Document:

exv10w1

Exhibit 10.1

CAUSE NO. 2010-47387

	 	 	 
	
BROADBASED EQUITIES, on behalf of itself 
and all others similarly
situated and also 

derivatively on behalf of Buckeye GP Holdings
L.P.,

Plaintiff,

v.

	 	

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF 

HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS 

129th JUDICIAL DISTRICT

	FORREST E. WYLIE, CHRISTOPHER L. 

COLLINS, JOHN F. ERHARD, JOSEPH A.

LASALA, JR., FRANK J. LOVERRO, FRANK S. 

SOWINSKI, ROBB E. TURNER,
MARTIN A. 

WHITE, BGH GP HOLDINGS, LLC, AND 

MAINLINE MANAGEMENT, LLC,

Defendants,

v.

BUCKEYE GP HOLDINGS L.P.,

Nominal Defendant.

	 	 

MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING

     Plaintiffs Broadbased Equities, Henry James Steward and JR Garrett Trust (collectively
“Plaintiffs”), Defendants Forrest E. Wylie, Christopher L. Collins, John F. Erhard, Joseph A.
LaSala, Jr., Frank J. Loverro, Frank S. Sowinski, Robb E. Turner, Martin A. White, Buckeye GP
Holdings LP, BGH GP Holdings LLC (“BGH Holdings”), MainLine Management LLC (“Mainline”), ArcLight
Capital Partners, LLC (“ArcLight”), Kelso & Company (“Kelso”), Buckeye Partners LP (“BPL”), Buckeye
GP LLC (the “Partnership GP”), and Grand Ohio, LLC (“Grand Ohio”) and Nominal Defendant Buckeye GP
Holdings L.P. (“BGH”) (collectively “Defendants,” and together with Plaintiffs, the “Parties”), by
and through their respective attorneys, have reached an agreement in principle providing for the
settlement of the above

 

 

consolidated action (the “Action”) on the terms and subject to the conditions set forth below
in this Memorandum of Understanding (the “MOU”):

     WHEREAS, on or about June 11, 2010, BPL and BGH announced that they had entered into a
definitive agreement (the “Merger Agreement”) that would result in the merger of Grand Ohio with
and into BGH (the “Merger”). Under the terms of the Merger Agreement, BGH unitholders would receive
0.705 BPL limited partnership units in exchange for each BGH common or management unit owned at
closing; and

     WHEREAS, on or about July 14, 2010, in connection with proposed meetings of unitholders, of
BPL and BGH, BPL filed a joint registration statement, which included a joint proxy statement
prospectus by BPL and BGH (the “Registration Statement”) with the United States Securities and
Exchange Commission (“SEC”), which stated, among other things, that the board of directors of
MainLine had unanimously (with the director who is also Chief Executive Officer of the Partnership
GP and MainLine recusing himself) approved the Merger, the Merger Agreement and the transactions
contemplated thereby; and

     WHEREAS, the Registration Statement also contained a discussion of the background of the
Merger Agreement, a summary of Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC (“Credit Suisse”) and Barclays
Capital Inc.’s (“Barclays”) work as well as their compensation and prior work for BGH or BPL, a
description of management’s projections and the reasons MainLine’s board recommended that
unitholders vote in favor of the Merger, and solicited unitholder approval for the Merger; and

     WHEREAS, on or about July 30, 2010, a putative class and derivative action complaint was filed
by Plaintiff Broadbased Equities (“Broadbased”) (the “Broadbased Complaint”), a unitholder of BGH,
allegedly on behalf of all holders of BGH’s common units, other than

2

 

Defendants and their affiliates (the “Putative Class”), in the District Court of Harris
County, Texas (the “Court”), captioned Broadbased Equities v. Wylie, et al., Cause No. 2010-47387
(the “Broadbased Action”); and

     WHEREAS, on or about August 2, 2010, a putative class action complaint was filed by Plaintiff
JR Garrett Trust (“JR Garrett”) (the “JR Garrett Complaint”), a unitholder of BGH, allegedly on
behalf of all holders of BGH’s common units, other than Defendants and their affiliates, in the
Court, captioned JR Garrett Trust v. Buckeye GP Holdings L.P, et al., Cause No. 2010-47543 (the “JR
Garrett Action”); and

     WHEREAS, also on or about August 2, 2010 a putative class action complaint was filed by
Plaintiff Henry James Steward (“Steward”) (the “Steward Complaint”), a unitholder of BGH, allegedly
on behalf of all holders of BGH’s common units, other than Defendants and their affiliates, in the
Court, captioned Henry James Steward v. Wylie, et al., Cause No. 2010-47538 (the “Steward Action”);
and

     WHEREAS, each of the Broadbased Complaint, the JR Garrett Complaint and the Steward Complaint
sought relief against the members of MainLine’s Board: Forrest E. Wylie, Christopher L. Collins,
John F. Erhard, Joseph A. LaSala, Jr., Frank J. Loverro, Frank S. Sowinski, Robb E. Turner, and
Martin A. White (the “Board”), as well as MainLine. In addition, (i) the JR Garrett Complaint and
the Broadbased Complaint sought relief against BGH nominally while the Steward Complaint sought
relief against BGH as a direct defendant, (ii) the JR Garrett Complaint and the Broadbased
Complaint also sought relief against BGH GP, (ii) the JR Garrett Complaint and the Steward
Complaint also sought relief against BPL and the Partnership GP, (iii) the JR Garrett Complaint
sought relief against ArcLight and Kelso, and (iv) the Steward Complaint also sought relief against
Grand Ohio. Hereinafter, (i) BPL, the

3

 

Partnership GP and Grand Ohio are sometimes referred to as the Partnership Defendants and (ii) BGH,
BGH GP, MainLine, ArcLight, Kelso and the Board are sometimes referred to as the BGH Defendants;
and

     WHEREAS, each of the Broadbased Complaint, the JR Garrett Complaint and the Steward Complaint
challenged, inter alia, the Merger Agreement and the Merger, including but not limited to the terms
of the Merger Agreement, and alleged that the Board had breached its fiduciary duties in connection
therewith.

     WHEREAS, each of the Broadbased Complaint, the JR Garrett Complaint and the Steward Complaint
also challenged certain disclosures in the Registration Statement (the “Challenged Disclosures”) as
set forth below, and alleged that the Board had breached its fiduciary duties in connection
therewith. Specifically, the Broadbased Complaint alleged, inter alia, that the following
information, alleged by Broadbased to be material, was not disclosed in the Registration Statement:

	 	(i)	 	According to the Registration Statement, projections were
provided to the Buckeye Audit Committee in March 2010 and the BGH Board in
April 2010 and were based on management assumptions as of the dates of their
preparation and have not been updated since that time. The Broadbased
Complaint alleged that the Registration Statement was deficient because it
failed to disclose whether the projections provided to the Buckeye Audit
Committee and to the BGH Board were the same projections or were prepared on
different dates. The Broadbased Complaint further alleged that if they were
not the same, then the Registration Statement was deficient because it (a)
disclosed only one set of financial projections and (b) did not specify the
date on which it was prepared.
	 
	 	(ii)	 	According to the Registration Statement, during late 2009 and
early 2010, Buckeye’s senior management, along with its Board and Board of BGH,
discussed ways of reducing Buckeye’s cost of equity capital. The Broadbased
Complaint alleged that the Registration Statement was deficient because it
failed to disclose the substance of these discussions.

4

 

	 	(iii)	 	According to the Registration Statement, at a meeting on March
8, 2010, Buckeye’s Audit Committee discussed potential issues regarding any
third
party bid that may arise for either Buckeye, BGH, or both. The Broadbased
Complaint alleged that the Registration Statement was deficient because it
failed to disclose the potential issues discussed at that meeting regarding
third party bids.
	 
	 	(iv)	 	According to the Registration Statement, at a meeting on April
14, 2010, the BGH Board discussed the possible timing, nature and content of a
proposed response to the April 13th proposal, noting that the proposed exchange
ratio of .65 was insufficient. The Broadbased Complaint alleged that the
Registration Statement was deficient because it failed to disclose (a) the
basis for this determination and (b) any discussion had regarding what exchange
rate would be sufficient.
	 
	 	(v)	 	According to the Registration Statement, on April 26, 2010,
members of the BGH Board and representatives from Credit Suisse and Latham &
Watkins attended a presentation by Buckeye GP’s senior management regarding the
business and prospects of Buckeye and the strategic rationale for, and
financial implications of, the acquisition of BGH by Buckeye. The Broadbased
Complaint alleged that the Registration Statement was deficient because it
failed to disclose the substance of this presentation.
	 
	 	(vi)	 	According to the Registration Statement, at meetings on April
28, 2010 and May 24, 2010, Credit Suisse reviewed and discussed with the BGH
Board its updated preliminary financial analyses with respect to BGH, Buckeye
and the proposed transaction. Also, at the April 28, 2010 meeting, the BGH
Board discussed the pro forma effects of the proposed transaction. The
Broadbased Complaint alleged that the Registration Statement was deficient
because it failed to disclose (a) the updated preliminary financial analyses of
Credit Suisse reviewed and discussed at both meetings and (b) the pro forma
effects of the proposed transaction that were discussed at the April 28, 2010
meeting.
	 
	 	(vii)	 	According to the Registration Statement, on May 7, 2010, as
directed by the BGH Board and the Buckeye Audit Committee, respectively, Credit
Suisse and Barclays met to discuss certain aspects of the April 13, 2010
proposal and BGH’s counterproposal and the financial assumptions underlying
both proposals. The Broadbased Complaint alleged that the Registration
Statement was deficient because it failed to disclose the substance of these
discussions.
	 
	 	(viii)	 	According to the Registration Statement, at a meeting on May 18, 2010, the
Buckeye Audit Committee discussed with its advisors possible transaction terms,
including the likelihood of a third party bid for BGH,

5

 

	 	 	 	Buckeye, or both. The
Broadbased Complaint alleged that the Registration Statement was deficient
because it failed to disclose the
substance of the discussions regarding third party bids.
	 
	 	(ix)	 	According to the Registration Statement, at a meeting on May
25, 2010, the BGH Board discussed, among other things, the pro forma
consequences of the proposed transaction, an increase in the exchange ratio,
whether BGH should have an affirmative right to shop itself after signing a
definitive agreement, the universe of potential buyers for BGH and whether BGH
should be able to respond to unsolicited written proposals after signing a
definitive agreement. Following those discussions, the BGH Board decided to
counter with a proposed exchange ratio of 0.715. The BGH Board directed the
Transaction Committee to (1) continue resisting exclusivity prior to signing a
definitive agreement, (2) accept limitations on BGH’s ability to affirmatively
shop itself after the signing of a definitive agreement, (3) retain the right
to respond to unsolicited written proposals, (4) accept the proposal regarding
post-closing governance, and (5) emphasize the importance of promptly executing
a definitive agreement. The Broadbased Complaint alleged that the
Registration Statement was deficient because it failed to disclose the
substance of the discussions that led to these determinations.
	 
	 	(x)	 	According to the Registration Statement, on May 27, 2010, the
BGH Board discussed, among other things, the likelihood of competing proposals.
The Broadbased Complaint alleged that the Registration Statement was deficient
because it failed to disclose the conclusion reached by the BGH Board regarding
the likelihood of competing proposals and the rationale supporting that
conclusion.
	 
	 	(xi)	 	According to the Registration Statement, on June 10, 2010,
BGH’s Transaction Committee gave its recommendation regarding drafts of the
merger agreement and certain related agreements and other documents, and the
merger to the BGH Board. The Broadbased Complaint alleged that the
Registration Statement was deficient because it failed to disclose the
substance of the BGH Transaction Committee’s recommendation.
	 
	 	(xii)	 	According to the Registration Statement, in its Discounted
Cash Flow Analysis, Credit Suisse calculated the net present value of BGH and
Buckeye levered free cash flows using BGH’s and Buckeye’s management forecasts,
respectively. In performing this analysis, Credit Suisse applied discount
rates ranging from 7.00% to 9.25% for BGH and 6.50% and 8.25% for Buckeye and
terminal yield ranges of 5.0% to 6.0% for BGH and 6.5% to 7.0% for Buckeye
based on the selected companies analysis to calculate an implied exchange ratio
reference range. The Broadbased Complaint alleged that the Registration
Statement was deficient because it failed to disclose the methodology used to
derive the

6

 

	 	 	 	discount rate ranges and terminal yield ranges from the Selected
Companies Analysis.
	 
	 	(xiii)	 	According to the Registration Statement, in its Selected Transactions
Analysis, Credit Suisse applied multiple ranges based on the Selected
Transactions Analysis to corresponding financial data for BGH and applied
multiple ranges based on the Selected Companies Analysis to corresponding
financial data for Buckeye to calculate an implied exchange ratio reference
range. The Broadbased Complaint alleged that the Registration Statement was
deficient because it failed to disclose (a) which multiple ranges from the
Selected Transactions Analysis and the Selected Companies Analysis were used to
calculate the implied exchange ratio reference range and (b) the type of
consideration and the value of each transaction.
	 
	 	(xiv)	 	According to the Registration Statement, Credit Suisse and its
affiliates may acquire, hold or sell, for Credit Suisse’s and its affiliates
own accounts and the accounts of customers, equity, debt and other securities
and financial instruments (including bank loans and other obligations) of BGH,
Buckeye and any other company that may be involved in the merger, as well as
provide investment banking and other financial services to such companies. The
Broadbased Complaint alleged that the Registration Statement was deficient
because it failed to disclose the extent of Credit Suisse’s and its affiliates’
interests in BGH, Buckeye, or any other company involved in the merger.
	 
	 	(xv)	 	According to the Registration Statement, Credit Suisse will
receive a customary fee for its services, a substantial portion of which is
contingent upon the consummation of the merger. Credit Suisse also became
entitled to receive a fee upon the rendering of its opinion. The Broadbased
Complaint alleged that the Registration Statement was deficient because it
failed to disclose the value of the fees to be paid to Credit Suisse, including
the amount of fees which is contingent upon the consummation of the Sale
Agreement.
	 
	 	(xvi)	 	According to the Registration Statement, Credit Suisse and its
affiliates have in the past provided investment banking and other financial
services to BGH, Buckeye, and certain of their affiliates for which Credit
Suisse and its affiliates have received compensation, including, during the
last two years, having acted as a co-managing underwriter of an offering of
debt securities by Buckeye. Credit Suisse and its affiliates may have provided
other financial advice and services, and may in the future provide financial
advice and services, to BGH, Buckeye, and their respective affiliates for which
Credit Suisse and its affiliates have received, and would expect to receive,
compensation. The Broadbased Complaint alleged that the Registration Statement
was deficient because it failed to

7

 

	 	 	 	disclose (a) the affiliates of BGH and
Buckeye to which Credit Suisse has provided services, (b) the amount of fees
that Credit Suisse has received
for services it has provided to BGH, Buckeye, and their respective
affiliates, (c) the amount of fees that Credit Suisse has an expectation of
receiving for future services provided to BGH, Buckeye, and their
affiliates, (d) to the extent that Credit Suisse has provided services to
Kelso, ArcLight, or MainLine, the amount of fees received therefrom, and (e)
to the extent that Credit Suisse expects to provide services to Kelso,
ArcLight, or MainLine, the amount of fees expected to be received therefrom.

The JR Garrett Complaint alleged, inter alia, that the following information, alleged by JR Garrett
to be material, was not disclosed in the Registration Statement:

	 	(i)	 	The Registration Statement stated that management of Buckeye
Partnership GP and Buckeye Holdings GP prepared projections that included
expected future financial and operating performance for BPL on a “stand-alone”
basis and on a “combined” basis giving effect to the proposed Merger. However,
the JR Garrett Complaint alleged that these projections were not disclosed.
	 
