseeley@nytimes.com, sommer@nytimes.com, stanley@nytimes.com, jothomas@nytimes.com, rotone@nytimes.com, vtoy@nytimes.com, vannatta@nytimes.com, hevero@nytimes.com, mattwald@nytimes.com, tiwein@nytimes.com, thecity@nytimes.com, ravisomaiya@hotmail.com, ebell@columbia.edu, gsherman99@gmail.com, bsmith@politico.com, anthony.derosa@thomsonreuters.com, oped@nytimes.com, jepresto@nytimes.com, ltozzi@nytimes.com, fspruill@nytimes.com, apilhofer@nytimes.com, slyall@nytimes.com, polgreen@nytimes.com, dfirestone@nytimes.com, elizabeth.heron@nytimes.com, fernando@nytimes.com, jroberts@nytimes.com, bstelter@gmail.com, chivers@nytimes.com, suggestions@propublica.org Bcc: louis.mensch.mp@parliament.co.uk, watsont@parliament.co.uk, mark@atkinsthomson.com, enquiries@thlaw.co.uk, louis.mensch.mp@parliament.uk, info@NormanSiegel.com,

8
NOTICE OF ERRATA

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

> farrellyp@parliament.co.uk, mark.lewis@thlaw.co.uk, mark.lewis@thlaw.uk, > enquiries@thlaw.uk, Frost John <frostj1621@gmail.com> > Subject: To the analysts & WSJ's Julia Angwin - here are latest filings put into court > yesterday (I fixed the motions to get them under the 25pg limit) > > > Seriously Julia- Do you guys really think you can just pretend these liabilities dont > exist until the least > credible management team in the world currently tells you that they actually exist? > > I mean I dont want to upset all of you but dont u think you have to not give NWS the > benefit of the doubt at some point? > > I am ccing the SEC so we can time date stamp this again. Just so in future when everyone > is crying > about who knew what when,etc. that I can tell you I TOLD YOU SO. > > I mean, Julia, dont u think u owe it and WSJ owes it to these innocent 16 analysts to > have u update them on this case > and NWS liablities based on whats in front of Judge King? > > I mean I know ur Facebook privacy stories are gripping and important.... :) lol > > > SOX and reporting requirements? I know u know what these are....Im not talking about > what goes in the wash and have stripes. > > It just seems strange that > this whole ENRON-esque analyst mentality keeps replaying out every 4-5 years. Your > consciously > disregarding your duties to any fund or investor that has purchased NWS stock in last 12 > months or so > when you dont update and explain these new liabilities. > > how do u write a book called "Stealing MySpace" and then just stop covering the federal > case as it gets material? > Its indefensible. PLUS U WERE WITNESS THAT WAS DEPOSED IN THIS VERY CASE > & YET U HAVENT WRITTEN ABOUT THE CASE SINCE WHEN??? > > Well- dont say i didnt give all of you great chances to get wind of whats going on. They > are your > clients I guess. > > NOTE- I am looking to borrow/put on significant SHORT against NWS stock to hedge in > future legal win. > if you have any clients interested in a BIG 'NEWS' SHORT, please point them my direction > as im > looking for about 4-5 fund managers to help me start to lever in a few billion as > frankly with > the hacking victims (6000 X $2 million average lets say = $12Bln) and the Class Actions > ($1-2Bln) > its not gonna leave as much as Id like for Brown v.Brewer's up to $96B, and the $1bln of > cash > spend per month RM is paying to prop up stock is dwindling the cash. I may have to ask > Judge King > for injunction to get RM to be more frugal so he doesnt spend all the cash in the > bank....its > starting to scare me how much $$ RM is spending each day. > > -also see a deck of some of best pieces of evidence so u can read the pleadings and > get a flavor of things. > >> ps- they call me A- TRAIN for my antitrust knowledge out here in federal court . >> >> Im starting to study up on RICO claims and may add cpl of them to keep the kids

9
NOTICE OF ERRATA

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

>> on their tows! I added a 60b2 and a 60b4 in my latest versions on the 60b filing. >> >> Im really enjoying my legal education! :) >>> >>> >>> http://pdfcast.org/pdf/summary-judgement-against-news-corp-november-15-2011 >>> >>> http://pdfcast.org/pdf/motion-60b-fraud-upon-federal-court >>> >>> http://pdfcast.org/pdf/damage-report-by-rule-701-lay-witness-32-45-billion-w-o-a ntitrust-trebles-96b-if-nws-loses-antitrust >>> >>> >>> http://pdfcast.org/pdf/myspace-founder-federal-declaration-incl-victim-of-januar y-2009-news-corp-computer-intrusion >>>

10
NOTICE OF ERRATA

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
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > From: Brad Greenspan <bspan@earthlink.net> Date: November 10, 2011 12:19:01 PM PST To: Julia Angwin <julia.angwin@gmail.com>, jessica.reif@baml.com, spencer.wang@credit-suisse.com, lmartin@needhamco.com, drew.borst@gs.com, doug.mitchelson@db.com, dclemente@barcap.com, fraser.mcleish@rbs.com, james.dix@wedbush.com, adam.alexander@gsjbw.com, mmy@bby.com.au, david.bank@rbccm.com, michael.nathanson@nomura.com, jason.bazinet@citigroup.com, jeffrey.logsdon@bmo.com, rgreenfield@btig.com, imran.t.khan@jpmchase.com, alice.bennett@cba.com.au, djoyce@millertabak.com, digby.gilmour@clsa.com, barton.crockett@lazardcap.com, alan.gould@evercore.com, alex.pollack@macquarie.com, benjamin.swinburne@morganstanley.com, newseditors@wsj.com, teagan@collinsstewartllc.com, "Julie A. Shepard" <julie.shepard@hoganlovells.com>, jangwin@wsj.com, julia.angwin@wsj.com, jessica.silver-greenberg@wsj.com Cc: public@nytimes.com, president@nytimes.com, publisher@nytimes.com, nytnews@nytimes.com, gmorgenson@nytimes.com, executive-editor@nytimes.com, losangeles@sec.gov, sanfrancisco@sec.gov, sporkint@sec.gov, senator@boxer.senate.gov, bizday@nytimes.com, carr@nytimes.com, editorial@nytimes.com, grmorgenson@nytimes.com, krugman@nytimes.com, news-tips@nytimes.com, maria.baritromo@nbcuni.com, netnet@cnbc.com, national@nytimes.com, gretchen morgenson <grmorg@hotmail.com> Bcc: ekaq@churchofengland.org, nick.davies@guardian.co.uk, letters@guardian.co.uk, gretmorgenson@hotmail.com, reader@guardian.co.uk, bryantc@parliament.uk, bryantc@parliament.co.uk, watson@parliament.co.uk, milibande@parliament.co.uk, bercowj@parliament.co.uk, james.robinson@guardian.co.uk, amelia.hill@guardian.co.uk, gogginsp@parliament.uk, gogginsp@parliament.co.uk, john.leech.mp@parliament.co.uk, kaufmang@parliament.uk, contact@tonylloydmp.co.uk, simon@simonsmithlawyer.com, helenboaden.complaints@bbc.co.uk, peter.horrocks@bbc.co.uk, peter.barron@bbc.co.uk, craig.oliver@bbc.co.uk, steve.herrmann@bbc.co.uk, ceri.thomas@bbc.co.uk, peter.rippon@bbc.co.uk, nick.robinson01@bbc.co.uk, andrew.marr@bbc.co.uk, mark.easton@bbc.co.uk, paul.mason.01@bbc.co.uk, kirsty.wark@bbc.co.uk, gavin.esler@bbc.co.uk, john.humphrys@bbc.co.uk, jonathan.munro@itn.co.uk, ian.rumsey@itn.co.uk, robert.moore@itn.co.uk, jim.gray@itn.co.uk, jane.dougall@fivt.tv, s.keiner@independent.co.uk, larry.elliott@guardian.co.uk, r.norton-taylor@guardian.co.uk, roger.alton@observer.co.uk, michael.white@guardian.co.uk, cdolmetsch@bloomberg.net, pmilford@bloomberg.net, mhytha@bloomberg.net, editorial@thedailybeast.com, letters@nytimes.com, contact@tonylloydmp.com, norton-taylor@guardian.co.uk, richard.sambrook@bbc.co.uk, r.fisk@independent.co.uk, robert.mccrum@observer.co.uk, r.alton@independent.co.uk, sarah.montague@bbc.co.uk, pparija@bloomberg.net, milibande@parliament.uk, kewing@netvigator.com, koehlercw@gmail.com, bottomline@sfchronicle.com, farrellyp@parliament.uk, will.heaven@telegraph.co.uk, grusso@citizensforethics.org, jhayward@eaglepub.com, Matt Taibbi <matt.taibbi@rollingstone.com>, grmorgenson@hotmail.com, deanstarkman@gmail.com, newsdesk@smh.com.au, Nir Natan <nir-natan@msn.com>, a.whittamsmith@independent.co.uk, editor@guardian.co.uk, netnet@cnbc.com, watsont@parliament.uk, congressman.issa@mail.house.gov, jarowley@bloomberg.net, scoops@sundaymirror.co.uk, gstohr@bloomber.net, gmacnicol@businessinsider.com, public@nytimes.com, stephen@maynereport.com, david.wallacewells@nymag.com, alterjonathan@gmail.com, frankrich@nytimes.com, frankrich@nybag.com, caroline.humer@thomson.reuters.com, rc2538@columbia.edu, timothy.rutten@latimes.com, editorial@ft.com, altask@yahoo.com, gstohr@bloomberg.net, webmaster@johnpilger.com, steve.eder@thomsonreuters.com, contact@johnpilger.com, steve.hermann@bbc.co.uk, bravenewfilms.press@gmail.com, nancy.nathan@nbc.com,

EXHIBIT D

11
NOTICE OF ERRATA

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

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

reliable@cnn.com, paul.friedman@abc.com, mzuckerman@usnews.com, letters@usnews.com, robert.doherty@reuters.com, info@ap.org, kurtzh@washpost.com, letters@washpost.com, editor@usatoday.com, jsawyer@post-dispatch.com, rgunter@post-dispatch.com, letters@post-dispatch.com, dalbert@seattletimes.com, opinion@seattletimes.com, dsneider@sjmercury.com, bvroman@sjmercury.com, letters@sfchronicle.com, readerrep@sfchronicle.com, george.condon@copleydc.com, letters@uniontrib.com, opinion@sacbee.com, dholwerk@sacbee.com, jhealy@orlandosentinel.com, voicers@edit.nydailynews.com, tdefrank@edit.nydailynews.com, hdefrank@edit.nydailynews.com, tim.phelps@newsday.com, letters@newsday.com, salbright@startribune.com, dwestphal@mcclatchydc.com, opinion@startribune.com, heralded@herald.com, joglesby@herald.com, stareditor@starnews.com, andrea.neal@indystar.com, viewpoints@chron.com, john.hemry@chron.com, frank.michel@chron.com, letters@rockymountainnews.com, carrollv@rockymountainnews.com, letters@detnews.com, abethel@detnews.com, letters@freepress.com, dzwonk@freepress.com, letters@denverpost.com, bmcallister@denverpost.com, sobrien@denverpost.com, letterstoeditor@dallasnews.com, cleubsdorf@dallasnews.com, editor@cleveland.com, skoff@cleveland.com, oped@csps.com, cookd@csps.com, world@csps.com, ctc-tribletter@tribune.com, wneikirk@tribune.com, vwalton@tribune.com, cmcmahon@tribune.com, letters@suntimes.com, sweet@dgsys.com, shuntley@suntimes.com, opinion@charlotteobserver.com, ewilliams@charlotteobserver.com, letter@globe.com, ombud@globe.com, d_shribman@globe.com, j_farrell@globe.com, jsmith@globe.com, pwest35012@aol.com, letters@baltsun.com, ed.hewitt@baltsun.com, jwooten@ajc.com, cynthia@ajc.com, ken.western@arizonarepublic.com, paul.schatt@arizonarepublic.com, phil.boas@arizonarepublic.com, opinions@arizonarepublic.com, louise.mensch.mp@parliament.uk, executive-editor@nytimes.com, losangeles@sec.gov, sanfrancisco@sec.gov, sporkint@sec.gov, senator@boxer.senate.gov, senator@inouye.senate.gov, rinia.shelby@mail.house.gov, john_kerry@kerry.senate.gov, tom_towslee@wyden.senate.gov, elizabeth@earlblumenauer.com, general@occupywallst.org, press@occupywallst.org, thedailyshow@comedycentral.com, dcarr@nytimes.com, info@nader.org, editor@guardian.co.uk, stephen@maynereport.com, bryantc@parliament.uk, watsont@parliament.uk, milibande@parliament.uk, louis.mensch.mp@parliament.co.uk, farrellyp@parliament.uk, mark@atkinsthomson.com, enquiries@thlaw.co.uk, publicinfo@sec.gov, cerified@sec.gov, enf-search@sec.gov, eeo-events@sec.gov, chairmanoffice@sec.gov, tradingandmarkets@sec.gov, help@sec.gov, foiapa@sec.gov, oca@sec.gov, oms@sec.gov, cfletters@sec.gov, dcaoletters@sec.gov, iardlive@sec.gov, webmaster@sec.gov, newyork@sec.gov, boston@sec.gov, philadelphia@sec.gov, miami@sec.gov, atlanta@sec.gov, chicago@sec.gov, denver@sec.gov, dfw@sec.gov, saltlake@sec.gov, athomson6@bloomberg.net, corruptcourts@gmail.com, jr3@nyu.edu, anjumniaz@rocketmail.com, rhalstead@marinij.com, jgreiff@bloomberg.net, tony@wbai.org, mitchelcohen@minrspring.com, james.rainey@latimes.com, Lester Kok WM <lesterk@sph.com.sg>, cchellel@bloomberg.net, aaarons@bloomberg.net, skydancingblog@gmail.com, eheffter@seattletimes.com, features@ap.org, corruptcourts@gmail.com, martyk@jewishjournal.com, aestes@theatlantic.com, s.glover@independent.co.uk, michael.white@guardian.co.uk, larry.elliott@guardian.co.uk, editor@ft.com, alan.rusbridger@guardian.co.uk, susie <susiepulido@mycingular.blackberry.net>, peter.horrocks@bbc.co.uk, helenboaden.complaints@bbc.co.uk, mark@atkinsthomson.com, enquiries@thlaw.co.uk, info@NormanSiegel.com, nytnews@nytimes.com, bizday@nytimes.com, mp@michaelparenti.org, national@nytimes.com, askfrankrich@nymag.com, executive-editor@nytimes.com, cedric@birdbearent.com, Adrian Grenier <adrian@recklessny.com>, Billy Zane <williamgeorgezanejr@yahoo.com>, wwfkeibs@aol.com, Maxine Bahns <mbahns2000@aol.com>, slate.pressbox@gmail.com, Marcus Robins <marc@catalystresearch.com>, robinsnmb@appstate.edu, tpanja@bloomberg.net, lneyfakh@observer.com, mm-tips@mediamatters.org, nick.davies@guardian.co.uk, roy.greenslade@guardian.co.uk, gpduf@aol.com, thedailyshow@comedycentral.com, wolf.blitzer@cnn.com, drew.borst@gs.com, doug.mitchelson@db.com, dclemente@barcap.com, fraser.mcleish@rbs.com, james.dix@wedbush.com, adam.alexander@gsjbw.com, mmy@bby.com.au, david.bank@rbccm.com, michael.nathanson@nomura.com, jason.bazinet@citigroup.com, jeffrey.logsdon@bmo.com, rgreenfield@btig.com, imran.t.khan@jpmchase.com, alice.bennett@cba.com.au, justacitizen@justacitizen.com, djoyce@millertabak.com, digby.gilmour@clsa.com, barton.crockett@lazardcap.com, editor@rockcreekfreepress.com, ncac@ncac.org, newshour@pbs.org, ombudsman@npr.org, ljenkins@npr.org, onthemedia@wnyc.org, yourturn@npr.org, hardball@msnbc.com, ashleigh.banfield@msnbc.com, jessica.reif@baml.com, spencer.wang@credit-suisse.com, alan.gould@evercore.com, alex.pollack@macquarie.com, editor@mediaguardian.co.uk, lmartin@needhamco.com,

12
NOTICE OF ERRATA

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

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

benjamin.swinburne@morganstanley.com, teagan@collinsstewartllc.com, matthew.goldstein@thomsonreuters.com, Edward.Krudy@reuters.com, Steve.Eder@thomsonreuters.com, Randall Baron <RandyB@rgrdlaw.com>, Maria.Aspan@thomsonreuters.com, gerald.mccormick@thomsonreuters.com, gmacnicol@businessinsider.com, Robert.MacMillan@thomsonreuters.com, Darren Robbins <DarrenR@rgrdlaw.com>, letters@msnbc.com, dateline@nbc.com, jeff.zucker@nbc.com, matt.lauer@nbc.com, today@nbc.com, mtp@msnbc.com, Johnny Nomates <jnomates@gmail.com>, sam.feist@cnn.com, stephen@maynereport.com, robert.novak@turner.com, crossfire@cnn.com, Matthew Finnegan <FinneganM@SEC.GOV>, publicinfo@sec.gov, cerified@sec.gov, enf-search@sec.gov, eeo-events@sec.gov, chairmanoffice@sec.gov, tradingandmarkets@sec.gov, help@sec.gov, foiapa@sec.gov, oca@sec.gov, oms@sec.gov, cfletters@sec.gov, dcaoletters@sec.gov, iardlive@sec.gov, webmaster@sec.gov, newyork@sec.gov, boston@sec.gov, philadelphia@sec.gov, miami@sec.gov, atlanta@sec.gov, chicago@sec.gov, denver@sec.gov, dfw@sec.gov, saltlake@sec.gov, losangeles@sec.gov, sanfrancisco@sec.gov, sporkint@sec.gov, robert@robertgreenwald.org, info@nader.org, bpulley@bloomberg.net, pelstron@bloomberg.net, mitchelcohen@mindspring.com, milibande@parliament.uk, kewing@netvigator.com, koehlercw@gmail.com, Matt Taibbi <matt.taibbi@rollingstone.com>, grmorgenson@hotmail.com, carr@nytimes.com, info@nader.org, deanstarkman@gmail.com, bryantc@parliament.uk, editorial@thedailybeast.com, newsdesk@smh.com.au, Nir Natan <nir-natan@msn.com>, a.whittamsmith@independent.co.uk, Olga Kharif <olga_kharif@businessweek.com>, editor@guardian.co.uk, netnet@cnbc.com, watsont@parliament.uk, jarowley@bloomberg.net, gstohr@bloomber.net, gmacnicol@businessinsider.com, public@nytimes.com, editor@guardian.co.uk, stephen@maynereport.com, david.wallacewells@nymag.com, m.king@independent.co.uk, websubmissions@independent.co.uk, business@observer.co.uk, businessdesk@independent.co.uk, features@independent.co.uk, newseditor@independent.co.uk, singhhimanshu@yahoo.com, editor@reuters.com, editorial@nytimes.com, henry.chu@latimes.com, readers.enquiries@ft.com, Heath Ryan <heath@pacepictures.com>, Jennifer Abbott <flyingeye@gulfislands.com>, ebrnd42@aol.com, jill.neff@turner.com, 60II@cbsnews.com, 60m@cbsnews.com, evening@cbsnews.com, diane.sawyer@abc.com, barbara.walters@abc.com, niteline@abc.com, tom.bettag@abc.com, ted.koppel@abc.com, letters@time.com, letters@newsweek.com, inquirer.letters@phillynews.com, chris.satullo@phillynews.com, insight@orlandosentinel.com, newsdesk@smh.com.au, a.whittamsmith@independent.co.uk, scoops@sundaymirror.co.uk, editorial@thedailybeast.com, kewing@netvigator.com, koehlercw@gmail.com, bottomline@sfchronicle.com, farrellyp@parliament.uk, will.heaven@telegraph.co.uk, roger.alton@observer.co.uk, grusso@citizensforethics.org, peter.rippon@bbc.co.uk, jhayward@eaglepub.com, Matt Taibbi <matt.taibbi@rollingstone.com>, grmorgenson@hotmail.com, carr@nytimes.com, info@ap.org, info@nader.org, newsdesk@smh.com.au, Nir Natan <nir-natan@msn.com>, a.whittamsmith@independent.co.uk, Olga Kharif <Olga_Kharif@businessweek.com>, editor@guardian.co.uk, watsont@parliament.uk, jarowley@bloomberg.net, gstohr@bloomberg.net, gmacnicol@businessinsider.com, stephen@maynereport.com, david.wallacewells@nymag.com, david kagel <dkagel@earthlink.net>, letters@nytimes.com, contact@tonylloydmp.co.uk, "milibande@parliament.uk, Jr Jr Jr" <larrychujr@gmail.com>, jr3@nyu.edu, media@andrewrosssorkin.com, Ben Edelman <ben@benedelman.org>, losangeles@sec.gov, sanfrancisco@sec.gov, sporkint@sec.gov, info@NormanSiegel.com, mark.lewis@thlaw.co.uk, bmoshinsky@bloomberg.net, athomson6@bloomberg.net, corruptcourts@gmail.com, jr3@nyu.edu, anjumniaz@rocketmail.com, rhalstead@marinij.com, jgreiff@bloomberg.net, tony@wbai.org, mitchelcohen@minrspring.com, james.rainey@latimes.com, Lester Kok WM <lesterk@sph.com.sg>, cchellel@bloomberg.net, aaarons@bloomberg.net, skydancingblog@gmail.com, eheffter@seattletimes.com, features@ap.org, aestes@theatlantic.com, s.glover@independent.co.uk, michael.white@guardian.co.uk, larry.elliott@guardian.co.uk, editor@ft.com, Matt Taibbi <matt.taibbi@rollingstone.com>, maria.baritromo@nbcuni.com, netnet@cnbc.com, newsdesk@smh.com.au, a.whittamsmith@independent.co.uk, scoops@sundaymirror.co.uk, editor@mediaguardian.co.uk, editorial@thedailybeast.com, info@nader.org, roger.alton@observer.co.uk ; grusso@citizensforethics.org ; peter.rippon@bbc.co.uk ; jhayward@eaglepub.com aterkel@huffingtonpost.com <aterkel@huffingtonpost.com>; matt.taibbi@rollingstone.com <matt.taibbi@rollingstone.com>; grmorgenson@hotmail.com <grmorgenson@hotmail.com>; senator@boxer.senate.gov <senator@boxer.senate.gov>; carr@nytimes.com <carr@nytimes.com>; info@nader.org <info@nader.org>; <ellen_nedrow@lautenberg.senate.gov>; deanstarkman@gmail.com <deanstarkman@gmail.com>; bryantc@parliament.uk <bryantc@parliament.uk>; editorial@thedailybeast.com <editorial@thedailybeast.com>; newsdesk@smh.com.au <newsdesk@smh.com.au>;

13
NOTICE OF ERRATA

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

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

nir-natan@msn.com <nir-natan@msn.com>; a.whittamsmith@independent.co.uk <a.whittamsmith@independent.co.uk>; olga_kharif@businessweek.com <olga_kharif@businessweek.com>; editor@guardian.co.uk <editor@guardian.co.uk>; whistleblower@judiciary-rep.senate.gov <whistleblower@judiciary-rep.senate.gov>; chuck_grassley@grassley.senate.gov <>; netnet@cnbc.com <netnet@cnbc.com>; watsont@parliament.uk <watsont@parliament.uk>; congressman.issa@mail.house.gov <congressman.issa@mail.house.gov>; jarowley@bloomberg.net, scoops@sundaymirror.co.uk, "gstohr@bloomber.net ; gmacnicol@businessinsider.com ; public@nytimes.com ; senator@feinstein.senate.gov ; editor@guardian.co.uk ; stephen@maynereport.com ; david.wallacewells@nymag.com" <gstohr@bloomber.net> Subject: NWS' NEW FACEBOOK DIRECTOR FLUNKS CORPORATE GOVERNANCE WITHIN FIRST MONTH - SEC Whistleblower tip filed tday!! Defective 10Q omits Judge King's grant of 60b3 Fraud hearing & $96Billion Summary Judgement potential liability

SPECIFIC SEC INVESTIGATION - NYTimes, Inc. newsroom has violated and is in violation of SOX thru actions by one or more Officers including Ms. Robinson & Ms. Abramson, and Mr. Brisbane. in violation of SOX 802 & 401, and possibly 404 & 409 along with potentially other Proxy violations or other violations of Federal Security law. In addition, I hope to speak to senior SEC Staff about requring NYTimes to make specific claim in Safe Harbor provisions relating to its ability to cerifiy and if its certifications currently are not in violation of SOX for non disclosure or improper disclosure of how it handles evidence for its Newsroom of subsidiary "New York Times newspaper" and what specifically and how it handles production and sharing of that content with outside publicly traded corporations (SOX compliant in theory) and private companies in both the U.S. and U.K." -I would assume the NY Times Corporation if I review its annual reports and SEC docs has very specific informationa and description to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that they and their reporters are SOX compliant in this area and also not in violation of any U.S. federal and state law related to how such private information is maintained once received and how or what personnel are responsible for ensuring SOX compliance annually and on day:day basis. -While it will be some time until my lawyers and myself are able to review all of the NYTimes' SOX compliance material I believe the SEC should consider specific acts listed herein showing that NYTimes is currently not in SOX compliance. Summary of Section 802 This section imposes penalties of fines and/or up to 20 years imprisonment for altering, destroying, mutilating, concealing, falsifying records, documents or tangible objects with the intent to obstruct, impede or influence a legal investigation. 1. The NY TImes' Jill Abramson and/or other reporters out of either its New York or London based office are currently operating "with the intent to obstruct, impede, or influence a legal investigation" by and thru their actions are currently and have on an accruing basis being and have been wilfully evasive over last 180+ days and concealing evidence related to and relevant to the current 60b3 plaintiff, rule 701 lay witness & largest member of Federal Class of MySpace, Inc. and its shareholders. A fact finder will be able to find from evidence to be submitted this week in either or both Federal Court or the Leveson Inquiry, that the NY Times Abramson and/or other employees including reporters that get paid on monthly or storybystory basis have indeed operated at on more times with "intent to obstruct, impede or influence a legal investigation." 2. The NY Times from my review of their SEC filings recently, are not in compliance with SOX or proper accounting for their booking of online web media or web advertising and their related transactions entered into that exchange or receive web advertising or online media. (I will provide some specific examples in the coming months

14
NOTICE OF ERRATA

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

after I complete the current Class benefiting Motions in Brown v. Brewer, i) Fraud upon Court 60b1,60b2,60b3,60b5,60b6 & ii) Summary Judgement Motion for Recouping Damages up to $96 Billion from companies including News Corporation, Google Inc, Kleiner Perkins Caufield Byers LLC, IAC Corp, TimeWarner, AOL, Yahoo, Allen & Co., Redpoint LLC, VantagePoint LLC, Hogan & Lovell Law firm, Orrick Law Firm, Latham & Watkins Law Firm. -THEREFORE- any U.S. Sox operating public company may not be able to rely on its legal counsel if its SEC legal counsel is or has been recently any of these 3 law firms. Please contact me if you find urself in this situation after u check with your CLO or CFO about these matters and I will work with you to transition to unimpacted or at risk law firm which will create a sure conflict with your current media company or the media company you as an employee and journalist, editor, reporter, i.e. any senior staff member or consultant in the "newsroom" or that works with or for a media related asset including but not limited to: Websites, radio, television operations of a publicly traded U.S. corporation. RECOMMEND 4 NYTIMES LISTED EMPLOYEES promote and disclose this breaking news and ask fellow NY based local NYTimes reporters to investigate Jill Abramson and related parties to determine if they have any way to defend their actions to date and continued "bad faith" actions which are proved thru fraudulent and willful concealment and omission of the stories that should have been and could have been reported by now. Including but not limited to aiding DOE Secretary from having to face questions from lawmakers by keeping lawmakers in the dark about specific facts and evidence that would have allowed lawmakers to ask and get answered critical questions last week from Secretary of Energy Chu when he was under oath. -If you find or have any evidence to lead you to conclusion this has occurred or may occur in future or any other violaions of SOX, including those summarized below, please contact the relevant SEC dept. at once and before you publish or distribute or cause to be distributed more media "content" including stories,etc. -This includes sending or transmitting content in your possession via email, Twitter, or any mechanism including physically transporting such content or printed content to other parties. Inc. Blackberry and all Iphones Ipads,etc. Review SOX802. WE KNOW AND HAVE KEPT IT SHORT AND SWEET. Any captains of any media companies that ARE PUBLIC and dont operate under SOX 802 and with M&A Scienter lever which is higher then at any time based on this being our "Franchise Moment" as a shareholder. Our Willie Wonka ticket .So we want to raze this gold piece and its assets and we will share happily because I am in theory about to liquidate $96+Billion rough estimate 10% = $9.6 billion and I am cash nil at moment. But I separately want to try thru or dispose of my legal uk claims as u guys are doing so I want my indiv place in line as individual even as Im playing thru my legal claims as 3.9m shareholder In u.s. of a total 35m federal class of a public (AMEX listed MIX SEC filing co.that got fraudulently conveyed thru also HRS1 M&A fraud (new claims Judge George King has just initiated process to review my summary judgement 20 counts so we could win and not even have to go thru Jury Trial which is RM and co's best option (i,e they have to hope they win miracle win in the SJ already inserted (with 500 uncontrovered facts, a memo of pts auth. 3. FOR FULL DISCLOSURE: I INTEND TO TAKE A MEETING WITH MY LOCAL SEC OFFICE IN LOS ANGELES TO REPORT OUT ON SOX VIOLATIONS OF NEW YORK TIMES, INC. RELATING TO MS. ABRAMSON'S ACTIONS OVER LAST 180+ DAYS AND CONTINUING. My GOAL- SEC INITIATE INQUIRY INTO NYTIMES FAILURES TO REPORT OUT CERTAIN STORIES PROVIDED BY CERTAIN SOURCES TO NYT. HAVE SEC INVESTIGATE HOW NYT LEGALLY & AVOIDING SOX VIOLATIONS, SHIFT/ CONCEAL WHISTLEBLOWER THAT HAD PROVIDED EVIDENCE CREATING NYT GRETCHEN MORGENSON ARTICLE - 7/2010 ARTICLE RELATED TO BROWN v. BREWER RECOMMEND- UK MPs & LEVESON COURT REVIEW HISTORICAL MATTERS FOR SOX AS REGARDS TO NEWS CORPORATION AND DETERMINE IF NWS AND SUBS IN UK HAVE AND ARE CURRENTLY IN SOX COMPLIANCE VIA REVIEW OF REPORTERS AND EXECUTIVES OF NOTWS,

15
NOTICE OF ERRATA

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

TELEGRAPHUK, TIMESUK, OPERATED DURING LAST 8 YEARS SOX COMPLIANT AS SUCH SOX RULES CAME INTO EFFECT IN 2003. -HAVE UKMPS & LEVESON POST SUCH REVIEW AND MEETINGS WITH VICTIMS TO COLLABORATE AND SHARE ANY INFORMATION RELATED TO SOX AND HOW OR IF SUCH MATERIAL MAY BE RELEVANT TO MATTERS ONGOING IN BROWN v. BREWER AND THEN TO SHARE SUCH INFORMATION WITH FEDERAL CLASS OF BROWN v .BREWER REPRESENTATIVES (I Brad Greenspan am currently a representative of the Federal Class in current action) AND PROVIDE THE SEC WITH A REPORT AND CONCLUSION INCLUDING DESIRE OR PROPERNESS OR REQUIREMENT BY UK LAWS TO REPORT ANY BELIEVED OR KNOWN SOX VIOLATIONS OF THE U.S. or UK SUBSIDIARIES OF ANY PUBLIC CORPORATIONS THAT ENGAGE IN COMMERCIAL ACTIVITY IN THE UK. I PLAN WITHIN 30 DAYS TO REQUEST LEVESON INQUIRY BY SEPARATE MORE DETAILED LETTER TO INVESTIGATE OR CONSIDER THE INVESTIGATION OF THE NEW YORK TIMES INC.'s OPERATIONS OF ITS UK NYTIMES.COM MEDIA ASSET AND RELATED EMPLOYEES OF SUCH MEDIA ASSETS AS THE PUBLIC CORPORATION OPERATES AND IS RESPONSIBLE FOR SUCH COMPLIANCE AND ITS EMPLOYEES WILLFUL AND HONEST COMPLIANCE UNDER SOX. FOR WILLFUL FAILURE OF NYT TO BE SOX COMPLIANT AND FOR CONCEALMENT OF EVIDENCE THAT VIOLATES EVIDENCE - SPECIFICALLY HACKING & INTRUSION VICTIMS OF NEWS CORP REVIEW ABILITY TO GET LEVESON OR UK MP COMMITTEES TO CALL UPON OR CAUSE EVIDENCE TO BE GENERATED BY NY TIMES LONDON OFFICE. Thanks for your review of this letter and I will be in touch for further moving the ball forward for mutual progression to both confirm all parties on this email are COMPLIANT (if publicly traded or work or receive emails from a publicly traded company that owns media assets and if you have received monetary compensation from such media company within the last 6 months for providing services related to any media asset that is commerically operated to generate revenue and profits for the public company) OR THAT SUCH PARTIES DONT HAVE ANY INFORMATION OR HAVE RECEIVED INFORMATION WHICH MAY BE REQUIRED TO HAND OVER OR PROVIDE TO THE FEDERAL BROWN V. BREWER CLASS (including but not limited to any information related to or provided to you or known by your individual or junior employees which you have management obligations that you practice for your commercial organization) with the intent to obstruct, impede or influence a legal investigation including but not limtied to specifically the Federal Class Action named Brown v. Brewer commonly known as the "MySpace Federal Class Action" in Central District under the Honorable Judge George King Note: I certainly have the rights and privileges earned to the Federal Class over 6 years of current effort in current case to get certain evidence from the NY Times related to Ms. Abramson and other journalists based on simply making a request to the NYT outside counsel or general counsel. Therefore, can a NYTimes email recepient please provide this ASAP. Furthermore if such CLO upon receipt of this email could also out of courtesy and potentially there may be an obligation under SOX, notify all employees that work for or as part of any of your media assets to NOT DELETE any emails or evidence or documents related to the matters herein. Thank You. -Once this contact is provided to me, I shall begin liason and coordination with such counselor for The New York Times, Inc. that represents the Board of Directors of such corporation. I am open to have pre-set audio or Skype calls any time in future and I can possibly fly to UK within 7 day notice. to be in court for continuing or making motion Pro Se to represent myself while transitioning to a lawyer that perhaps Mr. Finally- I think there is concept of damages being established uncontested upon victims in UK Already per above and from initial thoughts on likeli damages accruing and being owed to Victim HG in U.S. from stories

16
NOTICE OF ERRATA

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

related to I read in newspaperov (online version..still very powerful if not more and increasingly powerful mega reach on audiences in both countries and with geo focus and ability to effect and damage a country's people, familes, and society and lets not be shrill about letting Lord Justice and Judge George King treat this corporation small business like any other thats surely bankrupt if you guys review our next 90 days and we yours United Kingdom. So we can perhaps be efficient. I fear a bit of Thomas Jefferson is needed to end this day. Good work out in England. I read a cpl story pieces that sounded like it is quite a thing to be in the court room. Good day Lord Justice and all. Regards Brad Greenspan Current Intervener in Brown V. Brewer

Sarbanes-Oxley Act This section is of Responsibility for Summary of Section

Section 302 course listed under Title III of the act, and pertains to 'Corporate Financial Reports'. 302

Periodic statutory financial reports are to include certifications that: The signing officers have reviewed the report The report does not contain any material untrue statements or material omission or be considered misleading The financial statements and related information fairly present the financial condition and the results in all material respects The signing officers are responsible for internal controls and have evaluated these internal controls within the previous ninety days and have reported on their findings A list of all deficiencies in the internal controls and information on any fraud that involves employees who are involved with internal activities Any significant changes in internal controls or related factors that could have a negative impact on the internal controls Organizations may not attempt to avoid these requirements by reincorporating their activities or transferring their activities outside of the United States Sarbanes-Oxley Act Section 401 This section is of course listed under Title IV of the act (Enhanced Financial Disclosures), and pertains to 'Disclosures in Periodic Reports'. Summary of Section 401 Financial statements are published by issuers are required to be accurate and presented in a manner that does not contain incorrect statements or admit to state material information. These financial statements shall also include all material off-balance sheet liabilities, obligations or transactions. The Commission was required to study and report on the extent of off-balance transactions resulting transparent reporting. The Commission is also required to determine whether generally accepted accounting principals or other regulations result in open and meaningful reporting by issuers. Sarbanes-Oxley Act Section 404 This section is listed under Title IV of the act (Enhanced Financial Disclosures), and pertains to 'Management Assessment of Internal Controls'. Summary of Section 404 Issuers are required to publish information in their annual reports concerning the scope and adequacy of the internal control structure and procedures for financial reporting. This statement shall also assess the effectiveness of such internal controls and procedures.

