CARELLA, BYRNE, CECCHI, OLSTEIN, BRODY & AGNELLO, P.C.

COUNSELLORS AT LAW

_____________

CHARLES C. CARELLA

BRENDAN T. BYRNE

PETER G. STEWART

ELLIOT M. OLSTEIN

ARTHUR T. VANDERBILT, II

JAN ALAN BRODY

JOHN M. AGNELLO

CHARLES M. CARELLA

JAMES E. CECCHI

JAMES D. CECCHI (1933-1995)

JOHN G. GILFILLAN III (1936-2008)

JAMES T. BYERS

DONALD F. MICELI

A. RICHARD ROSS

KENNETH L. WINTERS

JEFFREY A. COOPER

CARL R. WOODWARD, III

MELISSA E. FLAX

DENNIS F. GLEASON

DAVID G. GILFILLAN

G. GLENNON TROUBLEFIELD

BRIAN H. FENLON

KHOREN BANDAZIAN

LINDSEY H. TAYLOR

5 BECKER FARM ROAD

ROSELAND, N.J. 07068-1739

PHONE (973) 994-1700

FAX (973) 994-1744

www.carellabyrne.com

RICHARD K. MATANLE, II

FRANCIS C. HAND

AVRAM S. EULE

RAYMOND W. FISHER

______

OF COUNSEL

RAYMOND J. LILLIE

WILLIAM SQUIRE

ALAN J. GRANT

RAYMOND E. STAUFFER

STEPHEN R. DANEK

ERIC MAGNELLI

DONALD A. ECKLUND

VINCENZO M. MOGAVERO

AUDRA E. PETROLLE

MEMBER N.Y. BAR ONLY

August 4, 2011

VIA ECF

Hon. Michael A. Shipp

United States Magistrate Judge

Martin Luther King Federal Building

50 Walnut Street

Newark, New Jersey 07102

Re: Botton v. Ness Technologies, et al.

Civil Action No. 11-3950(SRC)

Dear Judge Shipp:

We are co-counsel for Plaintiff in the above matter. We write in response to defendants’

letter dated August 3, 2011, providing the Court with a copy of the order in the Delaware Court

of Chancery proceedings styled In re Ness Technologies, Shareholders Litigation: C.A. No.

6529-VCN (the “Delaware Action”).

It is appropriate to also provide your Honor with plaintiffs’ motion to expedite discovery

in the Delaware Action (attached) as well as the transcript for said proceeding (attached). We

note that plaintiffs in the Delaware Action did not argue at their hearing nor articulate in their

papers why free cash flows for Ness Technologies should be provided to Ness Technologies

shareholders and they failed to raise the legal arguments put forth before this Court under Maric

Capital Master Fund, Ltd. v. Plato Learning, Inc., 11 A.3d 1175, 1178 (Del. Ch. 2010) (“the

proxy statement selectively disclosed projections relating to PLATO’s future performance. In

particular, the proxy statement for some inexplicable reason excised the free cash flow estimates

... This is odd. ... in my view, management’s best estimate of the future cash flow of a

corporation that is proposed to be sold in a cash merger is clearly material information.”); see

also Nichting, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 76739, at *17, n.16 (“The Court notes that upon initial

review, it smacks of materiality that a voter be made aware of the Company’s cash flow

projections in order to make an informed decision.”).

Case 2:11-cv-03950-SRC -MAS Document 28 Filed 08/04/11 Page 1 of 2 PageID: 696
Hon. Michael A. Shipp

August 4, 2011

Page 2

CARELLA, BYRNE, CECCHI, OLSTEIN, BRODY & AGNELLO

A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION

This is not a criticism of plaintiffs in the Delaware Action but a critical distinction in the

manner in which the claims have been prosecuted before this Court as opposed to the Delaware

Action. Accordingly, Plaintiff hereby requests that his motion to expedite be granted, at least

with respect to his free cash flows argument and similar discovery as it was ordered in the

Nitching case raising identical issues as here.

Thank you for your continued attention to this matter. If Your Honor has any questions,

we are available at your convenience.

Respectfully submitted,

CARELLA, BYRNE, CECCHI,

OLSTEIN, BRODY & AGNELLO

/s/ James E. Cecchi

JAMES E. CECCHI

cc: All Counsel (via ECF)

Case 2:11-cv-03950-SRC -MAS Document 28 Filed 08/04/11 Page 2 of 2 PageID: 697