	 	(ii)	 	The Registration Statement stated that the stand alone and
combined projections were provided to the BPL Audit Committee and the BGH Board
and they were “revised” to reflect certain assumptions of the Partnership Audit
Committee and the Holdings Board. However, the JR Garrett Complaint alleged
that it did not disclose what the revisions were (i.e. were they higher or
lower than management’s projections) or why they made said revisions.
	 
	 	(iii)	 	The Registration Statement stated that the stand-alone and
combined projections were provided to Barclays Capital Inc. (“Barclays”) and
Credit Suisse for use in connection with the preparation of their opinions to
the Partnership Audit Committee and the Holdings Board, respectively, and
related financial advisory services. However, the JR Garrett Complaint alleged
it was not disclosed whether Credit Suisse was provided with the revised
projections, the original projections, or both.
	 
	 	(iv)	 	The Registration Statement also stated that Barclays prepared
adjusted projections in conducting its financial analyses but the JR Garrett
Complaint alleged that it did not disclose what adjustments were made to
management’s undisclosed projections (i.e. were they higher or lower than
management’s projections) and to which set of projections.
	 
	 	(v)	 	Although the Registration Statement disclosed BPL’s “Total
Distributable Cash Flow” for 2011-2014, the JR Garrett Complaint alleged that
it did

8

 

	 	 	 	not disclose how much BPL expects to actually distribute to its LP
unitholders, nor did it disclose expected sales revenues or Earning Before
Interest Tax & Depreciation (“EBITDA), so that BGH unitholders could
properly value BGH’s incentive distribution rights. Moreover, the JR
Garrett Complaint alleged that Registration Statement did not disclose
whether the “Total Distributable Cash Flow” projections are based on the
revised projections or the original projections.
	 
	 	(vi)	 	The Registration Statement disclosed summaries of the financial
analyses conducted by Credit Suisse and Barclays; however, the JR Garrett
Complaint alleged that it did not disclose if Credit Suisse and Barclays relied
upon the revised or original projections in performing their analyses, in
particular with respect to their discounted cash flow analyses.
	 
	 	(vii)	 	Moreover, the Registration Statement stated that BPL and BGH
will not make publicly available any update or other revisions to projections
to reflect circumstances existing after the date of the projections. However,
the JRG Complaint alleged that Defendants cannot withhold information that is
material to the vote on the Merger. The JRG Complaint alleged that it was
important that BGH’s public unitholders are informed of any material changes to
the projections in the form of, at least, a supplemental public filing by
Defendants so that they could make an informed vote on the Merger. Moreover,
the JR Garrett Complaint alleged that any material changes in the projections
raises questions as to the continued adequacy of Credit Suisse’s and Barclays’
fairness opinions.
	 
	 	(viii)	 	The Registration Statement stated that the Board interviewed Credit Suisse to
serve as financial advisor to BGH in connection with the Merger and retained
Credit Suisse because of its “knowledge and experience with respect to M&A
transactions and the energy industry generally, as well as Credit Suisse’s
experience advising MLPs and other companies with respect to transactions
similar to the proposed transaction...” However, the JR Garrett Complaint
alleged that the Registration Statement did not disclose if Credit Suisse was
the only firm considered by the BGH Board, and if it was, why other firms were
not interviewed.
	 
	 	(ix)	 	Although the Registration Statement disclosed that Credit
Suisse “provided investment banking and other financial services to BGH, BPL
and certain of their affiliates”, the JR Garrett Complaint alleged that it did
not disclose the amount of fees it received as a result of these services.
More importantly, the JR Garrett Complaint alleged it did not disclose the
amount of fees that Credit Suisse has received, or will receive, as a result of
its services in connection with the Merger, including the services provided in
connection with its fairness opinion. The JR Garrett Complaint alleged that
this is very important material information required to determine whether or
not Credit Suisse’s fairness opinion is reliable or

9

 

	 	 	 	was “bought and paid for.”
With respect to Barclays, the Registration Statement disclosed the amount of
fees it received for past services to
Defendants but the JR Garrett Complaint alleged that it did not disclose the
amount of fees that it received, or will receive, for its services in
connection with the Merger.
	 
	 	(x)	 	The Registration Statement stated that “[i]n performing its
evaluation analysis, Barclays has analyzed data under four different
Partnership operating and financial scenarios...” which were based on BPL’s
“Long-Term Plan.” However, the JR Garrett Complaint alleged that it did not
disclose what the Long Term Plan is and if it was different from the “Base
Case” financial scenario or management’s projections.
	 
	 	(xi)	 	The Registration Statement stated “Barclays performed a
discounted cash flow analysis of projected free cash flows to each of the
Partnership and Holdings for the fiscal year beginning April 1, 2010 and ending
December 31, 2014. For Cases I [Base Case], II [No Acquisitions] and III
[Downside], Barclays assumed discount rates ranging from 10% to 12%. For Case
IV [Upside], Barclays assumed discount rates ranging from 11% to 13%.”
However, the JR Garrett Complaint alleged that it did not disclose how Barclays
arrived at its assumed discount rate ranges, why Barclays used a different
discount rate for Case IV, and why it used a higher discount rate range for the
Upside case and not a lower range for the Downside case.
	 
	 	(xii)	 	In further connection with Barclays’ discounted cash flow
analysis, the JR Garrett Complaint alleged that the Registration Statement did
not disclose what yields were implied by Barclays’ terminal multiple
assumptions and why Barclays used different terminal multiples for Case IV.
	 
	 	(xiii)	 	In connection with Barclays’ Comparable Company Analysis, the JR Garrett
Complaint alleged that the Registration Statement did not disclose the
screening and selection criteria Barclays used to select public company samples
for both BGH and BPL or the company-by-company pricing multiples.
	 
	 	(xiv)	 	In connection with Barclays’ Comparable Transaction Analysis,
the JR Garrett Complaint alleged that the Registration Statement did not
disclose transaction-by-transaction pricing multiples for both samples (i.e.,
the sample for BGH and the sample for BPL).
	 
	 	(xv)	 	The JR Garrett Complaint alleged that Barclays’ Research
Analyst Price Targets analysis did not disclose how many price targets were
included in the samples, or whether or not they were all issued since the
respective companies’ most recent financial disclosures, or are some based on
older information.

10

 

	 	(xvi)	 	The JR Garrett Complaint alleged that Barclays’ Premiums Paid
Analysis did not disclose how the transactions were screened, the
transaction-by-transaction premiums, or why the sample size was smaller and
differed from Credit Suisse’s samples. Moreover, the JR Garrett Complaint
alleged that the Registration Statement did not disclose whether or not any of
the samples were intentionally excluded by Barclays.
	 
	 	(xvii)	 	In connection with the Selected Companies Analysis performed by Credit
Suisse, the JR Garrett Complaint alleged that the Registration Statement did
not disclose why the sample of selected companies chosen by Credit Suisse
differed from Barclays’ sample. Moreover, the JR Garrett Complaint alleged
that it did not disclose the screening and selection criteria Credit Suisse
used to select public company samples for both BGH and BPL, or the
company-by-company pricing multiples.
	 
	 	(xviii)	 	The JR Garrett Complaint alleged that the Registration Statement did not
disclose why Credit Suisse’s discount rate ranges are materially different than
Barclays’ and why Barclays uses terminal multiples, whereas Credit Suisse
calculated terminal values by using exit-yield assumptions.
	 
	 	(xix)	 	In connection with the Selected Transactions Analysis
performed by Credit Suisse, the JR Garrett Complaint alleged that the
Registration Statement did not disclose why Credit Suisse’s sample differs
substantially from (and is smaller than) Barclays’ sample, nor did it disclose
the selection criteria and transaction-by-transaction pricing multiples.
	 
	 	(xx)	 	In connection with the Premiums Paid Analysis performed by
Credit Suisse, the JR Garrett Complaint alleged that the Registration Statement
did not disclose how the transactions were screened, the
transaction-by-transaction premiums, why the sample size was smaller than
Barclays, and whether or not any samples were intentionally excluded.

The Steward Complaint alleged, inter alia, that the following information, alleged by Steward to be
material, was not disclosed in the Registration Statement:

	 	(i)	 	With regard to Barclays’s Discounted Cash Flow Analysis, the
Steward Complaint alleged as follows:

	 	a)	 	The Registration Statement failed to provide
any definition of free cash flow used in this analysis. This
information is necessary to determine how free cash flow compares to
distributable cash flow.

11

 

	 	b)	 	There was no disclosure in the Registration
Statement of the methodologies and assumptions used to determine the
discount rate ranges used in each of the 4 cases, for each company.
	 
	 	c)	 	The Registration Statement failed to disclose
the methodologies and assumptions used to determine the terminal
multiples used in each of the 4 cases, for each company.
	 
	 	d)	 	The Registration Statement failed to disclose
the process, assumptions and methodologies used to determine the value
of $4.6mm for the 80,000 Partnership LP Units held by Holdings.

	 	(ii)	 	With regard to Barclays’s Comparable Company Analysis, the
Steward Complaint alleged as follows:

	 	a)	 	The Registration Statement failed to provide
any explanation for the lack of control premium being added to get an
implied value of Holdings.
	 
	 	b)	 	The Registration Statement failed to provide
any explanation as to why Holdings and Partnership were valued using
different multiples (Holdings valued using multiples of distributable
cash flow, distributions, and yield, but Partnership was valued using
multiples of EBITDA, last quarter annualized cash distribution yield
and distributable cash flow yield).

	 	(iii)	 	With regard to Barclays’s Comparable Transaction Analysis, the
Steward Complaint alleged as follows:

	 	a)	 	The Registration Statement failed to disclose
why a Comparable Transaction Analysis was performed on Partnership,
even though there was no change of control contemplated by the Proposed
Transaction.
	 
	 	b)	 	The Registration Statement failed to disclose
why Holdings and Partnership were valued using different multiples
(Holdings valued using multiples of LTM distributable cash flow, 1-yr
forward distributable cash flow, and latest quarter annualized
distributions, but Partnership was valued using multiples of LTM
EBITDA, LTM EBIT, LTM distributable cash flow, LTM net income).

12

 

	 	(iv)	 	With regard to Credit Suisse’s Selected Companies Analysis, the
Steward Complaint alleged as follows:

	 	a)	 	The Registration Statement failed to disclose
why no control premium was added to get an implied value of Holdings.
	 
	 	b)	 	There was no disclosure in the Registration
Statement of the actual multiples selected and applied to Holdings or
Partnership.
	 
	 	c)	 	There was no disclosure in the Registration
Statement of the individually concluded values for Holdings and
Partnership.

	 	(v)	 	With regard to Credit Suisse’s Discounted Cash Flow Analysis,
the Steward Complaint alleged as follows:

	 	a)	 	The Registration Statement failed to disclose
the definition of levered free cash flow used.
	 
	 	b)	 	The methodologies and assumptions used to
determine the appropriate discount rates were not disclosed in the
Registration Statement.
	 
	 	c)	 	There was no disclosure in the Registration
Statement of the individually concluded values for Holdings and
Partnership.

	 	(vi)	 	With regard to Credit Suisse’s Selected Transactions Analysis,
the Steward Complaint alleged as follows:

	 	a)	 	The Registration Statement failed to disclose
the actual multiples selected and applied to either Holdings or
Partnership. There was no disclosure of which multiples from the
Selected Companies Analysis were applied to Partnership, or how they
differed from the multiples that were applied under the Selected
Companies Analysis.
	 
	 	b)	 	The Registration Statement failed to disclose
the individually concluded values for Holdings and Partnership.

	 	(vii)	 	The Steward Complaint alleged that the Registration Statement
failed to disclose the fees that the financial advisors will be receiving.
Specifically, the Registration Statement stated that Barclays will receive a
“customary fee”, a portion of which was paid upon rendering their opinion, and
a substantial portion of which is contingent upon consummation. The Steward
Complaint alleged that the specific amounts of the total fee and 

13

 

	 	 	 	the contingent
portion were not disclosed. According to the Registration Statement, Credit
Suisse will receive a “customary fee”, a “substantial portion” of which is
contingent upon consummation. The Steward Complaint alleged that the specific
amounts of the total fee and the contingent portion are not disclosed. Also,
the Steward Complaint alleged that the amount of fees earned by Credit Suisse
for acting as a co-managing underwriter of an offering of debt securities by
the Partnership were not disclosed.

     WHEREAS, each of the Broadbased Complaint, the JR Garrett Complaint and the Steward Complaint
also alleged, inter alia, that by reason of Defendants’ actions, Plaintiffs and members of the
Putative Class (the “Putative Class Members”) had suffered and would suffer irreparable harm for
which they had no adequate remedy at law, and requested that the Court grant appropriate relief for
such alleged harm; and

     WHEREAS, on or about August 17, 2010, each of Broadbased, JR Garrett and Steward filed an
amended complaint in their respective actions; and

     WHEREAS, on August 19, 2010, BPL filed an amended registration statement (the “Amended
Registration Statement”); and

     WHEREAS, on or about August 24, 2010, the Court entered an order the Parties had agreed to
which, inter alia, (i) consolidated the JR Garrett Action and the Stewart Action into the
Broadbased Action, and (ii) appointed The Brualdi Law Firm, P.C., Bull & Lifshitz, L.L.P. and
Finkelstein Thompson LLP as Interim Co-Lead Counsel and Emmons & Jackson, P.C. and Schwartz,
Junell, Greenberg & Oathout, L.L.P. as Plaintiffs’ Liaison Counsel (collectively “Plaintiffs’
Counsel”); and

     WHEREAS, on or about September 1, 2010 Plaintiffs’ filed a First Consolidated Amended Class
Action and Derivative Complaint (the “Consolidated Complaint”); and

     WHEREAS, the Consolidated Complaint challenged, inter alia, the Merger and the Merger
Agreement, including, but not limited to, the Company’s disclosures in the Amended

14

 

Registration
Statement and alleged that the Board had breached its fiduciary duties in connection therewith.
Specifically, the Consolidated Complaint alleged, inter alia, that the following information,
alleged by Plaintiffs to be material, was not disclosed in the Amended Registration Statement:

	 	i)	 	The Registration Statement stated that management of Buckeye GP
and BGH prepared projections that included expected future financial and
operating performance for BPL on a “stand-alone” basis and on a “combined”
basis giving effect to the proposed Merger. However, the Consolidated
Complaint alleged that Registration Statement was deficient because it
disclosed only one set of financial projections.
	 
	 	ii)	 	The Registration Statement stated that the stand alone and
combined projections were provided to the BPL Audit Committee and the BGH
Board and they were “revised” to reflect certain assumptions of the BPL
Audit Committee and the BGH Board. The Consolidated Complaint alleged that
the Registration Statement was deficient because it failed to disclose (a)
what the revisions were (i.e. were they higher or lower than management’s
projections) and (b) why they made said revisions.
	 
	 	iii)	 	The Registration Statement stated that the stand-alone and
combined projections were provided to Barclays and Credit Suisse for use in
connection with the preparation of their opinions to the BPL Audit
Committee and the BGH Board, respectively, and related financial advisory
services. The Consolidated Complaint alleged that the Registration
Statement was deficient because it failed to disclose whether Credit Suisse
was provided with the revised projections, the original projections, or
both.
	 
	 	iv)	 	The Registration Statement also stated that Barclays prepared
adjusted projections in conducting its financial analyses. The
Consolidated Complaint alleged that the Registration Statement was
deficient because it failed to disclose (a) what adjustments were made to
management’s undisclosed projections (i.e. were they higher or lower than
management’s projections) and (b) to which set of projections the
adjustments were made.
	 
	 	v)	 	According to the Registration Statement, projections were
provided to the BPL Audit Committee in March 2010 and the BGH Board in
April 2010 and were based on management assumptions as of the dates of
their preparation and have not been updated since that time. The
Consolidated Complaint alleged that the Registration Statement was
deficient because it failed to disclose whether the projections provided to
the BPL Audit Committee and the BGH Board were the same projections or were