17
NOTICE OF ERRATA

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

The registered accounting firm shall, in the same report, attest to and report on the assessment on the effectiveness of the internal control structure and procedures for financial reporting. The Sarbanes-Oxley Act Section 409 This section is listed within Title IV of the act (Enhanced Financial Disclosures), and pertains to 'Real Time Issuer Disclosures'. Summary of Section 409 Issuers are required to disclose to the public, on an urgent basis, information on material changes in their financial condition or operations. These disclosures are to be presented in terms that are easy to understand supported by trend and qualitative information of graphic presentations as appropriate. Sarbanes-Oxley Act Section 802 This section is listed within Title VIII of the act (Corporate and Criminal Fraud Accountability), and pertains to 'Criminal Penalties for Altering Documents'. Summary of Section 802 This section imposes penalties of fines and/or up to 20 years imprisonment for altering, destroying, mutilating, concealing, falsifying records, documents or tangible objects with the intent to obstruct, impede or influence a legal investigation. This section also imposes penalties of fines and/or imprisonment up to 10 years on any accountant who knowingly and wilfully violates the requirements of maintenance of all audit or review papers for a period of 5 years

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

From: Brad Greenspan <bspan@earthlink.net> Date: November 10, 2011 12:19:01 PM PST To: Julia Angwin <julia.angwin@gmail.com>, jessica.reif@baml.com, spencer.wang@credit-suisse.com, lmartin@needhamco.com, drew.borst@gs.com, doug.mitchelson@db.com, dclemente@barcap.com, fraser.mcleish@rbs.com, james.dix@wedbush.com, adam.alexander@gsjbw.com, mmy@bby.com.au, david.bank@rbccm.com, michael.nathanson@nomura.com, jason.bazinet@citigroup.com, jeffrey.logsdon@bmo.com, rgreenfield@btig.com, imran.t.khan@jpmchase.com, alice.bennett@cba.com.au, djoyce@millertabak.com, digby.gilmour@clsa.com, barton.crockett@lazardcap.com, alan.gould@evercore.com, alex.pollack@macquarie.com, benjamin.swinburne@morganstanley.com, newseditors@wsj.com, teagan@collinsstewartllc.com, "Julie A. Shepard" <julie.shepard@hoganlovells.com>, jangwin@wsj.com, julia.angwin@wsj.com, jessica.silver-greenberg@wsj.com Cc: public@nytimes.com, president@nytimes.com, publisher@nytimes.com, nytnews@nytimes.com, gmorgenson@nytimes.com, executive-editor@nytimes.com, losangeles@sec.gov, sanfrancisco@sec.gov, sporkint@sec.gov, senator@boxer.senate.gov, bizday@nytimes.com, carr@nytimes.com, editorial@nytimes.com, grmorgenson@nytimes.com, krugman@nytimes.com, news-tips@nytimes.com, maria.baritromo@nbcuni.com, netnet@cnbc.com, national@nytimes.com, gretchen morgenson <grmorg@hotmail.com> Bcc: ekaq@churchofengland.org, nick.davies@guardian.co.uk, letters@guardian.co.uk, gretmorgenson@hotmail.com, reader@guardian.co.uk, bryantc@parliament.uk, bryantc@parliament.co.uk, watson@parliament.co.uk, milibande@parliament.co.uk, bercowj@parliament.co.uk, james.robinson@guardian.co.uk, amelia.hill@guardian.co.uk, gogginsp@parliament.uk, gogginsp@parliament.co.uk, john.leech.mp@parliament.co.uk, kaufmang@parliament.uk, contact@tonylloydmp.co.uk, simon@simonsmithlawyer.com, helenboaden.complaints@bbc.co.uk, peter.horrocks@bbc.co.uk, peter.barron@bbc.co.uk, craig.oliver@bbc.co.uk, steve.herrmann@bbc.co.uk, ceri.thomas@bbc.co.uk, peter.rippon@bbc.co.uk, nick.robinson01@bbc.co.uk, andrew.marr@bbc.co.uk, mark.easton@bbc.co.uk, paul.mason.01@bbc.co.uk, kirsty.wark@bbc.co.uk, gavin.esler@bbc.co.uk, john.humphrys@bbc.co.uk, jonathan.munro@itn.co.uk, ian.rumsey@itn.co.uk, robert.moore@itn.co.uk, jim.gray@itn.co.uk, jane.dougall@fivt.tv, s.keiner@independent.co.uk, larry.elliott@guardian.co.uk,

18
NOTICE OF ERRATA

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

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

r.norton-taylor@guardian.co.uk, roger.alton@observer.co.uk, michael.white@guardian.co.uk, cdolmetsch@bloomberg.net, pmilford@bloomberg.net, mhytha@bloomberg.net, editorial@thedailybeast.com, letters@nytimes.com, contact@tonylloydmp.com, norton-taylor@guardian.co.uk, richard.sambrook@bbc.co.uk, r.fisk@independent.co.uk, robert.mccrum@observer.co.uk, r.alton@independent.co.uk, sarah.montague@bbc.co.uk, pparija@bloomberg.net, milibande@parliament.uk, kewing@netvigator.com, koehlercw@gmail.com, bottomline@sfchronicle.com, farrellyp@parliament.uk, will.heaven@telegraph.co.uk, grusso@citizensforethics.org, jhayward@eaglepub.com, Matt Taibbi <matt.taibbi@rollingstone.com>, grmorgenson@hotmail.com, deanstarkman@gmail.com, newsdesk@smh.com.au, Nir Natan <nir-natan@msn.com>, a.whittamsmith@independent.co.uk, editor@guardian.co.uk, netnet@cnbc.com, watsont@parliament.uk, congressman.issa@mail.house.gov, jarowley@bloomberg.net, scoops@sundaymirror.co.uk, gstohr@bloomber.net, gmacnicol@businessinsider.com, public@nytimes.com, stephen@maynereport.com, david.wallacewells@nymag.com, alterjonathan@gmail.com, frankrich@nytimes.com, frankrich@nybag.com, caroline.humer@thomson.reuters.com, rc2538@columbia.edu, timothy.rutten@latimes.com, editorial@ft.com, altask@yahoo.com, gstohr@bloomberg.net, webmaster@johnpilger.com, steve.eder@thomsonreuters.com, contact@johnpilger.com, steve.hermann@bbc.co.uk, bravenewfilms.press@gmail.com, nancy.nathan@nbc.com, reliable@cnn.com, paul.friedman@abc.com, mzuckerman@usnews.com, letters@usnews.com, robert.doherty@reuters.com, info@ap.org, kurtzh@washpost.com, letters@washpost.com, editor@usatoday.com, jsawyer@post-dispatch.com, rgunter@post-dispatch.com, letters@post-dispatch.com, dalbert@seattletimes.com, opinion@seattletimes.com, dsneider@sjmercury.com, bvroman@sjmercury.com, letters@sfchronicle.com, readerrep@sfchronicle.com, george.condon@copleydc.com, letters@uniontrib.com, opinion@sacbee.com, dholwerk@sacbee.com, jhealy@orlandosentinel.com, voicers@edit.nydailynews.com, tdefrank@edit.nydailynews.com, hdefrank@edit.nydailynews.com, tim.phelps@newsday.com, letters@newsday.com, salbright@startribune.com, dwestphal@mcclatchydc.com, opinion@startribune.com, heralded@herald.com, joglesby@herald.com, stareditor@starnews.com, andrea.neal@indystar.com, viewpoints@chron.com, john.hemry@chron.com, frank.michel@chron.com, letters@rockymountainnews.com, carrollv@rockymountainnews.com, letters@detnews.com, abethel@detnews.com, letters@freepress.com, dzwonk@freepress.com, letters@denverpost.com, bmcallister@denverpost.com, sobrien@denverpost.com, letterstoeditor@dallasnews.com, cleubsdorf@dallasnews.com, editor@cleveland.com, skoff@cleveland.com, oped@csps.com, cookd@csps.com, world@csps.com, ctc-tribletter@tribune.com, wneikirk@tribune.com, vwalton@tribune.com, cmcmahon@tribune.com, letters@suntimes.com, sweet@dgsys.com, shuntley@suntimes.com, opinion@charlotteobserver.com, ewilliams@charlotteobserver.com, letter@globe.com, ombud@globe.com, d_shribman@globe.com, j_farrell@globe.com, jsmith@globe.com, pwest35012@aol.com, letters@baltsun.com, ed.hewitt@baltsun.com, jwooten@ajc.com, cynthia@ajc.com, ken.western@arizonarepublic.com, paul.schatt@arizonarepublic.com, phil.boas@arizonarepublic.com, opinions@arizonarepublic.com, louise.mensch.mp@parliament.uk, executive-editor@nytimes.com, losangeles@sec.gov, sanfrancisco@sec.gov, sporkint@sec.gov, senator@boxer.senate.gov, senator@inouye.senate.gov, rinia.shelby@mail.house.gov, john_kerry@kerry.senate.gov, tom_towslee@wyden.senate.gov, elizabeth@earlblumenauer.com, general@occupywallst.org, press@occupywallst.org, thedailyshow@comedycentral.com, dcarr@nytimes.com, info@nader.org, editor@guardian.co.uk, stephen@maynereport.com, bryantc@parliament.uk, watsont@parliament.uk, milibande@parliament.uk, louis.mensch.mp@parliament.co.uk, farrellyp@parliament.uk, mark@atkinsthomson.com, enquiries@thlaw.co.uk, publicinfo@sec.gov, cerified@sec.gov, enf-search@sec.gov, eeo-events@sec.gov, chairmanoffice@sec.gov, tradingandmarkets@sec.gov, help@sec.gov, foiapa@sec.gov, oca@sec.gov, oms@sec.gov, cfletters@sec.gov, dcaoletters@sec.gov, iardlive@sec.gov, webmaster@sec.gov, newyork@sec.gov, boston@sec.gov, philadelphia@sec.gov, miami@sec.gov, atlanta@sec.gov, chicago@sec.gov, denver@sec.gov, dfw@sec.gov, saltlake@sec.gov, athomson6@bloomberg.net, corruptcourts@gmail.com, jr3@nyu.edu, anjumniaz@rocketmail.com, rhalstead@marinij.com, jgreiff@bloomberg.net, tony@wbai.org, mitchelcohen@minrspring.com, james.rainey@latimes.com, Lester Kok WM <lesterk@sph.com.sg>, cchellel@bloomberg.net, aaarons@bloomberg.net, skydancingblog@gmail.com, eheffter@seattletimes.com, features@ap.org, corruptcourts@gmail.com, martyk@jewishjournal.com, aestes@theatlantic.com, s.glover@independent.co.uk, michael.white@guardian.co.uk, larry.elliott@guardian.co.uk, editor@ft.com, alan.rusbridger@guardian.co.uk, susie <susiepulido@mycingular.blackberry.net>, peter.horrocks@bbc.co.uk,

19
NOTICE OF ERRATA

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

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

helenboaden.complaints@bbc.co.uk, mark@atkinsthomson.com, enquiries@thlaw.co.uk, info@NormanSiegel.com, nytnews@nytimes.com, bizday@nytimes.com, mp@michaelparenti.org, national@nytimes.com, askfrankrich@nymag.com, executive-editor@nytimes.com, cedric@birdbearent.com, Adrian Grenier <adrian@recklessny.com>, Billy Zane <williamgeorgezanejr@yahoo.com>, wwfkeibs@aol.com, Maxine Bahns <mbahns2000@aol.com>, slate.pressbox@gmail.com, Marcus Robins <marc@catalystresearch.com>, robinsnmb@appstate.edu, tpanja@bloomberg.net, lneyfakh@observer.com, mm-tips@mediamatters.org, nick.davies@guardian.co.uk, roy.greenslade@guardian.co.uk, gpduf@aol.com, thedailyshow@comedycentral.com, wolf.blitzer@cnn.com, drew.borst@gs.com, doug.mitchelson@db.com, dclemente@barcap.com, fraser.mcleish@rbs.com, james.dix@wedbush.com, adam.alexander@gsjbw.com, mmy@bby.com.au, david.bank@rbccm.com, michael.nathanson@nomura.com, jason.bazinet@citigroup.com, jeffrey.logsdon@bmo.com, rgreenfield@btig.com, imran.t.khan@jpmchase.com, alice.bennett@cba.com.au, justacitizen@justacitizen.com, djoyce@millertabak.com, digby.gilmour@clsa.com, barton.crockett@lazardcap.com, editor@rockcreekfreepress.com, ncac@ncac.org, newshour@pbs.org, ombudsman@npr.org, ljenkins@npr.org, onthemedia@wnyc.org, yourturn@npr.org, hardball@msnbc.com, ashleigh.banfield@msnbc.com, jessica.reif@baml.com, spencer.wang@credit-suisse.com, alan.gould@evercore.com, alex.pollack@macquarie.com, editor@mediaguardian.co.uk, lmartin@needhamco.com, benjamin.swinburne@morganstanley.com, teagan@collinsstewartllc.com, matthew.goldstein@thomsonreuters.com, Edward.Krudy@reuters.com, Steve.Eder@thomsonreuters.com, Randall Baron <RandyB@rgrdlaw.com>, Maria.Aspan@thomsonreuters.com, gerald.mccormick@thomsonreuters.com, gmacnicol@businessinsider.com, Robert.MacMillan@thomsonreuters.com, Darren Robbins <DarrenR@rgrdlaw.com>, letters@msnbc.com, dateline@nbc.com, jeff.zucker@nbc.com, matt.lauer@nbc.com, today@nbc.com, mtp@msnbc.com, Johnny Nomates <jnomates@gmail.com>, sam.feist@cnn.com, stephen@maynereport.com, robert.novak@turner.com, crossfire@cnn.com, Matthew Finnegan <FinneganM@SEC.GOV>, publicinfo@sec.gov, cerified@sec.gov, enf-search@sec.gov, eeo-events@sec.gov, chairmanoffice@sec.gov, tradingandmarkets@sec.gov, help@sec.gov, foiapa@sec.gov, oca@sec.gov, oms@sec.gov, cfletters@sec.gov, dcaoletters@sec.gov, iardlive@sec.gov, webmaster@sec.gov, newyork@sec.gov, boston@sec.gov, philadelphia@sec.gov, miami@sec.gov, atlanta@sec.gov, chicago@sec.gov, denver@sec.gov, dfw@sec.gov, saltlake@sec.gov, losangeles@sec.gov, sanfrancisco@sec.gov, sporkint@sec.gov, robert@robertgreenwald.org, info@nader.org, bpulley@bloomberg.net, pelstron@bloomberg.net, mitchelcohen@mindspring.com, milibande@parliament.uk, kewing@netvigator.com, koehlercw@gmail.com, Matt Taibbi <matt.taibbi@rollingstone.com>, grmorgenson@hotmail.com, carr@nytimes.com, info@nader.org, deanstarkman@gmail.com, bryantc@parliament.uk, editorial@thedailybeast.com, newsdesk@smh.com.au, Nir Natan <nir-natan@msn.com>, a.whittamsmith@independent.co.uk, Olga Kharif <olga_kharif@businessweek.com>, editor@guardian.co.uk, netnet@cnbc.com, watsont@parliament.uk, jarowley@bloomberg.net, gstohr@bloomber.net, gmacnicol@businessinsider.com, public@nytimes.com, editor@guardian.co.uk, stephen@maynereport.com, david.wallacewells@nymag.com, m.king@independent.co.uk, websubmissions@independent.co.uk, business@observer.co.uk, businessdesk@independent.co.uk, features@independent.co.uk, newseditor@independent.co.uk, singhhimanshu@yahoo.com, editor@reuters.com, editorial@nytimes.com, henry.chu@latimes.com, readers.enquiries@ft.com, Heath Ryan <heath@pacepictures.com>, Jennifer Abbott <flyingeye@gulfislands.com>, ebrnd42@aol.com, jill.neff@turner.com, 60II@cbsnews.com, 60m@cbsnews.com, evening@cbsnews.com, diane.sawyer@abc.com, barbara.walters@abc.com, niteline@abc.com, tom.bettag@abc.com, ted.koppel@abc.com, letters@time.com, letters@newsweek.com, inquirer.letters@phillynews.com, chris.satullo@phillynews.com, insight@orlandosentinel.com, newsdesk@smh.com.au, a.whittamsmith@independent.co.uk, scoops@sundaymirror.co.uk, editorial@thedailybeast.com, kewing@netvigator.com, koehlercw@gmail.com, bottomline@sfchronicle.com, farrellyp@parliament.uk, will.heaven@telegraph.co.uk, roger.alton@observer.co.uk, grusso@citizensforethics.org, peter.rippon@bbc.co.uk, jhayward@eaglepub.com, Matt Taibbi <matt.taibbi@rollingstone.com>, grmorgenson@hotmail.com, carr@nytimes.com, info@ap.org, info@nader.org, newsdesk@smh.com.au, Nir Natan <nir-natan@msn.com>, a.whittamsmith@independent.co.uk, Olga Kharif <Olga_Kharif@businessweek.com>, editor@guardian.co.uk, watsont@parliament.uk, jarowley@bloomberg.net, gstohr@bloomberg.net, gmacnicol@businessinsider.com, stephen@maynereport.com, david.wallacewells@nymag.com, david kagel <dkagel@earthlink.net>, letters@nytimes.com, contact@tonylloydmp.co.uk, "milibande@parliament.uk, Jr Jr Jr" <larrychujr@gmail.com>, jr3@nyu.edu, media@andrewrosssorkin.com, Ben Edelman <ben@benedelman.org>,

20
NOTICE OF ERRATA

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

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

losangeles@sec.gov, sanfrancisco@sec.gov, sporkint@sec.gov, info@NormanSiegel.com, mark.lewis@thlaw.co.uk, bmoshinsky@bloomberg.net, athomson6@bloomberg.net, corruptcourts@gmail.com, jr3@nyu.edu, anjumniaz@rocketmail.com, rhalstead@marinij.com, jgreiff@bloomberg.net, tony@wbai.org, mitchelcohen@minrspring.com, james.rainey@latimes.com, Lester Kok WM <lesterk@sph.com.sg>, cchellel@bloomberg.net, aaarons@bloomberg.net, skydancingblog@gmail.com, eheffter@seattletimes.com, features@ap.org, aestes@theatlantic.com, s.glover@independent.co.uk, michael.white@guardian.co.uk, larry.elliott@guardian.co.uk, editor@ft.com, Matt Taibbi <matt.taibbi@rollingstone.com>, maria.baritromo@nbcuni.com, netnet@cnbc.com, newsdesk@smh.com.au, a.whittamsmith@independent.co.uk, scoops@sundaymirror.co.uk, editor@mediaguardian.co.uk, editorial@thedailybeast.com, info@nader.org, roger.alton@observer.co.uk ; grusso@citizensforethics.org ; peter.rippon@bbc.co.uk ; jhayward@eaglepub.com aterkel@huffingtonpost.com <aterkel@huffingtonpost.com>; matt.taibbi@rollingstone.com <matt.taibbi@rollingstone.com>; grmorgenson@hotmail.com <grmorgenson@hotmail.com>; senator@boxer.senate.gov <senator@boxer.senate.gov>; carr@nytimes.com <carr@nytimes.com>; info@nader.org <info@nader.org>; <ellen_nedrow@lautenberg.senate.gov>; deanstarkman@gmail.com <deanstarkman@gmail.com>; bryantc@parliament.uk <bryantc@parliament.uk>; editorial@thedailybeast.com <editorial@thedailybeast.com>; newsdesk@smh.com.au <newsdesk@smh.com.au>; nir-natan@msn.com <nir-natan@msn.com>; a.whittamsmith@independent.co.uk <a.whittamsmith@independent.co.uk>; olga_kharif@businessweek.com <olga_kharif@businessweek.com>; editor@guardian.co.uk <editor@guardian.co.uk>; whistleblower@judiciary-rep.senate.gov <whistleblower@judiciary-rep.senate.gov>; chuck_grassley@grassley.senate.gov <>; netnet@cnbc.com <netnet@cnbc.com>; watsont@parliament.uk <watsont@parliament.uk>; congressman.issa@mail.house.gov <congressman.issa@mail.house.gov>; jarowley@bloomberg.net, scoops@sundaymirror.co.uk, "gstohr@bloomber.net ; gmacnicol@businessinsider.com ; public@nytimes.com ; senator@feinstein.senate.gov ; editor@guardian.co.uk ; stephen@maynereport.com ; david.wallacewells@nymag.com" <gstohr@bloomber.net> Subject: NWS' NEW FACEBOOK DIRECTOR FLUNKS CORPORATE GOVERNANCE WITHIN FIRST MONTH - SEC Whistleblower tip filed tday!! Defective 10Q omits Judge King's grant of 60b3 Fraud hearing & $96Billion Summary Judgement potential liability 1) See Whistleblower notice just filed tday with SEC for defective 10Q -Basically NEWS CORP was so busy and its lawyers who failed to end the brown v. brewer were so busy moving to new firm ahead of the federal 60b3 fraud upon court hearing that they all decided they WOULD SIMPLY NOT REPORT OUT ACCURATELY. But the Facebook major investor joined the board, surely he could spot the material news of a new summary judgement that was in play....guess he is too busy with the 20 other boards he is on. Here is my idea for Day: Public Board limits - Why does everyone just think being on board of public company has no responsibilities? It seems like trend is for News Corp to find the busiest Directors in world and then pay them $350-500k to spend 1/50th of their business times for News Corp governance, etc....... 2) JulieS- Im sorry to see you are moving on from Hogan & Lovell. (see attached press release 10/10/11) Did u guys get to busy to update News Corp your client? How did you file the 11/7/11 motion to strike my summary judgement and my 60b3 (see below ur conclusion i cut and paste) YET FAIL to update the 10Q of News Corp when it came out on 11/4/11, when my motion was granted by Judge King on 10/28/11. JulieS -is your whole team moving because of the 60b3 fraud case against your team for obstructing justice and eliminating my evidence in 2009?

21
NOTICE OF ERRATA

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

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

3) Julia Angwin - why arent u covering this new news for WSJ? Your the MySpace/ News Corp digitial expert right? JuliaA- you failed to disclose in ur book that Jeff Edell fabricated his background. dont u think its fraud by the WSJ and the fact checker you claimed you used from the WSJ? JuliaA - read my rule701 damage report and please feature it in WSJ. Julia- your bio describes you as 'brilliant'. Yet you could not find out that your hero in StealingMySpace book was fabricated. fake background (Edell). Did u intentionally deceive your readers ? -When u took my place as the fact witness in the Federal trial, didnt u think something strange was going on? (i.e. note the obstruction of justice charges against HHLAW now before Judge King ) Or did u work hand in hand with JuliaS, and the team (see press release from Hogan & Lovell below)? Should I add you and the WSJ as defendants to the antitrust or just the obstruction of justice? or just fraud from ur shitty inaccurate book designed to fraudulently conceal liability for your employer? -JuliaA- see all the evidence below thats in the Court. Why dont u be the first at WSJ to disclose the up to $96Billion in damages you have aided and abetted fraudulently concealing. 4) I CC'd some NYTimes folks to see if they can finally pull their hands away from their eyes (like the little see no evil monkey in cartoons) and report out the NEWS or the WSJ will beat them again on covering News Corp news. 5) We have all 16 analysts here today, they will be judged of course on how quickly they update their instituional clients and if they believe Federal Judges and live summary judgement motions should be reported by News Corp. 6) I was the CEO of a public company and Director. Therefore I like to think that the big companies have to follow the same pain in the ass SOX and reporting on bad news timely just like the small companies. SHAREHOLDER BLOWS WHISTLE- TO SEC TODAY - SEE ATTACHED- DEFECTIVE 10Q I own 10 shares of News Corp so I am a bona fide shareholder. Therefore, Im disappointed that with the $50 million per year that News Corp spends on accounting PLUS additional monies for legal compliance plus the $400k or so per Director paid, that no one wants to disclose the Brown v. Brewer Securities Fraud Class Action moving forward to a big SJ win any day or Jury Trial win. 3) Please correct the 10Q ASAP, as you can see that the SEC whistleblower tip is in and I need the $$$ so I can hire a bigger legal team for our upcoming hearing 11/18/11 so I hope the SEC will pay out on this tip. 4) Ibank analysts- Please review my Rule701 Valuation report and contact juliaAngwin so she can understand if u agree with ME on potential liabiltiies in Jury Trial (assuming my Summary Judgement doesnt hold up.....)

22
NOTICE OF ERRATA

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

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

V. CONCLUSION Given the numerous procedural defects in Mr. Greenspans motions, the parties respectfully request the Court strike all of them. Should the Court wish to entertain Mr. Greenspans requests, the parties respectfully request that the Court issue an order requiring (1) Mr. Greenspan to properly file and serve his papers, and (2) that the motion to set aside the Dismissal Order be heard and decided before Mr. Greenspan can file any motion to intervene or motion for summary judgment. Such an order will promote judicial efficiency and economy since Mr. Greenspan does not have standing to bring any motion in this case as he is not a party and can only be a party if the Dismissal Order is set aside. 8 Dated: November 7, 2011 November 7, 2011 Hogan Lovells US LLP Dated: \\LA - 025182/000005 - 490877 V1 By: /S/ Julie A. Shepard Julie A. Shepard > Julia Angwin Columnist, Technology Editor, Wall Street Journal. Author, Stealing MySpace. 2011 Gerald Loeb Award for Online Enterprise Revealing insights into the emerging new dot-com world with a focus on online social networks. What it means for our businesses, our culture, our future. Julia Angwin is a brilliant young journalist who covers the convergence of high-tech and media for the Wall Street Journal. Born and raised in Silicon Valley by parents who worked in technology, Julia has a unique perspective and a deep understanding of what works and what doesnt and why in the online world.

23
NOTICE OF ERRATA

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

EXHIBIT ELeveson inquiry: Watsons say press coverage contributed to son's suicide
Parents claim 'ill-informed and inaccurate' articles about murdered daughter led to 15-year-old son's death
James Robinson guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 22 November 2011 10.15 EST Leveson inquiry: Margaret Watson arrives to give evidence with her husband Jim. Photograph: Sean Dempsey/PA

The Leveson inquiry has heard powerful evidence from the parents of a schoolgirl murdered by a classmate in 1991 who claim press coverage of her death contributed to their teenage son's suicide. Margaret Watson said articles in the Glasgow Herald and Marie Claire were illinformed and inaccurate. "It was all too much for Alan," she said, referring to her son, who was 15 at the time of his death. Her husband Jim said in a statement that their son had been found dead with copies of the articles in his hand. Watson campaigns for the law to be changed so that it is no longer impossible for the dead to be defamed. "Just because a person's died their reputation shouldn't die with them," Watson said. She criticised the press for complaining that restrictions on their reporting had a "chilling effect". "What about the deadly affect it has on the victims?" Watson said. Earlier, former Premier League footballer Garry Flitcroft claimed at Lord Justice Leveson's inquiry at the high court that he was persecuted by the press after he obtained an injunction preventing the Sunday People revealing details of an affair.
Leveson inquiry: Watsons say press coverage contributed to son's suicide | Media | guardian.co.uk 11/24/11 2:44 AM http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/nov/22/leveson-inquiry-watsons-suicide Page 2 of 3

He said his marriage had collapsed when the injunction was subsequently lifted, his children were teased and his father, who suffered from depression, stopped attending his games because of chanting from fans. Flitcroft added that he believed that had contributed to his father's suicide several years later. "It affected him a lot ... Something was taken out of his life that he loved doing," he said. The former Blackburn Rovers captain added that his private life was nothing to do with the newspapers. "If I'd been done for match-fixing or taking cocaine it's in the public interest," he said. David Sherborne, the lawyer acting for 51 alleged victims of press intrusion at the Leveson inquiry, criticised the Daily Mail for describing evidence given by Hugh Grant on Monday as "mendacious". Sherborne said such coverage could discourage other witnesses from giving evidence to the inquiry. "There is a critical distinction between a right of reply and a right

24
NOTICE OF ERRATA

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 EXHIBIT F-

Lies, damned lies and News International

Emails show that company knew three years ago of widespread culture of hacking among senior journalists
JAMES CUSICK, CAHAL MILMO WEDNESDAY 02 NOVEMBER 2011

The URL http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/lies-damned-lies-and-newsinternational-6255895.html

Secret internal documents kept by News International reveal that executives knew three years ago that there was "overwhelming" evidence of senior journalists' involvement in phone hacking. A cache of new documents company legal letters, briefing papers, and notes from telephone conversations shows the private thoughts of the controlling core of executives. They provide devastating evidence of their fear of the fallout from hacking, and the efforts they made to keep any evidence away from public examination. Even as the company publicly denied that voicemail interception had spread beyond a single "rogue reporter", the company's senior legal advisers were warning in 2008 of the weight of evidence showing that their long-standing defence against hacking was "fatally" damaged and their situation was commercially "perilous". The documents heap pressure on the already embattled News Corp European chairman, James Murdoch, who had been the presumed heir to his father's global media empire. With his credibility now on the line, Mr Murdoch will be questioned by MPs next Thursday about how his account of the phone-hacking scandal differs to those given by his key lieutenants and lawyers specifically about when, and how much, he knew about the internal hacking culture at the News of the World. Internal documents, obtained by the House of Commons Media Select Committee investigating phone hacking at the NOTW, appear to back up earlier claims made by News International's former legal manager, Tom Crone, and the former NOTW editor Colin Myler that a meeting the two had with Mr Murdoch on 10 June 2008 was merely an update. After his Commons testimony in July this year, Mr Murdoch wrote to the culture committee stating clearly that, prior to the 10 June 2008 meeting, he did "not recall being given any briefing nor do I recall Mr Crone or Mr Myler referring to, or showing me... documents during the meeting." However, revealed for the first time is a trail of internal emails and legal advice that led up to the 10 June meeting.

25
NOTICE OF ERRATA

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

Julian Pike, from the solicitors Farrer & Co, which then had NI as their client, was copied into a memo written by Mr Crone to Mr Myler on 24 May. Marked "strictly private and confidential", it was supposed to help Mr Myler explain the full knowledge of phone hacking inside the NOTW to Mr Murdoch and offer reasons why he needed to approve an expensive damages claim from the football union boss, Gordon Taylor. A settlement of 725,000 was eventually reached. Mr Crone's language in the memo is a startlingly frank admission of the illegal activities inside the Murdoch tabloid and is at odds with NI's repeated assurances over the last three years that it had uncovered no evidence of hacking beyond the case of the jailed royal reporter, Clive Goodman. Referring to a document NI had recently seen in 2008 from the Information Commissioner detailing illegal news-gathering techniques across Fleet Street, Mr Crone confirms that "infringements" and "turning round" of mobile phone numbers had taken place. He identifies those responsible as "names that are still with us and some of them have moved to prominent positions on NOTW and The Sun". He says a particular email from inside the NOTW is "fatal to our case" and NI's position is "very perilous". Mr Pike's notes from a telephone call with Mr Myler made the day after his meeting with Mr Murdoch were also published. It specifically states he "spoke to Mr Murdoch". The words "didn't believe culture in the newsroom" suggests the News Corp boss rejected what he was told. Internal investigations into three NOTW journalists are also listed. NI has previously said independent examination of the company's journalistic practices revealed nothing illegal. There is also mention of "James" [Murdoch] potentially advising that the "cancer" should be "cut out". Also published was a substantial piece of opinion written by NI's legal leading counsel, Michael Silverleaf QC. Given to Mr Crone a week before his meeting on 10 June with James Murdoch, Mr Silverleaf makes no attempt at masking the legal problem hacking represented in 2008, how expensive any deal with Mr Taylor was likely to be and how there was "overwhelming evidence" that hacking went beyond the official account of a single rogue reporter. Mr Silverleaf describes a "culture of illegal information access used at NGN [News Group Newspapers] in order to produce stories for publication". He says, given the facts he possesses, "NGN must be vicariously liable for the conducts of its employees unless they were acting on a frolic of their own". He further states that, if the Taylor case is "paraded at a public trial", this will be "extremely damaging to NGN's reputation". Last night a News Corp spokeswoman said: "James Murdoch has been clear and consistent in his testimony. He is appearing in front of the Select Committee on 10 November and will be happy to answer any further questions then".