15

 

	 	 	 	prepared on different dates. If they were not the same, then the
Consolidated Complaint alleged that the Registration Statement was
deficient because it (a) discloses only one set of financial projections
and (b) does not specify the date on which it was prepared.
	 
	 	vi)	 	According to the Registration Statement, during late 2009 and
early 2010, BPL’s senior management, along with its Board and the Board of
BGH, discussed ways of reducing BPL’s cost of equity capital. The
Consolidated Complaint alleged that the Registration was deficient because
it failed to disclose the substance of these discussions.
	 
	 	vii)	 	According to the Registration Statement, at a meeting on March
8, 2010, BPL’s Audit Committee discussed potential issues regarding any
third party bid that may arise for either BPL, BGH, or both. The
Consolidated Complaint alleged that the Registration Statement was
deficient because it failed to disclose the potential issues discussed at
this meeting regarding third party bids.
	 
	 	viii)	 	According to the Registration Statement, at a meeting on
April 14, 2010, the BGH Board discussed the possible timing, nature and
content of a proposed response to the April 13th proposal, noting that the
proposed exchange ratio of .65 was insufficient. The Consolidated
Complaint alleged that the Registration Statement was deficient because
it failed to disclose (a) the basis for this determination and (b) any
discussion had regarding what exchange rate would be sufficient.
	 
	 	ix)	 	According to the Registration Statement, on April 26, 2010,
members of the BGH Board and representatives from Credit Suisse and Latham
& Watkins attended a presentation by Buckeye GP’s senior management
regarding the business and prospects of BPL and the strategic rationale
for, and financial implications of, the acquisition of BGH by BPL. The
Consolidated Complaint alleged that the Registration Statement was
deficient because it failed to disclose the substance of this presentation.
	 
	 	x)	 	According to the Registration Statement, at meetings on April
28, 2010 and May 24, 2010, Credit Suisse reviewed and discussed with the
BGH Board its updated preliminary financial analyses with respect to BGH,
BPL and the proposed transaction. Also, at the April 28, 2010 meeting, the
BGH Board discussed the pro forma effects of the proposed transaction. The
Registration Statement was deficient because it failed to disclose (a) the
updated preliminary financial analyses of Credit Suisse reviewed and
discussed at both meetings and (b) the pro forma effects of the proposed
transaction that were discussed at the April 28, 2010 meeting.
	 
	 	xi)	 	According to the Registration Statement, on May 7, 2010, as
directed by the BGH Board and the BPL Audit Committee, respectively, Credit
Suisse 

16

 

	 	 	 	and Barclays met to discuss certain aspects of the April 13, 2010
proposal and BGH’s counterproposal and the financial assumptions underlying
both proposals. The Consolidated Complaint alleged that the Registration
Statement was deficient because it failed to disclose the substance of
these discussions.
	 
	 	xii)	 	According to the Registration Statement, at a meeting on May
18, 2010, the BPL Audit Committee discussed with its advisors possible
transaction terms, including the likelihood of a third party bid for BGH,
BPL, or both. The Consolidated Complaint alleged that the Registration
Statement was deficient because it failed to disclose the substance of the
discussions regarding third party bids.
	 
	 	xiii)	 	According to the Registration Statement, at a meeting on May
25, 2010, the BGH Board discussed, among other things, the pro forma
consequences of the proposed transaction, an increase in the exchange
ratio, whether BGH should have an affirmative right to shop itself after
signing a definitive agreement, the universe of potential buyers for BGH
and whether BGH should be able to respond to unsolicited written proposals
after signing a definitive agreement. Following those discussions, the BGH
Board decided to counter with a proposed exchange ratio of 0.715. The BGH
Board directed the Transaction Committee to (1) continue resisting
exclusivity prior to signing a definitive agreement, (2)
accept limitations on BGH’s ability to affirmatively shop itself after the
signing of a definitive agreement, (3) retain the right to respond to
unsolicited written proposals, (4) accept the proposal regarding
post-closing governance, and (5) emphasize the importance of promptly
executing a definitive agreement. The Consolidated Complaint alleged that
the Registration Statement was deficient because it failed to disclose the
substance of the discussions that led to these determinations.
	 
	 	xiv)	 	According to the Registration Statement, on May 27, 2010, the
BGH Board discussed, among other things, the likelihood of competing
proposals. The Consolidated Complaint alleged that the Registration
Statement was deficient because it failed to disclose the conclusion
reached by the BGH Board regarding the likelihood of competing proposals
and the rationale supporting that conclusion.
	 
	 	xv)	 	According to the Registration Statement, on June 10, 2010,
BGH’s Transaction Committee gave its recommendation regarding drafts of the
merger agreement and certain related agreements and other documents, and
the merger to the BGH Board. The Consolidated Complaint alleged that the
Registration Statement was deficient because it failed to disclose the
substance of the BGH Transaction Committee’s recommendation.
	 
	 	xvi)	 	According to the Registration Statement, in its Discounted Cash
Flow Analysis, Credit Suisse calculated the net present value of BGH and

17

 

	 	 	 	BPL levered free cash flows using BGH’s and BPL’s management forecasts,
respectively. In performing this analysis, Credit Suisse applied discount
rates ranging from 7.00% to 9.25% for BGH and 6.50% and 8.25% for BPL and
terminal yield ranges of 5.0% to 6.0% for BGH and 6.5% to 7.0% for BPL
based on its Selected Companies Analysis to calculate an implied exchange
ratio reference range. The Consolidated Complaint alleged that the
Registration Statement was deficient because it failed to disclose (a) the
definition of levered free cash flow used, (b) the methodologies and
assumptions used to derive the discount rate ranges and terminal yield
ranges from the Selected Companies Analysis, and (c) the individually
concluded values for BGH and BPL.
	 
	 	xvii)	 	According to the Registration Statement, one set of
projections specified “Total Distributable Cash Flow” for 2011-2014. The
Consolidated Complaint alleged that the Registration Statement was
deficient because it failed to disclose (a) how much BPL expects to
actually distribute to its LP unitholders, (b) expected sales revenues or
Earnings Before Interest Tax & Depreciation (“EBITDA), and (c) whether the
“Total Distributable Cash Flow” projections are the revised projections or
the original projections.
	 
	 	xviii)	 	The Registration Statement provides summaries of the financial analyses
conducted by Credit Suisse and Barclays. However, the
Consolidated Complaint alleged that the Registration Statement was deficient
because it failed to disclose if Credit Suisse and Barclays relied upon the
revised or original projections in performing their analyses, in particular
with respect to their discounted cash flow analyses.
	 
	 	xix)	 	The Consolidated Complaint alleged that the Registration
Statement was deficient because, according to the Registration Statement,
BPL and BGH will not make publicly available any update or other revisions
to projections to reflect circumstances existing after the date of the
projections.
	 
	 	xx)	 	According to the Registration Statement, in its Selected
Transactions Analysis, Credit Suisse applied multiple ranges based on the
Selected Transactions Analysis to corresponding financial data for BGH and
applied multiple ranges based on the Selected Companies Analysis to
corresponding financial data for BPL to calculate an implied exchange ratio
reference range. The Consolidated Complaint alleged that the Registration
Statement was deficient because it failed to disclose (a) which multiple
ranges from the Selected Transactions Analysis and the Selected Companies
Analysis were used to calculate the implied exchange ratio reference range,
(b) the type of consideration and the value of each transaction, (c) why
Credit Suisse’s sample differs substantially from (and is smaller than)
Barclays’ sample, (d) the selection criteria and

18

 

	 	 	 	transaction-by-transaction
pricing multiples, and (e) the individually concluded values for BGH and
BPL.
	 
	 	xxi)	 	According to the Registration Statement, in performing its
evaluation analysis, Barclays analyzed data under four different BPL
operating and financial scenarios, which were based on BPL’s “Long-Term
Plan.” The Consolidated Complaint alleged that the Registration Statement
was deficient because it failed to disclose (a) what the Long Term Plan is
and (b) if it was different from the “Base Case” financial scenario or
management’s projections.
	 
	 	xxii)	 	“Barclays performed a discounted cash flow analysis of
projected free cash flows to each of [BPL] and [BGH] for the fiscal year
beginning April 1, 2010 and ending December 31, 2014. For Cases I [Base
Case], II [No Acquisitions] and III [Downside], Barclays assumed discount
rates ranging from 10% to 12%. For Case IV [Upside], Barclays assumed
discount rates ranging from 11% to 13%.” The Consolidated Complaint
alleged that the Registration Statement was deficient because it failed to
disclose (a) the definition of free cash flow used in this analysis, (b)
how Barclays arrived at its assumed discount rate ranges, (c) why Barclays
used a different discount rate for Case IV, and (d) why it used a higher
discount rate range for the Upside case and not a lower range for the
Downside case.
	 
	 	xxiii)	 	In further connection with Barclays’ Discounted Cash Flow Analysis, the
Consolidated Complaint alleged that the Registration Statement was
deficient because it failed to disclose (a) the methodologies and
assumptions used to determine the terminal multiples, (b) what yields were
implied by Barclays’ terminal multiple assumptions and (c) why Barclays
used different terminal multiples for Case IV, and (d) the process,
assumptions and methodologies used to determine the value of $4.6mm for the
80,000 BPL LP Units held by BGH.
	 
	 	xxiv)	 	In connection with Barclays’ Comparable Company Analysis, the
Consolidated Complaint alleged that the Registration Statement was
deficient because it failed to disclose (a) the screening and selection
criteria Barclays used to select public company samples for both BGH and
BPL, (b) the company-by-company pricing multiples, (c)
transaction-by-transaction pricing multiples for both samples (i.e., the
sample for BGH and the sample for BPL), (d) why Barclays did not add a
control premium to get an implied value of BGH, and (e) why BGH and BPL
were valued using different multiples (BGH was valued using multiples of
distributable cash flow, distributions, and yield, but BPL was valued using
multiples of EBITDA, last quarter annualized cash distribution yield and
distributable cash flow yield).

19

 

	 	xxv)	 	In connection with Barclays’ Comparable Transactions Analysis,
the Consolidated Complaint alleged that the Registration Statement was
deficient because it failed to disclose (a) why this type of analysis was
performed on BPL when there was no change of control contemplated by the
Sale Agreement and (b) why BGH and BPL were valued using different
multiples (BGH was valued using multiples of LTM distributable cash flow,
1-yr forward distributable cash flow, and latest quarter annualized
distributions, but BPL was valued using multiples of LTM EBITDA, LTM EBIT,
LTM distributable cash flow, LTM net income).
	 
	 	xxvi)	 	In connection with Barclays’ Research Analyst Price Targets
Analysis, the Consolidated Complaint alleged that the Registration
Statement was deficient because it failed to disclose (a) how many price
targets are included in the samples, and (b) whether they were all issued
since the respective companies’ most recent financial disclosures, or
whether some are based on older information.
	 
	 	xxvii)	 	In connection with Barclays’ Premiums Paid Analysis, the Consolidated
Complaint alleged that the Registration Statement was deficient because it
failed to disclose (a) how the transactions were screened, (b) the
transaction-by-transaction premiums, (c) why the sample size was smaller
and differed from Credit Suisse’s samples, and (d) whether any samples were
intentionally excluded by Barclays.
	 
	 	xxviii)	 	In connection with the Premiums Paid Analysis performed by Credit
Suisse, the Consolidated Complaint alleged that the Registration Statement
was deficient because it failed to disclose (a) how the transactions were
screened, (b) the transaction-by-transaction premiums, (c) why the sample
size differed from that of Barclays’, and (d) whether any samples were
intentionally excluded.
	 
	 	xxix)	 	In connection with the Selected Companies Analysis performed
by Credit Suisse, the Consolidated Complaint alleged that the Registration
Statement was deficient because it failed to disclose (a) why no control
premium was added to get an implied value of BGH (b) why the sample of
selected companies chosen by Credit Suisse differs from Barclays’ sample
and (b) the screening and selection criteria Credit Suisse used to select
public company samples for both BGH and BPL, (c) the actual multiples
selected and applied to BGH or BPL, and (d) the individually concluded
values for BGH and BPL.
	 
	 	xxx)	 	The Consolidated Complaint alleged that the Registration
Statement was deficient because it failed to disclose (a) why Credit
Suisse’s discount rate ranges are materially different than Barclays’ and
(b) why Barclays uses terminal multiples, whereas Credit Suisse calculated
terminal values by using exit-yield assumptions.

20

 

	 	xxxi)	 	According to the Registration Statement, Credit Suisse and its
affiliates may acquire, hold or sell, for Credit Suisse’s and its
affiliates own accounts and the accounts of customers, equity, debt and
other securities and financial instruments (including bank loans and other
obligations) of BGH, BPL and any other company that may be involved in the
merger, as well as provide investment banking and other financial services
to such companies. The Consolidated Complaint alleged that the
Registration Statement was deficient because it failed to disclose the
extent of Credit Suisse’s and its affiliates’ interests in BGH, BPL, or any
other company involved in the merger.
	 
	 	xxxii)	 	According to the Registration Statement, Credit Suisse will receive a
customary fee for its services, a substantial portion of which is
contingent upon the consummation of the merger. Credit Suisse also became
entitled to receive a fee upon the rendering of its opinion. The
Consolidated Complaint alleged that the Registration Statement was
deficient because it failed to disclose the value of the fees to be paid to
Credit Suisse, including the amount of fees which is contingent upon the
consummation of the Sale Agreement.
	 
	 	xxxiii)	 	According to the Registration Statement, Barclays will receive a
customary fee for its services, a portion of which was paid upon rendering
its opinion and a substantial portion of which is contingent upon the
consummation of the proposed merger. The Consolidated Complaint
alleged that the Registration Statement was deficient because it failed to
disclose the value of the fees to be paid to Credit Suisse, including the
amount of fees which is contingent upon the consummation of the Sale
Agreement.
	 
	 	xxxiv)	 	According to the Registration Statement, Credit Suisse and its affiliates
have in the past provided investment banking and other financial services
to BGH, BPL, and certain of their affiliates for which Credit Suisse and
its affiliates have received compensation, including, during the last two
years, having acted as a co-managing underwriter of an offering of debt
securities by BPL. Credit Suisse and its affiliates may have provided other
financial advice and services, and may in the future provide financial
advice and services, to BGH, BPL, and their respective affiliates for which
Credit Suisse and its affiliates have received, and would expect to
receive, compensation. The Consolidated Complaint alleged that the
Registration Statement was deficient because it failed to disclose (a) the
affiliates of BGH and BPL to which Credit Suisse has provided services, (b)
the amount of fees that Credit Suisse has received for services it has
provided to BGH, BPL, and their respective affiliates, (c) the amount of
fees that Credit Suisse has an expectation of receiving for future services
provided to BGH, BPL, and their affiliates, (d) to the extent that Credit
Suisse has provided services to Kelso, ArcLight, or MainLine, the amount of
fees received therefrom, and (e) to the extent that Credit Suisse expects

21

 

	 	 	 	to provide services to Kelso, ArcLight, or MainLine, the amount of fees
expected to be received therefrom.
	 
	 	xxxv)	 	According to the Registration Statement, the BGH Board interviewed
Credit Suisse to serve as financial advisor to BGH in connection with the Merger
and retained Credit Suisse because of its “knowledge and experience with respect to
M&A transactions and the energy industry generally, as well as Credit Suisse’s
experience advising MLPs and other companies with respect to transactions similar
to the proposed transaction...” The Consolidated Complaint alleged that the
Registration Statement was deficient because it failed to disclose if Credit Suisse
was the only firm considered by the BGH Board, and if it was, why other firms were
not interviewed.