26
NOTICE OF ERRATA

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
EXHIBIT G-

Murdoch faces questions after memo reveals hacking was widespread

James Murdoch faces further questions after it emerged that the News of the Worlds own barrister warned three years ago that there was overwhelming evidence that senior journalists were involved in phone hacking.
James Murdoch's pay for the non-executive role rose to 88,000 (GETTY)

By Mark Hughes, Gordon Rayner and Martin Evans

10:00PM GMT 01 Nov 2011 Documents released by a parliamentary committee reveal that Michael Silverleaf QC advised the newspaper in June 2008 to settle its case against Gordon Taylor, the chief executive of the Professional Footballers Association, who was suing the paper for breach of privacy. Clive Goodman, the papers former royal reporter, and Glenn Mulcaire, a private investigator were jailed in 2007 after they admitted phone hacking. Mr Murdoch maintains that he was not aware of allegations that other journalists were implicated in illegal voicemail interception before he agreed to pay Mr Taylor a 750,000 settlement. But MPs will now demand to know whether Mr Murdoch saw the written opinion of Mr Silverleaf, which was sent to Tom Crone, the papers head of legal, before the case against Mr Taylor was settled. Mr Silverleaf said that there was a culture of illegal information access in the newsrooms.
RELATED ARTICLES

NOTW warned of 'widespread hacking' in 2008 01 Nov 2011 Phone hacking: Crone and Myler say James Murdoch is 'mistaken' 21 Jul 2011 It calls into question the accounts given by Tom Crone, the papers former head of legal, and Colin Myler, the then editor, to the committee in 2009 when both men said that there was no evidence that other journalists were involved in phone hacking. The documents also reveal for the first time that the decision to settle Mr Taylors case was based partly on the fact that he had obtained evidence which pointed to questionable 27
NOTICE OF ERRATA

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

practices by prominent journalists on the News of the World and The Sun. But it is the existing account of Mr Murdoch which will be examined first. He is due to appear in front of MPs in eight days [10 NOV]. Mr Murdoch had phone calls and meetings with Mr Crone and Mr Myler about Mr Taylors case. MPs are likely to question Mr Murdoch about what exactly he was told during those meetings when he appears before the committee next week. Gordon Taylor sues the News of the World The documents released yesterday date from May and June 2008, when News Group Newspapers, publisher of the News of the World, was being sued by Gordon Taylor, the chief executive of the Professional Footballers Association. A year earlier, Clive Goodman, the News of the Worlds royal editor, and the private detective Glenn Mulcaire had been jailed for accessing voicemail messages of members of the Royal household. Mulcaire also pleaded guilty to hacking the phones of five other people, including Mr Taylor, who now wanted substantial damages. Mr Murdoch claims that when he discussed how to settle Mr Taylors claim in a meeting with Tom Crone, the senior lawyer at the News of the World, and its editor, Colin Myler, they did not mention an email which suggested phone hacking went beyond Goodman. Mr Myler and Mr Crone told the select committee they did tell him about it, and their emails to each other from that time are revealing. The damning email On May 24, 2008, Mr Crone emailed Mr Myler and Julian Pike, of the newspapers external law firm Farrer & Co, to update them on Mr Taylors legal action against the newspaper. He said that one of the documents obtained by Mr Taylors lawyers was an email from a News of the World reporter to Mulcaire enclosing a large number of transcripts of voicemails from Mr Taylors telephone. This was the now infamous For Neville email, thought to have been intended for Neville Thurlbeck, the papers chief reporter. It was this document which provided evidence that more than one reporter was involved in phone hacking. Mr Crones email also divulged that Mr Taylor had obtained documents from the Information Commissioner relating to Operation Motorman, an investigation which resulted in the prosecution of another private investigator, Steve Whittamore. It included a list of named News of the World journalists whose data protection infringements included turning round car reg. and mobile phone numbers (illegal). 28
NOTICE OF ERRATA

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

He added: A number of those names are still with us and some of them have moved into prominent positions on NoW and The Sun. He added: This evidence, particularly the email from the News of the World, is fatal to our case. Mr Crone added: Our position is very perilous. The damning email is genuine and proves we actively made use of a large number of extremely private voicemails. Cut out [the] cancer Later the same day Mr Crone emailed Mr Pike again, to say he had gone through the Taylor evidence with someone whose name is removed from the email, but who appears to be the reporter who wrote the For Neville email. The unnamed reporter had told him Mulcaire had been dealing with Greg Miskiw (another News of the World executive) for months on it before that. Crucially, Mr Crone adds: Youll have seen the memo I did for Colin M hes going to use it as the basis for his chat with Chief Exec James Murdoch BUT hed very much like us to get a view on next step and how much from our QC first. This passage appears to support Mr Crone and Mr Mylers evidence to the culture committee that they made Mr Murdoch aware of the For Neville email at a meeting with him before the payment to Mr Taylor was authorised. But because no minute of that meeting exists, the two men cannot prove that they did raise it with him something Mr Murdoch continues to deny. There is, however, a contemporaneous note made by Mr Pike of a phone call with Mr Myler on May 27, which mentions that he spoke to James Murdoch and talks of allegations made against five other NoW executives and reporters. His note says: One result of Goodman CG [Clive Goodman] sprayed around allegations. Horrid process, IE [Ian Edmondson, associate editor], NW [Neil Wallis, deputy editor] + SK [Stuart Kuttner, managing editor] Ross Hall, IE associate ed, GM [Greg Miskiw], Mulcaire. He adds: Didnt believe culture in the newsroom Editor didnt know a (indecipherable). At the bottom of the note, he writes: James wld say get rid of them cut out cancer. The QCs opinion Before Mr Crone and Mr Myler met Mr Murdoch in person, they sought the opinion of the barrister Michael Silverleaf QC. On June 3, 2008, he sent them his expert view, making it clear that News Group Newspapers was in deep trouble. At first, it had intended to fight Mr Taylors legal action on the grounds that Mulcaire was acting on his own initiative. But, said Mr Silverleaf: The position has now changed, because material obtained by Mr 29
NOTICE OF ERRATA

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

Taylor has disclosed that at least three NGN journalists (Greg Miskiw, xxxxxxxx and Ross Hindley [another name used by Ross Hall]) appear to have been intimately involved in Mr Mulcaires illegal researching into Mr Taylors affairs. He refers to a document dated Feb 4, 2005, in which Mr Miskiw agreed to pay 7,000 to Paul Williams, an alias of Mulcaire, and concludes that News Group Newspapers chances of winning any legal action are slim to the extent of being non-existent. He adds that there is overwhelming evidence of the involvement of a number of senior NGN journalists in the illegal enquiries in the light of these facts there is a powerful case that there is (or was) a culture of illegal information access used at NGN in order to produce stories for publication to have this paraded at a public trial would, I imagine, be extremely damaging to NGNs public reputation. Armed with this expert opinion that Mr Myler had been so keen to have in hand before he met Mr Murdoch, Mr Crone and Mr Myler arranged to see Mr Murdoch. On June 10, Mr Pike made a note of a conversation with Mr Crone, referring to the meeting, which reads: JM sd he wanted to think through options. CM moving towards to tell Taylor to ---- off He then adds: GM in more deeply if damages award admitting liability be in jointly for + if he is. It is unclear whether GM refers to Greg Miskiw or Glenn Mulcaire. No evidence of widespread phone hacking In June 2009, Myler and Crone gave evidence to the Commons culture select committee that there was no evidence that any other News of the World journalists were involved in the phone hacking. However, this evidence came a year after Michael Silverleafs damning verdict. Last night News International said the documents had not changed anything, as they contained no proof that Mr Myler or Mr Crone had ever discussed with him the For Neville email or evidence of widespread illegal activity at the News of the World.

30
NOTICE OF ERRATA

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 EXHIBIT HAustralia former senator welcomes News Corp. probe By ROD McGUIRK, Associated Press PRINT E-MAIL SHARE COMMENTS (0) FONT | SIZE: (11-24) 20:20 PST CANBERRA, Australia (AP) -A former Australian senator said Friday that Rupert Murdoch's eldest son was present when a News Corp. executive allegedly offered him favorable newspaper coverage and "a special relationship" in return for voting against government legislation. The Australian Federal Police are investigating former Sen. Bill O'Chee's allegations about Murdoch's media empire, which has been shaken for months by a separate British scandal over hacked cellphone messages. O'Chee told The Associated Press on Friday that Lachlan Murdoch, then a senior News Corp. executive, was at the table during crucial parts of his discussion with Malcolm Colless, then director of corporate development for News Ltd., News Corp.'s Australian subsidiary. O'Chee alleges that Colless offered him inducements during a lunch on June 13, 1998, to vote against his conservative government's legislation on the creation of digital TV in Australia. News Corp. stood to profit from the legislation failing. Lachlan Murdoch, now a board member of an Australian television network, had no recollection of the lunch, his spokesman John Connolly said Friday. John Hartigan, chairman and chief executive of News Ltd., categorically denied allegations of improper conduct. Details of O'Chee's allegations, in the form Details of O'Chee's allegations, in the form of a nine-page sworn statement, were first published Wednesday by Fairfax Media newspapers, rivals of News Corp. "This is a very, very serious matter that goes right to the heart of government and something that I'm sure would concern every thinking person," O'Chee told the AP. "I'm glad that the AFP is going to investigate it and I hope they investigate it extremely thoroughly," he said. advertisement | your ad here Australia former senator welcomes News Corp. probe 11/25/11 10:57 PM http://www.sfgate.com/cgibin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2011/11/22/international/i212933S77.DTL&type=science Page 2 of 3 thoroughly," he said. "It would just be helpful to all concerned if Lachlan Murdoch now admitted the fact that he was present during that lunch, or portions of that lunch, when pay TV was discussed," he added. 31
NOTICE OF ERRATA

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

Offering a senator a bribe or inducement to influence a vote is an offense punishable by up to seven years in prison. News Ltd. newspaper The Australian reported Thursday that its editor-in-chief, Chris Mitchell, had by coincidence had lunch that day with Lachlan Murdoch in the same restaurant in Brisbane city, but at a separate table from O'Chee and Colless. Mitchell spoke briefly to Colless and his party as he was leaving the restaurant, but was unaware of any attempts to lobby for O'Chee's vote, the newspaper reported. O'Chee, a former senator for Queensland state with a track record of voting against his National Party's wishes, alleged that Colless told him that while voting against the legislation would be criticized, "we will take care of you." legislation would be criticized, "we will take care of you." Colless "also told me we would have a 'special relationship,' where I would have editorial support from News Corp.'s newspapers, not only with respect to the ... legislation, but for 'any other issues' too," O'Chee alleged in his statement. O'Chee said that a week after the lunch, he called Colless to say he had decided to vote for the legislation. It then became "almost impossible" to attract News Corp. coverage, O'Chee said in his statement. He lost his Senate seat at elections four months after the lunch. Hartigan's statement said Colless "has confirmed that no improper conversation took place during the 1998 lunch." "Two other guests at the lunch with Mr. Colless and Mr. O'Chee have said they did not hear any improper conversations," he added. The allegations are embarrassing for News Corp., whose ownership of 70 percent of Australia's newspapers has raised criticisms from within the government that Murdoch's empire has too much control over Australian media. The government has opened an inquiry into potentially increasing newspaper regulation in Australia after News Corp. closed its top-selling British tabloid News of the World in July over illegal phone hacking allegations.

32
NOTICE OF ERRATA

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 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE A copy of the foregoing Motion to Intervene was this day placed in the United States mail, postage prepaid and addressed to:
HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP Richard L. Stone, Bar No. 110022 Richard.stone@hoganlovells.com Julie Ann Shepard, Bar No. 175538 Julie.shepard@hoganlovells.com 1999 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1400 Los Angeles, California 90067 Telephone: (310) 785-4600 Facsimile: (310) 785-4601 ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP Randall J. Baron, SBN 150796 Email: RandyB@csgrr.com David T. Wissbroecker, SBN 243867 Email: dwissbroecker@csgrr.com 655 West Broadway, Suite #1900 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 231-1058 Facsimile: (619) 231-7423 Attorneys for Plaintiff Jim Brown ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE, LLP Michael D. Torpey, SBN 79424 Email: mtorpey@orrick.com James N. Kramer, SBN 154709 Email: jkramer@orrick.com James Thompson, SBN __________ Email: jthompson@orrick.com The Orrick Building 405 Howard Street San Francisco, CA 94105-2669 Telephone: (415) 773-5700 Facsimile: (415) 773-5759

Browne George Ross LLP Michael A. Bowse (State Bar No. 189659) mbowse@bgrfirm.com 2121 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 2400 Los Angeles, California 90067 Tel 310-274-7100, Fax 310-275-5697

This, the 33

day of Decemeber 2011,

NOTICE OF ERRATA

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

Brad Greenspan, Pro Se 264 South La Cienega Suite 1016 Beverly Hills, CA 90211 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA WESTERN DIVISION

JIM BROWN V. BRETT C. BREWER Defendants Plaintiff,

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

CASE NO: 2:06-cv-03731-GHK-SH CLASS ACTION MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION OF SUMMARY JUDGEMENT OR ADJUDICATION

DATE: TBD TIME: TBD COURTROOM: The Honorable George H. King Room: 650

1
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION OF SUMMARY JUDGEMENT

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

TABLE OF CONTENTS 0I II III IV V LEGAL CASES CITED INTRODUCTION STATEMENT OF FACTS ARGUMENT AND STANDARD OF REVIEW SUMMARY JUDGEMENT COUNTS CONCLUSION pg. 3 pg. 4 pg. 4 pg. 8 pg. 10 pg. 29

2
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION OF SUMMARY JUDGEMENT

LEGAL CASES CITED

pg. 8 pg. 9 pg. 9 pg. 9 pg.9 pg. 9 pg. 9

2 Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986) 3 4 5

See Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986)

Matsushita Elec. Indus. v. Zenith Radio, 475 U.S. 574, 586-87 (1986)

6 400 U.S. 821 (1970)

Baker v. F&F Investment, 420 F.2d 1191 (7th Cir. 1970), cert. den.,

7 United National Records, Inc. v. MCA, Inc., 609 F.Supp. 33 (N.D. Ill. 1984) 8 Pennsylvania v. Lake Asphalt & Petroleum Co., 610 F.Supp. 885 (M.D. Pa. 1985) 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
Williamsburg Wax Museum, Inc. v. Historic Figures, Inc., 810 F.2d 243, 251 (D.C. Cir. 1987); Shearer v. Homestake Mining Co., 727 F.2d 707, 709 (8th Cir. 1984); United States v. Horton, 622 F.2d 144, 148 (5th Cir. 1980); Lindsey v. Dayton-Hudson Corp., 592 F.2d 1118, 1121 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 856 (1979); Kirby v. P.R. Mallory & Co., 489 F.2d 904, 913 (7th Cir. 1973), cert. denied, 417 U.S. 911 (1974); see also Abbadessa v. Moore Business Forms, Inc., 987 F.2d 18, 22 (1st Cir. 1993) Cale v. Johnson, 861 F.2d 943, 948 (6th Cir. 1988) Atlantic Richfield Co. v. USA Petroleum Co., 495 U.S. 328, 110 S. Ct. 1884, 109 L. Ed. 2d 333 (1990), United States v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 111 F. Supp. 614, 616 (S.D.N.Y. 1953) UNITED STATES v. W.T.GRANT CO., 345 U.S. 629 (1953) 345U.S. 629,

pg. 9 pg. 9

pg. 9 pg. 9 pg. 9 pg. 13 pg. 13 pg. 15 pg. 16 pg. 16 pg. 16 pg. 18 pg. 23 pg. 24

21 H.J., Inc. v. Internat'l Tel. & Tel. Corp., 867 F.2d 1531, 1537 (8th Cir. 1989) 22 General Indus. Corp. v. Hartz Mountain Corp., 810 F.2d 795, 805 (8th Cir. ) 23 SmithKline Corp. v. Eli Lilly & [*17] Co., 575 F.2d 1056, 1063 (3d Cir.), 24 25 26
SuperTurf, Inc. v. Monsanto Co., 660 F.2d 1275, 1278 (8th Cir. 1981) IPolyMedica Corp. Sec. Litig., 432 F.3d 1, 6-7 (1st Cir. 2005) (citing, inter alia, Dura Pharms., Inc. v. Broudo, 544 U.S. 336, 341 (2005))

27 Smith vs. Montoro (1981) 28 Henry v. A:B. Dick & Co. (1912)

3
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION OF SUMMARY JUDGEMENT

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

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES I. INTRODUCTION 1. This case was filed in Federal Court as as securities class action. However in mid 2010 and 2011, new evidence was released in the form of several admissions by defendants and News Corporation (News Corp) employees. Evidence from legal discovery in related cases also became public. Certain evidence was released in a book authored by News Corporation employee, Julia Angwin called Stealing MySpace. 2. The book is also conveniently inaccurate regarding several key historical facts and seeks to provide a white wash for defendants misdeeds. The book serves as a weapon against the truth by the indemnifier and acquiror of defendants, News Corp. Angwin seeks to aid defendants to spin the many colorful emails that exist. In the Angwin and News Corp mass published book Defendants seek to cast a final fraud on the public beginning in late 2009 when its released. Defendants use the Stealing MySpace book to confuse and mislead Public, potential jurors, and Class members. Angwin lies and omits several key facts to protect News Corp and obstruct justice. 3. Class Counsels damages expert Kennedy cites his reliance on book in creating his damages report and its part of the evidence in the record. The book seeks to attempt to explain how MySpace and Issuer were sold for $650 million on September 30, 2005 and 10 months later, News Corp strikes a business development partnership with Google to make the company the exclusive Search provider for MySpace, paying $900 million over 3 years, or $25 million per month. 4. While Kennedy notes the value of MySpace Search as of August 2006 when the Google partnership is announced, Kennedy offers no link or connection to explain when this MySpace Search value first became known to management. The Class to date has not received any consideration for MySpace Search. The Class has not filed any claims related to the omission of MySpace Search from the Proxy and the lost opportunity. The Stealing MySpace book does however thru its interview with News Corp employees, provide some key evidence that leads to conclusion that Defendants already knew the tremendous value of MySpace Search prior to September 30, 2005. II. STATEMENT OF FACTS 4
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION OF SUMMARY JUDGEMENT

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

5. The courts June 2010 ruling concludes that board member Dan Mosher was manipulated in regards to learning truth behind Viacoms efforts to make a bid. The Court indicated it remained to be seen what other Directors had been manipulated and who was leading the manipulation of the Issuer board if not Rosenblatt. 6. The Stealing MySpace book provides critical new evidence from statements by News Corps head of search, Jim Heckermen. Heckerman discloses that MySpace had received a bid for $800 million dollars from Microsoft for an exclusive search partnership on or around January 2006. This date is 8 months before the closing of the Google $900 million dollar search partnership with MySpace, announced in August 2006. Heckerman confirms the enormous value and scale of MySpace Search. Shareholders can conclude such potential value available from prospective search partners was known prior to The September 30, 2005 consummation. Reviewing background of public issuer and MySpace shows certain Directors had significant amounts of search engine experience as active Directors for many years of Ask Jeeves, Inc. an online search company, also publicly traded. Ask Jeeves generated almost 100% its revenue from Google and the two companies had a close strategic partnership since 2002. 7. Its not believable that Issuer failed to close a new search partnership with Google or Yahoo or MSN prior to selling the public issuer. Certainly Intermix Chairman David Carlick or MySpace Director Geoff Yang could have used their existing relationship with Google, to help Issuer get a new search partnership completed before the shareholder vote on September 30, 2005? The facts do nor add up and as of 2011, defendants & acquirer have no credibility and its clear defendants and acquirer conspired together to defer closing a Search Engine partnership until after September 30, 2005, damaging shareholders. 8. Much of the damage from the lost value of MySpace Search can be attributed to Carlick & Yangs failure to disclose their willful violation of Section 8 of the Federal Clayton Act. 9. In 2005, a key scheme by defendants plays out when Intermixs existing search

28 engine partnership with Yahoo quietly ends prior to the shareholder vote. Rosenblatt then defers closing a new direct search partnership deal until after News Corp has closed the transaction. 10. The scheme is facilitated thru significant corporate waste and fraud caused by the self 5
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION OF SUMMARY JUDGEMENT

1 serving actions of defendants while fraudulently conveying significant assets to benefit News Corp, 2 IAC, and AOL. Investment bankers Allen & Co. also benefitted and facilitated generating billions in 3 profits for their clients thru these wrong doings and helped organize the misdeeds while serving as 4 Googles lead investment banker that completed a $4.18 billion dollar secondary in August 2005. 5 Allen & Cos Nancy Peretsman went to Princeton at the same time as Eric Schmidt the CEO of 6 Google and they sit on the Trustee board together. Thomas Perkins of Kleiner Perkins Caufield 7 Byers LLC (KPC) controls the largest shareholder position in Google, Inc. thru his VC firms 8 early investment and control of Googles public board where John Doerr of KPC is a longtime board 9 member. Perkins was since 1995 and thru all relevant times, one of two lead directors of News 10 Corp that occupy the committees of Audit, Compensation, and Nominating and Corporate 11 Governance. Doerr sat on the board of Excite@Home on behalf of KPC until it went bankrupt in 12 2001 and was co-investors with Geoff Yang, also a board member for most of the life of 13 Excite@Home. KPCs Caufield and Barksdale were since 2001 and thru all relevant periods, 14 lead directors of Time Warner/AOL. Time Warners controlled AOL subsidiary was in acquisition 15 and strategic discussions with Intermix thru at least July 18, 2005. AOLs decision in the summer of 16 2005 as to whether they would sign a new search engine partnership with Google, or opt to work 17 with a new partner was well followed by the media. The process was coined a search partnership 18 auction that was widely speculated about during this period culminating in Google paying AOL $1 19 billion dollars while valuing AOL at $20 billion based on the terms of the investment and search 20 partnership Time Warner/AOL was able to command. 21 11. IAC entered the search engine business upon signing a merger agreement with Ask Jeeves, 22 Inc. In March 2005 and also needed to find partners with large online audiences to further such 23 its commercial business. IAC closed its merger with Ask Jeeves giving ASK Jeeves a $1.8 billion 24 dollar value in its stock for stock merger deal on July 19, 2005. 25 12. IACs SEC filings in 2005 state clearly that IAC had historically retained Allen & Co. to 26 provide Investment banking services and strategy consulting services. One of IACs Directors 27 Charles Kenough served during the relevant period as Chairman of Allen & Co. 28 13. One of News Corps long time directors was senior Allen & Co. investment banker Stan Shuman who resigned October 3, 2005, days after the News Corp acquisition of MySpace closed and about one month before Comscore perhaps accidentally discloses a list of Search engine assets 6
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION OF SUMMARY JUDGEMENT

1 ranked by # of unique users visiting each search websites. MySpace Search was growing at such a 2 rapid rate that the very month after the shareholder vote MySpace is ranked for October 2005 for by 3 3rd party audit firm Comscore as having 25% of the Search audience as AOL with over 8 million 4 unique users. The Comscore disclosure is made first in November 2005 reporting the October 2005 5 data and proving that the fast growing MySpace.com unique user audience had been hiding a parallel 6 not disclosed fast growing Search Engine audience and therefore undisputed asset that had never 7 been disclosed to Intermix shareholders prior to September 30, 2005. 8 14. Therefore, it was a summer of deals and conflicts where the data finally found and turned 9 over by defendants after years of obstruction of justice tactics and fraudulent concealment, reveals 10 clearly billions of dollars in Search asset value that defendants fraudulently conveyed to News Corp 11 and allowed News Corp to recognize billions of dollars in upside. 12 15. Rosenblatt and Defendants enact scheme to fraudulently convey its Intermix Search assets 13 (which included in addition to MySpace Search, also a separate and additional paid search business 14 owned and controlled by the public issuer) by making it appear thru September 30, 2005 that 15 Intermix has lost its search assets/users. Instead, defendants engaged in corporate waste to benefit 16 the competitors of Issuer managed and controlled by the interlocking directors, Carlick and Yang. 17 16. Time WarnerAOLs AOL subsidiary and IACs AskJeeves subsidiary appear to benefit the 18 most from Intermixs first search assets precipitous p demise when Intermix volunteers to cease 19 operating the division in June 2005 as part of settlement where Intermix also agrees to pay out 20 penalties to the NY AG of $7.5 million dollars which is approximately 90% of its cash on hand at 21 the time. Both Time Warner/AOL & IAC almost immediately benefit and indeed publicly brag of 22 unexpected gains in their Paid Search divisions in a July 21, 2005 press release made by these 23 companies in conjunction with Comscore. The press release cites the percentage share of the U.S. 24 search marketplace attributed to AskJeeves & AOL compared to the previous 12 month 25 percentage share. This uptick in share of U.S. Search engine market share is a percentage created 26 by Comscore that gathers and reviews unique user data thats tracked & measured against defined 27 search engine companys that Comscore includes in the Share of U.S. Search Engine 28 marketplace it announces on a monthly basis and was operating in a similar basis on and during all times in 2005 and that continues in the present. The evidence further triangulates that there was collusion that effectively precluded the public issuer from securing a timely new 7
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION OF SUMMARY JUDGEMENT

1 commercial search partner. Intermixs first search assets steep loss in traffic results in a significant 2 conveyance of search users that reverses the downward spiral direction of AOL that is on display as 3 of AOLs March 2005 Comscore published results. Strangely, MySpace search disappears from 4 Comscore after the October 2005 unique user data is released as Comscore does not disclose future 5 months using the same measure as the one time unique user numbers provided in October 2005, and 6 Comscore posts the remainder of 2005 months with a % share of U.S. audience instead. AOL, IACs 7 AskJeeves, and Google meanwhile all benefit and increase their % share of U.S. Audience in 8 November 2005 and subsequent months. While there is no explanation for how or why MySpace 9 Search has disappeared from Comscore after appearing in Comscores October 2005 report. 10 Comscore then without explanation re-introduces MySpace Search in April 2006 and purports its 11 the first time MySpace Search has possessed sufficient unique users to appear in the Comscore top 12 monthly U.S. share of search market. However Comscores purported to be accurate April 2006 13 MySpace Search is significantly smaller clearly then the October 2005 MySpace Search was. 14 Whats uncontested is that MySpaces overall unique user audience grows steadily and significantly 15 between October 2005 and April 2006. The data and evidence would leave a fact finder to conclude 16 that Comscore has simply redistributed unique users from MySpace Search in October 2005, stopped 17 using the same measure and definition Comscore uses for October 2005, and then effectively 18 transferred MySpace Search unique users to AOL, AskJeeves, and Google to allow these properties 19 to increase their monthly % share of U.S. search market while claiming such increase has come from 20 organic growth, impressing their respective shareholders and the media. 21 22 24 25 III. ARGUMENT AND STANDARD OF REVIEW 1. A court may grant summary judgment when the submissions in the record show that

23 there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). A genuine issue of material fact means that there is

26 sufficient evidence in favor of the non-moving party to allow a jury to return a verdict in its favor. 27 Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). It is not enough for the non-moving 28 party to produce a mere scintilla of evidence. Id. at 252. Nor is it enough for the non- moving party to show that there is some metaphysical doubt as to the material facts, provided that any 8
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION OF SUMMARY JUDGEMENT

1 2

inferences from the underlying facts are viewed in the light most favorable to the non-moving

3 party. Matsushita Elec.Indus. v. Zenith Radio, 475 U.S. 574, 586-87 (1986). The burden is on the 4 non-moving party to designate specific facts showing a genuine issue for trial. See Celotex Corp 5 6 7 9 10 . v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986). 2. Defendants have omitted key discovery previously that caused key evidence and facts to

8 be fraudulently concealed. The fraudulent concealment includes affirmative acts like the planning to coordinate planting the false story via News Corp employee Angwin who omits many key facts to

11 protect News Corp & Defendants. Therefore, tolling would not take place until the fraudulent 12 concealment is fully disclosed. 7th Circuit Baker v. F&F Investment, 420 F.2d 1191 (7th Cir. 1970), 13 cert. den., 400 U.S. 821 (1970) (self-concealing conspiracy demonstrates fraudulent concealment) 14 15 (dictum) United National Records, Inc. v. MCA, Inc., 609 F.Supp. 33 (N.D. Ill. 1984) (denial of 16 wrongdoing and false statements regarding price increase sufficient to establish fraudulent 17 concealment). Pennsylvania v. Lake Asphalt & Petroleum Co., 610 F.Supp. 885 (M.D. Pa. 1985) 18 19 (fraudulent concealment requires affirmative acts independent of the underlying conspiracy). 20 3. Case law favors Court allowing second motion for summary judgment as ruled in 21 Williamsburg Wax Museum, Inc. v. Historic Figures, Inc., 810 F.2d 243, 251 (D.C. Cir. 1987), 22 observing that law of the case doctrine did not bar court from entertaining a second motion for 23 summary judgment where the issue raised in the second motion had not been decided by the district 24 court, and, Cale v. Johnson, 861 F.2d 943, 948 (6th Cir. 1988), stating that court could reconsider 25 previous denial of summary judgment where required by the "demands of justice". 4. There exists no issue for trial unless the non- moving party can demonstrate that there is 26 27 sufficient evidence favoring the nonmoving party so that a reasonable jury could return a verdict in 28 that party's favor. Here there is no genuine issue for trial. It will be shown that, under the pleadings, the facts elicited in discovery, and the documentation in the record, a reasonable jury could only conclude that defendants are guilty of the summary judgment claims presented. 9
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION OF SUMMARY JUDGEMENT

1 2 3 5 6

IV - SUMMARY JUDGEMENT COUNTS: I COUNT ONE- BREACH OF AGREEMENT;CORPORATE WASTE; 14 VIOLATION 1. Defendants fail to elect 5th MySpace, Inc. Director from February 2005, the date the i) 5th DIRECTOR UNCONTROVERTED FACTS A1-A22 2. Defendants willful decision to not nominate or appoint 5th Director was i) a breach by

4 MySpace, Inc. stockholder agreement was executed thru September 30, 2005 consummation

7 stockholders of the MySpace, Inc. stockholder agreement and bylaws of MySpace, Inc. and 8 ii) a breach of fiduciary duty and act of disloyalty by the board of Intermix to not force the 9 Directors Intermix appointed to the MySpace board, Rosenblatt and Sheehan, to appoint a 10 5th director per explicit instructions of the MySpace, Inc. Stockholder agreement. 11 3. In addition to the above, A1 thru A22 of the uncontroverted facts prove beyond a 12 reasonable doubt that defendants will be found guilty of at least one of the following: i) 13 a breach of the MySpace, Inc. stockholder agreement by RedPoint, MSV LLC, and Intermix 14 ii) A breach of fiduciary duty by the Intermix board to not force its MySpace Directors to 15 fulfill the requirement to nominate the 5th board member under the provisions of the 16 stockholder agreement iii) Disloyalty by Sheehan and Rosenblatt to not fulfill the critical 17 requirement of putting a 5th director onto the MySpace, Inc. board. Iv) A 14A violation for 18 not disclosing in Proxy that Intermix was in breach of the MySpace Stockholder agreement or 19 that Intermix had determined not to comply with the MySpace stockholder agreement to elect 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 the 5th Director. 4. The effect of being in breach of the MySpace, Inc. stockholder agreement prior to the September 30, 2005 consummation is to nullify, void, or rescind the merger. Even if the defendants prove their actions were not a breach of the stockholder agreement and the merger is not void under Delaware law then defendants certainly will at the very least be guilty of an additional 14a Violation. 5. Corporate counsel and defendants needed to disclose to the public the risk of being in breach and failing to have a 5th Director in place at the start and during the Revlon mandated sales process on or about July 18, 2005. 6. Shockingly, corporate counsel and defendants fail to cure the breach all the way thru the consummation of the sale on September 30, 2005. If the Class had got the benefit 10
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION OF SUMMARY JUDGEMENT

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

of a MySpace Inc. board with the required independent 5th director, then defendants would have been forced to consummate a search engine partnership prior to the September 30, 2011 Shareholder vote with one of two Search Engine partners: Google or Yahoo both already in discussions with public issuer prior to September 30, 2005. 7. Closing a search partnership prior to selling the company on September 30, 2005 would have increased the value of public issuer materially upward for shareholders. 8. Certainly the defendants had clear responsibility to follow the few simple provisions for legally governing MySpace, Inc. This is because the same Defendants had six months earlier created and agreed to these very provisions when they drafted the MySpace stockholder agreement they executed in February 2005. 9. Evidence in the form of board minutes and agendas show Defendants were

reminded at MySpace, Inc. board meetings in May and June of the outstanding requirement to comply with nominating and appointing a 5th board member. Defendants did not want to nominate or appoint an independent 5th Director for MySpace for the very reason the provision was placed in the MySpace stockholder agreement. An independent 5th Director would have resisted any Self-serving or disloyal or self-enrichment actions taken by defendants and MySpace Stockholders that controlled MySpace, Inc. 10. The 5th Director would have rejected i) delaying the closing of a search Engine

Partnership until after the consummation of the sale of public issuer. ii) Failing to purchase the MySpace, Inc. minority shares per the exercised MySpace option provisions and rights under the stockholder agreement, iii) the failure to properly disclose and inform Intermix of the MySpace stockholder agreement breaches that existed in the public issuer Proxy. 11. MySpace Option was supposed to be consummated as soon as commercially possible according to merger agreement. At the very least, in order to have avoided a 14A violation, the Proxy should have stated, 11
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION OF SUMMARY JUDGEMENT

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

Intermix owns 51% of MySpace, Inc. and has exercised the option to purchase the 49% of MySpace under the terms of the MySpace stockholder agreement. Under the MySpace, Inc. stockholder agreement, stockholders of MySpace have certain th legal governance duties and are required to nominate and appoint an independent 5 Director. Currently the MySpace, Inc. board and stockholders have filled only four of the five required director seats. Therefore the MySpace shareholders including Intermix are in breach of the MySpace, Inc. stockholder agreement executed in February 2005. The MySpace, Inc. board and shareholders do not plan to abide by the MySpace, Inc. stockholder agreement provision prior to the consummation of the sale of the public issuer. Specifically, the MySpace board and shareholders have determined to not abide by or fulfill Article 4.6, 4.1.1, or 4.1.5. Shareholders should be aware that the decisions by the MySpace Inc. board prior to the consummation of the sale of the public issuer will be made without the benefit of an independent Director involved and therefore shareholders are likely to face a higher risk of an unfavorable MySpace, Inc. transaction occurring prior to the consummation of the public issuer versus if MySpace, Inc. Stockholders had determined to abide by the Stockholder agreement provisions and to have appointed an independent 5th Director. II - COUNT TWO- BREACH OF AGREEMENT, CORPORATE WASTE, & 14A Defendants deliberately and willfully breached Merger Agreement Sections 6.3 & 6.4 & 6.5. Defendants failed to fulfill contractual Merger agreement to purchase 100% of MySpace, Inc. using all commercial means for benefit of shareholders. i) A24 thru A128 are the uncontroverted facts that support summary Judgment count II. 1. The Intermix / News Corp Merger Agreement was disclosed via 8k on July 18, 2005. Sections 6.4 & 6.5 of the MERGER AGREEMENT along with the section titled EXHIBIT B Purchase Option Loan Term Sheet, lays out specific obligations of Defendants. Compliance by Intermix and Defendant directors of the MERGER AGREEMENT would have resulted in Intermix drawing down a $69 million dollar loan from News Corp, and using this money to purchase the 42% minority stake in MySpace, Inc. Intermix was to own and get the benefits of owning 100% of MySpace, Inc for the remaining months prior to the September 30, 2005 Shareholder meeting or beyond. Carrying out the purchase of the minority MySpace interest was critical to give Intermix shareholders 100% of MySpace. Accelerating the purchase of the MySpace minority shares would reduce the risk of losing benefit of MySpace option. THE UNUSED EXHIBIT B PURCHASE OPTION LOAN 2. Section Exhibit B in the Merger Agreement is titled Purchase Option Loan Term Sheet, and states the Borrower is: 'Intermix Media, Inc.' and the Principal Amount: '$69 Million", and the use of MySpace stock to repay the Loan is conditioned upon Ivory and Parent entering into a mutually acceptable customary stockholders agreement containing, among other things, liquidity, governance and minority protection rights. 3. Exhibit Bs 'Use of Proceeds' states To fund the purchase of the MySpace Option. 12
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION OF SUMMARY JUDGEMENT

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

4. The 'Interest' section states, "with the first interest payment date being the fifth business day following the earlier of the Effective Date or the Termination date. 5. Defendants claim in the Proxy that was distributed to Shareholders on August 25, 2005, that moments before signing the MSA in the early morning of Monday July 18, 2005, CEO Rosenblatt and Board determined to suddenly not purchase the minority MySpace shares that make up the MySpace Option. 6. The alleged JULY 17, 2005 MSV Agreement puts Intermix in breach of the merger agreement & destroys benefit of MySpace Option exercise & purchase owed to shareholders. 7. Intermix violated Merger Agreement provisions 6.4 & 6.5 & 6.3 while creating significant new risk for its shareholders that the entire MySpace option benefit could become lost. III COUNT THREE- VIOLATION OF CLAYTON ACT 8, 15 U.S.C. 1; STATUE &14A PROXY OMISSION VIOLATION Defendants are guilty of violating Section 8 of Clayton Act which regulates interlocking directors. Based on Section 8 statue provisions and facts cited below. i) the uncontroverted facts that support summary judgment count III are A140- A292. 1. Petitioner on behalf of Class hereby moves for Summary Judgment for Violations of

Section 8 of the Clayton Act which makes illegal serving as Director for competing corporations in the same industry or with a significant amount of overlap in at least one business line. 2. Section 8 claims may apply to both Directors and corporations as stated by the Court in, that section 8 applies to corporations as well as to individual directors. And Its prophylactic 3. United States v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 111 F. Supp. 614, 616 (S.D.N.Y. 1953). Stating,
purpose was "to nip in the bud incipient violations of the antitrust laws by removing the opportunity or temptation to such violations through interlocking directorates."

A reasonable fact finder would find defendants guilty of having Violated Section 8

and did so willfully when reviewing their failure to remove the interlocking board Directors. Indeed defendants failed to remove Carlick and Yang even as Directors were negotiating with News Corp while Carlick and Yang were trying to consummate Ask Jeeves merger with IAC. This sort of reckless disregard of the Federal law of the United States cannot go unpunished and the court cannot fail to regulate this lawless behavior as stated in precedential case, S. Supreme Court UNITED STATES v. W.T.GRANT CO., 345 U.S. 629 (1953) 345U.S. 629, Court stated, 13
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION OF SUMMARY JUDGEMENT

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 4.

We agree with the Commission that SCM's reading of the statute undermines it, since a corporation without fear of sanction could have the concededly prohibited "interlocking directorate and, if detected, simply replace the ousted director with another interlocking board member." Thus, policy supports a broad reading of section 8 and section 11 indicates that such a construction is reasonable. All of Section 8 listed parameters are met or exceeded. Defendants cannot prove they did not violate these conditions. Worse, Carlick, Orrick, Vantage Point and Ask Jeeves take advantage of the interlocking Directors to effect various self-serving transactions & schemes. Defendants continue to be in violation after Section 8 one-year rule even as conflict becomes more much pronounced. In fact, they add a second interlocking director onto the MySpace board in February 2005. RedPoints Geoff Yang is a Silicon Valley based frequent co-investor with Doerr and serves as AskJeeves Director with Carlick. Intermix Directors look the other way and fail to take remedial or proactive measures to stay compliant with federal law. In December 2004, Intermixs Chief Financial Officer resigns because of defendants growing breaches of fiduciary duty. Defendants use benefits of Interlocking Directors to facilitate a series of self-serving transactions in the marketplace while causing significant losses for Intermix shareholders. The entire online search marketplace was harmed by bid rigging and creating a less competitive and dynamic sector. Section 8 statue states, i) (a)(1) No person shall, at the same time, serve as a director or officer in any two corporations (other than banks, banking associations, and trust companies) that are (A) Engaged in whole or in part in commerce; and (B) By virtue of their business and location of operation, competitors, so that the elimination of competition by agreement between them would constitute a violation of any of the antitrust Laws; if each of the corporations has capital, surplus, and undivided profits aggregating more than $10,000,000 as adjusted pursuant to paragraph (5) of this subsection.

5. Carlick and Yangs board seats between the reviewed period of December 2004 thru 25 September 30, 2005 violate Section 8s (a)(1) listed above and at least Intermix which includes 26 MySpace and AskJeeves fit the Section 8 requirements stated below, 27 28 ii) (2) Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph (1), simultaneous service as a director or officer
in any two corporations shall not be prohibited by this section if (A) The competitive sales of either corporation are less than $1,000,000, as adjusted pursuant to paragraph (5) of this subsection;(B) the competitive sales of either corporation are less than 2 per centum of that corporation's total sales; or (C) the competitive sales of each corporation are less than 4 per centum of that corporation's total sales. For purposes of this paragraph, "competitive sales"

14

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION OF SUMMARY JUDGEMENT

1 2 3 4

means the gross revenues for all products and services sold by one corporation in competition with the other, determined on the basis of annual gross revenues for such products and services in that corporation's last completed fiscal year. For the purposes of this paragraph, "total sales" means the gross revenues for all products and services sold by one corporation over that corporation's last completed fiscal year.

6. Carlick and Yangs board seats including Intermix including MySpace, Inc. and AskJeeves 5 between the reviewed period of December 2004 thru September 30, 2005 violate Section 8s section 6 (2) listed above and fit the Section 8 requirements stated. 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 iii) (3) The eligibility of a director or officer under the provisions of paragraph (1) shall be determined by the
capital, surplus and undivided profits, exclusive of dividends declared but not paid to stockholders, of each corporation at the end of that corporation's last completed fiscal year. (4) For purposes of this section, the term "officer" means an officer elected or chosen by the Board of Directors. (5) For each fiscal year commencing after September 30, 1990, the $10,000,000 and $1,000,000 thresholds in this subsection shall be increased (or decreased) as of October 1 each year by an amount equal to the percentage increase (or decrease) in the gross national product, as determined by the Department of Commerce or its successor, for the year then ended over the level so established for the year ending September 30, 1989. As soon as practicable, but not later than January 31 of each year, the Federal Trade Commission shall publish the adjusted amounts required by this paragraph. (b) When any person elected or chosen as a director or officer of any corporation subject to the provisions hereof is eligible at the time of his election or selection to act for such corporation in such capacity, his eligibility to act in such capacity shall not be affected by any of the provisions hereof by reason of any change in the capital, surplus and undivided profits, or affairs of such corporation from whatever cause, until the expiration of one year from the date on which the event causing ineligibility occurred.

Carlick and Yangs board seats between the reviewed period of December 2004 thru September 30, 2005 and the companys involved cause defendants to be in violation of Section 8s section (3) listed above and fit the Section 8 requirements stated. MARKETPLACE AND SEARCH COMPETITORS 7. Public issuers MySpace, Inc. was tracking to generate 70%+ of its revenue from Paid Search in 2006 and AskJeeves generated 90% of its revenue from Paid Search in 2006. 8. Section 7 forbids a stock or asset acquisition if it may substantially lessen competition in the relevant market. 15 U.S.C. @ 18. Thus, the first step in Section 7 analysis is the definition of relevant market. The burden of defining the market rests with the plaintiff. H.J., Inc. v. Internat'l Tel. & Tel. Corp., 867 F.2d 1531, 1537 (8th Cir. 1989) (Section 2 of the Sherman Act) (citations omitted).We can define the market during 2005 as the U.S. online paid search marketplace of which Google was the single largest competitor business during 2005. 9. The Supreme Court has stated that products belong in the same market when they are 15
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION OF SUMMARY JUDGEMENT

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

"reasonably interchangeable" for the same uses and thus exhibit a high "cross-elasticity of demand." As the Eighth Circuit more simply put it, "defining a relevant product market is primarily 'a process of describing those groups of producers which, because of the similarity of their products, have the ability--actual or potential--to take significant amounts of business away from each other.'" See General Indus. Corp. v. Hartz Mountain Corp., 810 F.2d 795, 805 (8th Cir. 1987) quoting SmithKline Corp. v. Eli Lilly & [*17] Co., 575 F.2d 1056, 1063 (3d Cir.), 10. Cross-elasticity of demand refers to "whether consumers will shift from one product to the other in response to changes in their relative costs." SuperTurf, Inc. v. Monsanto Co., 660 F.2d 1275, 1278 (8th Cir. 1981) (citations omitted). When products have "high cross-elasticity, it means that small changes in the price or quality of one product has dramatic effects on the sales of the other. When products have "low" cross-elasticity, it means that price and quality changes in one product causes little or no change in the sales of the other. i) Intermixs/Intermixs Search services and products have per above definition, high cross elasticity. For instance, when public issuer ceased providing its search products to its users when it shut down its Search toolbar division in June 2005, customers instantly began using Ask Jeeves and Googles search services and products. This is true because millions of U.S. users of Intermix had downloaded Intermixs search PerfectNav product & integrated it with their web browser. Millions of users had also downloaded a search toolbar from AskJeeves. Once PerfectNav stopped providing its search service to users, millions of users by default began using the AskJeeves toolbars competing version of PerfectNav which was already integrated in their browser. 11. i) According to the court in Atlantic Richfield Co. v. USA Petroleum Co., in order to have Its uncontested shareholders and Intermix have an antitrust injury. As the standing to bring this suit, private plaintiffs must demonstrate what is called antitrust injury. Damage Expert Report of Kennedy and the Rule 701 Lay Witness both confirm are material, in both cases the top end ranges of both experts reports the damages to the Shareholders are over 100% more then what shareholders received in 2005. Kennedys top range is $650 million dollars and the Rule 701 Lay Witness has valuation of up to $32 billion dollars. A jury trial is needed to 16
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION OF SUMMARY JUDGEMENT

1 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

determine which valuation is proper and will serve the public interest.

2 UTTER FAILURE OF CARLICK OR YANG TO FACILITATE GOOGLE PARTNERSHIP 13. Google invested $1 Billion dollars into AOL at a $20 Billion dollar valuation plus guaranteed several hundred million dollars per year in revenue for AOL in their December 2005 announced Search Partnership. MySpace, Inc. was growing much faster then AOL& already had over 50% of the traffic/users that AOL possessed by September 2005 and 25% of the Search Audience by October 2003, giving MySpace, Inc. a $10 or $5 Billion valuation based on comparing overall audience vs. Search Audience for the two web properties. 14. Intermix and or its MySpace division were already in discussions for a new Search Partnership with both Google and Yahoo by the time of the Shareholder vote on September 30 2005, but was unable or unwilling to close with either company. IV- COUNT FOUR - 14A VIOLATION In order to fraudulently conceal the violation of Section 8 of the Clayton Act in 2005, Orrick, VantagePoint, & the other defendants fraudulently conceal the Class action lawsuit against Carlick & Yang that was first disclosed in AskJeeves public filings in March 2005. 1. This should have been disclosed in the Intermix Proxy which would have resulted in Intermix shareholders immediately reviewing the Ask Jeeves sales process and deducing the Intermix sales process was even more flawed. Shareholders would have voted against merger & closed a search partnership with the highest bidder. Intermix and MySpace would have been able to aggregate both search engine assets and would have been able to likely match or exceed the value received and valuation of competitor AOL Search which was owned and operated by TimeWarner/AOL thru out 2005 before AOLs spin off into a public traded company in 2010. 2. The Intermix proxy should have stated, Our Chairman David Carlick was recently named in Wiltsie V. Ask Jeeves, Carlick, Yang, Mr. Carlick is a Director of Ask Jeeves and serves on its Nominating Committee and Audit Committee. Ask Jeeves is in the search engine business. The complaint was filed in Federal Court and is a Class Action complaint brought on behalf of a purported class of Ask Jeeves stockholders, and alleges that the board of Ask Jeeves breached its fiduciary duty by entering into the merger agreement without conducting an auction, obtaining the best price possible, or informing itself of and investigating other available transactions, while IACs stock was overvalued because of its repurchase programs, and while Ask Jeeves stock was undervalued. The complaint also alleges that IAC knowingly participate d in and benefited from the Ask Jeeves director defendants breaches of their fiduciary duties. The complaint seeks to enjoin the merger, rescind it if completed, obtain an award of damages for the 17
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION OF SUMMARY JUDGEMENT

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

purported class, direct the Ask Jeeves board to use corporate management devices to ensure the best available transaction. In addition, Mr. Carlick was recently named in Parris V. Ask Jeeves. In which shareholder Benjamin Parris filed a complaint which is brought on behalf of a purported class of Ask Jeeves stockholders and alleges that the IAC transaction fails to fully value Ask Jeeves and that the transaction was times to place an artificial cap on the market prices of Ask Jeeves stock. The complaint seeks to enjoin the merger, have the merger rescinded if completed. V - COUNT FIVE 10B SECURITIES FRAUD VIOLATION; 14A VIOLATION By fraudulently concealing a new EBITA forecast that was more then two times larger then what both the company had forecast last to the public and what the sole financial analyst following Intermix reported in his last public report. i) Uncontroverted Facts support summary judgment count V A278-294 &A524-A544 1. Defendants avoid updating public forecasts or correcting the sole analysts clearly stale Buy rating which was at $11.00 per share. Rosenblatt knew the EBITDA forecast public was

13 aware of was less then 50% of Intermixs new EBITA forecast. Shareholders were injured in 14 scheme to avoid updating public forecasts or getting Shareholders best information. 15 2. The basic elements of a securities fraud action under 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 are: 1) a 16 17 material misrepresentation (or omission); 2) scienter, i.e., a wrongful state of mind; 3) a connection with the purchase 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 26 27 28
1

or sale of a security; 4) reliance, often referred to in cases involving public securities markets as transaction causation"; 5) economic loss; and 6) loss causation, i.e., a causal connection between the material misrepresentation andthe loss. 1 3. Material misrepresentation or omission? Yes, EBITDA for 2006 calendar year is

believed by street and public to be $24.4 million versus $51.9 million was known only to acquirer as early as July 16, 2005. Therefore, the actual EBITDA was 2X as large as what

25 the public understood it to be. This was a material omission. The company was worth 2X as much as what sole analyst broadcast to marketplace and companys public guidance. 4. Scienter? Yes, the CEO meant to omit the updated EBITDA so the Stockholders would vote to approve the sale at $12.00 per share. If shareholders found out the new
In re PolyMedica Corp. Sec. Litig., 432 F.3d 1, 6-7 (1st Cir. 2005) (citing, inter alia, Dura Pharms., Inc. v. Broudo, 544 U.S. 336, 341 (2005))

18
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION OF SUMMARY JUDGEMENT

1 2

EBITDA for 2006 was 2X then they would have insisted on at least $24.00 per share. 5. Reliance? Yes, public shareholders relied on the public guidance distributed by

3 company and the metrics and EBITDA forecast of the sole analyst from Think Equity who 4 spoke and emailed frequently with the CEO and VantagePoints Sheehan. 5 6. Economic Loss? Yes, shareholders lost out on the benefit of knowing they held 6 shares in a company that was going to generate $51.9 million in the key valuation year of 7 2006. Instead they believed they held shares in a company that was only going to 8 generate $24.4 million in 2006. The loss is easy for any fact finder to clearly recognize. 9 Defendants told shareholders the company was worth significantly less then it was so 10 shareholders voted for a deal that the sole analyst said was fairly valued at $12.00 on 11 $24.4 million in 2006 EBITDA. Outside potential bidders would have only been able to 12 know of the $24.4 million in EBITDA. Therefore a bidder without being given updated 13 financial information could not compete in a fair auction process. 14 15 16 7. Last requirement is does loss causation exist, i.e., a causal connection between the material misrepresentation and the loss. Yes, the omission of the true $51.4 million EBITDA forecastin 2006 coupled with

re 17 failing to update their financial forecasts, caused shareholders to value their shares less then what they we worth 18 and thus were willing to vote to sell shares at $12.00. Defendants were afraid that by disclosing prior to July 18, 2005 19 that the EBITDA forecast had grown suddenly would cause shareholders to hold out for a much higher price then 20 21 $12.00 and also use impending and overdue Annual meeting to vote out Rosenblatt and other defendants. 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 DEFENDANTS KNEW FROM WEISELS STREET VS. MANAGEMENT CASE PORTION OF FAIRNESS OPINION THAT PUBLIC HAD STALE FORECAST 8. Exhibit is a page from the Thomas Weisel Partners Fairness Opinion & presentation to the Issuer Board from July 2005. Investment bank Thomas Weisel Partners notes on document,
"Due to the wide disparity between the research analyst's projections and management's projections, we have relied upon management's projections for our valuation analysis."

9. The exhibit shows that the street estimates are based on ThinkEquity research dated 6/15/05, while management case is based on Ivory management projections as of 7/15/05. 10. The Street EBITDA for Calendar 2005 is $8.9 million versus the management 19
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION OF SUMMARY JUDGEMENT

1 forecasts are $15.2 million. While the 2006 calendar year EBITDA for street is $24.4 million versus 2 $51.9 million. There is no street EBITDA for calendar 2007 or 2008, but management has $82.4 3 million EBITDA in calendar 2007 and $100.8 million EBITDA in calendar 2008. 4 5 6 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 12. Thomas Weisel's financial projections used by management are compared to what the sole 7 analyst or "street" was reporting out. The material disparity caused Weisel to note, "Due to the wide disparity between the research analyst's projections and management's projections, we have relied upon management's projections for our valuation analysis." VI - COUNT SIX - HRS1 VIOLATION &14(a) OMISSION News Corp had agreed it would pay compensation to certain insiders which was omitted from Proxy. In addition, News Corp and defendants violated HRS1 thru i) The numbers & types of meetings entered into before HRS1 status had ended and ii) Defendants disclosing nonpublic information to News Corp before the HRS1 status had ended including the MySpace music business plan and providing earnings before they were released publicly. i)Uncontroverted facts supporting summary judgment count VI include A295 - A343 VII COUNT SEVEN - CORPORATE WASTE FOR INSIDER PAYMENTS i)Uncontroverted facts that support summary judgment count VII include A295- A343 1. Payments to Defendants or Dewolfe or as Rosenblatt states in June 30, 2005 email, Showing Scienter to bribe key management without disclosing in Proxy, If we took $25-50 million to Motivate and Energize The MySpace Team and Put in Escrow 2. The MySpace management led by Chris DeWolfe had just received a new mutli-year contract in February 2005 which provided for a bonus which did not vest. 3. Rosenblatt in an email on May 30, 2005 to Michael Montgomery states Interesting exchange. Yes Viacom would and has inquired about the Parent..but I feel uncomfortable because they approached MS first and I dont want to go around the MS guyswe have a very trusting relationship. The option is a deal we struck so I dont feel badgoing around them is not right to go to Viacom direct. 4. June 30, 2005 email provides growing evidence of scienter level scheme to disenfranchise the common stockholders, as Rosenblatt begins contemplating off-balance sheet bribes. VIII- COUNT EIGHT -Blasius Violation via $69m poison pill; The unpurchased MySpace Option & failure by defendants to take the $69 million available as a loan from News Corp. prior to September 30, 2005 is a Blasius Violation. 20
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION OF SUMMARY JUDGEMENT

11.Weisel fairness opinion notes There is only one research analyst that covers the Company.

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

i)Uncontroverted facts that support summary judgment count VIII include A344-A523 1. Defendants fail to use benefit of the MySpace Purchase option in the publicly disclosed Stockholder Agreement. Defendants both fail to take News Corp loan per the merger agreement and also fail to proceed with offer from their own investment banker to raise debt from a 3rd party. IX COUNT NINE - 14A OMISSION; FEDERAL WHISTLEBLOWER ANTIRETALIATORY LAW VIOLATION; OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE; FRAUDULENT CONCEALMENT &LANHAM ACT VIOLATION; 1. Defendants fraudulently conceal petitioners whistleblower notification received May 2005 & the undisposed June 2005 board meeting and special committee. News Corp becomes aware of this liability & also fraudulently conceals the matter. Defendants, News Corp, HHLAW, RGRDLAW, Orrick, & VantagePoint have violated Federal Whistleblower anti-retaliatory laws. i)Uncontroverted facts that support summary judgment count IX include A400 A523 2. News Corp is aware of the whistleblower liability & initially tries to avoid indemnifying defendants for issue News Corp have had no involvement in whatsoever (i.e. Greenspan) as Lang states in Sunday July 18, 2005 4:13AM email to Sheehan: On the issues, lets close on the remaining ones in a fair and reasonable wayso we can build out relationship. 1. We are willing to pay the liquidation preference upon a sale 2. From the beginning weve appreciated your commitment to selling your shares. This is the reason why Peter gave as the upside protection in the event of a Fox Counter - to ask for profit if we lose is a stretch. 3. We feel like we have given indemnification on the sharesand the purchase agreement itself. To do so on an issue we have had no involvement in whatsoever (i.e. Greenspan)- that seems like too much. 3. Defendant Rosenblatts responses in July are strong evidence that: i) there was no proper Special Committee process to investigate the claims submitted by the Whistleblower in May 2005. ii) Rosenblatt was focused on blocking $13.50 alternative bid from former CEO & Viacom. iii)Defendants were very motivated to have the NY Attorney General file a complaint or get 21
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION OF SUMMARY JUDGEMENT

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

settlement from whistleblower to help discredit him in views of other institutional investors and stockholders. Such position and intent can be seen from following emails: a. On July 18, 2005 at 8:00PM Rosenblatt emails Andrew Sheehan and Chris Lipp, Subject: 'Re: Announcement and states, "I am not talking to anyone but big la tomes story in am. Brad challenging the deal. says too cheap Gordy and big guys are happy." b. On July 18, 2005 at 8:07PM Rosenblatt emails Sheehan, Lipp, and states, "Heard it before and LA times reported told our PR. Front page story tomorrow. Also he emailed chris complaining and chris ignored him." c. July 19, 2005 at 6:23AM- Rosenblatt emails eUniverse executives, stating "FYI. You will note that John also does not believe other bidders will get there. WSJ says (redacted) thought it was too high. I am convinced as ever that we got the absolute best price, regardless of what Brad Greenspan says to the LA times." d. July 19, 2005, Rosenblatt emails Lipp, Brewer, Sheehan with Subject: 'LA times article', states, "its insulting. Its titled, Newscorp buys MySpace. Very clear that Fox only wants MySpace. Employees are going to love that. Oh yeah, and brad says we cant value media assets and wants to vote against it." X COUNT TEN 10B FRAUD & CORPORATE WASTE & 14A VIOLATIONS Shareholders were misled by both: i) Fabrication of Chairman Jeff Edells work experience and background and ii) defendants use of a fabricated MySpace Asset Sale Agreement which was filed in November 2004 but defendants claimed the agreement was dated and effective as of December 17, 2003. 1. The MySpace Asset Agreement disclosed in November 2004 was actually executed on or around the same time the purported 2003 MySpace Asset Sale Agreement was disclosed to the public as an Exhibit for the first time via 10Q on November 11, 2004 2. News Corp either aids and abets or is controlling the tort and violation that is created thru Angwins fabrication and publication of facts that would make a reader believe: i) Jeff Edell did not fabricate his work experience or background and is a credible source to provide evidence and facts establishing the origin of MySpace.com and ii) the November 2004 MySpace Asset Sale document was signed in December 2003. 22

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION OF SUMMARY JUDGEMENT

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

XI- COUNT ELEVEN CORPORATE WASTE VantagePoint, Orrick, and defendants take a commercial benefit available to Public issuer And that Public Issuer paid Sony for but value received taken by VantagePoint Partners, 1. VantagePoint arranges a transaction whereby public issuer repays a loan to Sony months ahead of the due date. In exchange Sony provides a commercial benefit to VantagePoint. Sony agrees to forgo an economic participation in VantagePoint shares worth approximately $10 million dollars. 2.VantagePoint takes public issuers corporate opportunity and forces Intermix to have less cash for funding MySpace, Inc. or other initiatives. On August 2, 2004, Issuer announced, that it has used $1.8 million of the SkillJam sale proceeds to repay a $2.4 million convertible note due to an affiliate of Sony Corporation of America: The Company will report a $628,000 gain on the early retirement of the Sony debt, which had a maturity date of March 2005. XII COUNT TWELVE - VIOLATION OF LANHAM ACT AND/OR SECTION 1 OF SHERMAN ACT 1. Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act and specifically provision 1125 make it a

15 violation of federal law for a corporation or person to damage another party thru False 16 designations of origin, false descriptions, and dilution forbidden. We also apply for relief 17 under Section 43(a)(1)(B) 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 PASSING OFF 2. One of the most novel schemes by defendants was to work to pass off the search engine partnership/auction opportunity to News Corp in the summer of 2005 so that the acquirer and not the shareholders would get the benefit post-closing of running a Search Auction including closing a partnership offer from Google which had just on September 14, 2005 raised over $4 Billion specifically to spend on locking up search partnerships. 3. News Corp announces before the September 30, 2005 deal was closed the following First we have significantly enhanced our online reach, strengthening our position as the fifth most trafficked presence on the web. We also become the fourth largest network in terms of monthly page impressions. 11.6 million. 4. In Smith vs. Montoro (1981) actor who had appeared in a film found his name had been removed from credits &replaced with the name of another actor. Court held this conduct violated 23
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION OF SUMMARY JUDGEMENT

statement which along with other evidence will prove a violation of the Lanham Act,

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

Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act. XIII- COUNT THIRTEEN VIOLATION OF SECTION 3 OF SHERMAN ACT RELATED TO INTERNET SEARCH ENGINE BID RIGGING. 1. CARLICK, DEFENDANTS; YANG; REDPOINT; VANTAGEPOINT;IAC CORP; NEWS CORP; KLEINER PERKINS CAULFIELD BYERS; AOL; TOM PERKINS; ORRICK; HARROCH; HHLAW; ALAN SALZMAN have violated Section 3 of the Clayton Act provides that: "It shall be unlawful ... to make a sale ... of goods ... on the condition ... that the ... purchaser ... shall not use or deal in the goods ... of a competitor ... where the effect ... may be to substantially lessen competition or tend to create a monopoly...." This provision of the Clayton Act was passed in response to the Supreme Courts decision in Henry v. A:B. Dick & Co. (1912). The Court found no violation when A.B. Dick required users of its mimeograph machines (an early form of copy machine) to purchase all their paper and ink from that company as well. Congress believed firms like A.B. Dick used such "tying arrangements" to expand one monopoly into two. In this case, the company already had a monopoly on its patented mimeograph machine. By requiring everyone who used the machine to use its paper and ink, the company could also monopolize the market for paper and ink used in those machines. Defendants and News Corp make use of tying arrangements to conceal the Zakour JP Morgan produced valuation report on MySpace, Inc. which took a sum of the parts analysis & future 2006 calander year EBITDA to reach valuation of MySpace. i) July 13, 2005, Montgomery summary/timeline notes, on July 13, 2005 that "Firefly (Fox) engages JP Morgan as its financial advisor' ii) News Corp's banker JP Morgan according to Plaintiff expert valued Intermix

"in a range of $1,040 million to $1,367 million based on 2006 EBITDA multiples " based on 'JP Morgan Acquisition of Ivory- Presentation to Board of Directors, July 16, 2005, pg. 6". XIV- COUNT FOURTEEN Section 1 violation of Sherman Act, 24
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION OF SUMMARY JUDGEMENT

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

1.

Section 1 of the Sherman Act restricts interlock directors on a board as part of an

illegal conspiracy in restraint of trade where the interlock serves as a means for competitors to exchange competitively sensitive information. 2. Carlick, Yang, RedPoint, VantagePoint, AskJeeves, Inc, IAC Corp, and Allen & Co., AOL, Google, defendants, and Orrick violate Section 1 thru disclosing Features of the RedPoint investment structure to Google and taking steps to give Confidential information about Intermix and MySpace and the search assets of both Companies in 2005 to Search competitors Ask Jeeves and IAC Corp. Later more Confidential information about Yahoos efforts to reach and close a new commercial search engine deal with the public issuer in late July & August 2005 was leaked to News Corp as evidence demonstrates in the uncontroverted facts. Eventually it should come to no surprise that Intermix failed to close a new commercial search engine deal for over six months and passed on the opportunity to News Corp and Google. 3. Angwins book and her research names John Doerr, board member of Google as the first senior Google executive or Director (in this case his Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers is the largest Google shareholder) who becomes aware of the MySpace search opportunity in the 2006 summer. Angwin omits the fact that Thomas Perkins a News Corp Director since 1995 is partners with Doerr and also controls the company thats the largest shareholder of Google and also is engaged with Allen & Co. in the process of raising over $4 billion dollars. 4. This violation is achieved thru placing Yang on the board of MySpace, Inc. so he can

monitor MySpace Search information and growth rate & pass on other confidential information to AskJeeves, Inc. and related outside parties. Carlick uses his interlocking Director seats to further the scheme that works to the benefit of Defendants at the expense of shareholders. XV- COUNT FIFTEEN FRAUD BY DEFENDANTS UNDER 18 U.S.C. 1001 and 18 U.S.C. 1341. 25
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION OF SUMMARY JUDGEMENT

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 24 25

1. U.S.C. 1001 is Statements or entries generally [false statements] and 18 U.S.C. 1341 covers Frauds and swindles [mail fraud]. Defendants violate U.S.C. 1001 thru Rosenblatts false statements in his 2005 deposition related to Viacom being told they had to submit a bid on or before Sunday July 17, 2005 if Viacom wanted to have a chance to participate in a bidding contest to acquire the public issuer. XVI COUNT SIXTEEN ADDITIONAL 14A VIOLATIONS A) Securities Fraud under 10(b) as well as 14(a) in regards to Sheehan and Rosenblatt failing to provide and consider during the sales process, the valuation report by Deutsche Bank provided in May 2005 that shows a $1.7 Billion valuation to certain select firms 1. To correct 14a violation, Proxy would have had to disclose something to the effect of, In May of 2005 our Transaction Committee met with investment bankers from Deutsche Bank and
received a valuation report on a sum of the parts analysis. The Transaction Committee did not share this valuation report with the other Directors. While the Transaction Committee never retained Deutsche Bank it had communicated on a regular basis with Deutsche Bank up until July 15, 2005. In addition, the Transaction Committee had requested and was at some point prior to July 15, 2005 in the process of negotiating or was in discussions with Deutsche Bank about a representation or joint representation engagement with the investment bankers of Deutsche Bank. Ultimately, the Transaction Committee recommended and the Directors approved signing retainer letters on July 13. 2005 which were signed with two other investment bankers which were as noted and whose fairness opinions we also relied on were Thomas Weisel and Montgomery.

2. In Proxy the June 9th board meeting would have had to be disclosed to the effect of, On June 9, 2005 our board had a board meeting at which Montgomery Securities and Deutsche bank
both gave presentations and provided their recommendations as to financing options and advised the board as to certain potential acquirers the board had recently begun discussions with about a potential sale of a part or all of the company.

3. Once these omissions were cured, the fact finder and many if not all of the Shareholders

23 would have been able to seek out Deutsche Bank to get copies of the $1.7 billion dollar valuation report that not even the full board got the opportunity to review. As both Rosenblatt and Sheehan

26 confirm in their State Class action depositions, they both failed to pass on the May 2005 Deutsche 27 Bank $1.7 billion dollar sum of the parts valuation analysis to full board of Intermix. Further 28 validating the accuracy of the valuation report was that it was revised after input and review by both Deutsche Bank, senior investment banking executives, and Rosenblatt along with Sheehans input. 26
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION OF SUMMARY JUDGEMENT

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 1. 1.

B) July 2004 - NEW MEMBER OF BOARD JIM QUANDT OMITS FROM SEC FILINGS, KEY INFORMATION ABOUT PRE-EXISTING WORK RELATIONSHIP To cure such defective proxy and the 14a securities fraud violation, Defendants would

have had to disclose something to the effect of, Director James Quandt who is also a member of our Nominating and Compensation Committee was
prior to joining our board, a professional executive recruiter that worked for Intermix between 2003 thru 2004. Mr. Quandt received over $50,000 in compensation during that period.