     WHEREAS, the Consolidated Complaint further alleged, inter alia, that by reason of Defendants’
actions, BGH, Plaintiffs and the Putative Class Members had suffered and would suffer irreparable
harm for which they had no adequate remedy at law, and requested that the Court grant appropriate
relief for such alleged harm; and

     WHEREAS, on September 14, 2010, BPL filed a second amended registration statement (the “Second
Amended Registration Statement”); and

     WHEREAS, on or about September 21, 2010 Plaintiffs served (i) Notice of Depositions to take
the deposition of each member of the Board and (ii) Plaintiffs’ First Set of Requests for the
Production of Documents to Defendants; and

     WHEREAS, on or about September 24, 2010, the Partnership Defendants and the BGH Defendants
separately filed their respective Answer and Affirmative Defenses to the Consolidated Complaint;
and

     WHEREAS, on or about September 27, 2010, the Parties entered into a Rule 11 Agreement which
provided, inter alia, as follows:

	 	(i)	 	Defendants agreed to cooperate in jointly approaching the Court
to schedule a hearing date for Plaintiffs’ temporary injunction motion to occur
on or prior to November 9, 2010 (and no earlier than November 1, 2010), and
Defendants represented that the sale of BGH to BPL or any of its affiliates
will not be consummated before November 16, 2010,

22

 

	 	(ii)	 	Defendants agreed to produce the following documents to counsel
for Plaintiffs by September 30, 2010: (a) all board and board committee
minutes (board being defined as the board of Mainline from meetings where the
Transaction or any alternative to the Transaction was discussed; (b) all
documents and presentation materials provided to any MainLine Board member in
conjunction with consideration of the Transaction or any alternative to the
Transaction; (c) all formal communications (excluding email communications and
materials subject to attorney-client privilege) between or among BGH, MainLine,
any MainLine Board member, Credit Suisse, or other advisors to MainLine or BGH
on the one hand and/or BPL (including Buckeye GP LLC or its board members)
and/or any of its advisors on the other hand; (d) all agreements between any of
the individual defendants and any entity defendant concerning (1) how the
individual’s BGH units will be voted in connection with the Transaction, or (2)
the terms of the individual’s employment with any entity defendant (to the
extent those terms are not reflected in publicly available documents).
	 
	 	(iii)	 	Defendants agreed to produce the following individuals for
deposition by Plaintiffs (a) John F. Erhard, (b) Frank J. Loverro, (c) Frank S.
Sowinski. and (d) a knowledgeable representative of Credit Suisse. Defendants
also agreed that if there were relevant questions that any of those witnesses
couldn’t answer and it appeared that Forrest E. Wylie would have knowledge of
their subject matter, then Plaintiffs may depose Mr. Wylie.
	 
	 	(iv)	 	Plaintiffs agreed to produce the following documents to counsel
for Defendants within seven days after the Rule 11 Agreement was fully
executed: (a) documents sufficient to demonstrate that each of them owned BGH
units continuously between June 11, 2010 and the present; (b) documents
demonstrating any purchases or sales of BGH units in which they have engaged
between June 11, 2010 and the present; (c) all documents relied upon in making
their decision(s) to purchase or sell BGH units.
	 
	 	(v)	 	Plaintiffs agreed that the following Plaintiffs would be made
available for deposition by Defendants (a) a knowledgeable representative of
the JR Garrett Trust, (b) Henry James Steward and (c) a knowledgeable
representative of Broadbased Equities.
	 
	 	(vi)	 	The parties agreed to a temporary injunction briefing schedule
so that Plaintiffs’ Motion for a Temporary Injunction (the “TI Motion”) would
be heard by the Court following discovery.

     WHEREAS, the Parties have produced the documents they agreed to produce pursuant to the Rule
11 Agreement; and

23

 

     WHEREAS, on or about September 28, 2010, BPL and BGH filed with the SEC and thereafter mailed
to their respective unitholders a prospectus (the “Prospectus”) and a definitive joint proxy
statement (the “Definitive Proxy Statement”) in connection with seeking unitholder votes on the
Merger Agreement; and

     WHEREAS, on or about September 29, 2010 the BGH Defendants and the Partnership Defendants
filed separate motions for special exceptions and summary judgment, which motions were set for
hearing on November 1, 2010; and

     WHEREAS, between approximately September 11, 2010 and October 29, 2010, counsel for the
Defendants and Plaintiffs’ Interim Co-Lead Counsel engaged in good faith discussions with regard to
the possible settlement of the Action, which discussions included comments by Plaintiffs’ Interim
Co-Lead Counsel that precipitated the disclosure of additional information in a supplement that BGH
will file with the Securities and Exchange Commission prior to November
1, 2010 (the “Supplement”) pursuant to the settlement agreement; and

     WHEREAS, after lengthy negotiations, the Parties reached an agreement in principle concerning
the proposed settlement of the Action, which is memorialized in this MOU; and

     WHEREAS, Defendants deny all allegations of wrongdoing, fault, liability or damage to
Plaintiffs, the Putative Class, or derivatively to BGH, deny that they engaged or are engaged in
any wrongdoing or violation of law or breach of duty, deny that they acted improperly in any way,
believe that they acted properly and fully complied with their legal obligations at all times,
believe that the Registration Statement, the Amended Registration Statement, the Second Amended
Registration Statement, the Prospectus and the Definitive Proxy Statement contain all material
information required to be disclosed and contain no material misstatements or omissions, and
believe the Action has no merit, but wish to settle the Action on the terms and

24

 

conditions stated
in this MOU in order to eliminate the burden and expense of further litigation and to put the
claims to be released hereby to rest finally and forever, without in any way acknowledging any
wrongdoing, fault, liability or damages to Plaintiffs, the Putative Class, or BGH; and

     WHEREAS, all Parties recognize the time and expense that would be incurred by further
litigation in this matter and the uncertainties inherent in such litigation; and

     WHEREAS, the Parties to this MOU have reached an agreement in principle providing for the
settlement of the Action, subject to the approval of the Court and consummation of the Merger, on
the following terms:

     NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED, by and among the parties hereto:

     1. In consideration for the full settlement and release of all Settled Claims (as defined
below), Defendants agree to disclose the information attached in Exhibit A in a letter to the
unitholders of BGH and BPL, which will be filed with the SEC and mailed to the unitholders.
Neither Plaintiffs nor Plaintiffs’ Counsel shall seek additional disclosures as a condition of the
Settlement beyond those specified in Exhibit A. In addition, if there is a change in circumstances
subsequent to the execution of this Memorandum that renders the existing disclosures materially
inadequate (after taking into account the total mix of information already available to the
unitholders) Plaintiffs’ Counsel shall notify Defendants in writing of the inadequacy of the
disclosure within three days. Plaintiffs’ notification shall specify specifically what information
Plaintiffs contend must be disclosed. In any event, Defendants shall notify Plaintiffs’ Counsel
within 5 business days after Plaintiffs’ notice if they are unwilling to make the additional
disclosures requested by Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs agree that they would only be entitled to
attorneys

25

 

fees in connection with such additional disclosures if Defendants notify Plaintiffs’
Counsel in writing they are unwilling to make any additional disclosures, and those additional
disclosures are subsequently made.

     2. Defendants acknowledge that, despite their belief that the actions they are taking to
achieve settlement are not necessary, the pendency and prosecution of the Action and the
negotiations between the parties’ counsel resulted in Defendants’ agreement to settle the action
and make the additional disclosures referred to in paragraph 1.

     3. In further consideration for the full settlement and release of all Settled Claims (as
defined below), Defendants agree to reduce the termination fee, described in Paragraph 9.1 of the
Merger Agreement, payable by BGH to BPL under the circumstances described in the Merger Agreement
(the “Termination Fee”) from $29,000,000.00 to $22,000,000.00.

     4. Defendants acknowledge that, despite their belief that the actions they are taking to
achieve settlement are not necessary, the pendency and prosecution of the Action and the
negotiations between the parties’ counsel resulted in Defendants’ agreement to reduce the
Termination Fee described in paragraph 3 above.

     5. Plaintiffs acknowledge and agree that the Parties to the Merger Agreement may negotiate
other and further amendments or modifications to the Merger Agreement prior to the effective date
of the Merger to facilitate the consummation of the Merger. Plaintiffs agree that they will not
challenge or object to any such amendments or modifications so long as they do not materially and
adversely impact the rights that the BGH unitholders would have pursuant to the Settlement and/or
the Merger Agreement.

     6. Defendants (or their successor(s) in interest) will bear the cost and administrative
responsibility of notice to the class members in connection with the settlement of the Action.

26

 

     7. The Parties will negotiate in good faith and use their reasonable best efforts to agree
upon, execute and present to the Court an appropriate stipulation of settlement (the “Stipulation”)
and such other documentation as may be required in order to obtain Final Approval of the Settlement
(as defined in paragraph 9 herein) and the dismissal with prejudice of the Action upon the terms
set forth in this MOU. The Stipulation will expressly provide, inter alia:

          (a) for certification, for settlement purposes only, pursuant to Texas Rule of Civil Procedure
42, of a class consisting of all persons (other than Defendants and their immediate families, heirs
and assigns) who owned units of BGH at any time from and including June 11, 2010 through and
including the Effective Time (as defined in the Merger Agreement), including, to the extent acting
as such, any and all of their respective successors in interest,
predecessors, representatives, trustees, executors, administrators, officers, directors,
employees, heirs, assigns or transferees, immediate and remote, or any person or entity acting for
or on behalf of, or claiming under any of them, and each of them (the “Class”);

          (b) for entry of a judgment dismissing the Action with prejudice and, except as set forth in
paragraphs 6 and 8, without costs to any party;

          (c) for the complete discharge, dismissal with prejudice on the merits, settlement and release
of, all claims, demands, actions or causes of action, matters and issues, whether known or unknown,
that have been, could have been, or in the future can or might be asserted in the Action or in any
court, tribunal or proceeding by or on behalf of the Plaintiffs in the Action and any and all of
the members of the Class, whether individual, class, derivative, representative, legal, equitable
of any other type or in any other capacity against any and all Parties in the Action and their
current and former directors, officers, employees, partners, agents,

27

 

affiliates, subsidiaries,
parents, successors or assigns, as well as all counsel representing the Parties in the Action (the
“Released Persons”), whether or not any such Released Persons were named, served with process or
appeared in the Action, which the Plaintiffs or any member of the Class ever had, now have, or
hereafter may have arising out of, relating to or in connection with the allegations, facts,
events, transactions, acts, occurrences, statements, representations, misrepresentations or
omissions set forth or referred to in the Action or otherwise related to (i) the Merger, or the
Merger Agreement or any amendment thereto; (ii) any legal obligations of any of the Released
Persons in connection with the Merger; (iii) the negotiations in connection with the Merger, Merger
Agreement or any amendment thereto, or (iv) the Registration Statement, the Amended Registration
Statement, the Second Amended Registration Statement, the Prospectus and the Definitive Proxy
Statement; and (v) the Claims set forth in the Action (the “Settled
Claims”). Settled Claims do not include claims to enforce the Settlement or any claim by any
Defendant (including any nominal Defendant) against any insurance carrier. Settled Claims do not
include federal securities law claims that are unrelated to the Merger, the Merger Agreement, or
the transactions and disclosures relating thereto.

          (d) that Defendants, including any and all of their respective successors in
interest, predecessors, representatives, trustees, executors, administrators, heirs, assigns or
transferees, immediate and remote, and any person or entity acting for or on behalf of, or claiming
under any of them, and each of them, release Plaintiffs, Interim Co-Lead Counsel, Plaintiffs’
Liaison Counsel and any firms associated with them, including any partners, principals, associates
and/or employees of the same (collectively “Plaintiffs’ Counsel”) from any and all claims arising
out of or relating to their filing and prosecution of the Action. Settled Claims do not include
claims to enforce the Settlement or any claim by any Defendant (including any

28

 

nominal Defendant)
against any insurance carrier;

          (e) that the releases contemplated by the Settlement extend to claims that Defendants and
Plaintiffs for themselves and on behalf of the Class do not know or suspect to exist at the time of
the release, which if known, might have affected the decision to enter into the release or to
object or not object to the Settlement (the “Unknown Claims”). Plaintiffs, Defendants and each
member of the Putative Class shall be deemed to waive, and shall waive and relinquish to the
fullest extent permitted by law any and all provisions, rights and benefits conferred by any law of
the United States or any state or territory of the United States, or principle of common law, which
governs or limits a person’s release of Unknown Claims; further (i) the Plaintiffs, for themselves
and on behalf of the Class and Defendants shall be deemed to waive, and shall waive and relinquish,
to the fullest extent permitted by law, the
provisions, rights and benefits of Section 1542 of the California Civil Code which provides as
follows:

A GENERAL RELEASE DOES NOT EXTEND TO CLAIMS WHICH THE
CREDITOR DOES NOT KNOW OR SUSPECT TO EXIST IN HIS OR HER
FAVOR AT THE TIME OF EXECUTING THE RELEASE, WHICH IF KNOWN
BY HIM OR HER MUST HAVE MATERIALLY AFFECTED HIS OR HER
SETTLEMENT WITH THE DEBTOR

(ii) Plaintiffs, for themselves and on behalf of the Class and Defendants also shall be deemed to
waive any and all provisions, rights and benefits conferred by any law of any state or territory of
the United States, or principle of common law, which is similar, comparable or equivalent to
California Civil Code § 1542; and (iii) Plaintiffs, for themselves and on behalf of the Class
acknowledge that members of the Class may discover facts in addition to or different from those
that they now know or believe to be true with respect to the subject matter of this release, but
that

29

 

it is their intention, as Plaintiffs and on behalf of the Class to fully, finally and forever
settle and release any and all claims released hereby known or unknown, suspected or unsuspected,
which now exist, or heretofore existed, or may hereafter exist, and without regard to the
subsequent discovery or existence of such additional or different facts. Plaintiffs and Defendants
acknowledge, and the members of the Class shall be deemed by operation of the entry of a final
order and judgment approving the Settlement to have acknowledged, that the foregoing waiver was
separately bargained for and is a key element of the Settlement of which this release is a part;

     (f) that all proceedings in the Action, except for settlement-related proceedings, shall be
suspended pending the Final Approval of the Settlement by the Court;

     (g) that the Settlement is conditioned on the consummation of the Merger;

     (h) that in the event the Settlement does not become final for any reason, Defendants reserve
the right to oppose the certification of any class in future proceedings and the Parties reserve
all other rights, claims and defenses that the Parties could have raised or asserted had this MOU
not been entered into by the Parties;

     (i) that each of the Defendants has denied and continues to deny that any of them have
committed or have threatened to commit any wrongdoing, violation of law or breaches of any duty of
any kind to Plaintiffs, the Class, BGH, or anyone else; and

     (j) that the Defendants are entering into the Settlement to eliminate the uncertainty,
distraction, burden, risk and expense of further litigation.

     8. The Stipulation will also provide that, in settlement of Plaintiff’s derivative claims,
including any claim against Defendants by Plaintiffs or Plaintiff’s counsel for their

30

 

attorneys’
fees and expenses as proceeds of their derivative claim under Business Organizations Code §
153.405, and based upon the benefits that the Settlement has and will provide derivatively to BGH,
rather than continuing to litigate this issue, the parties to this Settlement (after negotiating
the other elements of the Settlement) agreed that, subject to Final Court Approval of the
Settlement, Defendants (or their insurers) will cause to be paid as set forth below a cash payment
in the amount of $900,000 United States dollars, and that Plaintiffs and Plaintiffs’ Counsel agreed
that they will not seek any further award of attorneys’ fees or expenses relating to this action
(or the previously-filed actions described herein) on any theory. The Stipulation will provide
that this payment in settlement of the derivative claim will be made within ten (10) calendar days
after approval of the settlement by the Court is final and no longer subject to further appeal or
review, whether by affirmance on or exhaustion of any possible
appeal or review, writ of certiorari, lapse of time or otherwise. The amounts paid pursuant
to this paragraph will not be paid out of amounts that would otherwise have been paid to the
members of the Putative Class. At the time the cash payment is made it shall be paid by check,
made payable to The Brualdi Law Firm, P.C. as escrow agent for Plaintiffs’ Counsel. Counsel for
Defendants and Plaintiffs’ Counsel negotiated the provisions herein related to the cash payment
after the Parties had agreed to the other substantive terms of the MOU contained herein.

     9. Consummation of the Settlement is subject to the following, which the parties to this MOU
agree to use their best efforts to achieve: (a) satisfactory completion of reasonable confirmatory
discovery by Plaintiffs, after consultation with Defendants and subject to entry of a
confidentiality order, to confirm the fairness and adequacy of the settlement contemplated herein,
which the parties contemplate will include the interviews of Frank Sowinsky, Frank Loverro and a
knowledgeable representative of Credit Suisse, BGH’s financial advisor; (b) the drafting and

31

 

execution of a formal Stipulation of Settlement and such other documentation as may be required to
obtain Final Approval by the Court of the Settlement (the “Settlement Documents”), by counsel for
the Parties (provided that the Parties comply with their obligation to act in good faith to
negotiate and execute such formal Settlement Documents); (c) consummation of the Merger; (d)
satisfaction of any other conditions set forth herein; and (e) Final Approval by the Court of the
Settlement and entry of a final order and judgment by the Court (and the exhaustion of possible
appeals, if any) dismissing the Action with prejudice on the merits and with each party to bear its
own costs (except for the costs set forth in paragraphs 6 and 8 above). As used herein, “Final
Approval” of the Settlement means that the Court has entered an order approving the Settlement and
that such order is finally affirmed on appeal or is no longer subject to appeal and the time for
any petition for reargument, appeal or review, by certiorari or otherwise, has
expired; provided, however, and notwithstanding any provision to the contrary in this MOU,
Final Approval shall not include (and the Settlement is expressly not conditioned on) the approval
of the cash payment as provided in Paragraph 8 above and any appeal related to either.

     10. Subject to prior Court approval of the form of notice, the parties to this MOU will
present the Settlement to the Court for hearing and approval as soon as practicable following
appropriate notice to the class members and will use their best efforts to obtain expeditiously
Final Approval of the Settlement and the dismissal of the Action with prejudice.

     11. This MOU and Stipulation shall be null and void and of no force and effect should any of
the conditions set forth herein not be met; or should Interim Co-Lead Counsel in the Action
determine in good faith that at any time prior to Final Approval of the settlement by the Court
pursuant to paragraph 9, based upon facts learned subsequent to the execution of this MOU, the
proposed Settlement is not fair, reasonable and adequate to Class members. In such

32

 

event, the MOU
shall not be deemed to prejudice in any way the positions of the Parties with respect to the Action
nor to entitle any party to the recovery of costs and expenses incurred to implement this MOU
(except as provided in paragraph 6 hereof for the costs of notice of the Settlement).

     12. The provisions contained in this MOU and all negotiations, discussions and proceedings in
connection with this MOU shall not be deemed or constitute a presumption, concession or an
admission by any party in the Action of any fault, liability or wrongdoing or lack of any fault,
liability or wrongdoing, as to any facts or claims alleged or asserted in the Action, or any other
actions or proceedings, and shall not be interpreted, construed, deemed, involved, offered, or
received in evidence or otherwise used by any person in the Action, or in any other action or
proceeding, whether civil, criminal or administrative, for any purpose, except
in connection with any proceeding to enforce the terms of this MOU. If the Settlement does
not receive Final Approval, the parties shall revert to their respective litigation positions as if
this MOU never existed.

     13. The Parties agree that except as expressly provided herein, the Action shall be stayed
with respect to all Parties to the Action pending submission of the proposed Settlement to the
Court for its consideration, and Plaintiffs will stay, and will not initiate, any other proceedings
other than those incident to the Settlement itself. The Parties also agree to use their best
efforts to prevent, stay or seek dismissal of or oppose entry of any interim or final relief in
favor of any member of the Class in any other litigation against any of the parties to this MOU
which challenges the Settlement, the Merger or the Merger Agreement or otherwise involves a Settled
Claim. Interim Co-Lead Counsel agrees that Defendants’ time to answer or otherwise respond to any
discovery requests is extended indefinitely.

33

 

     14. This MOU and the Stipulation are not intended to, and shall not, create any obligation for
any party to consummate the Merger and shall not modify in any way any party’s rights or
obligations concerning the Merger.

     15. Plaintiffs and their counsel in the Action represent and warrant that none of Plaintiffs’
claims or causes of action referred to in any complaint in the Action or this MOU has been
assigned, encumbered or in any manner transferred in whole or in part, and that Plaintiffs are and
have been unitholders of BGH throughout the period covered by the Complaint and this Settlement.

     16. This MOU constitutes the entire agreement among the Parties and supersedes and preempts
any prior agreements and understandings concerning the subject matter hereof, and may not be
amended, nor any of its provisions waived, except by a writing signed by all of the
Parties hereto.

     17. This MOU, and all rights and powers granted hereby, shall be binding on and inure to the
benefit of the Parties hereto (including all Putative Class Members) and their respective agents,
executors, heirs, successors and assigns.

     18. This MOU shall be governed by, and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of
Delaware, exclusive of choice of law provisions.

     19. This MOU will be executed by counsel for the Parties, each of whom represent and warrant
that they have the authority from their clients to enter this MOU.

     20. This MOU may be signed in any number of counterparts with the same effect as if the
signatures thereto and hereto were upon the same instrument. Signed signature pages of this MOU
may be delivered by facsimile, e-mail or PDF transmission, which will constitute complete delivery
without any necessity for delivery of originally signed signature pages in order for this

34

 

to constitute a binding agreement.

     Entered into this 29th day of October, 2010 by:

	 	 	 	 	 

	Interim Co-Lead Counsel for Plaintiffs

	 	Defendants Buckeye	 	 
	

THE BRUALDI LAW FIRM, P.C.

	 	Partners LP, Buckeye GP LLC, 

and Grand Ohio, LLC by their Counsel	 	 
	 

	 	 	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 
	/s/
Richard B. Brualdi	 	MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS, LLP
 
	 	 
	Richard B. Brualdi
	 	/s/ Marc J. Sonnenfeld	 	 
	29 Broadway, Suite 2400

	 	Marc J. Sonnenfeld
	 	 
	New York, New York 10006

	 	Timothy D. Katsiff	 	 
	Telephone: (212) 952-0602

	 	1701 Market St.	 	 
	Facsimile: (212) 952-0608

	 	Philadelphia, PA 19103-2921	 	 
	 

BULL & LIFSHITZ, LLP

	 	Telephone: (215) 963-5572
Facsimile: (215) 963-5001	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 
	/s/
Joshua M. Lifshitz	 	 	 	 
	Joshua M. Lifshitz

	 	MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS, LLP	 	 
	18 East 41st Street

	 	Winstol Carter, Jr.	 	 
	New York, New York 10017

	 	1000 Louisiana St., Suite 4000	 	 
	Telephone: (212) 213-6222

	 	Houston, Texas 7002-5006	 	 
	Facsimile: (212) 213-9405

	 	Telephone: (713) 890-5140	 	 
	

FINKELSTEIN THOMPSON LLP

	 	Facsimile: (713) 890-5001	 	 
	
	 	 	 	 
	 /s/ Donald J. Enright	 	Defendants Forrest E. Wylie,	 	 
	Donald J. Enright

	 	Christopher L. Collins, John F.	 	 
	1050 30th Street, N.W.

	 	Erhard, Joseph A. LaSala, Jr.,	 	 
	Washington, D.C. 20007

	 	Frank J. Loverro, Frank S.	 	 
	Telephone: (202) 337-8000

	 	Sowinski, Robb E. Turner, Martin A.	 	 
	Facsimile: (202) 337-8090

	 	White, Buckeye GP Holdings L.P.,	 	 
	 

	 	BGH GP Holdings, LLC, Mainline	 	 
	 

	 	Management LLC, ArcLight Capital	 	 
	 

	 	Partners, LLC, Kelso & Company by	 	 
	 

	 	their Counsel	 	 
	 

	 	

LATHAM & WATKINS, LLP

 	 	 
	 

	 	/s/ Blair Connelly	 	 
	 	 	 
	 

	 	Blair Connelly	 	 
	 

	 	885 Third Avenue	 	 
	 

	 	New York, New York 10022-4834	 	 
	 

	 	Telephone: (212) 906-1200	 	 
	 

	 	Facsimile: (212) 751-4864

Derrick B. Farrell	 	 

35

 

	 	 	 	 	 

	 

	 		 	 
	 

	 	LATHAM & WATKINS, LLP	 	 
	 

	 	555 Eleventh Street, NW, Suite 1000	 	 
	 

	 	Washington, D.C. 20004-1304	 	 
	 

	 	Telephone: (202) 637-2328	 	 
	 

	 	Facsimile: (202) 637-2201	 	 

36exv10w1

Exhibit 10.1

STANDARD SUBLEASE

MULTI TENANT

AIR COMMERCIAL REAL ESTATE ASSOCIATION

1. Basic Provisions (“Basic Provisions”).

     1.1 Parties: This Sublease (“Sublease”), dated for reference purposes only January 12, 2010,
is made by and between Telspace Communications, Inc., a California
corporation (“Sublessor”) and
Green Dot Corporation, a California corporation
(“Sublessee”), (collectively the “Parties”, or individually a “Party”).

     1.2(a) Premises: That certain portion of the Project (as defined below), known as Suite H (see Exhibit “A”)
consisting of approximately 7, 032 square feet (“Premises”). The Premises are located at: 602 East
Huntington Drive, in the City of Monrovia, County of Los Angeles, State of California, with zip code 91016 in addition to Sublessee’s rights to use
and occupy the Premises as hereinafter specified, Sublessee shall have nonexclusive rights to the
Common Areas (as defined below)
as hereinafter specified, but shall not have any rights to the roof, the exterior walls, or the
utility raceways of the building containing the
Premises (“Building”) or to any other buildings in the Project. The Premises, the Building, the
Common Areas, the land upon which
they are located, along with all other buildings and improvements thereon, are herein collectively
referred to as the “Project.”

     1.2(b) Parking: 25 unreserved and 0 reserved vehicle parking spaces.

     1.3
Term: One (1) years and ten (10) months commencing
March 1, 2010 (“Commencement Date”) and ending
December 31, 2011 (“Expiration Date”).

     1.4
Early Possession: If the Premises are available Sublessee may have non-exclusive possession of the Premises
commencing February 1, 2010 (“Early Possession Date”).

     1.5
Base Rent: $14,064.00 per month (“Base Rent”), payable on the first day of each month commencing March 1, 2010

þ If this box is checked, there are provisions in this Sublease for the Base Rent to be adjusted.

     1.6
Sublessee’s Share of Operating Expenses:
              
percent
(           %) (“Sublessee’s Share”). In the event that that size of the Premises and/or the Project are modified during the term of this
Lease, Lessor shall recalculate Lessee’s Share to reflect such modification.

     1.7 Base Rent and Other Monies Paid Upon Execution:

          (a)
Base Rent: $14,064.00 for the period first month’s rent

          (b)
Security Deposit: $14,064.00 (“Security Deposit”).

          (c) Other: $               for              

          (d) Total
Due Upon Execution of this Lease: $28,128.00

     1.8 Agreed Use: The Premises shall be used and occupied only for general office use.
and for no other purposes.

     1.9 Real Estate Brokers:

          (a) Representation:
The following real estate brokers ( the “Brokers”) and brokerage
relationships exist in this transaction (check applicable boxes):

o               
represents Sublessor exclusively (“Sublessor’s Broker”);

o               
represents Sublessee exclusively (“Sublessee’s Broker”); or

þ
Colliers International, Inc. represents both Sublessor and Sublessee
(“Dual Agency”).

          (b) Payment to Brokers: Upon execution and delivery of this Sublease by both Parties,
Sublessor shall pay to the Brokers the brokerage fee agreed to in a separate written agreement (or if there is no
such agreement, the sum of                or                % of the total Base Rent for the brokerage services rendered by the
Brokers).

     1.10 Guarantor. The obligations of the Sublessee under this Sublease shall be guaranteed
by               (“Guarantor”).

     1.11 Attachments. Attached hereto are the following, all of
which constitute a part of this Sublease:

þ an Addendum consisting of Paragraphs 13 through 14;

o a plot plan depicting the Premises and/or Project;

o a current set of the Rules and Regulations;

o a Work Letter;

			
	JPH 
	 	                    
	[Illegible]
	 	                    
	INITIALS
	 	INITIALS
	 	 	 
	©2001 — AIR COMMERCIAL REAL ESTATE ASSOCIATION
	 	FORM SBMT-2-8/08E

PAGE 1 OF 6

 

	 	 	 

	 þ a copy of the Master Lease;
	 	 
	 o other (specify):
	 	 
	 

	 	 
	 
	 	 
	 
	 
	 	 
	 

2. Premises

     2.1 Letting. Sublessor hereby subleases to Sublessee, and Sublessee hereby subleases from
Sublessor, the Premises, for the term, at the rental, and upon all of the terms, covenants and
conditions set forth in this Sublease. While the approximate square footage of the Premises may
have been used in the marketing of the Premises for purposes of comparison, the Base Rent stated
herein is NOT tied to square footage and is not subject to adjustment should the actual size be
determined to be different. Note: Sublessee is advised to verify the actual size prior to executing
this Sublease.

     2.2 Condition. Sublessor shall deliver the Premises to Sublessee broom clean and free of
debris on the Commencement Date or the Early Possession Date,
whichever first occurs (“Start Date”), and warrants that the existing electrical, plumbing, fire sprinkler, lighting, heating,
ventilating and air conditioning systems (“HVAC”), and any items which the Lessor is obligated to
construct pursuant to the Work Letter attached hereto, if any, other than those constructed by
Lessee, shall be in good operating condition on said date. If a noncompliance with such warranty
exists as of the Start Date, or if one of such systems or elements should malfunction or fail
within the appropriate warranty period, Sublessor shall, as Sublessor’s sole obligation with
respect to such matter, except as otherwise provided in this Sublease, promptly after receipt of
written notice from Sublessee setting forth with specificity the nature and extent of such
noncompliance, malfunction or failure, rectify same at Sublessor’s expense. The warranty periods
shall be as follows: (i) 6 months as to the HVAC systems, and (ii) 30 days as to the remaining
systems and other elements. If Sublessee does not give Sublessor the required notice within the
appropriate warranty period, correction of any such noncompliance, malfunction or failure shall be
the obligation of Sublessee at Sublessee’s sole cost and expense.

     2.3 Compliance. Sublessor warrants that any improvements, alterations or utility installations
made or installed by or on behalf of Sublessor to or on the Premises comply with all applicable
covenants or restrictions of record and applicable building codes, regulations and ordinances
(“Applicable Requirements”) in effect on the date that they were made or installed. Sublessor makes
no warranty as to the use to which Sublessee will put the Premises or to modifications which may be
required by the Americans with Disabilities Act or any similar laws as a result of Sublessee’s use.
NOTE: Sublessee is responsible for determining whether or not the zoning and other Applicable
Requirements are appropriate for Sublessee’s intended use, and acknowledges that past uses of the
Premises may no longer be allowed. If the Premises do not comply with said warranty, Sublessor
shall, except as otherwise provided, promptly after receipt of written notice from Sublessee
setting forth with specificity the nature and extent of such noncompliance, rectify the same.