C) FAILURE TO DISCLOSE EXPIRATION OF YAHOO SEARCH PARTNERSHIP To cure 14a securities fraud violation, Defendants would have to disclose, Intermix has recently ended its commercial agreement with Yahoo. The agreement was not terminated but was at the end of its two-year term and management opted not to renew the commercial agreement. Yahoo provided paid search services for Intermix. Yahoo was a material vendor of the companys and the company hopes to replace such arrangement as soon as possible or practical. There are no guarantees and the management may not be able to secure a similar direct commercial agreement with one of the first tier search engines. However management believes it can replace the Yahoo Search Agreement in the near future by using or entering into agreements with intermediary search engine advertising companies that its MySpace, Inc. subsidiary has arrangements or is in discussions with that can provide similar or equal commercial terms that the company had received via the recently ended Yahoo Paid Search Agreement which gave Yahoo a two year exclusive across Intermixs owned web properties. D) Thru July 18, 2005 when Intermix signs merger agreement with News Corp, Intermix Chairman Carlick does not disclose that as Director of AskJeeves he has both engaged & is actively working with Allen & Company. Allen & Co. was the investment banker for Ask Jeeves' sale to IAC which had closed on July 19, 2005. With Allen & Company also on the board of News Corp and IAC on this same date. 1. To cure such defective proxy and the 14a securities fraud violation, defendants would have had to disclose something to the effect of, Our Chairman, Mr. David Carlick in addition to his full time job as a fund manager and partner at Vantage Point Ventures, was a Director of a company that thru the time of the July 18, 2005 merger and when it was executed was also a Director of Ask Jeeves, Inc. a public company that is focused in the online search business. Ask Jeeves had retained and used Allen & Co. as its investment banker thru July 18, 2005. Ask Jeeves had also paid over $20 million in investment banking fees to Allen & Co. when the IAC transaction closed on July 19, 2005. Stan Schuman Allen & Co.s senior investment banking partner is a board member of the acquirer News Corp. 27
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION OF SUMMARY JUDGEMENT

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 1. 1.

E) 14(a) for not disclosing the Derivative lawsuit against Chris DeWolfe & FogCutter 1. To cure such defective proxy &14a securities fraud violation, Defendants would have had to disclose something to the effect of, Mr. DeWolfe was recently named in a derivative lawsuit as a Director of FogCutter, Inc. Mr. DeWolfe has resigned from Fog Cutter as of June 2005 F) 14(a) for not disclosing Orrick & Co. and Harroch as agent of Orrick was at Board meetings listed in Proxy & failing to disclose DeWolfes commercial relationship thru FogCutter that paid $2.5 million dollars yearly to Orrick. 1.To cure such defective proxy and the 14a securities fraud violation, defendants would have had to disclose something to the effect of, Chris DeWolfe as a Director of Fog Cutter has approved Orrick Herrington Law firm to serve as corporate counsel since 2003. Orrick also serves as counsel for VantagePoint Partners, Orricks senior partner since at least 2003 is Richard Harroch attended at least one board meeting in July 2005 related to the transaction and merger agreement. Richard Harroch a senior partner of Orrick Herrington. G) 14(a) For Rosenblatt not putting in Background of Merger that he had been talking to IAC and AOL as he describes in deposition. To cure such defective proxy and the 14a securities The company was also talking with Company E and Company F in both June and July 2005. Neither Company E or Company F made a bid for the company prior to July 18, 2005. H) Issuer never disclosed that News Corp or HHLAW had performed function disclosed in News Corp November 2005 SEC filings including: i) representing Intermix in regards to City of Los Angeles adware investigation and ii) that HHLAW had helped finalize the settlement with the N.Y. A.G.This information was material and was material information omitted from the Proxy and is a 14(a) violation. To cure such defective proxy and the 14a securities fraud violation, fraud violation, defendants would have had to disclose something to the effect of,

defendants would have had to disclose something to the effect of, News Corp, the acquirers corporate law firm of record, Hogan & Lovell helped finalize the settlement with the New York Attorney General that we entered into in June 2005. I) 10b violation and 20a violation from Ask Jeeves, Yang and Carlick and VantagePoint & Orrick fraudulently Concealing Orricks role in October 2004 negotiation. 1. If Orrick had disclosed this role then the public and regulators would have forced Orrick and Intermix and VantagePoint and FogCutter to properly disclose the clear conflict and corrupt double life of serving as a top-level public company executive as 28
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION OF SUMMARY JUDGEMENT

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

President of ResponseBase in 2003 and later as President of MySpace.com in 2004 and 2005. Yet DeWolfe was working hand in hand with Orrick on a full time basis on many transactions and clearly Orrick would favor DeWolfes interest above Intermixs and a public shareholder would have wanted to see the true relationships of entities involved in negotiating the sale of the most valuable asset of their publicly traded company. VCONCLUSION For the reasons stated above and in the statement of facts and other relayed documents set forth in the verification, this Court should grant the motion pursuant to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Rule 56.1, for Summary Judgment as to all of Plaintiffs claims. For the reasons explained in the Memorandum, petitioner respectfully requests that the Court grant its Motion for Summary Judgment and find for at least one of the Anti-trust claims and one security violation which will yield trebles and as the Rule 701 lay witness valuation report states, a sum owed to the Class in the aggregate not counting interest of over $96 billion dollars. DATED: November 11, 2011 respectfully submitted,
Brad Greenspan, in Pro Per And on behalf and for benefit of Class and unincorporated association of the MySpace2006 Association which is a group of individual common stock holders that email and update each other periodically since 2005.

29
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION OF SUMMARY JUDGEMENT

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 This, the day of November 2011, CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE A copy of the foregoing Motion to Intervene was this day placed in the United States mail, postage prepaid and addressed to:

30
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION OF SUMMARY JUDGEMENT

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

31
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION OF SUMMARY JUDGEMENT

omitted breaches of merger agreement;Blasius Violation via $69m poison pill;14(a) OMISSION OF MATERIAL FACTS RELATED
No. UNCONTROVERTED FACTS
Supporting Evidence Plaintiff's Response Supporting Evidence

Defendants failed to fulfill contractual merger agreement to purchase 100% of MySpace, Inc. using all commercial means for benefit and protection of shareholders as outlined and stated in merger agreements Sections 6.3, 6.4 & 6.5 which was key part of Proxy distributed on August 25, 2005.

Section 6.3 Filings; Other Action; Notifications (b) of the Merger Agreement, states the following: "Ivory and Parent shall cooperate with each other and use (and shall cause their respective subsidiaries to use) their respective commercially reasonable efforts to take or cause to be taken all actions, and do or cause to be done all things, necessary, prosper of advisable on its part under this Agreement and applicable Law to consumate and make effective the merger and other transactions contempleted hereby and by the Support Agreement as soon as practicable"

Section 6.4 on page 37 of the MSA has the title:

Exercise of Purchase Option: And contains the following text: Ivory shall, as soon as practicable following the execution of this Agreement, pursuant to the terms of the Stockholders Agreement, take all commercially reasonable actions required to exercise and consummate its Purchase Options provided for in Article 7 of the Myspace, Inc. Stockholders Agreement. Capitalized terms used in this Section 6.4 that are not defined in the agreement have the meanings ascribed to such terms in the Stock Holders Agreement.

Section 6.5 on page 38 of the MSA has the title: Purchase Option Loan Agreement). Section Exhibit B in the Merger Agreement is titled Purchase Option Loan Term Sheet, and states the Borrower is: 'Intermix Media, Inc.' and the Principal Amount: '$69 Million", and the use of Myspace stock to repay the Loan is conditioned upon Ivory and Parent entering into a mutually acceptable customary

stockholders agreement containing, among other things, liquidity, governance and minority protection rights.And under Exhibit Bs 'Use of Proceeds' it states: To fund the purchase of the MySpace Option. And under 'Interest:' section states, "with the first interest payment date being the fifth business day following the earlier of the Effective Date or the Termination date.

And contains the following core provisions: Upon Ivorys request, Parent or Merger sub shall loan Ivory up to $69 million in order for Ivory to fund its consummation of the Purchase Options (as defined in the Stockholders Agreement) (the Purchase Option Loan). The Purchase Options Loan shall be made pursuant to a loan having the terms set forth on Exhibit B to this Agreement (the

Attached in email to RGRDLAW is a copy of email from me on September 27, 2005 sat 6:47pm to COO of Viacom Bob Bakish and Chief Legal Counsel of Viacom Michael Fricklas with "subject: FW: Viacom proposal"

"Randall- I thought about some of the things you said on call. Its my view that ou believe and are taking the case down a path of a DIFFERENT STORY then what really factually took place." and Randall, I was talking to the senior executives that were the top 7-8 guys in the Operating team reporting up to Board of Viacom. See email below" and "Please let me know this weekend what you are willing to do to help fix the situation. IYou are forcing me to consider the high likelihood that you have become compromised and conflicted here Randall. " and "I really dont even know what options I have here Randall with the court, but you can be sure that every hour that goes on here you have not resolved with me what i find TROUBLING BEHAVIOR and SETTLING FOR EVIDENCE YOU KNOW IS STALE, (Exhibit #AAA)

May 15, 2009 at 11:32PM, Greenspan emails RGRDLAW via Baron, Randall & Team CSGRR please read this historical piece of evidence carefully below. And below see my views and where this is now heading. I invite any of the other attorneys inolved in this case to step forward with their views of why i would be bad for Jury or Judge to I also state hear/see evidence from me about things in same like this. email, The Merger agreement entered into on July 18, 2005 beween Intermix and News Corp called for Intermix to both exercise and purchase the Myspace minority shares

News Corp provided under Schedule B of the merger agreement a $69 million dollar 1 year note to be loaned to Intermix to purchase the minority shares of Myspace via the Myspace option which Intermix exercised after the signing of the merger agreement.

Defendants immediately after July 18, 2005 Merger Agreement was signed should have both exercised and then taken all commercially available efforts to purchase the stock underlying the Myspace stock option.

Intermix could have requested the $69 million dollar loan any time after the July 18, 2005 agreement was signed, and as long as the agreement was not terminated however, Intermix never requested the loan.

Defendants could have contacted News Corp on July 19, 2005 and requested to receive the $69 million dollars that News Corp had agreed to provide Intermix, Inc. under the Merger Agreement and on terms/process outlined by Exhibit B specifically Another option available to Intermix and Defendants to repurchase the Myspace stock option was to get bank financing in the form of a loan or debt Montgomery one of the paid investment bankers stated on July 20, 2005 at 6:00am, in email to Rosenblatt titled call, I do need direction on getting outside debt for the option. We have the group. Poised to go. Rosenblatt responds via email at 6:23am to Montgomery, ccing Andrew Sheehan, on debt, not sure what we should we do. ANDY?

On July 20, 2005 at 2:13PM, Montgomery emails Rosenblatt and states, "Talked with andy this morning. Putting the debt on hold. Fyi, They would do the fox deal with upfront fees."

Defendants cancel Montgomery debt deal which would have allowed Intermix to comply with Merger Agreement 6.3, 6.4 & 6.5 on or about July 20, 2005, An informed investor reading the Merger Agreement, would think Intermix had purchased and owned 100% of myspace, Inc. prior to the September 30, 2005 shareholder vote.

It was not a commercially reasonable action to tell Montgomery investment bank to terminate its process to provide or try to raise debt financing Montgomery indicated was available via email on July 20, 2005 while also simultaneously refusing to request the Exhibit B $69 million loan from News Corp. Therefore the Proxy disclosure was misleading by failing to disclose to shareholders or omitting that both Intermix cancelled Montgomery's process to raise outside debt and that Intermix was not going to draw down the Schedule B Loan for $69 million dollars. If defendants failed to take commercially reasonable action then notice and disclosure of such failure needed to be included in Proxy disclosure to not mislead shareholders in violation of Federal 14(a) Proxy statues and law. News Corp could have declared Intermix in breach of Section 6.4 from Intermix's failure to re-purchase the Myspace minority shares Intermix violated Merger Agreement provisions 6.4 & 6.5 & 6.3 while creating significant new risk for its shareholder that the entire Myspace option benefit could become lost.

Since Intermix does not take the Exhibit B loan or the Montgomery debt financing after July 18, 2005 then an obligation of approximately $45-$69 million, the purchase price of the Myspace minority shares has been created which defendants failed to properly disclose in proxy that such a material obligation and risk existed.Intermix opts to create a $4569 million dollar obligation by not paying for the Myspace Option before the September 30, 2005 shareholder vote by signing the merger agreement which included section 6.4 & 6.5, defendants either cancelled the previous Myspace Ventures arrangement they claim was made before defendants signed merger agreement, or such agreement did not exist, or defendants were in breach from July 18 thru September 30, 2005

By not complying with Sections 6.4 and Sections 6.5 and Sections 6.3, defendants put entire Myspace Purchase option at risk because News Corp could have terminated the merger agreement anytime after July 18, 2005 and before September 30, 2005 and if Intermix had not already requested the loan, then it would not have available monies to complete the Myspace Option Purchase .

Not drawing down the $69 million dollar loan prior to September 30, 2005, economically benefited News Corp which did not have to risk the $69 million loan while costing Intermix shareholders the economic benefits of receiving $69 million and also recognizing the economic benefits of owning 100% of Myspace, Inc.

Defendants change the initial agreement alleged to have been signed with MSV ultimately alleging the new closing date was October 15, 2005 vs. an obligation that could be settled on any day after July 18, 2005 or if to benefit of shareholders, the same day Mr. Greenspan contacted Intermix with initial offer on September 23, 2005. After the Merger Agreement is executed by all parties, then the Exhibit B $69 million dollar loan is available for Intermix to drawdown subject to the specific terms under Exhibit B

Defendants breached Intermixs compliance with Section 6.4, by failing to request the Exhibit B loan as soon as practicable following the execution of this Agreement, AND by failing to take all commercially reasonable actions required to exercise and consummate its Purchase Options that are provided for in Article 7 of the Myspace Stockholders Agreement.

Defendants then caused Proxy to be false and misleading because they omitted disclosure of their decision to not comply with requesting or drawing down $69 million Exhibit B loan prior to the effective date of Merger Agreement and not being in compliance therefore with Section 6.4 which demanded defendants take all commercially reasonable actions to consummate its Purchase Options by signing the merger agreement which included section 6.4 & 6.5, defendants either cancelled the previous Myspace Ventures arrangement they claim was made before defendants signed merger agreement, or such agreement did not exist, or defendants were in breach from July 18 thru September 30, 2005

Such agreement to not buy the Myspace minority shares of MSV and the terms of such agreement with MSV or Redpoint Ventures were never disclosed in Proxy the more days after July 18, 2005 that passed without Intermix drawing down the $69 million loan, the more chances or options or possibilities or risk was created where News Corp could declare a breach of the Merger Agreement If the loan from News Corp or the purchase of the Myspace minority shares was not supposed to be completed until after the effective date then there would be no need to have added Exhibit B to the Merger Agreement. There was no commercial benefit for Intermix taking the action of not requesting the News Corp loan or Montgome debt Defendants fail to amend Merger Agreement to fix the breach of 6.4 & 6.5 & 6.3 which exists when defendants claim in August 25, 2005 proxy that they struck an agreement with Myspace Ventures before the Directors signed the Merger Agreement on July 18, 2005. The August 25, 2005 Proxy contains representations about an agreement completed with MSV that contradict certain sections and obligations of the merger agreement including but not limited to 6.4 & 6.5 & 6.3 Based on the order of events, the Directors first agreed not to buy back the Myspace Option shares from Myspace Ventures, and then the board voted to approve the merger agreement Intermix never purchases either the Redpoint or MSV minority Myspace shares prior to the shareholder meeting on September 30, 2005.

Intermix was in breach of at least merger section 6.4 prior to the Shareholder Vote on September 30, 2005 by failing to "as soon as practicable" "take all commercially reasonable actions required to exercise and consumate its Purchase Option provided for in Article 7 of the Stockholders Agreement," and failed to disclose this fact in Proxy. Intermix could have amended the merger agreement to disclose Intermix was not going to purchase the minority Myspace shares because of the 'agreement with MSV' ,By not amending the merger agreement, defendants knowingly deceived shareholders.

Redpoints Myspace shares underlying the Myspace Option were discrete and separate from the alleged July 18, 2005 Intermix arrangement with the Myspace Ventures Shareholders completed before the merger agreement was signed. Therefore, even if the alleged Intermix arrangement with Myspace Ventures was legal or valid or found to be in the best interests of shareholders, there was no disclosed similar agreement completed with RedPoint for its larger block of shares that Intermix had right to purchase. There was no economic benefit for Intermix to not complete the purchase of the RedPoint Myspace shares before September 30, 2005.

If Viacom had launched a bid on August 15, 2005, and the Intermix Board believed it a Superior Offer after full consideration to the current News Corp offer represented by the Merger Agreement, then certain actions if taken by the Board described and contained in the Merger Agreement would allow News Corp to declare a breach or have other remedies which all allowed for the status of the Available & unrequested Exhibit B $69 million dollar loan to change to UnAvailable & Unrequested. Therefore, Viacom or another potential bidder would have to make an offer that provided immediate capital given to Intermix to supply the monies due to pay MSV + Redpoint LLC (Myspace minority shareholders), beneficiares of the exercised Myspace Option

Based on the order of events, defendants claim occurred, the Directors first agreed not to buy back the Myspace Option shares from Myspace Ventures, and then the board voted to approve the merger agreement and effected its signing which then nullified the previous alleged arrangement with Myspace Ventures LLC.

Intermix also makes use of the obligation created thru noncompliance with merger sections 6.4 & 6.5 to in September 2005 create a poison pill using decision to leave 'OBLIGATION' uncured or paid for as a deterrant against a rival bidder which is a Blasius Federal Securities violation.

Investment bankers fairness opinions were defective based on Intermix not owning 100% of Myspace, Inc. prior to the September 30, 2005 shareholder vote, but all fairness opinions stating they were only fair if 100% of Myspace had been already acquired by the time reader of Proxy was reading them on August 25, 2005.

Weisel opinion has a transaction summary which assumes Intermix will receive the $69 million, in its summary stating As part of the offer from Firefly (Fox), Firefly has agreed to loan Ivory (intermix) the funds necessary to exercise the Purchase Option (the Firefly Note) and states,

Ivory's stockholders will disproportionately benefit from the exercise of the Purchase Option to the detriment of both Redpont and MSV Thomas Weisels opinion is defective on its face as it states, For purposes of this opinion, we have assumed that the Myspace Acquisition will be consummated prior to the effective time of the Merger in accordance with the terms set forth in the Myspace Stockholders Agreement. Weisel's opinion also states, "We have further assumed with your consent that the Merger will be consummated in accordance with the terms described in the Merger Agreement, without any further amendments thereto, and without waiver by Seller of any of the conditions to its obligations thereunder." Since the Myspace Acquisition which is the purchase of the minority shares has not been completed prior to the effective date which is the date of the shareholder vote on September 30, 2005, therefore the Weisel opinion is defective.

Intermix failed to disclose prior to the Shareholder vote that the Weisel opinion could no longer be relied on. Montgomery in Proxy has summary of financials which indicates, Ivory(intermix) will need financing due to the obligation created by exercising the Myspace Option. Montgomery's Summary of Other key terms and Conditions states that Parent and/or Merger sub will loan $69 million to the Company to fund the exercise of the Myspace Option. 12% annual interest rate (cash or PIK at Ivory option) 1 year maturity from funding If Ivory is unable to repay loan in cash, Ivory may pay in Myspace Stock" By not purchasing the shares of the exercised Myspace Option, the Montgomery Fairness Opinion is defective and misleading as it claims explicitly in its fairness opinions that they are only reliable if Intermix has acquired 100% of Myspace. According to the fairness opinions, if Intermix does not follow thru with acquiring 100% of Myspace, Inc. before the shareholder vote, then the transaction cannot be counted on by shareholders to be 'fair'. Intermix had a duty to update shareholders and disclose in the proxy or thru other disclosure that the Fairness opinions could not be relied upon because they were based on Intermix acquiring 100% of Myspace before the Shareholder vote and Intermix had determined sometime after signing the merger agreement that it would not acquire 100% of Myspace, Inc.

page 3 of the Proxy Q&A Section it states, "Q: Why are we exercising our purchase option with respect to the outstanding equity interests of Myspace, Inc.?

A. Our stockholders agreement with the other stockholders of Myspace, Inc. provides that we may exercise our purchase option to acquire all of the outstanding equity interests of Myspace, Inc. in the event that we receive an offer (such as the merger with Fox Interactive Media) that would result in a change of control. our board of directors determined that the exercise of teh purchase option was in our and our stockholders' best interests and we agreed in the merger agreement to take all commercially reasonable actions required to complete the Myspace, Inc. purchase."

The Proxy is misleading because the Intermix Board did not "Take all commercially reasonable actions to complete the Myspace, Inc. purchase"
Intermix states "we agreed in the merger agreement to tale all commercially reasonable actions required to complete the Myspace, Inc. purchase", which complies with sections 6.3, 6.4, and 6.5 of the merger agreement. Therefore, the directors of Intermix know they are not taking all commercially reasonable actions to complete the Myspace Purchase by not requesting Exhibit B loan and also by terminating the Montgomery Debt raise that was offered by Montgomery. Defandants fail to disclose being in breach of the merger agreement at the time of the shareholder vote.

the defendants fail to disclose why they did not purchase the Redpoint shares prior to the effective date. the defendants fail to purchase the $45 million in Redpoint owned Myspace, Inc. shares which even If the MSV agreement were valid thus puts Intermix in breach of the merger agreement and is misleading to shareholders. Redpoints Myspace shares underlying the Myspace Option were discrete and separate from the disclosure on the alleged arrangement with the Myspace Ventures Shareholders. Therefore, even if the alleged Intermix arrangement with Myspace Ventures was legal or valid, there was no disclosed arrangement with the larger block of shares that Intermix had right to purchase held by RedPoint and the alleged benefit described by Proxy disclosure that Intermix received for Myspace Ventures getting to hold their stock were not disclosed or were not provided or were not able to be provided by RedPoint because they were not employees or Myspace, Inc. THE 3:45AM UNDISCLOSED AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE DEFENDANTS & MSV LLC MYSPACE MINORITY STOCKHOLDERS ALLOWING THEM TO KEEP THEIR SHARES DIRECTLY CONTRADICTS THE DEFENDANTS NEXT ACTION OF VOTING TO ENTER INTO THE MERGER AGREEMENT WHICH CLEARLY DISCLOSES THE DIRECTOR'S INTENT AND RESPONSIBILITY TO ACQUIRE 100% OF THE MYSPACE MINORITY SHARES INCLUDING THE MSV LLC OWNED SHARES PURSUANT TO SECTIONS 6.3, 6.4, and 6.5 ALONG WITH THE INVESTMENT BANKER OPINIONS WHICH MIRROR THE INTENT BORNE BY THE MERGER AGREEMENT.

In the proxy it states on pages 29 & 30, "On the evening of July 17, 2005, two principal managers of Myspce, Inc. Chris DeWofle and Josh Berman, who are also indirect stockholders of Myspace, Inc. through an entity called Myspace Ventures LLC, indicated that if we exercised teh Myspace, Inc. purchase option, Myspace Ventures LLC woul dbe willing to delay the schedulde closing of our obligation to purchase shares until the closing of the merger or any comparable transaction if the closing of the emerger were to occurr after October 14, 2005 (which is the date we are required to purchase the shares of the Myspace, Inc. minority stockholders pursuant to the terms of the purchase opiton)." Following discussions with those individuals, Mr. Rosenblatt concluded that it would be in our best interests for those individuals to continue to hold an equity interest in Myspace, Inc. until the merger is completd or, if the merger is not completed until an alternative transaction is completed. Mr. Rosenblatt advised those individuals that he would recommend this proposal to our board of directors.

In addition, the board of directors authorized us to enter into an agreement with the Myspace, Inc. senior managers to delay the purcahse of the Myspace Ventures, LLC shares in Myspace, Inc. until the earlier of the consummation of the merger with Fox Interactive Media or any comparable transaction. With our board of directors' authorization, we also agreed that if the merger is not completed and we do not enter into a comparable alternate transaction prior to February 11, 2006, we will not purchase Myspace Ventures, LLC's shares of Myspace, Inc. and "Following the board meeting, Fox Interactive Media formally submitted to us a written bona fide offer with respect to a change of control of ur company. The offer provided that Fox Interactive Media was prepared to acquire us pursuant to the terms and conditions set forth in the merger that had been negotiated between the parties. Based on that offer, we exercisd the Myspce, Inc. purchase option. Thereeafter, the parties executed the merger agreement and Fox Interactive Media, News Corporation adn the VantagePoint Stockholders executed the stockholder voting agreement. " Because the Directors of Intermix signed the merger agreement after agreeing to not buy the Myspace Venture LLC's shares, then the Directors knowingly were misleading shareholders because the merger agreement calls for buying 100% of the Myspace shares not held by Intermix, and to "take all commercially reasonable actions required to exercise and consummate its Purchase Options provided for in Article 7 of the Myspace, Inc. Stockholders Agreement" per sections 6.4, 6.5 and Schedule B, and Section 6.3

The merger agreement conflicts with the alleged late night board meeting where prior to Board signing the merger agreement, the alleged undisclosed agreement with MSV was allegedly made. Therefore, the MSV agreement was voided by the Merger Agreement that was signed by directors Defendants failed to disclose these conflicting agreements in the Proxy or prior to September 30, 2005, which makes the proxy misleading under Federal 14(a)
THE VIACOM BID CREATED AND DELIVERED BY PARTNER, FORMER CEO, FOUNDER OF MYSPACE, AND LARGEST INDIVIDUAL COMMON STOCKHOLDER INTERMIX TRACKS ACTIVITIES OF LARGEST SHAREHOLDER AND WHISTLEBLOWER & THE VIACOM AS PARTNER BID DELIVERED TO INTERMIX ON SEPTEMBER 23, 2005 July 7, 2005- Intermix is introduced by T. Weisel's Blake Warner to Bob Bakish of Viacom "EVP & COO" and Bob Bakish meets with Intermix executives in or around July 2005

on July 18, 2005, Andrew Sheehan emails Kitts, Subject: 'Call me with the V update if any' On July 18, 2005 at 8:00PM Rosenblatt emails Andrew Sheehan and Chris Lipp, Subject: 'Re: Announcement' and states, "I am not talking to anyone but big la tomes story in am. Brad challenging the deal. says too cheap Gordy and big guys are happy." On July 18, 2005 at 8:07PM Rosenblatt emails Sheehan and Lipp and states, "Heard it before and LA times reportered told our PR. Frotn page story tomorrow. Also he emailed chris d complaining and chris ignored him."

July 19, 2005, Rosenblatt emails Lipp, Brewer, and Sheehan with Subject: 'LA times article' and states, "its insulting. Its titled, Newscorp buys Myspace. Very clear that Fox only wants Myspace. Employees are going to love that. Oh yeah, and brad says we cant value media assets and wants to vote against it."

JULY 15, 2005 -JUNE 2005 Comscore Search Data becomes available (REVISED - RELEASED IN JULY 2006 - Google36.9%, Yahoo 30.4%, MSN 15.7%, AOL, N/A, Ask Network 6.0% (Due to a definition change occurring with June 2006 data, trended data for the Time-Warner Network are not available) ORIGINAL RELEASED July 18, 2005, 'Buying Myspace as the centerpiece', (Marketwatch, Bambi Francisco) July 19, 2005 at 6:23AM- Rosenblatt emails eUniverse executives, stating "FYI. You will note that John also does not believe other bidders will get there. WSJ says (redacted) thought it was too high. I am convinced as ever that we got the absolute best price, regardless of what Brad Greenspan says to the LA times." ds July 25, 2005 at 2:21PM, Intermix distributes "June 2005 Comscore Global data" and notes that Intermix Search has 'dropped 72%' from March to June 2005 while Myspace has 'grown over 40%'. July 29, 2005 9:02AM, Rosenblatt emails Levinsohn, Angus, Lang, and Mckenna, and states, "Look at page views per user. Everyone is handling the myspace press perfectly. Nice Q&A on Businessweek online today."

July 29, 2005, 9:05AM, Roseblatt emails Levinsohn, Angus, Lang and Mckenna, Subject, 'RE: myspace traffic at all time high (article)' and states, "This came out two secondss afer I sent the email. Ross is the playa Bambi used to be my girl ;-)"

July 29, 2005 - Google as Plantiff sues Microsoft to get new hire Kai-Fu Lee a former Microsoft employee out of existing contract

August 2, 2005, Brad Greenspan, largest intermix individual shareholder contacts Viacom COO via email, and proposes to talk about a proposal to partner to make an acquisition offer to Intermix superior to News Corp's offer. August 2, 2005, at 1:33PM, Brad Greenspan emails to Robert Bakish, Subject: 'Myspace shareholder' and states, "Bob- I am currently a 10% holder of Intermix, the company that owns Myspace.comI was the founder and CEO of Intermix until October 2003)" August 2, 2005 at 1:40PM, Viacom, Inc.'s COO Robert Bakish responds to Brad Greenspan's prior email, stating, "Brad. This is an interesting idea. We agree that a Viacom combination is more interesting than fox. I am in a meeting I can't walk out of but will call you in about 90 minutes if that is ok with you. Look forwrd to talking about this. Thanks."

August 9, 2005- Cnet News - Barry Diller helps Ask Jeeves get in shape (Elinor Mills), "The company, ranked No. 4 or No. 5 behind Google, Yahoo, Microsoft's MSN and sometimes America Online, will invest heavily in marketing" August 10, 2005- 'Google Seeks Second Stock Offering' (TechWeb News/Gonsalves,Antone) "Managing Underwriters for Google would be investment bankers Morgan Stanley & Co., Inc, Credit Suisse First Boston LLC and Allen & Company LLC. " "Google is under increasing competition by its two major rivals for search-related online advertising." "In its filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Mountain View, Calif, company was vague in its reason for seeking the additional capital, saying tht the net proceeds would be used for general corporate purposes,"

August 10, 2005, at 2:27PM, Greenspan emails Bob Kagle of Benchmark Capital and on Board of Ebay, Subject: 'Hello Bob Myspace/Ebay' inquiring if Bob or Ebay would be interested in taking a strategic 35% stake in the public Intermix/Myspace. August 19, 2005- Brad Greenspan emails Michelle Law at IAC, Subject: 'Myspace Opportunity' and states, "Hello Michelle- Can you forward on to Mr. Diller the Following:" August 20, 2005 Article - ONLINE ADVERTISING TO DOUBLE BY 2010, Jupiter Research cited 'By 2010 the $9.3 billion currently being spent on Internet advertising will more than double $19 billion, according to Jupiter Research. The company says search engine advertising will generate more revenue than standard display."

August 22, 2005, Greenspan emails Vector Capital as part of efforts to solicit investors for making alternate acquisition offer for shareholders, with Subject: 'Alex-Myspace Opportunity'

August 23, 2005- Yahoo, Viacom in Ad, Web Search Deal August 23, 2005- ArkinLaw's Sean O'Brien emails BG and states, "Thad and Brad - Here is a letter that SSA wants to send. Le me know if you approve." O'Brien's email is in reply to email from BG stating "Can you review with Stanley and ask him if it makes sense to provide this and the Kazaa letter To the NY-AG to show we are gathering more and more information that shows a complaint Against me seems more and more of a reach for them."

August 24, 2005, Intermix press release, "Intermix Stockholder Meeting Scheduled for September 28, 2005" and "Intermix also announced today that, effective as of August 19, 2005, the Antitrust Division of the U.S. Department of Justice and the U.S. Federal Trade Commission had granted Intermixs request for early termination of the waiting period under the Hart-Scott-Rodino-Antitrust Improvements ACt of 1976, as amended" August 25, 2005, at 2:02PM Brad Greenspan emails Viacom's Chief Legal Officer Michael Fricklas, Subject: 'FW: Complaint' and states, 'Good speaking with you today!! I will try to arrange a call with my lead lawyer (from Quinnn Emanuel) who is riding herd with Crayton Condon ASAP. In addition, I could also arrange a casual conf call Tomorrow or Monday with the principal at firms Trafeletter & Gardener Lewis. to give you a good sense of institutional support. Between these 2 and myself, we are at about 10mln shres or 23% roughly. thanks Brad Greenspan" AUGUST 25, 2005- Intermix Proxy is distributed.

August 26, 2005 John Friedmann v. Intermix Media, Inc. et al was filed in California Superior Court, County of Los Angeles.

August 28, 2005, Greenspan emails Viacom COO Robert Bakish and Chief Legal Officer Michael Fricklas, Subject: 'Myspace Metrics/Value' and states, "Gentlemen- I am sure you saw the NY-TIMES MYSPACE article today. A little metrics and back of the envelope valuation piece I put together for some private equity funds I just started talking to. I believe I have one fund focused in the online space that would be willing to form a partnership to bring voting block together to do the 35-45% buyout of Intermix and creation of a Myspace Public company. "

AUGUST 31, 3005- Kreindler & Kreindler Announces Class Action Suit to Prevent Acquisition of Intermix Media Sep-05

11) On September 4, 2005, News Corp acquires IGN Network a online game network of websites for $650 million dollars. The acquisition is much smaller in terms of unique users per month then Intermix and Intermixs audience growth rate is very positive multi-hundred % growth runrate vs. IGN is flat (like most internet properties and websites generally. To be growing without spending lots of marketing money to enable the growth is what every larger media company wants to capture and achieve for themselves thru the technology gains and learnings of the very valuable employees/talent. September 9, 2005, 12:02PM, Brad Greenspan emails Creighton Condon the outside M&A counsel for Viacom with Subject: 'Viacom intro re: Intermix/Myspace and states, states 'Hello Creighton- I was given your info from Michael Fricklas of Viacom." and then Brad coordinates strategy/brainstorm session calls among the lawyers and brad over coming days. If the Intermix Shareholders vote against News Corp deal, the VB-BID would be able to be recognized and then voted on by shareholders and these terms would have allowed shareholders to liquidate some or even all of their holdings at $13.50 per share in cash, and then choose how much stock to invest in the new Myspace branded public company with MTV owning a non-controlling stake of approximately 33%, " September 9, 2005- 'News Corporation, With IGN in Its Stables, Backs up Promise to Be Bigger Web Player' (Richard Siklos, NY Times) "Jessia Reid Cohe, a Merrill Lynch analyst, noted in a report tht IGN was being acquired for an estimated eight times 2005 revenue and 40 times earnings before interest, tax, depreciation and amortization." 12) September 11, 2005 Business week article News Corp Acquires IGN for $650 Million, the article distributes certain Brad was the founder of Intermixs Seach Engine division and handled all the relationships directly to Google, Yahoo, and Microsoft Search Divisions, therefore based on the timing of events, if the September 30, 2005 shareholder vote was cancelled or delayed for the time needed to put another vote together, Intermix shareholders would have become informed of the Intermix Search Asset Value which existed but was hidden th

13) September 13, 2005, An email from Brad Greenspan to one of top 5 institutional shareholders of Intermix Gardner Lewis Fund in Delaware and its fund manager John Lewis. The Email measures metrics of Intermix and Myspace vs. News Corps just announced deal to buy IGN. Article concludes IGN got better price with lower valued metrics/assets because they employed an auction process vs. While Intermix management arranged a quick sale to News Corp that benefits primarily themselves at the expense of all Intermix stockholders

September 11, 2005- BusinessWeek article is released titled 'News Corp Acquires IGN for $650 Million' and states, "The acquisition is in line with News Corp's latest strategy to further expand into online entertainment and media. This is actually News Corp's third internet acquisition this year, following the purchases of Scout Media, a sports wed publisher, and Intermix which operates the popular social networking website Myspace.com"

September 11, 2005- Letter from Russell B. Wuehler of Latham & Watkins LLP to Gretchen M. Netlson of Kreindler & Kreindler LP that states discovery was produced and provided for the State Class Action Kreindler filed on September 9, 2005. September 14, 2005- Letter from Wuehler of Latham & Watkins to Gretchen Nelson dataing "In accordance with our agreement to produce docuemnts on a rolling basis that are responsibe to the partied agreed upon catagries of production."