     2.4 Acknowledgements. Sublessee acknowledges that: (a) it has been given an opportunity to
inspect and measure the Premises, (b) it has been advised by Sublessor and/or Brokers to satisfy
itself with respect to the condition of the Premises (including but not limited to the electrical,
HVAC and fire sprinkler systems, security, environmental aspects, and compliance with Applicable
Requirements and the Americans with Disabilities Act), and their suitability for Sublessee’s
intended use, (c) Sublessee has made such investigation as it deems necessary with reference to
such matters and assumes all responsibility therefor as the same relate to its occupancy of the
Premises, (d) it is not relying on any representation as to the size of the Premises made by
Brokers or Sublessor, (e) the square footage of the Premises was not material to Sublessee’s
decision to sublease the Premises and pay the Rent stated herein, and (f) neither Sublessor,
Sublessor’s agents, nor Brokers have made any oral or written representations or warranties with
respect to said matters other than as set forth in this Sublease. In addition, Sublessor
acknowledges that: (i) Brokers have made no representations, promises or warranties concerning
Sublessee’s ability to honor the Sublease or suitability to occupy the Premises, and (ii) it is
Sublessor’s sole responsibility to investigate the financial capability and/or suitability of all
proposed tenants.

     2.5 Americans with Disabilities Act. In the event that as a result of Sublessee’s use, or
intended use, of the Premises the Americans with Disabilities Act or any similar law requires
modifications or the construction or installation of improvements in or to the Premises, Building,
Project and/or Common Areas, the Parties agree that such modifications, construction or
improvements shall be made at: þ Sublessor’s expense o Sublessee’s expense.

     2.6 Vehicle Parking. Sublessee shall be entitled to use the number of Unreserved Parking
Spaces and Reserved Parking Spaces specified in Paragraph 1.2(b) on those portions of the Common
Areas designated from time to time for parking. Sublessee shall not use more parking spaces than
said number. Said parking spaces shall be used for parking by vehicles no larger than fullsize
passenger automobiles or pickup trucks, herein called “Permitted Size Vehicles.” Sublessor may
regulate the loading and unloading of vehicles by adopting Rules and Regulations as provided in
Paragraph 2.9. No vehicles other than Permitted Size Vehicles may be parked in the Common Area
without the prior written permission of Sublessor.

          (a) Sublessee shall not permit or allow any vehicles that belong to or are controlled by
Sublessee or Sublessee’s employees, suppliers, shippers, customers, contractors or invitees to be
loaded, unloaded, or parked in areas other than those designated by Sublessor for such activities.

          (b) Sublessee shall not service or store any vehicles in the Common Areas.

          (c) If Sublessee permits or allows any of the prohibited activities described in this
Paragraph 2.6, then Sublessor shall have the right, without notice, in addition to such other
rights and remedies that it may have, to remove or tow away the vehicle involved and charge the
cost to Sublessee, which cost shall be immediately payable upon demand by Sublessor.

     2.7 Common Areas — Definition. The term
“Common Areas” is defined as all areas and facilities
outside the Premises and within the exterior boundary line of the Project and interior utility
raceways and installations within the Premises that are provided and designated by the Sublessor
from time to time for the general nonexclusive use of Sublessor. Sublessee and other tenants of the
Project and their respective employees, suppliers, shippers, customers, contractors and invitees,
including parking areas, loading and unloading areas, trash areas, roadways, walkways, driveways
and landscaped areas.

     2.8 Common Areas — Sublessee’s Rights. Sublessor grants to Sublessee, for the benefit of
Sublessee and its employees, suppliers, shippers, contractors, customers and invitees, during the
term of this Sublease, the nonexclusive right to use, in common with others entitled to such use,
the Common Areas as they exist from time to time, subject to any rights, powers, and privileges
reserved by Sublessor under the terms hereof or under the terms of any rules and regulations or
restrictions governing the use of the Project. Under no circumstances shall the right herein
granted to use the Common Areas be deemed to include the right to store any property, temporarily
or permanently, in the Common Areas. Any such storage shall be permitted only by the prior written
consent of Sublessor or Sublessor’s designated agent, which consent may be revoked at any time. In
the event that any unauthorized storage shall occur then Sublessor shall have the right, without
notice, in addition to such other rights and remedies that it may have, to remove the property and
charge the cost to Sublessee, which cost shall be immediately payable upon demand by Sublessor.

     2.9 Common Areas — Rules and Regulations. Sublessor or such other person(s) as Sublessor may
appoint shall have the exclusive control and management of the Common Areas and shall have the
right, from time to time, to establish, modify, amend and enforce reasonable rules and regulations
(“Rules and Regulations”) for the management, safety, care, and cleanliness of the grounds, the
parking and unloading of vehicles and the preservation of good order, as well as for the
convenience of other occupants or tenants of the Building and the Project and their invitees.
Sublessee agrees to abide by and conform to all such Rules and Regulations, and to cause its
employees, suppliers, shippers, customers, contractors and invitees to so abide and conform.
Sublessor shall not be responsible to Sublessee for the noncompliance with said Rules and
Regulations by other tenants of the Project.

     2.10 Common Areas — Changes. Sublessor shall have the right, in Sublessor’s sole discretion,
from time to time:

          (a) To make changes to the Common Areas, including, without limitation, changes in
the location, size, shape and number of driveways, entrances, parking spaces, parking areas,
loading and unloading areas, ingress, egress, direction of traffic,

	 
	JPH	 	 	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 
	[Illegible]
	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	 	 	 
	INITIALS
	 	 	 	INITIALS

	 	 	 

	©2001 — AIR COMMERCIAL REAL ESTATE ASSOCIATION
	 	FORM SBMT-2-8/08E

PAGE 2 OF 6

 

landscaped areas, walkways and utility raceways;

          (b) To close temporarily any of the Common Areas for maintenance purposes so long as
reasonable access to the Premises remains available;

          (c) To add additional buildings and improvements to the Common Areas;

          (d) To use the Common Areas while engaged in making additional improvements, repairs or
alterations to the Project, or any portion thereof; and

          (e) To do and perform such other acts and make such other changes in, to or with respect to
the Common Areas and Project as Sublessor may, in the exercise of sound business judgment, deem to
be appropriate.

3. Possession.

     3.1 Early Possession. Any provision herein granting Sublessee Early Possession of the
Premises is subject to and conditioned upon the Premises being available for such possession prior
to the Commencement Date. Any grant of Early Possession only conveys a non-exclusive right to
occupy the Premises. If Sublessee totally or partially occupies the Premises prior to the
Commencement Date, the obligation to pay Base Rent shall be abated for the period of such Early
Possession. All other terms of this Sublease (including but not limited to the obligations to pay
Sublessee’s Share of Common Area Operating Expenses, Real Property Taxes and insurance premiums and
to maintain the Premises) shall, however, be in effect during such period. Any such Early
Possession shall not affect the Expiration Date.

     3.2 Delay In Commencement. Sublessor agrees to use its best commercially reasonable efforts
to deliver possession of the Premises by the Commencement Date. If, despite said efforts,
Sublessor is unable to deliver possession as agreed, the rights and obligations of Sublessor and
Sublessee shall be as set forth in Paragraph 3.3 of the Master Lease (as modified by Paragraph 6.3
of this Sublease).

     3.3 Sublessee Compliance. Sublessor shall not be required to tender possession of the
Premises to Sublessee until Sublessee complies with its obligation to provide evidence of
insurance. Pending delivery of such evidence, Sublessee shall be required to perform all of its
obligations under this Sublease from and after the Start Date, including the payment of Rent,
notwithstanding Sublessor’s election to withhold possession pending receipt of such evidence of
insurance. Further, if Sublessee is required to perform any other conditions prior to or
concurrent with the Start Date, the Start Date shall occur but Sublessor may elect to withhold
possession until such conditions are satisfied.

4. Rent and Other Charges.

     4.1 Rent Defined. All monetary obligations of Sublessee to Sublessor under the terms of this
Sublease (except for the Security Deposit) are deemed to be rent
(“Rent”). Rent shall be payable
in lawful money of the United States to Sublessor at the address stated herein or to such other
persons or at such other places as Sublessor may designate in writing.

     4.2 Common Area Operating Expenses. Sublessee shall pay to Sublessor during the term
hereof, in addition to the
Base Rent, Sublessee’s Share of all Common Area Operating Expenses, as hereinafter defined, during
each calendar year of the term of this Sublease, in accordance with the following provisions:

          (a) “Common Area Operating Expenses” are defined, for purposes of this Sublease, as those
costs incurred by Sublessor relating to the operation of the Project, which are included in the following list:

               (i) Costs related to the operation, repair and maintenance, in neat, clean, good order and
condition,
but not the replacement of the following:

                    (aa) The Common Areas and Common Area improvements, including parking areas, loading
and unloading areas, trash areas, roadways, parkways, walkways, driveways, landscaped areas,
bumpers, irrigation systems, Common Area lighting facilities, fences and gates, elevators, roofs,
and roof drainage systems. 

                    (bb) Exterior signs and any tenant directories.

                     (cc) Any fire sprinkler systems.

               
(ii) The cost of water, gas, electricity and telephone to
service the Common Areas and any
utilities not separately metered.

               (iii) The
cost of trash disposal, pest control services, property management, security
services, and the costs of any environmental inspections.

               (iv) Reserves set aside for maintenance and repair of Common Areas.

               (v} Real Property Taxes.

               (vi) Insurance premiums.

               (vii) Any
deductible portion of an insured loss concerning the Building or
the Common Areas.

           (b) The inclusion of the improvements, facilities and services set forth in Subparagraph 4.2(a)
shall not be deemed to impose an obligation upon Sublessor to either have said improvements or
facilities or to provide those services unless Sublessor already provides the services, or
Sublessor has agreed elsewhere in this Sublease to provide the same or some of them.

           (c) Sublessee’s Share of Common Area Operating Expenses is payable monthly on the same day as
the Base Rent is due hereunder. The amount of such payments shall be based on Sublessor’s estimate
of the Common Area Operating Expenses. Within 60 days after written request (but not more than once
each year) Sublessor shall deliver to Sublessee a reasonably detailed statement showing Sublessee’s
Share of the actual Common Area Operating Expenses incurred during the preceding year. If
Sublessee’s payments under this Paragraph 4.2(c) during the preceding year exceed Sublessee’s Share
as indicated on such statement, Sublessor shall credit the amount of such overpayment against
Sublessee’s Share of Common Area Operating Expenses next becoming due. If Sublessee’s payments
under this Paragraph 4.2(c) during the preceding year ware less than Sublessee’s Share as indicated
on such statement, Sublessee shall pay to Sublessor the amount of the deficiency within 10 days
after delivery by Sublessor to Sublessee of the statement.

     4.3
Utilities Sublessee shall pay for Sublessor, at Sublessor’s sole cost and expense, shall
provide all water, gas, heat, light, power, telephone, trash disposal and other utilities and
services supplied to the Premises, together with any taxes thereon.
Sublessor, at Sublessor’s sole
cost and expense, shall provide janitorial services to the Premises five times per week, excluding
Building Holidays, if any (see Exhibit ‘&”). Notwithstanding the provisions of Paragraph 4.2, if
at any time in Sublessor’s sole judgment, Sublessor determines that Sublessee is using a
disproportionate amount of water, electricity or other commonly metered utilities, defined as a
maximum of $0.16 per rentable square foot, or that Sublessee is generating such a large volume of
trash as to require an increase in the size of the dumpster and/or an increase in the number of
times per month that the dumpster is emptied, then Sublessor may increase Sublessee’s Base Rent by
an amount equal to such increased costs.

5. Security Deposit. The rights and obligations of Sublessor and Sublessee as to said Security
Deposit shall be as set forth in Paragraph 5 of the Master Lease (as modified by Paragraph 7.3 of
this Sublease).

6. Master Lease.

	 	 	 

	6. 1 Sublessor is the lessee of the Premises by virtue of the Master Lease, wherein Foothill Technology Center, LLC 

	 
	 
	 	 
	 

	 	is the lessor, hereinafter the “Master Lessor”
	 

	 	 

          6.2 This Sublease is and shall be at all times subject and subordinate to the Master
Lease.

          6.3 The terms, conditions and respective obligations of Sublessor and Sublessee to each
other under this Sublease

	 JPH	 	 	 	 

	 

	 	 	 	 
	[ILLEGIBLE]
	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	 	 	 
	INITIALS

	 	 	 	INITIALS

	 	 	 

	©2001 — AIR COMMERCIAL REAL ESTATE ASSOCIATION

	 	FORM SBMT-2-8/08E

PAGE 3 OF 6

 

shall be the terms and conditions of the Master Lease except for those provisions of the
Master Lease which are directly contradicted by this Sublease in which event the terms of this
Sublease document shall control over the Master Lease. Therefore, for the purposes of this
Sublease, wherever in the Master Lease the word “Lessor” is used it shall be deemed to mean the
Sublessor herein and wherever in the Master Lease the word “Lessee” is used it shall be deemed to
mean the Sublessee herein.

     6.4 During the term of this Sublease and for all periods subsequent for obligations which
have arisen prior to the termination of this Sublease. Sublessee does hereby expressly assume and
agree to perform and comply with, for the benefit of Sublessor and Master Lessor, each and every
obligation of Sublessor under the Master Lease except for the following paragraphs which are
excluded therefrom: Paragraph 1, 4.2, 10, 11 and 37

     6.5 The obligations that Sublessee has assumed under paragraph 6.4 hereof are hereinafter
referred to as the “Sublessee’s Assumed Obligations”. The obligations that sublessee has not
assumed under paragraph 6.4 hereof are hereinafter referred to as the “Sublessor’s Remaining
Obligations”.

     6.6 Sublessee shall hold Sublessor free and harmless from all liability, judgments, costs,
damages, claims or demands, including reasonable attorneys fees, arising out of Sublessee’s
failure to comply with or perform Sublessee’s Assumed Obligations.

     6.7 Sublessor agrees to maintain the Master Lease during the entire term of this Sublease,
subject, however, to any earlier termination of the Master Lease without the fault of the
Sublessor, and to comply with or perform Sublessor’s Remaining Obligations and to hold Sublessee
free and harmless from all liability, judgments, costs, damages, claims or demands arising out of
Sublessor’s failure to comply with or perform Sublessor’s Remaining Obligations.

     6.8 Sublessor represents to Sublessee that the Master Lease is in full force and effect and
that no default exists on the part of any Party to the Master Lease.

7. Assignment of Sublease and Default.

     7.1 Sublessor hereby assigns and transfers to Master Lessor the Sublessor’s interest in this
Sublease, subject however
to the provisions of Paragraph 8.2 hereof.

     7.2 Master Lessor, by executing this document, agrees that until a Default shall occur in the
performance of Sublessor’s
Obligations under the Master Lease, that Sublessor may receive, collect and enjoy the Rent
accruing under this Sublease. However, if
Sublessor shall Default in the performance of its obligations to Master Lessor then Master
Lessor may, at its option, receive and
collect, directly from Sublessee, all Rent owing and to be owed under this Sublease. Master
Lessor shall not, by reason of this
assignment of the Sublease nor by reason of the collection of the Rent from the Sublessee, be
deemed liable to Sublessee for any
failure of the Sublessor to perform and comply with Sublessor’s Remaining Obligations.

     7.3 Sublessor hereby irrevocably authorizes and directs Sublessee upon receipt of any written
notice from the Master
Lessor stating that a Default exists in the performance of Sublessor’s obligations under the
Master Lease, to pay to Master Lessor the
Rent due and to become due under the Sublease. Sublessor agrees that Sublessee shall have
the right to rely upon any such
statement and request from Master Lessor, and that Sublessee shall pay such Rent to Master
Lessor without any obligation or right to
inquire as to whether such Default exists and notwithstanding any notice from or claim from
Sublessor to the contrary and Sublessor
shall have no right or claim against Sublessee for any such Rent so paid by Sublessee.

     7.4 No changes or modifications shall be made to this Sublease without the consent of Master
Lessor.

8. Consent of Master Lessor.

     8.1 In the event that the Master Lease requires that Sublessor obtain the consent of Master
Lessor to any subletting by
Sublessor then, this Sublease shall not be effective unless, within 10 days of the date
hereof, Master Lessor signs this Sublease
thereby giving its consent to this Subletting.

     8.2 In the event that the obligations of the Sublessor under the Master Lease have been
guaranteed by third parties then
neither this Sublease, nor the Master Lessor’s consent, shall be effective unless, within 10
days of the date hereof, said guarantors
sign this Sublease thereby giving their consent to this Sublease.

     8.3 In the event that Master Lessor does give such consent then:

          (a) Such consent shall not release Sublessor of its obligations or alter the primary liability
of Sublessor to pay
the Rent and perform and comply with all of the obligations of Sublessor to be performed under
the Master Lease.

          (b) The acceptance of Rent by Master Lessor from Sublessee or any one else liable under the
Master Lease
shall not be deemed a waiver by Master Lessor of any provisions of the Master Lease.

          (c) The consent to this Sublease shall not constitute a consent to any subsequent
subletting or assignment.

          (d) In the event of any Default of Sublessor under the Master Lease, Master Lessor may proceed
directly
against Sublessor, any guarantors or any one else liable under the Master Lease or this
Sublease without first exhausting Master
Lessor’s remedies against any other person or entity liable thereon to Master Lessor.

          (e) Master Lessor may consent to subsequent sublettings and assignments of the Master Lease or
this
Sublease or any amendments or modifications thereto without notifying Sublessor or any one
else liable under the Master Lease and
without obtaining their consent and such action shall not relieve such persons from liability.

          (f) In the event that Sublessor shall Default in its obligations under the Master Lease, then
Master Lessor, at
its option and without being obligated to do so, may require Sublessee to attorn to Master
Lessor in which event Master Lessor shall
undertake the obligations of Sublessor under this Sublease from the time of the exercise of
said option to termination of this Sublease
but Master Lessor shall not be liable for any prepaid Rent nor any Security Deposit paid by
Sublessee, nor shall Master Lessor be
liable for any other Defaults of the Sublessor under the Sublease.

     8.4 The signatures of the Master Lessor and any Guarantors of Sublessor at the end of this
document shall constitute
their consent to the terms of this Sublease.

     8.5 Master Lessor acknowledges that, to the best of Master Lessor’s knowledge, no Default
presently exists under the
Master Lease of obligations to be performed by Sublessor and that the Master Lease is in full
force and effect.

     8.6 In the event that Sublessor Defaults under its obligations to be performed under the
Master Lease by Sublessor, Master Lessor agrees to deliver to Sublessee a copy of any such notice
of default. In the event that Sublessor defaults and does not cure the default, Master Lessor
agrees to sign a direct Lease with Sublessee under the same terms and conditions as Sublessee’s
curren; Lease at 605 East Huntington Drive, Monrovia, California 91016, with the exception that
the Lease expiration date shall be
December 31, 2011. Sublessee shall have the right to cure any Default of Sublessor described in any notice of default within ten days after service of
such notice of default on sublessee. If such Default is cured by Sublessee then Sublessee shall have the right of reimbursement and offset from and against Sublessor.

9. Additional Brokers Commissions.

     9.1 Sublessor agrees that if Sublessee exercises any option or right of first refusal as
granted by Sublessor herein, or any
option or right substantially similar thereto, either to extend the term of this Sublease, to
renew this Sublease, to purchase the
Premises, or to lease or purchase adjacent property which Sublessor may own or in which
Sublessor has an interest, then Sublessor
shall pay to Broker a fee in accordance with the schedule of Broker in effect at the time of
the execution of this Sublease.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, Sublessor’s obligation under this Paragraph is limited to a
transaction in which Sublessor is acting as a
Sublessor, lessor or seller.

     9.2 Master Lessor agrees that if Sublessee shall exercise any option or right of first refusal
granted to Sublessee by
Master Lessor in connection with this Sublease, or any option or right substantially similar
thereto, either to extend or renew the Master
lease, to purchase the Premises or any part thereof, or to lease or purchase adjacent property
which Master Lessor may own or in

			
	JPH 
	 	                    
	[Illegible]
	 	                    
	INITIALS
	 	INITIALS
	 	 	 
	©2001 — AIR COMMERCIAL REAL ESTATE ASSOCIATION
	 	FORM SBMT-2-8/08E

PAGE 4 OF 6

 

which Master Lessor has an interest, or if Broker is the procuring cause of any other
lease or sale entered into between Sublessee and Master Lessor pertaining to the
Premises, any part thereof, or any adjacent property which Master Lessor owns or in which
it has an interest, then as to any of said transactions, Master Lessor shall pay to
Broker a fee, in cash, in accordance with the schedule of Broker in effect at the time of
the execution of this Sublease.

     9.3 Any fee due from Sublessor or Master Lessor hereunder shall be due and payable upon
the exercise of any option to
extend or renew, upon the execution of any new lease, or, in the event of a purchase,
at the close of escrow.

     9.4 Any transferee of Sublessor’s interest in this Sublease, or of Master Lessor’s
interest in the Master Lease, by accepting
an assignment thereof, shall be deemed to have assumed the respective obligations of
Sublessor or Master Lessor under this
Paragraph 9. Broker shall be deemed to be a third-party beneficiary of this paragraph 9.

10. Representations and Indemnities of Broker Relationships. The Parties each represent and
warrant to the other that it has
had no dealings with any person, firm, broker or finder (other than the Brokers, if any) in
connection with this Sublease, and that no
one other than said named Brokers is entitled to any commission or finder’s fee in
connection herewith. Sublessee and Sublessor do
each hereby agree to indemnify, protect, defend and hold the other harmless from and against
liability for compensation or charges
which may be claimed by any such unnamed broker, finder or other similar party by reason of
any dealings or actions of the
indemnifying Party, including any costs, expenses, attorneys’ fees reasonably incurred with
respect thereto.

11. Attorney’s fees. If any Party or Broker brings an action or proceeding involving the
Premises whether founded in tort,
contract or equity, or to declare rights hereunder, the Prevailing Party (as hereafter
defined) in any such proceeding, action, or appeal
thereon, shall be entitled to reasonable attorneys’ fees. Such fees may be awarded in the
same suit or recovered in a separate suit,
whether or not such action or proceeding is pursued to decision or judgment. The term,
“Prevailing Party” shall include, without
limitation, a Party or Broker who substantially obtains or defeats the relief sought, as the
case may be, whether by compromise,
settlement, judgment, or the abandonment by the other Party or Broker of its claim or
defense. The attorneys’ fees award shall not be
computed in accordance with any court fee schedule, but shall be such as to fully reimburse
all attorneys’ fees reasonably incurred. In
addition, Sublessor shall be entitled to attorneys’ fees, costs and expenses incurred in the
preparation and service of notices of Default
and consultations in connection therewith, whether or not a legal action is subsequently
commenced in connection with such Default or
resulting Breach ($200 is a reasonable minimum per occurrence for such services and
consultation).

12. No Prior or Other Agreements; Broker Disclaimer. This Sublease contains all agreements
between the Parties with
respect to any matter mentioned herein, and no other prior or contemporaneous agreement or
understanding shall be effective.
Sublessor and Sublessee each represents and warrants to the Brokers that it has made, and is
relying solely upon, its own
investigation as to the nature, quality, character and financial responsibility of the other
Party to this Sublease and as to the use,
nature, quality and character of the Premises. Brokers have no responsibility with respect
thereto or with respect to any default or
breach hereof by either Party. The liability (including court costs and attorneys’ fees),
of any Broker with respect to negotiation,
execution, delivery or performance by either Sublessor or Sublessee under this Sublease or
any amendment or modification hereto
shall be limited to an amount up to the fee received by such Broker pursuant to this
Sublease; provided, however, that the foregoing
limitation on each Broker’s liability shall not be applicable to any gross negligence or
willful misconduct of such Broker.

ATTENTION: NO REPRESENTATION OR RECOMMENDATION IS MADE BY THE AIR COMMERCIAL REAL
ESTATE ASSOCIATION OR BY ANY REAL ESTATE BROKER AS TO THE LEGAL SUFFICIENCY, LEGAL
EFFECT, OR TAX CONSEQUENCES OF THIS SUBLEASE OR THE TRANSACTION TO WHICH IT RELATES. THE
PARTIES ARE URGED TO:

1. SEEK ADVICE OF COUNSEL AS TO THE LEGAL AND TAX CONSEQUENCES OF THIS SUBLEASE.

2. RETAIN APPROPRIATE CONSULTANTS TO REVIEW AND INVESTIGATE THE CONDITION OF THE PREMISES.
SAID
INVESTIGATION SHOULD INCLUDE BUT NOT BE LIMITED TO: THE POSSIBLE PRESENCE OF HAZARDOUS
SUBSTANCES,
THE ZONING OF THE PROPERTY, THE STRUCTURAL INTEGRITY, THE CONDITION OF THE ROOF AND
OPERATING
SYSTEMS, AND THE SUITABILITY OF THE PREMISES FOR SUBLESSEE’S INTENDED USE.

WARNING: IF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED IN A STATE OTHER THAN CALIFORNIA,
CERTAIN PROVISIONS OF THE SUBLEASE MAY NEED TO BE REVISED TO COMPLY WITH THE LAWS OF THE
STATE IN WHICH THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED.

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 

	Executed at:
	 	Monrovia,CA	 	 	 	Executed at:	 	Monrovia,CA	 	 
	On:

	 	2/2/2010
	 	 	 	On:
	 	2/18/10	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	By SUBLESSOR:	 	 	 	By SUBLESSEE:	 	 
	Telscape Communications, Inc.,
a California
corporation	 	Green Dot Corporation, a California corporation
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	By:

	 	/s/ Joseph Holap
 

	 	 
	 	By:
	 	/s/ Steven W. Streit
 

	 	 
	Name Printed :

	 	Joseph Holap
	 	 	 	Name Printed:
	 	Steven W. Streit	 	 
	Title:

	 	SUP/CTO
	 	 	 	Title:
	 	CEO	 	 
	By:

	 	 	 	 	 	By:	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	 

	 	 
	 	 	 	 

	 	 
	Name Printed:

	 	 	 	 	 	Name Printed:	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	 

	 	 
	 	 	 	 

	 	 
	Title:

	 	 	 	 	 	Title:	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	 

	 	 
	 	 	 	 

	 	 
	Address: 606 East Huntington Drive Monrovia, CA 91016	 	Address:	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	 	 	 	 	
	 	 
 	 	 
	Telephone:(626 ) 415-1000	 	Telephone(      )	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 

	 	 
	Facsimile(     )

	 	 	 	 	 	Facsimile:(       )	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	 

	 	 
	 	 	 	 

	 	 
	Federal ID No.

	 	 	 	 	 	Federal ID No.	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	 

	 	 
	 	 	 	 

	 	 

			
	                    	 	                    
	                    	 	                    
	INITIALS
	 	INITIALS
	 	 	 
	©2001 — AIR COMMERCIAL REAL ESTATE ASSOCIATION
	 	FORM SBMT-2-8/08E

PAGE 5 OF 6

 

	 	 	 

	BROKER:

	 	BROKER:
	 
	 	 
	Colliers International, Inc.

	 	Colliers International, Inc.
	 
	Attn: Shadd Walker

	 	Attn: Shadd Walker
	Title: Senior Vice President

	 	Title: Senior Vice President
	 
	Address: 865 S. Figueroa Street, Suite 3500

	 	Address: 865 S. Figueroa Street, Suite 3500
	Los Angeles, CA 90017

	 	Los Angeles, CA 90017
	Telephone: (213) 532-3242

	 	Telephone:(213) 532-3242
	Facsimile (213) 327-3242

	 	Facsimile:(213) 327-3242
	Federal ID No. 

	 	Federal ID No. 

	Broker/Agent DRE License #: 01253297

	 	Broker/Agent DRE License*: 01253297
	 
	 	 
	Consent to the above Sublease is hereby given.
	 	 
	 
	 	 
	Executed at:
 
	 	Executed at: 

	On:
 
	 	On: 

	 
	 	 
	By MASTER LESSOR:

	 	By GUARANTOR(S):
	 
	 	 
	Foothill Technology Center, LLC

	 	By: 

	 

	 	Name Printed: 

	 

	 	Address: 

	 
	 	 
	By: /s/  Blaine P. Fetter
 
	 	 
	Name Printed: Blaine P. Fetter
 
	 	 
	Title:
 
	 	 
	 
	 	 
	By:
 
	 	By: 

	Name Printed:
 
	 	Name Printed: 

	Title:
 
	 	Address: 

	Address: 602 E. Huntington Drive, Suite D
	 	 
	Monrovia, CA 91016
	 	 
	Telephone:(626) 305-5530
	 	 
	Facsimile:(626) 305-5541
	 	 
	Federal ID No.
 
	 	 

NOTICE: These forms are often modified to meet changing requirements of law and industry needs.
Always write or call to make sure you are utilizing the most current form: AIR Commercial Real
Estate Association, 800 W 6th Street, Suite 800, Los Angeles, CA 90017. Telephone No. (213)
687-8777. Fax No.: (213) 687-8616.

	 	 	 
	 

	 	 
	 
	 	 
	 

	 	 
	INITIALS

	 	INITIALS

			
	 
	©2001 — AIR COMMERCIAL REAL ESTATE ASSOCIATION
	 	FORM SBMT-2-8/08E

PAGE 6 OF 6

 

SUBLEASE ADDENDUM

Date: January 12, 2010

	 	 	 

	By and Between (Sublessor):

	 	TELSCAPE COMMUNICATIONS, INC., a California corporation
	 
	 	 
	(Sublessee):

	 	GREEN DOT CORPORATION, a California corporation
	 
	 	 
	Address of Premises:

	 	602 East Huntington Drive

Monrovia, CA 91016

13. Rental Abatement. Sublessee shall not pay Monthly Base Rent for Months two (2), three (3) and
four (4) of the Sublease Term.

14. Tenant Improvements. Sublessee shall take possession of the Premises in “As-ls” condition and
free from all furniture and personal equipment from Sublessor. However, Sublessor, at Sublessor’s
sole cost and expense, shall be responsible for demising the Premises to meet code in the City of
Monrovia. Sublessor shall use its best efforts to complete the demising by February 1, 2010.
Sublessee, at Sublessee’s sole cost and expense, shall be responsible for any and all interior
improvements and shall get all necessary approvals from Master Lessor prior to making any
alterations to the Premises.

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 

	Sublessor:	 	Sublessee:
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 
	Telscape Communications,
Inc., a California
corporation	 	Green Dot Corporation, a California corporation
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 
	By:
	 	/s/ Joseph P. Holap	 	By:	 	/s/ Steven W. Streit
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 
	Name Printed:

	 	Joseph P. Holap
	 	Name Printed:
	 	Steven W. Streit
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 
	Title:

	 	SUP/CTO
	 	Title:
	 	CEO

Master Lessor:

Foothill Technology Center, LLC

	 	 	 	 

	By:
	 	/s/ Blaine Fetter
	 
	 	 
	Name Printed:
	 	Blaine Fetter
	 
	 	 
	Title:

	 	Manager

			
	 	 	 
	 

 

 
INITIALS	 	 

 

 
INITIALS

Page 1 of 3

 

EXHIBIT “A”

FLOOR PLAN

	 	 	 	 	 

	 

	 	 	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	 	 	 
	INITALS

	 	 	 	INITALS

 Page 2 of 3

 

EXHIBIT “B”

 JANITORIAL SCHEDULE

OFFICES & COMMON AREAS — DAILY (5 Days Per Week)

1. Includes offices, restrooms, common hallways, lobbies, stairways, elevators & exterior
entrances

2. Sweep and dust mop hard surface floors (resilient and composition) with treated dust mops to
remove litter and dust. Damp mop and spot mop to remove heavy dirt and spills.