September 13, 2005- Greenspan emails Intermix top institutional shareholder of company Gardner Lewis LLC which has principal John Lewis who is shareholder with 5% ownership approximately, Subject: 'IGN vs. Intermix. And states "A bit of info for you: News Corp announced last weekit was purchasing IGN an online video game network for $650 million, more than $70 million above what it paid for Intermix."

The Comparison sent by largest shareholder to another significant shareholder shows Intermix acquistion price accepted by defendants was low in comparison to a inferior competitor in the internet space the same acquiror buys in September 2005. September 14, 2005- Google completes its Secondary led by Allen & Co., raising $4.18 billion dollars September 15, 2005- article by CFO.com states, "Google's secondary offering is the largest by a U.S. high-tech company in a decade" and "'Bloombreg reported that the company plans to use the cash for acquisitions, product development and to protect its position from hard-charging rivals Yahoo Inc. and Microsoft Corp." Google has a director that is a partner in Kleiner Perkins Venture Capital firm - John Doerr, and News Corp has a partner in Kleiner Perkins Venture Capital firm, Tom Perkins Graphical depiction of Directors in common between News Corp and Google, Inc.

September 22, 2005, DailyDeal publishes article 'Intermix investor stands up to Murdoch', and states "Intermix said it "continues to be perplexed" by Greenspan's actions and that it has persevered from when Greenspan was replaced to become a "great turnaround" story"

September 23, 2005 - Intermix receives Acquisition offer from FreeMyspace whose principal was also the largest individual shareholder of company- Brad Greenspan September 23, 2005 - 8k filed September 23, 2005 dated Letter Acquisition Offer by largest common stockholder of Intermix to the CEO of Intermix

"Dear Mr. Rosenblatt: As representative Freemyspace LLC, I am submitting this proposal to acquire a controlling interest in Intermix Media, Inc. on the terms and conditions described below. " and "the financial terms of our offer are as follows: Our price per share is $13.50, a substantial premium over the Fox Interactive price"

September 23, 2005 - Intermix files 8k that states, "Intermix Media, Inc. has not received the proposal described in the press releas issued by Fremyspace, LLC earlier today and is otherwise unaware of any such offer. If and when any such proposal is forthcoming , the Company's Board will give it due consideration." September 23, 2005, CBS Marketwatch article is released titled, "Outside investor offers $13.50 a share for Intermix"

September 26, 2005- Intermix responds and rejects Greenspan acquisition offer with press release and 8k disclosure. Intermix rejects Greenspan 'Acquisiton Proposal' on September 26, 2005 without calling or offering to meet with Greenspan or his investor group SEPTEMBER 26, 2005 - Intermix releases press release title states, "INTERMIX MEDIA BOARD REAFFIRMS RECOMMENDATION OF PENDING ACQUISITION BY NEWS CORPORATION; REJECTS UNSOLICITED ACQUISITION PROPOSAL BY BRAD GREENSPAN"

September 26, 2005- in Intermix's Proxy material It discloses as a reason it rejected 'Greenspan Proposal' "that the timing contemplated by the Greenspan Proposal to make an equity investment in us to fund the consummation the Myspce purchase option be as late as February 2006 whereas we are required to fund in excess of $45 million in cash on October 14, 2005 with respect to the portion of the purchase option that we are required to consummate on that date;"

exhibit is graphical depiction of how Intermix's determination to use the $45+ million obligation created an effective posion pill deterrant to bidders or interested parties considering making a bid. September 26, 2005, Intermix states as reason for rejecting FreeMySpace bid, "The return of Mr. Greenspan to a control position over Intermix could create morale issues with a significant number of Intermix employees, including members of MySpace's management, and potentially harm the company's business, particularly in light of the fact when Mr. Greenspan was removed as Intermox chairman and asked to resign as chief executive officer, the company's common stock traded for less than $2 per share, the company was struggling with an accounting restatement, its common stock had been delisted from the NASDAQ Small Cap Market, it was the subject of an informal investigation by the Securities and Exchange Commission, various stockholder lawsuits relating to the restatement had been filed, and the company was losing money." "Our board of directors also asked its legal counsel to advise it as to whether the Greenspan Proposal, along with Mr. Greenspan's public statements and actions with respect to Intermix and the proposed transaction with News Corporation and Fox Interactive Media, constituted violations of the Federal securities laws, including without limitation, Sections 13(d), 14(a), 14(d) and 14(c) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and the rules and regulations promulgated thereunder." Intermix indicates it has right to give information such as "detailed financial data" described in Intermix's Proxy that was requested by FreeMyspace if the 'superior proposal' definition in the proxy is met. Intermix has struck agreements according to the Proxy with MSV which owns approximately 25% of Myspace, Inc. which preclude the purchase of 100% of Myspace, Inc. if the News Corp or an undefined 'comprable' merger agreement is not closed for Intermix before February 2006

Intermix after July 18, 2005 has changed the corporate structure or franchise of Intermix, Inc. thru its alleged July 17, 2005 pre merger signing agreement with MSV to not repurchase their Myspace, Inc. stock. The new corporate structure makes it an unknown whether a new bidder can thru the acquisition of 100% of Intermix also be assured of Intermix acquiring 100% of Myspace, Inc. as was Intermix's intention prior to the alleged July 17, 2005 MSV/Intermix agreement made. If only News Corp can make an offer to acquire Intermix and be assured of obtaining Intermix's 100% ownership of Myspace, Inc. versus a competitor who launches an acquisition offer which meets Intermix's "superior proposal" definition but can only be assured of Intermix obtaining 75% ownership of Myspace, Inc. The higher price that a competitor would surely have to pay to re-acquire the 25% stake of Myspace, Inc. from MSV after the competing acquisition bought 100% of Intermix would materially increase the total purchase price of the competing bidder vs. News Corp's deal to buy 100% of Intermix and have a mechanism, understanding, or agreement in place with Intermix that allows Intermix to acquire 100% of Myspace, Inc. at the fixed option price and fixed purchase price of the Myspace, Inc. minority shares for $69 million dollars. By Intermix board changing the Myspace Option repurchase mechanism on July 17, 2005 it confused outside prospective bidders and the alleged agreement Intermix made early in the morning of July 18, 2005 with MSV LLC provided no consideration for shareholders while losing certainty of consumating the repurchase of approximately 25% of Myspace, Inc. for approximately $34.5 (50% of $69 million total Myspace Option repurchase valuation/price). If the owners of the Myspace, Inc. stock could sell their 25% stake at fair market on or about July 18, 2005 or September 30, 2005, then such owners could expect to receive at least $100+ million dollars (based on the valuation or data supplied from the Intermix investment banker fairness opinions)

Therefore, Shareholders of Intermix after the July 18, 2005 alleged MSV LLC & Intermix agreement to not comply with MSA 6.4 & 6.5, went from at least an immediate $64.5 million on paper gain that could be recognized to such gain of $64.5 million instead transferring to the sole beneficiary of the agreement, MSV LLC

September 27, 2005 at 4:59PM Greenspan emails Schifferli, Subject: 'Re: Description of Superior Proposal', stating "Didn't we leave it that we know we cannot get the company to support anything we launch. Therefore, we just need to get Viacom to try to send a letter to the company forming a group with Me and that in the letter, they propose x,y,z to the company, and that based on this we hope to get holders to vote against the News Corp deal and Get a shot to luck up more investors to vote for our groups offer as we go foward? I am just looking for a simple email I can send Viacom that say "Hey, why don't we form a group and send the company A letter outlining X,Y,Z course of action, and I will give you a 50% share of any increased value generated from my shares (after tax)"

September 27, 2005 at 6:47PM, FreeMyspace CEO emails Robert Bakish and Michael Fricklas of Viacom and Jay Schifferli outside counsel, Subject: 'FW: Viacom proposal' and states, "Bob/Michaek: After we talked earlier today, I consulted with my advisors and came up with the following proposal, which I think addresses the concerns that you mentioned, most prominently Viacom's hesitance to incur expenses and otherwise become invovled in an ultimately unsuccessful bidding war for Intermix. It's worth emphasizing that I want to make a proposal that not only provides Viacom with protection for its participatin but also provides a real chance of success with Intermix. Specifically, I would be willing to enter into an arrangement with Viacom under which I will pay over to Viacom one half (After tax) of any amounts I receive for my shares above $12 per share (the current price) in any acquisition of Intermix other than by Viacom.

On September 28, 2005, Schifferli emails Brad Greenspan and states, "Brad, The SEC called again. They emphasized that they want to see a press release go out and they want the web sites down, and that if there is no activity 'sooner rather than later' they will consider taking affirmative action. They didn't say what the affirmative action would be, but I am confident that we won't like it." September 28, BG signs 'Assurance of Discontinuance' document with NYAG and agrees to pay $750,000 to not be sued. On September 29, 2005 the SEC continues to demand FREEMYSPACE Brad Greenspan takes down website communicating information to shareholders. September 29, 2005, at 7:28AM, Counsel Jay Schifferli emails Brad Greenspan and states. "Brad. The SEC just called me, noting the web sites are still up"

By Septenber 30, 2005 Intermix had failed to sign a Google Search partnership and failed to sign a new Yahoo Search partnership, and failed to sign a Microsoft deal and failed to sign an AskJeeves Search deal. (Graphical view of timeline and key dates) Therefore shareholders and potential bidders were not aware that Intermix and Myspace needed a new Search Partnership or were even able to sign a new Search Partnership at any time after July 18, 2005 and before shareholder vote on September 30 , 2005. Brad Greenspan was a federal whistleblower after sending Intermix a report on likely securities fraud in May 2005 perpetrated by then CEO of Intermix Rosenblatt. B6) July 19, 2005, Intermix management becomes aware that largest shareholder Brad Greenspan will challenge News Corp deal as Rosenblatt cites in email to Sheehan, Lipp, and Brewer that an LA time article has come out about transaction and brad says we cant value media assets and wants to vote against it. B6) On august 2, 2005, Brad reached out to Viacom COO Bob Bakish with an email pitching Viacom on a partial buyout of Intermix and keeping Intermix public but changing name to Myspace

B7) Viacoms Bakish replies and says Brad. This is an interesting idea. We agree that a Viacom combination is more interesting than fox. I am in a meeting I cant walk out of but will call u in about 90 minutes if that is ok with you. Look forward to talking about this. Thanks B8) By August 22, 2005, Brad encouraged by the interest of Viacom, also begins reaching out to potential other sources of capital to invest alongside Brad and Viacom in the new Partial buyout + strategic partnership with MTV Bid. B9) On August 28, 2005, Brad puts together valuation estimate and shares with Viacom in efforts to solidify bid, etc.

B1) Intermix existing shareholder Brad Greenspan was in discussions with Viacom between August thru September 30, 2005 related to working to come up with superior economic offer to shareholders vs. News Corp $12.00 offer or get shareholders to simply vote against News Corp offer and stay public. 93) Intermix existing shareholder Brad Greenspan Was in discussions with Viacom between August thru September 30, 2005 related to an alternative bid to News Corps to acquire Intermix and Myspace.

95) Intermix rejected Mr. Greenspans bid and publicly announced this fact. 100) Its reported on or about June 13, 2006 that Myspace is selling its search traffic thru middlemen such as Revenue Science
95) Intermix rejected Mr. Greenspans bid and publicly announced this fact.

V1) Intermix existing shareholder Brad Greenspan was in discussions with Viacom between August thru September 30, 2005 related to working to come up with superior economic offer to shareholders vs. News Corp $12.00 offer. Therefore, before September 30, 2005, defendants were aware that if Myspaces search traffic were 25% of AOL and its pageviews already greater then AOL, then Myspace could be valuable to Google, Yahoo, or Microsoft as a search partner.

14) Brad Greenspan as an individual, was an 11% common stockholder of Intermix. Defendants breached their duty of candor and disclosure by using the obligation of the Myspace Exercise of the option, but not completing the purchase, to create an effective poison pill for hostile or friendly new bidders. By at least September 26, 2005, Defendants knew they were creating the very obligation they complained existed as a bona fide reason defendants did not have time to enter into discussions with Brad and his investor group, or even contact Mr. Greenspan to learn more pertinent information. By at least September 26, 2005 Defendants knew they were in violation of Merger Agreement 6.4 & 6.5 as they had not requested the News Corp $69 million dollar Loan (ExhibitB) or taken the backup debt from Montgomery.
September 23, 2005 VB-BID is announced to public, Greenspan was quoted in a Marketwatch article as stating with the divestiture of non-Myspace assets, Intermix could successfully focus on the growth and development of Myspace.com.

September 26, 2005- Intermix rejects Viacom & Brad Bid (VB-BID) in series of public disclosure including press release, Defendants never contact or respond to VB-BID or VBBIDs attorney. Defendants Press release & public filings are evidence as of September 26, 2005 when Intermix updated the public, it undisputable based on admission by defendants press release and 8k disclosure (in their reply to VB-BID letter from Brad), which is that the Myspace Option Purchase has not been purchased by Defendants as of September 26, 2005, , only five days before the shareholder vote, because defendants issue a statement listing reasons they reject the Viacom/Brad strategic Bid, Intermix so states that the timing contemplated by the Greenspan Proposal to make an equity investment in us to fund the consummation the Myspace purchase option could be as late as February 2006, whereas we are required to fund in excess of $45 million in cash on October 14, 2005 with respect to the portion of the purchase option that we are required to consummate on that date.

"Plantiff (Friedmann) on or about September 26, 2005,"applied to the court for an order delaying the vote by Intermix stockholders on the FIM Transaction in order to afford Intermx stockholders additional time to consider the Greenspan proposal. The Court denied the plantiff's request and Intermix stockholders approved the FIM Transaction on September 30, 2005. " (According to News Corp SEC November 2005 10Q filed) September 29, 2005- Lawyer JS states in email to Brad Greenspan, Brad, The SEC just called me, noting the web sites are still up. They consider the site materials still up to be soliciting materials and the SEC stated in no uncertain terms that the sites need to go down and My strong advice is that you comply as soon as possible But the SEC has shown they are monitoring this very closely and indicated yesterday that if their requests for voluntary compliance arent heeded they will take enforcement action and that would be damaging to you both now and on a going forward basis.

On September 29, 2005, the day after Intermix finalized its settlement with the NY AG on the terms directed by the City's August 31, proposal, the City changed its position and informed Intermix that it would seek to impose a monetary penalty. Intermix refused to agree to the imposition of a penalty. Intermix never disclosed the September 29, 2005 contact from the Los Angeles City Attorney and its 'changed' position September 30, 2005- Intermix Shareholder Vote occurs, no vote numbers are provided to public, common stockholders receive $12.00 cash for Intermix common stock September 30, 2005- Neither Intermix or Myspace, Inc.was able to get a proposal or offer or close a deal from or with Google, inc. for an acquisition or a Search Engine Partnership since at least May 2005 when DeWolfe noted he or Myspace was in communications or discussions with Google for purposes of a potential Search Engine Partnership September 30, 2005- Neither Intermix or Myspace, Inc.was able to close a new search partnership deal or get buyout proposal from or with Yahoo, inc. between August 2, 2005 thru September 30, 2005, including no deal closing during two meetings Rosenblatt had with Yahoo which after Rosenblatt emailed News Corps Kirby indicating the meetings with Yahoo head of search, went great! great!. By September 30, 2005 Neither Intermix or Myspace, Inc.was able to get a proposal or offer or close a deal from or with Microsoft, inc. for online search partnership or for determing their interest in a buyout since at least July 18, 2005 when Deutsche Bank emailed Rosenblatt indicating Microsoft would have been interested in looking at opportunities to transact with Intermix, In.

News Corp had Thomas Perkins on their Board between at least April 2005 and December 2005, who is initial investors in Google thru his firm Kleiner Perkins. Mr. Perkins business partner for his day to day business, Mr. John Doeer . Mr. Doerr is partner in Kleiner Perkins and sat on Googles Board of Directors between at least April 2005 and December 2005. Defendants could have cured the $45 million dollar obligation they noted as one of the reasons they could not wait until February 2006 for Mr. Greenspans equity investment if that was Mr. Greenspans solution for how to deal with achieving 100% ownership of Myspace, Inc.

H1) http://dailycaller.com/2011/11/15/new-emails-doj-eric-holdermanipulated-press-for-favorable-fast-and-furious-coverage/

A1) http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/newsmakers/abc-exclusivedefiant-assad-denies-ordering-bloody-crackdown-111944523.html R1) http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/8939642/Bell-Pottingerhelped-choose-Rebekah-Brooks-phone-hacking-arrest station.html http://www.maynereport.com/articles/2010/10/16-0311-8905.html R2) http://tinyurl.com/7v5t78p

R1vsR2) http://www.maynereport.com/articles/2010/10/16-03118905.html http://tinyurl.com/7v5t78p http://www.lse.co.uk/FinanceNews.asp?ArticleCode=1bbqz8eu1gqp cyv&ArticleHeadline=TIMELINENews_Corp_and_the_phonehacking_ scandal

http://newsallianceuk.wordpress.com/2011/12/04/senior-british-intelligenceofficers-on-the-payroll-of-news-international/ http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2011/11/spy-plane/?mbid=ob_ppc_threat

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/8939642/Bell-Pottinger-helpedchoose-Rebekah-Brooks-phone-hacking-arrest-station.html

clients were prominent public affairs company described to the undercover investigators Senior members Bell Pottinger Public Affairs executives" "choose which police station she would like to be arrested in and questioned." advised not to donate money to political parties.becoming counterproductive.

Is that a GDBenefit orworth embedSB2 @NEWSCORP? How much must SB (and Yeegads Zuckerberg must know lot about Uk. so many questions we cant wait to hear from MZUC -Id pay #aMillionZUCBUCKS* for exclusive interview with MZ at "Metro Association Police Psychiatrist Annual and Discussion closed camera with magazine published with story and ebook thru global outlets and book stores. PhoneHackingGossip Dinner in London" have been told when he joined vs.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/g8-industrialnations/news/article.cfm?o_id=500503&objectid=10728381 http://cnsnews.com/news/article/internetrulescentereg8forumparis http://blogs.ft.com/fttechhub/2011/05/facebookeg8/ http://oneclick.indiatimes.com/photo/06gd7m9eQTbbU?q=Mark+Zuckerberg http://blog.mslgroup.com/tag/publicisconsultants/ http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/barackobama/8540566/Barack ObamasvisittotheG8summitdayoneasithappened.html 16.05 The New York Times has a damning editorial on the "G8's self-serving math[s]": The final communiqus havent been written. But the word on the street is that when leaders of the Group of 8 industrialized countries meet in France this week, they will claim that wealthy countries have come close to fulfilling their 2005

promise to boost annual development aid by $50 billion by 2010. They are not even in the ballpark.

15.47 Google chairman Eric Schmidt and Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg are among the digital bigwigs at one of the G8 side-meetings. Mr Schmidt has criticised the Arab countries that tried to block internet access in order to quell the democratic revolts: It is a terrible mistake for them to do so. Among other things it completely screws up the economy, communications, the exchange of goods, the electronic commerce, the flow of information into these countries... It's not a good idea to shut down the Internet in your country. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/barackobama/8540566/BarackObamas-visit-to-the-G8-summit-day-one-as-it-happened.html http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/barackobama/8540566/BarackObamas-visit-to-the-G8-summit-day-one-as-it-happened.html

POTUS arrived a few minutes later, nodded to Zuckerberg and Schmidt, then pool escorted form room...
http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2011/05/google_facebook_ceos_social_ne.html http://www.newsmax.com/Slideshows/Wendi-Deng-and-Rupert-Murdoch--AHistory/139719/Shanghai-International-Film-Festival/4 http://news.sky.com/home/technology/article/15998440 http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/09/22/scitech/main20110419.shtml http://www.smarthouse.com.au/Content_And_Downloads/Industry/F6S9E2S5 http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/02/16/markzuckerberg obama_n_824358.html

 http://www.thinq.co.uk/2011/6/6/schmidtladygagateambacksocialstartup/ http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/may/24/murdocheg8investeducation technology

Google chairman visits European Commissioner to discuss antitrust allegations

December 5, 2011 | Jolie O'Dell View Comments

Google chairman Eric Schmidt paid a visit to Brussels today to meet with European Commissioner Joaqun Almunia in person.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301501465_16220066822501465.html http://www.daylife.com/topic/Eric_Schmidt/articles?__site=daylife http://www.thejanedough.com/rupertmurdochericschmidteg8/

 http://www.newsmax.com/Slideshows/Wendi-Deng-and-Rupert-Murdoch--AHistory/139719/Shanghai-International-Film-Festival/4

http://news.sky.com/home/technology/article/15998440 http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/09/22/scitech/main20110419.shtml http://www.thejanedough.com/rupert-murdoch-eric-schmidt-eg8/

http://www.lse.co.uk/FinanceNews.asp?ArticleCode=1bbqz8eu1gqpcyv&Article Headline=TIMELINENews_Corp_and_the_phonehacking_scandal

 http://www.lse.co.uk/FinanceNews.asp?ArticleCode=1bbqz8eu1gqpcyv&ArticleHe adline=TIMELINENews_Corp_and_the_phonehacking_scandal or a loyal Captain who is helping #fb or him&zuck some personal good PR. This is the magic of the handshake invisble media grants (no one tracking like giving away a tv or radio commercial 4 free would be paying or accounting as real expense as loss of that advertising space that instead of Ebay goes to ZuckerPiXCoolSpotin #NewsCorpPap

 http://www.lse.co.uk/FinanceNews.asp? ArticleCode=1bbqz8eu1gqpcyv&ArticleHeadline=TIMELINENews_Corp_and_the _phonehacking_scandal

Zuckerberg, Schmidt Counter Sarkozy's Calls for Internet Regulation at 'eG8' - Rebecca Kaplan - NationalJournal.com

12/7/11 5:58 AM

Learn More

E-mail Address Password

Remember me Forgot your password?

SEARCH
LOG IN

Questions? Call us at 800-207-8001

FOLLOW NATIONAL JOURNAL

PEOPLE

PICTURES

PICTURES

HEALTH CARE

Notable Deaths of 2011

Remembering Pearl Harbor

Protesters Ready for Winter

Presidents Don't Age Faster

TECHNOLOGY

Zuckerberg, Schmidt Counter Sarkozy's Calls for Internet Regulation at 'eG8'

Tech meets diplomacy outside of Paris as leaders of industrial nations gather.
By Rebecca Kaplan
Updated: May 26, 2011 | 2:44 p.m. May 26, 2011 | 2:09 p.m.

BERTRAND GUAY/AFP/GETTY IMAGES

Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg and French President Nicolas Sarkozy had a cordial chat after an "eG8" meeting on Wednesday, but Zuckerberg didn't have much faith in Sarkozy's calls for further government internet regulation.

At a two-day eG8 forum in Deauville, France, on Tuesday and Wednesday, Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg and Google Inc. Chairman Eric Schmidt pushed back against calls by French President Nicolas Sarkozy for government regulation over the Internet. The two American Internet giants were among a group of six technology executives Sarkozy convened at the annual Group of Eight summit to develop proposals on Internet regulation and the protection of intellectual copyrightpreferably conducted by the government. It would be contradictory to exclude governments from this huge forum. Nobody could, nor should, forget that these governments are the only legitimate representatives of the will of the people in our democracies, Sarkozy said in opening remarks to the executives. To forget this is to run the risk of democratic chaos and hence anarchy. To forget this would be to confuse populism with democracy of opinion.

MOST READ ARTICLES

GOP Candidates to Trump Debate: Youre Fired

Obama's Unlikely Setting for Powerful

http://www.nationaljournal.com/tech/zuckerberg-schmidt-counter-sarkozy-s-calls-for-internet-regulation-at-eg8--20110526 Page 1 of 4

Zuckerberg, Schmidt Counter Sarkozy's Calls for Internet Regulation at 'eG8' - Rebecca Kaplan - NationalJournal.com

12/7/11 5:58 AM

But Schmidt and Zuckerberg didnt share Sarkozys enthusiasm for a government overseer. Schmidt went so far as to suggest that governments may implement stupid rules that slow the growth of the Internet. "Technology will move faster than governments, so don't legislate before you understand the consequences, he said during a plenary session, warning governments against overregulating the Internet. Zuckerberg was a touch more diplomatic, perhaps because the link Sarkozy drew between democracy and the Internet was a direct result of how social media like Facebook helped ignite revolutions in the Middle East throughout the Arab Spring. Regulation, he implied, was not necessarily a feasible goal. You can't isolate some things you like about the Internet and control other things that you don't," he said. Sarkozy spent much of his opening speech talking about the benefits of Internet communication, but he closed with a warning to the group he had assembled: We need this dialogue, we need to understand your expectations, your aspirations, your needs. And you need to hear our limitations, our red lines, the problems we shoulder in the name of the general interest of our societies. After two days of sessions, the Internet executives were scheduled to meet with and present recommendations to G-8 heads. Unsurprisingly, the event reportedly ended with few concrete proposals to take back to the leaders. But even Zuckerberg tried to dress it upthe famously casual 27-year-old was seen in a suit and tie. Want to stay ahead of the curve? Sign up for National Journals AM & PM Must Reads. News and analysis to ensure you dont miss a thing.
Like 31

Obama's Unlikely Setting for Powerful Speech

Planet Found That Might Be Able to Sustain Life

Obama's Oops: President Confuses Texas and Kansas -- VIDEO Has the War with Iran Already Begun?

12

PEOPLE

PICTURES

PICTURES

HEALTH CARE

Notable Deaths of 2011

Remembering Pearl Harbor

Protesters Ready for Winter

Presidents Don't Age Faster

JOIN THE DISCUSSION

Add New Comment

Login

AT&T proposed a $39 billion takeover of TMobile USA. Heres our take on it as regulators, consumer groups and Congress weigh in. More coverage

FEATURES

Wired in Washington
Special for National Journal Daily subscribers: our technology team writes "Wired In Washington," a focus on telecommunications issues that involve the federal government. Real-time updating is enabled. (Pause)
Showing 3 comments
Sort by newest first

From an Expert
Read commentary from Bruce Gottlieb, National Journal's general counsel. Gottlieb was formerly Chief Counsel of the Federal Communications Commission.

Frederick

http://www.nationaljournal.com/tech/zuckerberg-schmidt-counter-sarkozy-s-calls-for-internet-regulation-at-eg8--20110526

Page 2 of 4

Zuckerberg, Schmidt Counter Sarkozy's Calls for Internet Regulation at 'eG8' - Rebecca Kaplan - NationalJournal.com

12/7/11 5:58 AM

Mark Z might be getting less cocky since Facebook is facing obstacles. It is going to be largely censored if allowed at all in China. That and continually problems with invading privacy as with the face recognition software may have taken some wind out of his sails. respectfully, Frederick Sallaz
5 months ago Like Reply

Mars3d The same governments which cannot bother to prosecute Internet spam and virus attackers, and, who now are planning to dominate the Internet with similar techniques as a 'ghost net' of hovering oppression for ordering society, are the gov./groups that know and tolerate/protect professional criminal groups in other industries as the self-restraining law enforcement overseers of the worlds organized crime networks. The gov. ambitions to establish extended language 'leashes' against individual expression and dissension of active re-ordering groups ignore the current opportunities for suppression of well established organized crime activity which is historically operating over generations of time. The same governments use the excuse that each gov. is a ' thousand entities in chaotic confusion ', then use social reaction hostilities to aim against communication of ideas as a substitute for restriction of damaging criminal actions by the pro's. using consumers as victims.
6 months ago Like Reply

LATEST FROM NEXTGOV.COM

Social media isn't a major path to radicalization
December 7, 2011

New cyber info-sharing measure gets nod from privacy proponents

December 6, 2011

Test results prompt new round in GPS, LightSquared fight

December 6, 2011

If you think you'll save money with cloud computing, think again

Louann Chho Zuckerberg was "a touch more diplomatic"? That's unusual. Diplomacy has certainly not been his strong point! Perhaps he is maturing which is encouraging as he is a very powerful person who previously has been irreverent and brash.
6 months ago 1 Like Like Reply

December 6, 2011

M Subscribe by email S RSS

The National Journal Group has the right (but not the obligation) to monitor the comments and to remove any materials it deems inappropriate.
Comments powered by DISQUS

http://www.nationaljournal.com/tech/zuckerberg-schmidt-counter-sarkozy-s-calls-for-internet-regulation-at-eg8--20110526

Page 3 of 4

Zuckerberg, Schmidt Counter Sarkozy's Calls for Internet Regulation at 'eG8' - Rebecca Kaplan - NationalJournal.com

12/7/11 5:58 AM

NationalJournal Magazine | NationalJournal Daily | Hotline | Almanac | NationalJournal Live About | Contact Us | Staff Bios | Jobs | Reprints & Back Issues | Advertise | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service Atlantic Media Company | Government Executive | The Atlantic Copyright 2011 by National Journal Group Inc.

http://www.nationaljournal.com/tech/zuckerberg-schmidt-counter-sarkozy-s-calls-for-internet-regulation-at-eg8--20110526

Page 4 of 4

Steve Jobs, Mark Zuckerberg, Eric Schmidt To Meet With Obama: REPORT

12/7/11 6:17 AM

EDITION: U.S. CA Canada US United States UK United Kingdom

December 7, 2011

Like 37K CONNECT

Search the Huffington Post

Steve Jobs, Mark Zuckerberg, Eric Schmidt To Meet With Obama: REPORT
First Posted: 02/16/11 10:28 PM ET Updated: 05/25/11 07:35 PM ET React [UPDATE: According to an official list obtained by the LA Times, the attendees will include: John Doerr, partner, Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers Carol Bartz, president and CEO, Yahoo! John Chambers, CEO and chairman, Cisco Systems Dick Costolo, CEO, Twitter Larry Ellison, co-founder and CEO, Oracle Reed Hastings, CEO, NetFlix John Hennessy, president, Stanford University Steve Jobs, chairman and CEO, Apple Art Levinson, chairman and former CEO, Genentech Eric Schmidt, chairman and CEO, Google Steve Westly, managing partner and founder, Westly Group Mark Zuckerberg, founder, president and CEO, Facebook A White House official told the LA Times of the issues to be discussed during the meeting, "The meeting is a part of our ongoing dialogue with the business community on how we can work together to win the future, strengthen our economy, support entrepreneurship, increasing our exports, and get the American people back to work. The President and the business leaders will discuss our shared goal of promoting American innovation, and discuss his commitment to new investments in research and development, education and clean energy." [UPDATE: ABC News reports that in addition to Mark Zuckerberg, Apple CEO Steve Jobs and Google CEO Eric Schmidt will also attend this event in San Francisco.] WASHINGTON Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg is among a group of technology business leaders that President Barack Obama plans to meet with Thursday in San Francisco. A person familiar with the list of attendees confirmed Wednesday that the young billionaire is expected to attend. Obama is spending part of Thursday and Friday on the West Coast. The White House says
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/02/16/mark-zuckerberg-obama_n_824358.html Page 1 of 3

Steve Jobs, Mark Zuckerberg, Eric Schmidt To Meet With Obama: REPORT

12/7/11 6:17 AM

Thursday's session will focus on creating jobs. On Friday, Obama travels to Hillsboro, Ore., to visit Intel Corp. to draw attention to the role of education in preparing Americans for new hightech jobs. The White House says the meeting is part of the president's ongoing dialogue with the business community.
Sponsored Links

"African Fruit Burns Fat"

Learn How This Strange 62-Cent Exotic Fruit Is Making Americans Skinny
HealthScienceMag.com/AfricanMango

DEAL OF THE DAY - $19.99

Send a ProFlowers mini Christmas tree from $19.99 - Order today!
www.proflowers.com

Mom is 48, Body Looks 18

Wow, This 1 Weird $7 Trick Stuns Docs with Crazy Fat Loss Results!
www.LifeStylesAlert.com/SKINNY
Buy a link here

Zuckerberg is the 26-year-old wunderkind behind Facebook. The social networking site has more than 500 million users worldwide. FOLLOW HUFFPOST TECH ON Facebook: Like 37K Twitter:
Enter Email Address

Get Alerts

CONTRIBUTE TO THIS STORY Send Corrections Send us a Link Contact us Send a Tip Send Photos/Videos Comment
Sponsored Links

53 Year Old Mom Looks 25

Local Mom Exposes a Free Anti-Aging Trick that Has Botox Docs Worried!
www.LifestylesAlert.com/MUST-SEE

Cigna Health Insurance

Insurance For Early Retirees. Easy to Quote. Apply Online.
Cigna.com/early-retirees

The Next Internet Boom

Stock Investment with 1,000% Potential Gains.
www.stockmauthority.com

Truth About Annuities?

Don't Buy Any Annuity Until You Watch This Special Video Report!
SeniorAnnuityAlert.com
Buy a link here

Related Technology Videos...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/02/16/mark-zuckerberg-obama_n_824358.html Page 2 of 3

Steve Jobs, Mark Zuckerberg, Eric Schmidt To Meet With Obama: REPORT

12/7/11 6:17 AM

Play

Play

Play

JibJab CEO Difficulty of Obama

on the Mocking

Obama Campaign KickOff on Facebook via Livestream

President Barack Obama in Silicon Valley

Filed by Bianca Bosker |

More in Technology...
Comments 269 Pending Comments 0 View FAQ View All Favorites Bloggers Recency | Popularity : 1 2 3 4 5 (6 total) : 1 2 3 4 5 (6 total)

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/02/16/mark-zuckerberg-obama_n_824358.html

Page 3 of 3

Post Google, Schmidt goes Gaga | thinq_

12/7/11 6:18 AM

thinq_ / 2011 / June / 6 / Post Google, Schmidt goes Gaga

7 December 2011

Home

Hardware

Software

Business

Mobile

Politics

Security

Web

Distractions

Search

Your email

Sign up
or
Like 776

Post Google, Schmidt goes Gaga

Point me in the right direction
Written by James Nixon on 06 June, 2011 NEWS > WEB
Like 3 1

Sign in with Follow us

21

Email

For more sharing options, please sign in

Former Google CEO Eric Schmidt has found himself a somewhat unexpected bedfellow: tea-loving pop noodle Lady Gaga, as the two team up to back a new social networking startup called Backplane. Backplane has so far has raised over $1 million in venture capital, the New York Times reports. The largest investor in the startup, which is yet to launch, is Schmidt's Tomorrow Ventures. Lady Gaga reportedly owns 20 per cent of the company. The site was co-founded by Gaga's manager, Troy Carter, and is designed to enable online communities to be built around musicians and sports teams, integrating updates from other sites such as Twitter and Facebook. According to the NYT, Carter came up with the idea for Backplane after attending a meeting with Steve Jobs, in which the Apple messiah explained Apple's social network, Ping - prompting Carter to decide he might be able to dream up something better. Social networking has become a near-essential way for bands and other performers to market their work and interact with fans, but Backplane will be hoping not to suffer the same fate as oncepopular social site MySpace. At one time a must-visit destination for bands to showcase their work, MySpace's popularity has waned since it was snapped up in 2005 by Rupert Murdoch's News Corporation for a cool $580 million, eclipsed by Facebook, Twitter and a host of other social networking sites. In April this year, after shedding staff and seeing MySpace's traffic slide by 49 per cent on the previous year, News Corp announced that it was seeking bids of $100 million and upwards for the site.
Tags: eric schmidt, lady gaga, myspace, backplane, social networking, steve jobs
Everyone Friends Me

Recent user activity on thinq_:

Carrier IQ in hot water over keystroke monitoring The storm over smartphone monitoring specialist Carrier IQ's hidden so Wed Nov 30 2011 The Future of Xbox Live is in the cloud, game devs told The future of Xbox Live is in the cloud, former Microsoft man Brian Pr Wed Nov 16 2011 Rumour: Xbox 720 codenamed "loop" More information has tipped up about

Recommended Articles

http://www.thinq.co.uk/2011/6/6/schmidt-lady-gaga-team-back-social-startup/

Page 1 of 3

Post Google, Schmidt goes Gaga | thinq_

12/7/11 6:18 AM
Microsoft's currently in-developm Wed Nov 09 2011

Asus beaten to the punch with a 64 Android 4.0 tablet

Asus has been beaten to the punch by a relatively unknown Chinese electronics firm: rather than the ...

Top Tweeters for Supply Chain Management

Supply Chain Management has never been so easy thanks to the people we are following. Expert advice and great tips on managing your supply...

First Radeon HD 7000 mobile chips show up

The first mobile AMD HD 7000 chips have shown up in a couple of mid-range notebooks from HP and Asus...

EFF pushes to make jailbreaking legal for all

The Electronic Frontier Foundation has announced that it is looking to widen exemptions to the Digit...

Related Articles

Jobs vowed to destroy Android to dying breath

And said he's spend Apple's billions to do it, too
NEWS > BUSINESS 21 Oct 2011

powered by plista

Steve Ballmer rated worst CEO by own employees

Worst approval rating of all tech CEOs
NEWS > DISTRACTIONS 06 Apr 2011

Like

Add New Comment

Login

Jobs, Zuckerberg, et al talk tech with Obama

Researching development
NEWS > POLITICS 21 Feb 2011

Obama summons tech titans to White House

Zuckerberg, Jobs and Schmidt drop round for a natter

Showing 0 comments
M Subscribe by email S RSS

Sort by popular now

NEWS > POLITICS 17 Feb 2011

Show All >>

Breaking News

Reactions

Zuckerberg photos exposed by Facebook privacy flaw

Explicit photo reporting to blame_
NEWS > SECURITY 07 Dec 2011

Show more reactions Trackback URL http://disqus.com/forums/thinq/schmidt_lady_gaga_team_up_to_back_social_startup_thinq_/trackback/

IMFT hits flash density high with 20nm 128Gb die

Promises 1GB and 2GB 2.5-inch SSDs soon_
NEWS > HARDWARE 07 Dec 2011

Research In Motion dumps BBX for BlackBerry 10

QNX-based OS gets a new name due to trademark squabble_
NEWS > BUSINESS 07 Dec 2011

Obsidian dev sheds light on PS3 Skyrim lag bug

Sony's console suffers are flaw hits memory constraints_
NEWS > DISTRACTIONS 07 Dec 2011

Microsoft launches Windows 8 Store contest

Calling all app developers for Metro push_
NEWS > SOFTWARE 07 Dec 2011

EFF pushes to make jailbreaking legal for all

With Apple behind it, Sony's next_
NEWS > POLITICS 07 Dec 2011

http://www.thinq.co.uk/2011/6/6/schmidt-lady-gaga-team-back-social-startup/

Page 2 of 3

Post Google, Schmidt goes Gaga | thinq_

12/7/11 6:18 AM

Owned and operated by Net Communities Limited, UK

ITProPortal scours hundreds of online news outlets for technology headlines which are then handpicked, analysed and summarised to help you save time.

Thinq's team of seasoned hacks mix scurrilous rumour with informed opinion to keep you up to date with what's really happening in the world of IT.

IT Reviews gives you the lowdown on the latest tech, with unbiased and accurate verdicts on the latest hardware, software, games and gadgets.

TechBuff lets you experience technology for yourself, with hands-on reviews of the latest gadgets and tech gear - all in high-definition video.

Make IT work for you. Get expert opinion, commercial insight and competitive analysis from the best business technology library.

Follow:

About Us

Our Sites

Sitemap

Contact

Terms and Conditions

Write For Us

2008 2011 Net Communities. All rights reserved.

http://www.thinq.co.uk/2011/6/6/schmidt-lady-gaga-team-back-social-startup/

Page 3 of 3

omitted breaches of merger agreement;Blasius Violation via $69m poison pill;14(a) OMISSION OF MATERIAL FACTS RELATED
No. UNCONTROVERTED FACTS
Supporting Evidence Plaintiff's Response Supporting Evidence

Defendants failed to fulfill contractual merger agreement to purchase 100% of MySpace, Inc. using all commercial means for benefit and protection of shareholders as outlined and stated in merger agreements Sections 6.3, 6.4 & 6.5 which was key part of Proxy distributed on August 25, 2005.

Section 6.3 Filings; Other Action; Notifications (b) of the Merger Agreement, states the following: "Ivory and Parent shall cooperate with each other and use (and shall cause their respective subsidiaries to use) their respective commercially reasonable efforts to take or cause to be taken all actions, and do or cause to be done all things, necessary, prosper of advisable on its part under this Agreement and applicable Law to consumate and make effective the merger and other transactions contempleted hereby and by the Support Agreement as soon as practicable"

Section 6.4 on page 37 of the MSA has the title:

Exercise of Purchase Option: And contains the following text: Ivory shall, as soon as practicable following the execution of this Agreement, pursuant to the terms of the Stockholders Agreement, take all commercially reasonable actions required to exercise and consummate its Purchase Options provided for in Article 7 of the Myspace, Inc. Stockholders Agreement. Capitalized terms used in this Section 6.4 that are not defined in the agreement have the meanings ascribed to such terms in the Stock Holders Agreement.

Section 6.5 on page 38 of the MSA has the title: Purchase Option Loan Agreement). Section Exhibit B in the Merger Agreement is titled Purchase Option Loan Term Sheet, and states the Borrower is: 'Intermix Media, Inc.' and the Principal Amount: '$69 Million", and the use of Myspace stock to repay the Loan is conditioned upon Ivory and Parent entering into a mutually acceptable customary

stockholders agreement containing, among other things, liquidity, governance and minority protection rights.And under Exhibit Bs 'Use of Proceeds' it states: To fund the purchase of the MySpace Option. And under 'Interest:' section states, "with the first interest payment date being the fifth business day following the earlier of the Effective Date or the Termination date.

And contains the following core provisions: Upon Ivorys request, Parent or Merger sub shall loan Ivory up to $69 million in order for Ivory to fund its consummation of the Purchase Options (as defined in the Stockholders Agreement) (the Purchase Option Loan). The Purchase Options Loan shall be made pursuant to a loan having the terms set forth on Exhibit B to this Agreement (the

Attached in email to RGRDLAW is a copy of email from me on September 27, 2005 sat 6:47pm to COO of Viacom Bob Bakish and Chief Legal Counsel of Viacom Michael Fricklas with "subject: FW: Viacom proposal"

"Randall- I thought about some of the things you said on call. Its my view that ou believe and are taking the case down a path of a DIFFERENT STORY then what really factually took place." and Randall, I was talking to the senior executives that were the top 7-8 guys in the Operating team reporting up to Board of Viacom. See email below" and "Please let me know this weekend what you are willing to do to help fix the situation. IYou are forcing me to consider the high likelihood that you have become compromised and conflicted here Randall. " and "I really dont even know what options I have here Randall with the court, but you can be sure that every hour that goes on here you have not resolved with me what i find TROUBLING BEHAVIOR and SETTLING FOR EVIDENCE YOU KNOW IS STALE, (Exhibit #AAA)

May 15, 2009 at 11:32PM, Greenspan emails RGRDLAW via Baron, Randall & Team CSGRR please read this historical piece of evidence carefully below. And below see my views and where this is now heading. I invite any of the other attorneys inolved in this case to step forward with their views of why i would be bad for Jury or Judge to I also state hear/see evidence from me about things in same like this. email, The Merger agreement entered into on July 18, 2005 beween Intermix and News Corp called for Intermix to both exercise and purchase the Myspace minority shares

News Corp provided under Schedule B of the merger agreement a $69 million dollar 1 year note to be loaned to Intermix to purchase the minority shares of Myspace via the Myspace option which Intermix exercised after the signing of the merger agreement.

Defendants immediately after July 18, 2005 Merger Agreement was signed should have both exercised and then taken all commercially available efforts to purchase the stock underlying the Myspace stock option.

Intermix could have requested the $69 million dollar loan any time after the July 18, 2005 agreement was signed, and as long as the agreement was not terminated however, Intermix never requested the loan.

Defendants could have contacted News Corp on July 19, 2005 and requested to receive the $69 million dollars that News Corp had agreed to provide Intermix, Inc. under the Merger Agreement and on terms/process outlined by Exhibit B specifically Another option available to Intermix and Defendants to repurchase the Myspace stock option was to get bank financing in the form of a loan or debt Montgomery one of the paid investment bankers stated on July 20, 2005 at 6:00am, in email to Rosenblatt titled call, I do need direction on getting outside debt for the option. We have the group. Poised to go. Rosenblatt responds via email at 6:23am to Montgomery, ccing Andrew Sheehan, on debt, not sure what we should we do. ANDY?

On July 20, 2005 at 2:13PM, Montgomery emails Rosenblatt and states, "Talked with andy this morning. Putting the debt on hold. Fyi, They would do the fox deal with upfront fees."

Defendants cancel Montgomery debt deal which would have allowed Intermix to comply with Merger Agreement 6.3, 6.4 & 6.5 on or about July 20, 2005, An informed investor reading the Merger Agreement, would think Intermix had purchased and owned 100% of myspace, Inc. prior to the September 30, 2005 shareholder vote.

It was not a commercially reasonable action to tell Montgomery investment bank to terminate its process to provide or try to raise debt financing Montgomery indicated was available via email on July 20, 2005 while also simultaneously refusing to request the Exhibit B $69 million loan from News Corp. Therefore the Proxy disclosure was misleading by failing to disclose to shareholders or omitting that both Intermix cancelled Montgomery's process to raise outside debt and that Intermix was not going to draw down the Schedule B Loan for $69 million dollars. If defendants failed to take commercially reasonable action then notice and disclosure of such failure needed to be included in Proxy disclosure to not mislead shareholders in violation of Federal 14(a) Proxy statues and law. News Corp could have declared Intermix in breach of Section 6.4 from Intermix's failure to re-purchase the Myspace minority shares Intermix violated Merger Agreement provisions 6.4 & 6.5 & 6.3 while creating significant new risk for its shareholder that the entire Myspace option benefit could become lost.

Since Intermix does not take the Exhibit B loan or the Montgomery debt financing after July 18, 2005 then an obligation of approximately $45-$69 million, the purchase price of the Myspace minority shares has been created which defendants failed to properly disclose in proxy that such a material obligation and risk existed.Intermix opts to create a $4569 million dollar obligation by not paying for the Myspace Option before the September 30, 2005 shareholder vote by signing the merger agreement which included section 6.4 & 6.5, defendants either cancelled the previous Myspace Ventures arrangement they claim was made before defendants signed merger agreement, or such agreement did not exist, or defendants were in breach from July 18 thru September 30, 2005

By not complying with Sections 6.4 and Sections 6.5 and Sections 6.3, defendants put entire Myspace Purchase option at risk because News Corp could have terminated the merger agreement anytime after July 18, 2005 and before September 30, 2005 and if Intermix had not already requested the loan, then it would not have available monies to complete the Myspace Option Purchase .

Not drawing down the $69 million dollar loan prior to September 30, 2005, economically benefited News Corp which did not have to risk the $69 million loan while costing Intermix shareholders the economic benefits of receiving $69 million and also recognizing the economic benefits of owning 100% of Myspace, Inc.

Defendants change the initial agreement alleged to have been signed with MSV ultimately alleging the new closing date was October 15, 2005 vs. an obligation that could be settled on any day after July 18, 2005 or if to benefit of shareholders, the same day Mr. Greenspan contacted Intermix with initial offer on September 23, 2005. After the Merger Agreement is executed by all parties, then the Exhibit B $69 million dollar loan is available for Intermix to drawdown subject to the specific terms under Exhibit B

Defendants breached Intermixs compliance with Section 6.4, by failing to request the Exhibit B loan as soon as practicable following the execution of this Agreement, AND by failing to take all commercially reasonable actions required to exercise and consummate its Purchase Options that are provided for in Article 7 of the Myspace Stockholders Agreement.

Defendants then caused Proxy to be false and misleading because they omitted disclosure of their decision to not comply with requesting or drawing down $69 million Exhibit B loan prior to the effective date of Merger Agreement and not being in compliance therefore with Section 6.4 which demanded defendants take all commercially reasonable actions to consummate its Purchase Options by signing the merger agreement which included section 6.4 & 6.5, defendants either cancelled the previous Myspace Ventures arrangement they claim was made before defendants signed merger agreement, or such agreement did not exist, or defendants were in breach from July 18 thru September 30, 2005

Such agreement to not buy the Myspace minority shares of MSV and the terms of such agreement with MSV or Redpoint Ventures were never disclosed in Proxy the more days after July 18, 2005 that passed without Intermix drawing down the $69 million loan, the more chances or options or possibilities or risk was created where News Corp could declare a breach of the Merger Agreement If the loan from News Corp or the purchase of the Myspace minority shares was not supposed to be completed until after the effective date then there would be no need to have added Exhibit B to the Merger Agreement. There was no commercial benefit for Intermix taking the action of not requesting the News Corp loan or Montgome debt Defendants fail to amend Merger Agreement to fix the breach of 6.4 & 6.5 & 6.3 which exists when defendants claim in August 25, 2005 proxy that they struck an agreement with Myspace Ventures before the Directors signed the Merger Agreement on July 18, 2005. The August 25, 2005 Proxy contains representations about an agreement completed with MSV that contradict certain sections and obligations of the merger agreement including but not limited to 6.4 & 6.5 & 6.3 Based on the order of events, the Directors first agreed not to buy back the Myspace Option shares from Myspace Ventures, and then the board voted to approve the merger agreement Intermix never purchases either the Redpoint or MSV minority Myspace shares prior to the shareholder meeting on September 30, 2005.

Intermix was in breach of at least merger section 6.4 prior to the Shareholder Vote on September 30, 2005 by failing to "as soon as practicable" "take all commercially reasonable actions required to exercise and consumate its Purchase Option provided for in Article 7 of the Stockholders Agreement," and failed to disclose this fact in Proxy. Intermix could have amended the merger agreement to disclose Intermix was not going to purchase the minority Myspace shares because of the 'agreement with MSV' ,By not amending the merger agreement, defendants knowingly deceived shareholders.

Redpoints Myspace shares underlying the Myspace Option were discrete and separate from the alleged July 18, 2005 Intermix arrangement with the Myspace Ventures Shareholders completed before the merger agreement was signed. Therefore, even if the alleged Intermix arrangement with Myspace Ventures was legal or valid or found to be in the best interests of shareholders, there was no disclosed similar agreement completed with RedPoint for its larger block of shares that Intermix had right to purchase. There was no economic benefit for Intermix to not complete the purchase of the RedPoint Myspace shares before September 30, 2005.

If Viacom had launched a bid on August 15, 2005, and the Intermix Board believed it a Superior Offer after full consideration to the current News Corp offer represented by the Merger Agreement, then certain actions if taken by the Board described and contained in the Merger Agreement would allow News Corp to declare a breach or have other remedies which all allowed for the status of the Available & unrequested Exhibit B $69 million dollar loan to change to UnAvailable & Unrequested. Therefore, Viacom or another potential bidder would have to make an offer that provided immediate capital given to Intermix to supply the monies due to pay MSV + Redpoint LLC (Myspace minority shareholders), beneficiares of the exercised Myspace Option

Based on the order of events, defendants claim occurred, the Directors first agreed not to buy back the Myspace Option shares from Myspace Ventures, and then the board voted to approve the merger agreement and effected its signing which then nullified the previous alleged arrangement with Myspace Ventures LLC.

Intermix also makes use of the obligation created thru noncompliance with merger sections 6.4 & 6.5 to in September 2005 create a poison pill using decision to leave 'OBLIGATION' uncured or paid for as a deterrant against a rival bidder which is a Blasius Federal Securities violation.

Investment bankers fairness opinions were defective based on Intermix not owning 100% of Myspace, Inc. prior to the September 30, 2005 shareholder vote, but all fairness opinions stating they were only fair if 100% of Myspace had been already acquired by the time reader of Proxy was reading them on August 25, 2005.

Weisel opinion has a transaction summary which assumes Intermix will receive the $69 million, in its summary stating As part of the offer from Firefly (Fox), Firefly has agreed to loan Ivory (intermix) the funds necessary to exercise the Purchase Option (the Firefly Note) and states,

Ivory's stockholders will disproportionately benefit from the exercise of the Purchase Option to the detriment of both Redpont and MSV Thomas Weisels opinion is defective on its face as it states, For purposes of this opinion, we have assumed that the Myspace Acquisition will be consummated prior to the effective time of the Merger in accordance with the terms set forth in the Myspace Stockholders Agreement. Weisel's opinion also states, "We have further assumed with your consent that the Merger will be consummated in accordance with the terms described in the Merger Agreement, without any further amendments thereto, and without waiver by Seller of any of the conditions to its obligations thereunder." Since the Myspace Acquisition which is the purchase of the minority shares has not been completed prior to the effective date which is the date of the shareholder vote on September 30, 2005, therefore the Weisel opinion is defective.

Intermix failed to disclose prior to the Shareholder vote that the Weisel opinion could no longer be relied on. Montgomery in Proxy has summary of financials which indicates, Ivory(intermix) will need financing due to the obligation created by exercising the Myspace Option. Montgomery's Summary of Other key terms and Conditions states that Parent and/or Merger sub will loan $69 million to the Company to fund the exercise of the Myspace Option. 12% annual interest rate (cash or PIK at Ivory option) 1 year maturity from funding If Ivory is unable to repay loan in cash, Ivory may pay in Myspace Stock" By not purchasing the shares of the exercised Myspace Option, the Montgomery Fairness Opinion is defective and misleading as it claims explicitly in its fairness opinions that they are only reliable if Intermix has acquired 100% of Myspace. According to the fairness opinions, if Intermix does not follow thru with acquiring 100% of Myspace, Inc. before the shareholder vote, then the transaction cannot be counted on by shareholders to be 'fair'. Intermix had a duty to update shareholders and disclose in the proxy or thru other disclosure that the Fairness opinions could not be relied upon because they were based on Intermix acquiring 100% of Myspace before the Shareholder vote and Intermix had determined sometime after signing the merger agreement that it would not acquire 100% of Myspace, Inc.

page 3 of the Proxy Q&A Section it states, "Q: Why are we exercising our purchase option with respect to the outstanding equity interests of Myspace, Inc.?

A. Our stockholders agreement with the other stockholders of Myspace, Inc. provides that we may exercise our purchase option to acquire all of the outstanding equity interests of Myspace, Inc. in the event that we receive an offer (such as the merger with Fox Interactive Media) that would result in a change of control. our board of directors determined that the exercise of teh purchase option was in our and our stockholders' best interests and we agreed in the merger agreement to take all commercially reasonable actions required to complete the Myspace, Inc. purchase."

The Proxy is misleading because the Intermix Board did not "Take all commercially reasonable actions to complete the Myspace, Inc. purchase"
Intermix states "we agreed in the merger agreement to tale all commercially reasonable actions required to complete the Myspace, Inc. purchase", which complies with sections 6.3, 6.4, and 6.5 of the merger agreement. Therefore, the directors of Intermix know they are not taking all commercially reasonable actions to complete the Myspace Purchase by not requesting Exhibit B loan and also by terminating the Montgomery Debt raise that was offered by Montgomery. Defandants fail to disclose being in breach of the merger agreement at the time of the shareholder vote.

the defendants fail to disclose why they did not purchase the Redpoint shares prior to the effective date. the defendants fail to purchase the $45 million in Redpoint owned Myspace, Inc. shares which even If the MSV agreement were valid thus puts Intermix in breach of the merger agreement and is misleading to shareholders. Redpoints Myspace shares underlying the Myspace Option were discrete and separate from the disclosure on the alleged arrangement with the Myspace Ventures Shareholders. Therefore, even if the alleged Intermix arrangement with Myspace Ventures was legal or valid, there was no disclosed arrangement with the larger block of shares that Intermix had right to purchase held by RedPoint and the alleged benefit described by Proxy disclosure that Intermix received for Myspace Ventures getting to hold their stock were not disclosed or were not provided or were not able to be provided by RedPoint because they were not employees or Myspace, Inc. THE 3:45AM UNDISCLOSED AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE DEFENDANTS & MSV LLC MYSPACE MINORITY STOCKHOLDERS ALLOWING THEM TO KEEP THEIR SHARES DIRECTLY CONTRADICTS THE DEFENDANTS NEXT ACTION OF VOTING TO ENTER INTO THE MERGER AGREEMENT WHICH CLEARLY DISCLOSES THE DIRECTOR'S INTENT AND RESPONSIBILITY TO ACQUIRE 100% OF THE MYSPACE MINORITY SHARES INCLUDING THE MSV LLC OWNED SHARES PURSUANT TO SECTIONS 6.3, 6.4, and 6.5 ALONG WITH THE INVESTMENT BANKER OPINIONS WHICH MIRROR THE INTENT BORNE BY THE MERGER AGREEMENT.

In the proxy it states on pages 29 & 30, "On the evening of July 17, 2005, two principal managers of Myspce, Inc. Chris DeWofle and Josh Berman, who are also indirect stockholders of Myspace, Inc. through an entity called Myspace Ventures LLC, indicated that if we exercised teh Myspace, Inc. purchase option, Myspace Ventures LLC woul dbe willing to delay the schedulde closing of our obligation to purchase shares until the closing of the merger or any comparable transaction if the closing of the emerger were to occurr after October 14, 2005 (which is the date we are required to purchase the shares of the Myspace, Inc. minority stockholders pursuant to the terms of the purchase opiton)." Following discussions with those individuals, Mr. Rosenblatt concluded that it would be in our best interests for those individuals to continue to hold an equity interest in Myspace, Inc. until the merger is completd or, if the merger is not completed until an alternative transaction is completed. Mr. Rosenblatt advised those individuals that he would recommend this proposal to our board of directors.

In addition, the board of directors authorized us to enter into an agreement with the Myspace, Inc. senior managers to delay the purcahse of the Myspace Ventures, LLC shares in Myspace, Inc. until the earlier of the consummation of the merger with Fox Interactive Media or any comparable transaction. With our board of directors' authorization, we also agreed that if the merger is not completed and we do not enter into a comparable alternate transaction prior to February 11, 2006, we will not purchase Myspace Ventures, LLC's shares of Myspace, Inc. and "Following the board meeting, Fox Interactive Media formally submitted to us a written bona fide offer with respect to a change of control of ur company. The offer provided that Fox Interactive Media was prepared to acquire us pursuant to the terms and conditions set forth in the merger that had been negotiated between the parties. Based on that offer, we exercisd the Myspce, Inc. purchase option. Thereeafter, the parties executed the merger agreement and Fox Interactive Media, News Corporation adn the VantagePoint Stockholders executed the stockholder voting agreement. " Because the Directors of Intermix signed the merger agreement after agreeing to not buy the Myspace Venture LLC's shares, then the Directors knowingly were misleading shareholders because the merger agreement calls for buying 100% of the Myspace shares not held by Intermix, and to "take all commercially reasonable actions required to exercise and consummate its Purchase Options provided for in Article 7 of the Myspace, Inc. Stockholders Agreement" per sections 6.4, 6.5 and Schedule B, and Section 6.3

The merger agreement conflicts with the alleged late night board meeting where prior to Board signing the merger agreement, the alleged undisclosed agreement with MSV was allegedly made. Therefore, the MSV agreement was voided by the Merger Agreement that was signed by directors Defendants failed to disclose these conflicting agreements in the Proxy or prior to September 30, 2005, which makes the proxy misleading under Federal 14(a)
THE VIACOM BID CREATED AND DELIVERED BY PARTNER, FORMER CEO, FOUNDER OF MYSPACE, AND LARGEST INDIVIDUAL COMMON STOCKHOLDER INTERMIX TRACKS ACTIVITIES OF LARGEST SHAREHOLDER AND WHISTLEBLOWER & THE VIACOM AS PARTNER BID DELIVERED TO INTERMIX ON SEPTEMBER 23, 2005 July 7, 2005- Intermix is introduced by T. Weisel's Blake Warner to Bob Bakish of Viacom "EVP & COO" and Bob Bakish meets with Intermix executives in or around July 2005

on July 18, 2005, Andrew Sheehan emails Kitts, Subject: 'Call me with the V update if any' On July 18, 2005 at 8:00PM Rosenblatt emails Andrew Sheehan and Chris Lipp, Subject: 'Re: Announcement' and states, "I am not talking to anyone but big la tomes story in am. Brad challenging the deal. says too cheap Gordy and big guys are happy." On July 18, 2005 at 8:07PM Rosenblatt emails Sheehan and Lipp and states, "Heard it before and LA times reportered told our PR. Frotn page story tomorrow. Also he emailed chris d complaining and chris ignored him."

July 19, 2005, Rosenblatt emails Lipp, Brewer, and Sheehan with Subject: 'LA times article' and states, "its insulting. Its titled, Newscorp buys Myspace. Very clear that Fox only wants Myspace. Employees are going to love that. Oh yeah, and brad says we cant value media assets and wants to vote against it."

JULY 15, 2005 -JUNE 2005 Comscore Search Data becomes available (REVISED - RELEASED IN JULY 2006 - Google36.9%, Yahoo 30.4%, MSN 15.7%, AOL, N/A, Ask Network 6.0% (Due to a definition change occurring with June 2006 data, trended data for the Time-Warner Network are not available) ORIGINAL RELEASED July 18, 2005, 'Buying Myspace as the centerpiece', (Marketwatch, Bambi Francisco) July 19, 2005 at 6:23AM- Rosenblatt emails eUniverse executives, stating "FYI. You will note that John also does not believe other bidders will get there. WSJ says (redacted) thought it was too high. I am convinced as ever that we got the absolute best price, regardless of what Brad Greenspan says to the LA times." ds July 25, 2005 at 2:21PM, Intermix distributes "June 2005 Comscore Global data" and notes that Intermix Search has 'dropped 72%' from March to June 2005 while Myspace has 'grown over 40%'. July 29, 2005 9:02AM, Rosenblatt emails Levinsohn, Angus, Lang, and Mckenna, and states, "Look at page views per user. Everyone is handling the myspace press perfectly. Nice Q&A on Businessweek online today."

July 29, 2005, 9:05AM, Roseblatt emails Levinsohn, Angus, Lang and Mckenna, Subject, 'RE: myspace traffic at all time high (article)' and states, "This came out two secondss afer I sent the email. Ross is the playa Bambi used to be my girl ;-)"

July 29, 2005 - Google as Plantiff sues Microsoft to get new hire Kai-Fu Lee a former Microsoft employee out of existing contract

August 2, 2005, Brad Greenspan, largest intermix individual shareholder contacts Viacom COO via email, and proposes to talk about a proposal to partner to make an acquisition offer to Intermix superior to News Corp's offer. August 2, 2005, at 1:33PM, Brad Greenspan emails to Robert Bakish, Subject: 'Myspace shareholder' and states, "Bob- I am currently a 10% holder of Intermix, the company that owns Myspace.comI was the founder and CEO of Intermix until October 2003)" August 2, 2005 at 1:40PM, Viacom, Inc.'s COO Robert Bakish responds to Brad Greenspan's prior email, stating, "Brad. This is an interesting idea. We agree that a Viacom combination is more interesting than fox. I am in a meeting I can't walk out of but will call you in about 90 minutes if that is ok with you. Look forwrd to talking about this. Thanks."

August 9, 2005- Cnet News - Barry Diller helps Ask Jeeves get in shape (Elinor Mills), "The company, ranked No. 4 or No. 5 behind Google, Yahoo, Microsoft's MSN and sometimes America Online, will invest heavily in marketing" August 10, 2005- 'Google Seeks Second Stock Offering' (TechWeb News/Gonsalves,Antone) "Managing Underwriters for Google would be investment bankers Morgan Stanley & Co., Inc, Credit Suisse First Boston LLC and Allen & Company LLC. " "Google is under increasing competition by its two major rivals for search-related online advertising." "In its filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Mountain View, Calif, company was vague in its reason for seeking the additional capital, saying tht the net proceeds would be used for general corporate purposes,"

August 10, 2005, at 2:27PM, Greenspan emails Bob Kagle of Benchmark Capital and on Board of Ebay, Subject: 'Hello Bob Myspace/Ebay' inquiring if Bob or Ebay would be interested in taking a strategic 35% stake in the public Intermix/Myspace. August 19, 2005- Brad Greenspan emails Michelle Law at IAC, Subject: 'Myspace Opportunity' and states, "Hello Michelle- Can you forward on to Mr. Diller the Following:" August 20, 2005 Article - ONLINE ADVERTISING TO DOUBLE BY 2010, Jupiter Research cited 'By 2010 the $9.3 billion currently being spent on Internet advertising will more than double $19 billion, according to Jupiter Research. The company says search engine advertising will generate more revenue than standard display."

August 22, 2005, Greenspan emails Vector Capital as part of efforts to solicit investors for making alternate acquisition offer for shareholders, with Subject: 'Alex-Myspace Opportunity'

August 23, 2005- Yahoo, Viacom in Ad, Web Search Deal August 23, 2005- ArkinLaw's Sean O'Brien emails BG and states, "Thad and Brad - Here is a letter that SSA wants to send. Le me know if you approve." O'Brien's email is in reply to email from BG stating "Can you review with Stanley and ask him if it makes sense to provide this and the Kazaa letter To the NY-AG to show we are gathering more and more information that shows a complaint Against me seems more and more of a reach for them."

August 24, 2005, Intermix press release, "Intermix Stockholder Meeting Scheduled for September 28, 2005" and "Intermix also announced today that, effective as of August 19, 2005, the Antitrust Division of the U.S. Department of Justice and the U.S. Federal Trade Commission had granted Intermixs request for early termination of the waiting period under the Hart-Scott-Rodino-Antitrust Improvements ACt of 1976, as amended" August 25, 2005, at 2:02PM Brad Greenspan emails Viacom's Chief Legal Officer Michael Fricklas, Subject: 'FW: Complaint' and states, 'Good speaking with you today!! I will try to arrange a call with my lead lawyer (from Quinnn Emanuel) who is riding herd with Crayton Condon ASAP. In addition, I could also arrange a casual conf call Tomorrow or Monday with the principal at firms Trafeletter & Gardener Lewis. to give you a good sense of institutional support. Between these 2 and myself, we are at about 10mln shres or 23% roughly. thanks Brad Greenspan" AUGUST 25, 2005- Intermix Proxy is distributed.

August 26, 2005 John Friedmann v. Intermix Media, Inc. et al was filed in California Superior Court, County of Los Angeles.

August 28, 2005, Greenspan emails Viacom COO Robert Bakish and Chief Legal Officer Michael Fricklas, Subject: 'Myspace Metrics/Value' and states, "Gentlemen- I am sure you saw the NY-TIMES MYSPACE article today. A little metrics and back of the envelope valuation piece I put together for some private equity funds I just started talking to. I believe I have one fund focused in the online space that would be willing to form a partnership to bring voting block together to do the 35-45% buyout of Intermix and creation of a Myspace Public company. "

AUGUST 31, 3005- Kreindler & Kreindler Announces Class Action Suit to Prevent Acquisition of Intermix Media Sep-05

11) On September 4, 2005, News Corp acquires IGN Network a online game network of websites for $650 million dollars. The acquisition is much smaller in terms of unique users per month then Intermix and Intermixs audience growth rate is very positive multi-hundred % growth runrate vs. IGN is flat (like most internet properties and websites generally. To be growing without spending lots of marketing money to enable the growth is what every larger media company wants to capture and achieve for themselves thru the technology gains and learnings of the very valuable employees/talent. September 9, 2005, 12:02PM, Brad Greenspan emails Creighton Condon the outside M&A counsel for Viacom with Subject: 'Viacom intro re: Intermix/Myspace and states, states 'Hello Creighton- I was given your info from Michael Fricklas of Viacom." and then Brad coordinates strategy/brainstorm session calls among the lawyers and brad over coming days. If the Intermix Shareholders vote against News Corp deal, the VB-BID would be able to be recognized and then voted on by shareholders and these terms would have allowed shareholders to liquidate some or even all of their holdings at $13.50 per share in cash, and then choose how much stock to invest in the new Myspace branded public company with MTV owning a non-controlling stake of approximately 33%, " September 9, 2005- 'News Corporation, With IGN in Its Stables, Backs up Promise to Be Bigger Web Player' (Richard Siklos, NY Times) "Jessia Reid Cohe, a Merrill Lynch analyst, noted in a report tht IGN was being acquired for an estimated eight times 2005 revenue and 40 times earnings before interest, tax, depreciation and amortization." 12) September 11, 2005 Business week article News Corp Acquires IGN for $650 Million, the article distributes certain Brad was the founder of Intermixs Seach Engine division and handled all the relationships directly to Google, Yahoo, and Microsoft Search Divisions, therefore based on the timing of events, if the September 30, 2005 shareholder vote was cancelled or delayed for the time needed to put another vote together, Intermix shareholders would have become informed of the Intermix Search Asset Value which existed but was hidden th

13) September 13, 2005, An email from Brad Greenspan to one of top 5 institutional shareholders of Intermix Gardner Lewis Fund in Delaware and its fund manager John Lewis. The Email measures metrics of Intermix and Myspace vs. News Corps just announced deal to buy IGN. Article concludes IGN got better price with lower valued metrics/assets because they employed an auction process vs. While Intermix management arranged a quick sale to News Corp that benefits primarily themselves at the expense of all Intermix stockholders

September 11, 2005- BusinessWeek article is released titled 'News Corp Acquires IGN for $650 Million' and states, "The acquisition is in line with News Corp's latest strategy to further expand into online entertainment and media. This is actually News Corp's third internet acquisition this year, following the purchases of Scout Media, a sports wed publisher, and Intermix which operates the popular social networking website Myspace.com"

September 11, 2005- Letter from Russell B. Wuehler of Latham & Watkins LLP to Gretchen M. Netlson of Kreindler & Kreindler LP that states discovery was produced and provided for the State Class Action Kreindler filed on September 9, 2005. September 14, 2005- Letter from Wuehler of Latham & Watkins to Gretchen Nelson dataing "In accordance with our agreement to produce docuemnts on a rolling basis that are responsibe to the partied agreed upon catagries of production."

September 13, 2005- Greenspan emails Intermix top institutional shareholder of company Gardner Lewis LLC which has principal John Lewis who is shareholder with 5% ownership approximately, Subject: 'IGN vs. Intermix. And states "A bit of info for you: News Corp announced last weekit was purchasing IGN an online video game network for $650 million, more than $70 million above what it paid for Intermix."

The Comparison sent by largest shareholder to another significant shareholder shows Intermix acquistion price accepted by defendants was low in comparison to a inferior competitor in the internet space the same acquiror buys in September 2005. September 14, 2005- Google completes its Secondary led by Allen & Co., raising $4.18 billion dollars September 15, 2005- article by CFO.com states, "Google's secondary offering is the largest by a U.S. high-tech company in a decade" and "'Bloombreg reported that the company plans to use the cash for acquisitions, product development and to protect its position from hard-charging rivals Yahoo Inc. and Microsoft Corp." Google has a director that is a partner in Kleiner Perkins Venture Capital firm - John Doerr, and News Corp has a partner in Kleiner Perkins Venture Capital firm, Tom Perkins Graphical depiction of Directors in common between News Corp and Google, Inc.

September 22, 2005, DailyDeal publishes article 'Intermix investor stands up to Murdoch', and states "Intermix said it "continues to be perplexed" by Greenspan's actions and that it has persevered from when Greenspan was replaced to become a "great turnaround" story"

September 23, 2005 - Intermix receives Acquisition offer from FreeMyspace whose principal was also the largest individual shareholder of company- Brad Greenspan September 23, 2005 - 8k filed September 23, 2005 dated Letter Acquisition Offer by largest common stockholder of Intermix to the CEO of Intermix

"Dear Mr. Rosenblatt: As representative Freemyspace LLC, I am submitting this proposal to acquire a controlling interest in Intermix Media, Inc. on the terms and conditions described below. " and "the financial terms of our offer are as follows: Our price per share is $13.50, a substantial premium over the Fox Interactive price"

September 23, 2005 - Intermix files 8k that states, "Intermix Media, Inc. has not received the proposal described in the press releas issued by Fremyspace, LLC earlier today and is otherwise unaware of any such offer. If and when any such proposal is forthcoming , the Company's Board will give it due consideration." September 23, 2005, CBS Marketwatch article is released titled, "Outside investor offers $13.50 a share for Intermix"

September 26, 2005- Intermix responds and rejects Greenspan acquisition offer with press release and 8k disclosure. Intermix rejects Greenspan 'Acquisiton Proposal' on September 26, 2005 without calling or offering to meet with Greenspan or his investor group SEPTEMBER 26, 2005 - Intermix releases press release title states, "INTERMIX MEDIA BOARD REAFFIRMS RECOMMENDATION OF PENDING ACQUISITION BY NEWS CORPORATION; REJECTS UNSOLICITED ACQUISITION PROPOSAL BY BRAD GREENSPAN"

September 26, 2005- in Intermix's Proxy material It discloses as a reason it rejected 'Greenspan Proposal' "that the timing contemplated by the Greenspan Proposal to make an equity investment in us to fund the consummation the Myspce purchase option be as late as February 2006 whereas we are required to fund in excess of $45 million in cash on October 14, 2005 with respect to the portion of the purchase option that we are required to consummate on that date;"

exhibit is graphical depiction of how Intermix's determination to use the $45+ million obligation created an effective posion pill deterrant to bidders or interested parties considering making a bid. September 26, 2005, Intermix states as reason for rejecting FreeMySpace bid, "The return of Mr. Greenspan to a control position over Intermix could create morale issues with a significant number of Intermix employees, including members of MySpace's management, and potentially harm the company's business, particularly in light of the fact when Mr. Greenspan was removed as Intermox chairman and asked to resign as chief executive officer, the company's common stock traded for less than $2 per share, the company was struggling with an accounting restatement, its common stock had been delisted from the NASDAQ Small Cap Market, it was the subject of an informal investigation by the Securities and Exchange Commission, various stockholder lawsuits relating to the restatement had been filed, and the company was losing money." "Our board of directors also asked its legal counsel to advise it as to whether the Greenspan Proposal, along with Mr. Greenspan's public statements and actions with respect to Intermix and the proposed transaction with News Corporation and Fox Interactive Media, constituted violations of the Federal securities laws, including without limitation, Sections 13(d), 14(a), 14(d) and 14(c) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and the rules and regulations promulgated thereunder." Intermix indicates it has right to give information such as "detailed financial data" described in Intermix's Proxy that was requested by FreeMyspace if the 'superior proposal' definition in the proxy is met. Intermix has struck agreements according to the Proxy with MSV which owns approximately 25% of Myspace, Inc. which preclude the purchase of 100% of Myspace, Inc. if the News Corp or an undefined 'comprable' merger agreement is not closed for Intermix before February 2006

Intermix after July 18, 2005 has changed the corporate structure or franchise of Intermix, Inc. thru its alleged July 17, 2005 pre merger signing agreement with MSV to not repurchase their Myspace, Inc. stock. The new corporate structure makes it an unknown whether a new bidder can thru the acquisition of 100% of Intermix also be assured of Intermix acquiring 100% of Myspace, Inc. as was Intermix's intention prior to the alleged July 17, 2005 MSV/Intermix agreement made. If only News Corp can make an offer to acquire Intermix and be assured of obtaining Intermix's 100% ownership of Myspace, Inc. versus a competitor who launches an acquisition offer which meets Intermix's "superior proposal" definition but can only be assured of Intermix obtaining 75% ownership of Myspace, Inc. The higher price that a competitor would surely have to pay to re-acquire the 25% stake of Myspace, Inc. from MSV after the competing acquisition bought 100% of Intermix would materially increase the total purchase price of the competing bidder vs. News Corp's deal to buy 100% of Intermix and have a mechanism, understanding, or agreement in place with Intermix that allows Intermix to acquire 100% of Myspace, Inc. at the fixed option price and fixed purchase price of the Myspace, Inc. minority shares for $69 million dollars. By Intermix board changing the Myspace Option repurchase mechanism on July 17, 2005 it confused outside prospective bidders and the alleged agreement Intermix made early in the morning of July 18, 2005 with MSV LLC provided no consideration for shareholders while losing certainty of consumating the repurchase of approximately 25% of Myspace, Inc. for approximately $34.5 (50% of $69 million total Myspace Option repurchase valuation/price). If the owners of the Myspace, Inc. stock could sell their 25% stake at fair market on or about July 18, 2005 or September 30, 2005, then such owners could expect to receive at least $100+ million dollars (based on the valuation or data supplied from the Intermix investment banker fairness opinions)

Therefore, Shareholders of Intermix after the July 18, 2005 alleged MSV LLC & Intermix agreement to not comply with MSA 6.4 & 6.5, went from at least an immediate $64.5 million on paper gain that could be recognized to such gain of $64.5 million instead transferring to the sole beneficiary of the agreement, MSV LLC

September 27, 2005 at 4:59PM Greenspan emails Schifferli, Subject: 'Re: Description of Superior Proposal', stating "Didn't we leave it that we know we cannot get the company to support anything we launch. Therefore, we just need to get Viacom to try to send a letter to the company forming a group with Me and that in the letter, they propose x,y,z to the company, and that based on this we hope to get holders to vote against the News Corp deal and Get a shot to luck up more investors to vote for our groups offer as we go foward? I am just looking for a simple email I can send Viacom that say "Hey, why don't we form a group and send the company A letter outlining X,Y,Z course of action, and I will give you a 50% share of any increased value generated from my shares (after tax)"

September 27, 2005 at 6:47PM, FreeMyspace CEO emails Robert Bakish and Michael Fricklas of Viacom and Jay Schifferli outside counsel, Subject: 'FW: Viacom proposal' and states, "Bob/Michaek: After we talked earlier today, I consulted with my advisors and came up with the following proposal, which I think addresses the concerns that you mentioned, most prominently Viacom's hesitance to incur expenses and otherwise become invovled in an ultimately unsuccessful bidding war for Intermix. It's worth emphasizing that I want to make a proposal that not only provides Viacom with protection for its participatin but also provides a real chance of success with Intermix. Specifically, I would be willing to enter into an arrangement with Viacom under which I will pay over to Viacom one half (After tax) of any amounts I receive for my shares above $12 per share (the current price) in any acquisition of Intermix other than by Viacom.

On September 28, 2005, Schifferli emails Brad Greenspan and states, "Brad, The SEC called again. They emphasized that they want to see a press release go out and they want the web sites down, and that if there is no activity 'sooner rather than later' they will consider taking affirmative action. They didn't say what the affirmative action would be, but I am confident that we won't like it." September 28, BG signs 'Assurance of Discontinuance' document with NYAG and agrees to pay $750,000 to not be sued. On September 29, 2005 the SEC continues to demand FREEMYSPACE Brad Greenspan takes down website communicating information to shareholders. September 29, 2005, at 7:28AM, Counsel Jay Schifferli emails Brad Greenspan and states. "Brad. The SEC just called me, noting the web sites are still up"

By Septenber 30, 2005 Intermix had failed to sign a Google Search partnership and failed to sign a new Yahoo Search partnership, and failed to sign a Microsoft deal and failed to sign an AskJeeves Search deal. (Graphical view of timeline and key dates) Therefore shareholders and potential bidders were not aware that Intermix and Myspace needed a new Search Partnership or were even able to sign a new Search Partnership at any time after July 18, 2005 and before shareholder vote on September 30 , 2005. Brad Greenspan was a federal whistleblower after sending Intermix a report on likely securities fraud in May 2005 perpetrated by then CEO of Intermix Rosenblatt. B6) July 19, 2005, Intermix management becomes aware that largest shareholder Brad Greenspan will challenge News Corp deal as Rosenblatt cites in email to Sheehan, Lipp, and Brewer that an LA time article has come out about transaction and brad says we cant value media assets and wants to vote against it. B6) On august 2, 2005, Brad reached out to Viacom COO Bob Bakish with an email pitching Viacom on a partial buyout of Intermix and keeping Intermix public but changing name to Myspace

B7) Viacoms Bakish replies and says Brad. This is an interesting idea. We agree that a Viacom combination is more interesting than fox. I am in a meeting I cant walk out of but will call u in about 90 minutes if that is ok with you. Look forward to talking about this. Thanks B8) By August 22, 2005, Brad encouraged by the interest of Viacom, also begins reaching out to potential other sources of capital to invest alongside Brad and Viacom in the new Partial buyout + strategic partnership with MTV Bid. B9) On August 28, 2005, Brad puts together valuation estimate and shares with Viacom in efforts to solidify bid, etc.

B1) Intermix existing shareholder Brad Greenspan was in discussions with Viacom between August thru September 30, 2005 related to working to come up with superior economic offer to shareholders vs. News Corp $12.00 offer or get shareholders to simply vote against News Corp offer and stay public. 93) Intermix existing shareholder Brad Greenspan Was in discussions with Viacom between August thru September 30, 2005 related to an alternative bid to News Corps to acquire Intermix and Myspace.

95) Intermix rejected Mr. Greenspans bid and publicly announced this fact. 100) Its reported on or about June 13, 2006 that Myspace is selling its search traffic thru middlemen such as Revenue Science
95) Intermix rejected Mr. Greenspans bid and publicly announced this fact.

V1) Intermix existing shareholder Brad Greenspan was in discussions with Viacom between August thru September 30, 2005 related to working to come up with superior economic offer to shareholders vs. News Corp $12.00 offer. Therefore, before September 30, 2005, defendants were aware that if Myspaces search traffic were 25% of AOL and its pageviews already greater then AOL, then Myspace could be valuable to Google, Yahoo, or Microsoft as a search partner.

14) Brad Greenspan as an individual, was an 11% common stockholder of Intermix. Defendants breached their duty of candor and disclosure by using the obligation of the Myspace Exercise of the option, but not completing the purchase, to create an effective poison pill for hostile or friendly new bidders. By at least September 26, 2005, Defendants knew they were creating the very obligation they complained existed as a bona fide reason defendants did not have time to enter into discussions with Brad and his investor group, or even contact Mr. Greenspan to learn more pertinent information. By at least September 26, 2005 Defendants knew they were in violation of Merger Agreement 6.4 & 6.5 as they had not requested the News Corp $69 million dollar Loan (ExhibitB) or taken the backup debt from Montgomery.
September 23, 2005 VB-BID is announced to public, Greenspan was quoted in a Marketwatch article as stating with the divestiture of non-Myspace assets, Intermix could successfully focus on the growth and development of Myspace.com.

September 26, 2005- Intermix rejects Viacom & Brad Bid (VB-BID) in series of public disclosure including press release, Defendants never contact or respond to VB-BID or VBBIDs attorney. Defendants Press release & public filings are evidence as of September 26, 2005 when Intermix updated the public, it undisputable based on admission by defendants press release and 8k disclosure (in their reply to VB-BID letter from Brad), which is that the Myspace Option Purchase has not been purchased by Defendants as of September 26, 2005, , only five days before the shareholder vote, because defendants issue a statement listing reasons they reject the Viacom/Brad strategic Bid, Intermix so states that the timing contemplated by the Greenspan Proposal to make an equity investment in us to fund the consummation the Myspace purchase option could be as late as February 2006, whereas we are required to fund in excess of $45 million in cash on October 14, 2005 with respect to the portion of the purchase option that we are required to consummate on that date.

"Plantiff (Friedmann) on or about September 26, 2005,"applied to the court for an order delaying the vote by Intermix stockholders on the FIM Transaction in order to afford Intermx stockholders additional time to consider the Greenspan proposal. The Court denied the plantiff's request and Intermix stockholders approved the FIM Transaction on September 30, 2005. " (According to News Corp SEC November 2005 10Q filed) September 29, 2005- Lawyer JS states in email to Brad Greenspan, Brad, The SEC just called me, noting the web sites are still up. They consider the site materials still up to be soliciting materials and the SEC stated in no uncertain terms that the sites need to go down and My strong advice is that you comply as soon as possible But the SEC has shown they are monitoring this very closely and indicated yesterday that if their requests for voluntary compliance arent heeded they will take enforcement action and that would be damaging to you both now and on a going forward basis.

On September 29, 2005, the day after Intermix finalized its settlement with the NY AG on the terms directed by the City's August 31, proposal, the City changed its position and informed Intermix that it would seek to impose a monetary penalty. Intermix refused to agree to the imposition of a penalty. Intermix never disclosed the September 29, 2005 contact from the Los Angeles City Attorney and its 'changed' position September 30, 2005- Intermix Shareholder Vote occurs, no vote numbers are provided to public, common stockholders receive $12.00 cash for Intermix common stock September 30, 2005- Neither Intermix or Myspace, Inc.was able to get a proposal or offer or close a deal from or with Google, inc. for an acquisition or a Search Engine Partnership since at least May 2005 when DeWolfe noted he or Myspace was in communications or discussions with Google for purposes of a potential Search Engine Partnership September 30, 2005- Neither Intermix or Myspace, Inc.was able to close a new search partnership deal or get buyout proposal from or with Yahoo, inc. between August 2, 2005 thru September 30, 2005, including no deal closing during two meetings Rosenblatt had with Yahoo which after Rosenblatt emailed News Corps Kirby indicating the meetings with Yahoo head of search, went great! great!. By September 30, 2005 Neither Intermix or Myspace, Inc.was able to get a proposal or offer or close a deal from or with Microsoft, inc. for online search partnership or for determing their interest in a buyout since at least July 18, 2005 when Deutsche Bank emailed Rosenblatt indicating Microsoft would have been interested in looking at opportunities to transact with Intermix, In.

News Corp had Thomas Perkins on their Board between at least April 2005 and December 2005, who is initial investors in Google thru his firm Kleiner Perkins. Mr. Perkins business partner for his day to day business, Mr. John Doeer . Mr. Doerr is partner in Kleiner Perkins and sat on Googles Board of Directors between at least April 2005 and December 2005. Defendants could have cured the $45 million dollar obligation they noted as one of the reasons they could not wait until February 2006 for Mr. Greenspans equity investment if that was Mr. Greenspans solution for how to deal with achieving 100% ownership of Myspace, Inc.

DECEMBER2004JULY2005CASTANDINVOLVEDTRANSACTORSLEVERAGING INTERLOCKINGDIRECTORCARLICK

Google
Serge LarryPage PaulO/Intel

TW/AOL
Cauleld (KCPLLC) Barksdale (KCPLLC) Jonathan Miller(aol ceo) Banko, (manager)

NewsCorp
JohnThornton STANSCHUMAN, Director,(Allen&Co.)

VietDinh PeterChernin R.Murdoch

EricSchmidt JohnDoerr (Kleiner)

PrincetonClassmatesandlead $4.4BSecondarypartners AnnouncedAugust2005

TomPerkins(KCPLLC)

ASKJEEVES
May2004,Allen&Co earns$10millionfeefor ISHacquisiUon December2004July19 (AllenCo.earns addi`onal$10mselling AsktoIAC

ALLEN&CO/ N.PERETSMAN

Carlick (Lead Director)

GeoYang (M&A CommiWee)

ALLEN &CO
Kleiner, CAULFIELD Perkins

IACCORP Barry Kenough Diller (Allen&Co. Chairman

ChrisDewolfe 5thSeat

Myspace,inc

RichardRosenblaW GeoYang AndrewSheehan(CARLICK partner)

INTERMIX,INC.
DAVIDCARLICK(CHAIRMAN)/
CONTROLSHAREHOLDER(23% VantagePoint) RosenblaW DanMosher

AndrewSheehan
BreWBrewer JimQuandt

GOOGLEGOOGLEGOOGLE$$$$$$$$$$ALREADYARELATIONSHIPANDREADY
TODOADEALASOFOCTOBER2003

October 2003

Oct27,2003Googleapproaches eUniverseand requeststodobusinessinareaof search.Thisisthebeginningofthe2 companiesrela`onship.Its indisputable.

MarcowhoeUniversehiredin1999 Workedcloselyundermeandhadbeenhanded TheGooglerela`onshiprightbeforeIled. MarcothenjoinedourMyspaceteam/division AndlikelyhandedoverGooglerela`onship ToNewsCorporDeWolfeorRosenblaW Around`meofsale.

October27,2003 EuniverseentersSearch EngineMarket

MyspaceLaunched andbegan Registeringuserson August15,2003

InitsSecondFullmonth,eUniversesMyspace addedover200,000newusers.Thisgrowth RatewasachievedthruusingeUniversesmarke`ngpower includingthepromo`onstar`nginOctober2003ofMyspace.com toeUniverses2millionUserspayingorbeingsolicitedtopayfor onlineda`ng.Nowoeredfreeda`ngfunc`onalityatMyspace, usersregisteredatMyspaceindroves.

February242005RosenblaWCredibility

IsteppeddownAsCEOofeUniverse AtendofOctober2003andresignedasaBoard MemberonDecember11,2003.Thiswas PubliclyledonrecordI

June2003

MARCH2004

June2003SearchDivisionlauncheswithineUniverse withexecu`onOf2yearagreementtopower eUniversewebsitesearchwithYahoo/Overture Websitesearchenginedes`na`onSirSearch.com IslaunchedOctober27,2003byeUniverse AndCEOBradGreenspan

October2003(closinginNovember2003)FornerCEOhadstruckapartnership withKazaaTodistributetoolbarandothersearchrevenue Genera`ngdownloadorappsorsodwareproducts.Kazaahadthe distribu`onthruusersdownloadingitsMusicproductstogeneratesignicant newusersofToolbarsorothersearchapplica`onsforpoten`alPartnerslike eUniverse,Inc.orAskJeeves,Inc.orISH,Inc.AndYahooandGoogle.

INMarch2004,AskJeevesBecameadirectcompe`torto SirSearch.comthrupurchaseof$75million+peryear download/searchBusiness.ISH

ASKJEEVES DirectorsCarlick&Yangare Ac`veinM&A

ALLEN&COMPANY(Made$10millionfeeforSellingISH toAskJeevesinMarch2004)

GEOFFYANG,ASK JEEVESDIRECTOR

NancyPeretsman
INTERMIXsearchbecomesone ofitsbiggestrevenuesources accordingtoSEClingsin2004 and2005
Innova`on&hardworkof bonademanagement Whorespectduciaryduty toshareholders
Toolbar/Search/Adware/ Downloaddivision

ISH

DavidCarlick,ASK JEEVESDIRECTOR

Toolbar/Search/Adware/ Downloaddivision purchasedbyAskJeeves March2004,double AudienceforAsk

VANTAGEPARTNERSLLC

IntermixDirectors
CEO&Head OfrsteUniversesearch Engineanddownloaddivision, SirSearch.comBradGreenspan.

AsCarlickandVantagedidtheirdiligenceanddeterminedtoinvest, Itwasbuiltlargelyonthegrowththeyexpectedfromtheonlinesearch divisionIhadbeenopera`ngandeducatedthemwithconden`al metricsandinforma`onandtheyhaddirectaccesstoalltheYahoo incomingStats.

CARLICK MOSHER

SHEEHAN MOREAU

ROSENBLATT

BREWER QUANDT

WOODW ARD

Carlick&Sheehanhavespecicrightsoutlinedin managementrightsagreementVantagePointLLC ExecutedwhenitinvesteditsSeriesCwhichforced ManagementtoinformVantageandOrrickofall threatenedlawsuits,lawsuits,andinves`ga`ons

MAY4,2004ASKclosesonISH

NEWMANAGEMENTANNOUNCES MYSPACEFORFIRSTTIME ASITBECOMES#1.ACOORDINATED EFFORTBEGINSBYCHRISDEWOLFE ANDRICHARDROSENBLATTTO CREATEMYTHTHATMYSPACE WASNEWCOMPANYTHATJUST POPPEDUPIN2004,NOMENTION OFCURRENTOWNEREUNIVERSE (ORTHATTHEYWORKATEUNIVERSE). THISBECOMESSTARTOFREVISIONIST HISTORY

MAY17,2005MYSPACEINCBOARDDewolfe/Yang
EmailfromMyspaceCEOChrisDeWolfewhoisdirectorand23%ownerofMyspace,Inc.thruMSVLLC WecannotworkwithGoogleduetoourassocia`onWithIntermix,OvertureisInaholdingpaWernonComple`nganew agreementwithus,andWeareonholdwith(Viacom)Onstrategicandpartnershipdiscussions

May2005GOOGLEACTIVEINDISCUSSIONSWITHMYSPACE.COM(PRENEWSCORPMERGERAGREEMENTSIGNED.

May2005Google/Myspace

GOOGLEALREADY TALKINGTOMYSPACE ASOFMAY2005 &INSEARCHAUCTION

June16,2005IntermixannouncesseWlementwithNYAG&Spitzer, ThisopensupallpartnershipsagainforSearch+M&Aopportuni`es

6/14/05 SeWlement WithNYAG ForIntermix Clearspath Forsaleor SearchAuc`on

IACCORPMarch21,2005 acquiresASKJEEVES
Allen&CosChairman KenoughisonBoardIAC JPMORGAN

INAPRIL2005, ZAKKOURLEAVES CITIBANKTOJOIN JPMORGAN

JPMORGAN

NEWSCORPJuly13, 2005retainsJPMorgan andZakkour,

CITIBANK(Banker#2)ZAKKOUR
$1.8BillionValua`on ASKJEEVES ForAskJeevesbased PublicCompany onZakkourreport TopDirectorswere AuditCommiWeeDirectors DavidCarlick(ChairmanofIntermix)&Je Yang,25% Owner&DirectorofMySpace,Inc. ALLEN&CO.(BANKER#1)PERETSMAN

$1.3BillionValua`on forMySpacebasedon Zakkour/JPMorgan Report

STANSCHUMAN, MANAGING DIRECTORALLEN& CO&DIRECTOR OFNEWSCORP

DavidCarlick,ASKJEEVESSENIORDIRECTOR &AUDITCOMMITTEE&COMPENSATION COMMITTEE GEOFFYANGDirectorofAskJeeves AndonNomina`ngCommiWee,alsothruhisRedPointLLC ADirectorof51%IntermixownedMySpace,Inc. (Wasac`velyinvolvedinM&AaccordingtoSECFilings Sheehan&RosenblaW AdmitnevershowDeutsche Valua`onreporttoIntermixBoard MAY2005,DEUTSCHE BANKVALUATIONREPORT UPTO$1.7BILLIONFORINTERMIX JULY18,2005INTERMIX/MYSPACE GETVALUATIONSHOWING$650 MILLIONFAIRFROMTWEISEL& MONTGOMERYWHODONTDO VALUATIONWORKUNTILAFTER RECEIPTOF$12OFFER

Allen&Co,Schuman SitsonNewsCorpBoard +KleinerPerkinsTomPerkins

ZAKKOURasbankerandinternetvalua`onexpert engagedbyAskJeeves,Inc.thruJuly19,2005closing(at Ci`bankrstandtheninApriltransferstoJPMorganand using2006EBITDAas NewsCorpsbankervaluesMySpaceatupto$1.36billion dollars.

CarlickoptstonotuseExperiencedbankerthat valuedAskJeevesat$1.8Billionand Familiarwithinternetsector.July13thengaged byNewsCorpandZakkourisAdverseto Intermix.Carlickdisclosesnothing.Disloyal

ALLEN&Co. Closes IAC/AskJeeves merger OnJuly19,2005 NancyPeretsman, banker

GeoYang 25%owner&, DirectorMySpace,Inc

GeoYang, DirectorASKJ

ASKJEEVES
Intermix Board of Directors INTERMIX, INC Board of Directors

Myspace,Inc

July18,NewsCorpwith Zakkoursleadingeortsfrom JPMorgan,inducesIntermix boardToaccept$12.00oer Whichworksoutto$650 millionbid

(1) Richard Rosenblatt Director & ceo

David Carlick Director (ex-askjeeves search)

Jim Quandt Independent Director recruiting firm that hired ceo Dan Mosher Independent Director

Lawrence Moreau audit committee chairman

Brett Brewer Director & President

Andrew Sheehan Directors Partner Carlick On Board of Myspace, Inc.

William Woodward Independent Director

July20,20052daysaderMergerAgreement WithNewsCorpsigned.70daysbeforeShareholderVote

CEORosenblaWon7/25/05,integratesFoxsWebproper`eswithIntermix/ Myspaceproper`esIntheopportunitypresentednowtoYahoowhich Isaderonly6daysfromwhenmergeragreementwassignedWhicheec`vely violatesHartsRodinoAct(HSR1)JumpingGundu`esbycombiningbusiness opera`onsInamannerthatprecludedIntermixgetngthebenet Ofitsordinaryduecourseofbusiness

July2025, 2005 Yahoo/ Search/ HSR1 Viola`on

Likelyviola`onOfjumpinggunProvision,here,IntermixsMyspacemajorityownedcorpora`oncanbeseeninanongoingprocesstosecureaSEARCHPARTNERforits vauntedMyspace.comproperty.ADealofsignicant$$magnitudecouldhavebeenclosedwellbeforeSeptember30,2005.Closingsuchatransac`onwouldhavebeena surematerialdevelopment&announcementseeingAsMicrosodwasreadytopay$800dollarsor$266millionperyearforSearchAloneforMyspace.comasearlyas January2006,just90daysadertheMyspaceShareholdersvotedtosellMyspace.com

RosenblaWsdelays closingIntermixs SearchAuc`on process Un`lader September30,2005, morethen60days aderthe2nd Mee`ngwithhead ofsearch

August2,2005DAYOFSEARCHAUCTIONYAHOOKEY2nDMEETING
MichaelKirbyworksforFox/NewsCorp.Therefore itappearsRosenblaWisrepor`ngouttoFox Vs.Shareholders,60daysbeforeTransac`onisset toclose.

SimultaneouslyNego`a`ngcompensa`onwhilerunningSearchAuc`on,againshowsCEORosenblaW Wasconictedandasusual,shareholdersgetshortendofs`ck.NoSearchDeal.

August2,2005HS1relatedemail showstheyunderstandthereis issuesotheyjumponphoneto discussvs.email.

August8,2005
August8,2005 YAHOO/NWS/ MYSPACE SEARCH

Intermixdelays Itsownbusiness Developmentmee`ngs/progress InfavorofworkingforbenetofNews Corp Preclose.

BothCEOand Presidentthengoon Vaca`oninstead Ofnishing/closing Searchdealfor Myspacepriortoshareholder Vote.

Myspace,Inc.BoardofDirectorsduringGoldenTrianglePeriod(Sep14,2005thruSep30,2005)

(1)
Andrew Sheehan Director also owned minority stake

(2)
Chris DeWolfe Director -also owned minority stake

MYSPACE, INC Board of Directors (4/4 no independent ever elected

(3)
Geoff Yang Director also outside active VC

(4)
Richard Rosenblatt Director also Director of Intermix

Intermix Idependent Director Never Filled

Feb2005 July18,2005

(5)

ONJULY18,2005ExerciseofMySpaceOp`ontoBuyoutminorityshareholdersand Boardmembers
a) IntermixfailstobuyoutMyspaceOp`onwhich WoulddissolvebreachedMySpace,Inc.BoardandMySpace Duringcri`calJuly18September30,2005periodwouldhave Beenoverseenby3IndependentDirectorsofIntermix. b)IntermixfailstohonorMyspace,Inc.StockHoldersAgreement callingforIndependentBoardMember,a5thBoardMembertobeIn placeatall`mes.

INTERMIXSHAREHOLDERVOTESEPTEMBER30,2005

August11,2005New3rdparty Metrics(mostcrediblesource) thatBoard/Management&News Corpbecomeawareofhasgrown 43.6%inasinglemonthands`ll growing.Newdatafromwhat wasavailpriorto7/18/10

Defendantsbecameaware In/oraroundAugust11ththat July2005wasociallyrepor`ngResults Thru3rdpartyaudi`ngservice(Nielsens) REPORT11.1BAdImpressions. Up43.6%frompriormonth(June)

NoDisclosuretoShareholdersoccurs

STEALINGSEARCH January2006 Microsod Oers$800million ForSearchforMyspace MSFToering$266million PeryearinrevenuetoMyspace

January2006Microsodoer$800millionover3yearsforMyspace SearchPartnership

HeckmantoldMurdoch AndCherninaboutvalueofMyspace Search,,MonthsEarlier,i.e.someUmein2005

Nego`a`ngfor8months WithMicrosod

Dec17,2005The$20Billion Valua`on

July05

July06

Google36.5% Yahoo30.5% MSFT15.5% AOL9.9% (475M) ASK6.1% (292M)

Jul07

OCT2005 Comscore #ofSearchUsers ASK43.7MLN AOL36MLN MYSPACE8MLN (22%SIZEOFAOL)

OCTOBER2005 MYSPACEHAD 24.25MILLION UNIQUEUSERS

NOV 2005COMSCORE

MAY2006

GOOG43.7%(2.7B) YHOO28.8% (1.8B) MSN12.8%(806M)

Google55.2% Yahoo23.5% MSFT12.3%

AOL8.7%(446 million) ASKJ6.5%(336.3 million

AOL6.9% (499M) ASK5.8% (392)

MYSPACE0.7% 43MSearches (10%SIZEOFAOL)

AOL5.9%(374M) ASK5.4%(340M)

AOL4.7%(436M) ASK4.4%(219M)

7%MyspaceviaFoxInterac`ve
Media:(575M)

BYMAY2006 COMSCORE,MYSPACE UNIQUEUSERSHAD INCREASEDTO51.44 MILLIONUNIQUEUSERS

ByJuly2006Comscore, MySpaceuniqueusers hadIncreasedto52.34 millionunique users

November2005NEWDATACOMSCOREUSSEARCHENGINERANKINGS Googlehad39.8%(2.05Bqueries)ofSearchmarket,Yahoo29.5%(1.52Bqueries), MSN14.2%(728.8millionqueries)andAOLat8.7%(446millionqueries),AskJeeves 6.5%(336.3millionqueries)

March2004Allen& Co.sellsISHAdware Companyto AskJeeves For$300andreceives $10mlnfee.

March25July19, 2005(closingdate) Allen&Co.isBanker forAskJeeves Andreceives$10 millionCommission onsaletoIACfor $1.8Billion

JPMORGAN

August15,2005 Allen&Co.announces Googlesecondary.

September15,2005 Allen&Co.raises Google$4.4Billion

December15,2005 Googlepays$1Billion For5%ofAOLTimeWarners andtoExtendSearchPartnership

GOOGLE

GOOGLE

GOOGLE

IACCORP
LedbyNancy Peretsman NPeretsman NPeretsman
$1Billion At $20Billion Valua`on

NPeretsman

ASJkEEVES

ASKJEEVES
NPeretsman

ISH

JPMORGAN JULY18,2005NEWS CORPMERGER AGREEMENTSIGNED TOACQUIRE INTERMIX/MYSPACE FOR$12.00.

September 30,2005

TIME WARNERAOL

Commercialrela`onship

Shareholders ApproveIntermix transac`on