3. Vacuum all carpeted areas and floor mats of the offices and common areas.

4. Remove water soluble spots such as coffee and soft drinks from carpet. Non water soluble spots
will be removed as soon as possible by supervisory personnel.

5. Dust cleared surfaces such as desks, telephone, chairs, table’s filing cabinets and other office
furniture.

6. Break Room & Kitchen Areas — Clean tabletops & chairs, vacuum carpet, sweep and mop floors,
remove trash and replace liners, refill dispensers, clean countertops, sinks and outside of
refrigerators.

7. Dust and clean all office furniture, file cabinets, fixtures and windowsills. We do not touch
any documents left on the desks and will only clean desktops when desk is clear.

8. Return and arrange furniture to their correct positions.

9. Remove smudges and fingerprints from doors, walls, door frames, wall switches, kick plates and
push plates, desks and counters.

10. Empty all trash receptacles and replace liners and wash clean as necessary

11. Clean lobby door glass in and out and sweep the entryways, sidewalks and stairs leading into
the building.

Empty the ashtrays and replace sand when necessary.

12. Clean and sanitize all water fountains and drinking fountains and clean and polish bright
metal.

13. Clean open countertops

14. Maintain carpeted stairways and handrails

WEEKLY MAINTENANCE

1. Dust low reach area such as chair rungs, windowsills, doorjambs, moldings and baseboards.

2. Vacuum carpeted stairways and clean handrails

3. Clean exit doors.

4. Dust all counters, shelves, and bookcases and file cabinets.

5. High dust picture frames, doorframes and window frames.

6. Detail vacuum all carpeted areas, under desks and along edges

7. Spot clean all interior glass.

MONTHLY MAINTENANCE

1. Perform dusting of high reach areas including door tops, doorframes, louvers and ceiling vents.

2. Dust Venetian blinds

FLOOR CARE SERVICES

1. Machine scrub and sanitize restroom floors monthly

2. Machine scrub and apply new floor finish all tile areas semi-annually.

3. Clean and spray buff quarterly all tile areas

			
	                    	 	                    
	                    	 	                    
	INITIALS
	 	INITIALS

Page 3 of 3

 

FIRST AMENDMENT TO SUBLEASE

THIS FIRST AMENDMENT TO SUBLEASE (“First Amendment”) is made and entered into as of as of
October 29, 2010 by and between Telscape Communications, Inc., a Delaware Corporation (“Sublessor”), and Green Dot
Corporation, a Delaware Corporation (“Sublessee”) and contains modifications and additions to the
terms and conditions of the existing Standard Sublease document dated January 12, 2010
(“Sublease”), for the Premises located at 602 East Huntington Drive, Monrovia, California,
consisting of approximately 7,032 square feet, known as Suite H (“Suite H”) as referenced in
Sublease, which is attached hereto as Exhibit A.

Upon execution of this First Amendment by both Sublessor and Sublessee, it shall be attached to,
and by reference, become part of the Sublease as the First Amendment. The capitalized terms used
and not otherwise defined herein shall have the same definitions as set forth in the Sublease.

RECITALS

WHEREAS Sublessee desires to sublease from Sublessor an additional 19,529 square feet
on the 1st and 2nd floor of the premises located at 606 East
Huntington Drive, Monrovia, California (“Expansion Premises”).

WHEREAS, Sublessor and Sublessee desire to modify the terms and conditions of the existing
Sublease as provided herein.

NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing recitals and the mutual covenants
contained herein, and for other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency
of which are hereby acknowledged, the parties hereto hereby agree as follows:

AGREEMENTS

	 	1.	 	EXPANSION PREMISES: Sublessee shall sublease from Sublessor an additional 19,529
square feet which
consists of the 1st and 2nd floor located at 606 East Huntington Drive,
Monrovia, California (“Expansion Premises”).
The areas of the Expansion Premises shall be pursuant to the Master Lease and shall not be
subject to any
remeasurement. A true and correct copy of the Master Lease between Master Landlord and
Sublessor attached
hereto as Exhibit B.
	 
	 	2.	 	USE: The use for the Expansion Premises shall be pursuant to terms and conditions of
the Sublease.
	 
	 	3.	 	LEASE TERM: The lease term for the Expansion Premises shall be thirteen (13) months (“Term”).
	 
	 	4.	 	COMMENCEMENT DATE: The First Amendment Sublease Commencement Date shall be
November 1, 2010,
subject to receipt of the fully executed Sublease, Master Landlord’s Consent. Sublessor shall
deliver the
Expansion Premises to Sublessee for construction on or before November 1, 2010.
	 
	 	5.	 	EXPIRATION DATE: The Expansion Premises shall expire
December 31, 2011 (“Expiration
Date”).
	 
	 	6.	 	BASE RENT: The Expansion Premises base rent shall be $36,147.15 per month, full
service gross, flat for the
Term. There shall be no pass-throughs or escalations during the Term. Notwithstanding the
foregoing, no rent
shall be payable for the first (1st) month of the Term. In the event Sublessor
does not delivery the Expansion
Premises to Subleasee by November 1, 2010, rent shall be further abated by one day for each
day of delay.
	 
	 	7.	 	TENANT IMPROVEMENTS: Sublessor, at its sole cost and expense, shall be
responsible for removing the demising
wall on the 2nd floor that separates Sublessee’s existing sublease space and the
Expansion Premises on or before
November 1, 2010. Sublessee shall sublease the Expansion Premises on an “as is” basis without
any representation
or warranty from Sublessor.
	 
	 	8.	 	PARKING: The parking for the Expansion Premises shall be pursuant to the
Master Lease (less the parking
spaces in accordance with Sublessee’s existing sublease space). A true and correct copy
of the Master Lease
between Master Landlord and Sublessor attached hereto as Exhibit B.
	 
	 	9.	 	EXISTING FURNITURE & EQUIPMENT: Sublessor is the owner of certain furniture,
fixtures and equipment and
agrees to grant Sublessee certain rights to its furniture, fixtures and equipment indicated
on Exhibit C attached
hereto (“FF&E”), as further provided herein. Sublessor shall leave the FF&E in the Expansion
Premises during the
term hereof for the Sublessee’s use without additional charge, provided that Sublessee is not
in Default hereunder

 

 

	 	 	 	as described in Section 7 of the Sublease. Sublessee agrees that all FF&E shall be in “AS IS”
condition, without any representation or warranty whatsoever with respect to same. Sublessee
shall keep FF&E in reasonable good condition, reasonable and ordinary wear and tear expected.
Title to all FF&E shall remain with Sublessor and Sublessee shall not modify or remove FF&E
from Expansion premises without prior written approval from Sublessor. In the event that
Sublessee desires any FF&E contained in Exhibit C attached hereto, to be removed from the
Expansion Premises prior to commencement of the Sublease, the Sublessee must advise Sublessor
in writing by close of business on Monday, October 25, 2010 and specifically state FF&E to be
removed and Sublessor shall remove said FF&E at its own cost and expense prior to November 1,
2010. In the event Sublessor does not so remove said FF&E, then Sublessee shall be entitled
to dispose of the same at Sublessor’s cost and expense.
	 
	 	10.	 	OPTION TO EXTEND: None.
	 
	 	11.	 	SUBLEASE ASSIGNMENT: Pursuant to the Sublease.
	 
	 	12.	 	FIRST & LAST MONTH’S RENT: Upon sublease execution for the Expansion Premises,
Sublessee shall prepay to
Sublessor the first month’s rent in the amount of $36,147.15 and the last month’s rent in the
amount of $36,147.15
for a total of $72,294.30.
	 
	 	13.	 	INSURANCE: Sublessee shall obtain and keep in full force and effect, at Sublessee’s
sole cost and expense,
during the Term the insurance required to be carried under the Master Lease. Sublessee shall
include Sublessor
and Master Landlord and any other parties required under the Master Lease as additional insureds
in every policy
of insurance carried by Sublessee in connection with this First Amendment and shall provide
Sublessor with
certificates of insurance no later than ten (10) days prior to the occupancy of the Expansion
Premises by
Sublessee.
	 
	 	14.	 	SIGNAGE: Subleasee’s signage rights shall be pursuant to the Master Lease. Sublessor
shall remove its existing
signage on or before the Expansion Premises Sublease Commencement Date.
	 
	 	15.	 	AUTHORITY TO EXECUTE AGREEMENT: Each individual executing this First Amendment on
behalf of a
partnership, corporation or other entity represent that he or she is duly authorized to execute
and deliver this First
Amendment on behalf of the corporation, partnership and/or other entity and agrees to deliver
evidence of his or
her authority to Sublessor prior to the execution of this First Amendment.
	 
	 	16.	 	ENTIRE AGREEMENT: This First Amendment represents the entire agreement among the
parties with respect to
the matters contained in this First Amendment and supersedes any prior negotiations,
representations, or
agreements, whether written or oral, with respect to the subject matter contained herein.
Nothing in this First
Amendment shall be deemed to waive or modify any of the provisions of the Master Lease or
Sublease, except as
expressly stated herein. This First Amendment may be amended, modified, or altered only by
written instrument,
signed by Sublessor and Sublessee.
	 
	 	17.	 	INCONSISTENCIES: Except as modified or amended herein, each and all of the terms,
covenants and conditions
of the Sublease are hereby ratified and confirmed and remain in full force and effect. If
there are any
inconsistencies between this First Amendment and the Sublease, the provisions of this First
Amendment shall
prevail. If there are any inconsistencies between the First Amendment and the Master Lease, the
provisions of the
Master Lease shall prevail.
	 
	 	18.	 	LEGAL ADVICE: NEUTRAL INTERPRETATION: HEADINGS: Each party has received independent
legal advice
from their attorneys with respect to the advisability of executing this First Amendment and the
meaning of the
provisions hereof. The provisions of this First Amendment shall be construed as to their fair
meaning, and not for
or against any party based upon any attribution to such party as the source of the language in
question. Headings
used in this First Amendment are for convenience of reference only and shall not be used in
construing this First
Amendment.
	 
	 	19.	 	STATUS OF MASTER LEASE: Sublessor represents that to its current actual knowledge (i) the
Master Lease
between Master Landlord and Sublessor attached hereto as Exhibit B is a true and complete copy
of its entire
agreement with the Master Landlord regarding the Master Premises, which includes Suite H and
Expansion premises;
(ii) the Master Lease is in full force and effect; and (iii) no condition exists and no event
has occurred, which, with the
giving of notice, the passage of time, or both, would constitute a default by either party to
the Master Lease.
	 
	 	20.	 	RATIFICATION OF SUBLEASE: Except as expressly set forth herein, the Sublease is
hereby ratified and
confirmed in its entirety and remains unchanged and in full force and effect. A true and correct
copy of the
Sublease is attached hereto as Exhibit A.
	 
	 	21.	 	CONDITION PRECEDENT: Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in this First
Amendment, this First Amendment and Sublessor’s obligations hereunder are conditioned upon Sublessor’s
receipt of the written consent of Master

Page 2 of 8

 

	 	 	 	Landlord to this First Amendment. If such condition is not met within sixty (60) days
after the full execution of this First Amendment by Sublessor and Sublessee, that either
Sublessor or Sublessee may terminate this First Amendment by giving the other party written
notice prior to the receipt of such consent, and upon such termination, Sublessor shall return
to Sublessee its payment of the first month’s rent and security deposit.
	 
	 	22.	 	BROKERS & FEES: Sublessor and Sublessee each represent and warrant to each other
that they have dealt with no real estate brokers, finders or agents in connection with this
transaction other than CresaPartners (“Sublessor’s Broker”) and UGL Equis (“Sublessee’s
Broker”). Sublessor and Sublessee agree to indemnify and hold each other harmless from and
against all claims for brokerage commissions, finder’s fees or other compensation made by any
other agent, broker or finder. In connection with the execution of this First Amendment,
Sublessor shall pay Sublessee’s Broker a commission based upon two percent (2%) of the total
gross rent for the term. Sublessor shall also pay Sublessor’s Broker a commission in the
amount of two percent (2%) of the total gross rent for the term. Half of the commission shall
be due within thirty (30) days from Sublessor’s receipt of a fully executed First Amendment,
Master Landlord’s Consent, Sublessee’s prepaid rent & security deposit, proof of insurance,
Equis commission invoice and W-9. The remaining balance of the commission shall be paid
within thirty (30) days from Sublessee’s occupancy of the Expansion Premises.

(The balance of this page was intentionally left blank)

Page 3 of 8

 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this First Amendment has been executed as of the day and year first above
written.

	 	 	 	 	 

	BY SUBLESSOR:

	 	BY SUBLESSEE:	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 
	Telscape Communications, Inc., a Delaware

	 	Green Dot Corporation, a Delaware	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 
	Corporation

	 	Corporation	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 
	/s/
Joseph P. Holap
 

By

	 	/s/ Steven W. Streit
 

By
	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 
	Joseph
P. Holap
 

Print Name

	 	Steven W. Streit
 

Print Name
	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 
	COO/CTO
 

Title

	 	CEO
 

Title
	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 
	 

By

	 	 

By
	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 
	 

Print Name

	 	 

Print Name
	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 
	 

Title

	 	 

Title
	 	 

LANDLORD’S CONSENT:

The undersigned does hereby consent to the sublease as set forth above.

Foothill Technology LLC

	 	 	 	 	 

	By: 

Name:

	 	[ILLEGIBLE]
 

	 	 
	Title:
	 	 	 	 

Page 4 of 8

 

EXHIBIT A

SUBLEASE

(to be attached to hard copies)

Page 5 of 8

 

 

EXHIBIT B

MASTER LEASE

(to be attached to hard copies)

Page 6 of 8

 

 

EXHIBIT C

FURNITURE AND EQUIPMENT

EXPANSION PREMISES

FIRST FLOOR

	1.	 	Reception Area: 4 black leather reception chairs, 1 end round wood table, 1
cocktail wood table with top glass, 1 — 4 piece “U” shaped redwood desk, 1 cloth chair, 2 — 3 drawer file cabinet, 1 — 2 drawer lateral
redwood file cabinet, 1 — 3 drawer Lateral redwood file cabinet
	 
	2.	 	Human Resources: 3 cloth chairs, 4 overheads, 3 guest chairs, 4 — 2 drawer file
cabinet, 4 — 2 lateral drawer file cabinet, 3 — 3 drawer
file cabinets, 1 — 3 shelf corner
wood bookcase, 1 — 4X3 cork board.
	 
	 	 	The following furniture pieces have faux wood top. 2 — 1 piece desks, 1 — 4 piece “U” shaped
desk, 2 — 3 piece “L” shaped desk, 1 round table.
	 
	3.	 	Office #1 (Carolina Silva): 1 — 3 piece faux wood table top desk, 1 executive
leather chair, 2 guest chairs, 1 — 2 drawer file cabinet, 1 — 3 drawer file cabinet, 1 — 2
drawer lateral file cabinet, 1 — 4X3 dry erase calendar.
	 
	4.	 	Office #2 (Gary Hamlett): 1 oakwood desk with drawers and a credenza, 1 cloth chair,
1 round table.
	 
	5.	 	Training Room “A”: 1 faux wood top desk, 16 cloth chairs, 1 guest chair, 1 — 3
drawer file cabinet, 1 Panasonic 27" TV, 1 — 3 level metal
TV stand, 1 — 5" folding table,
5-8" folding table, 1 — 5X20 table, 1 overhead and screen projector, 1 — 4 drawer lateral
file cabinet, 1 — 8X4 and 1 — 5X3 dry erase board.
	 
	6.	 	Conference Room “A”: 1 conference table, 9 leather chairs, 1 — 3 drawer lateral
file faux wood top, 1 — 4 drawer lateral file faux wood top, 1 — 8X4 dry erase board.
	 
	7.	 	Training Room “B”: 1 oakwood desk with drawers and credenza, 1 — 4X3 dry
erase board, 1 — 6X4 dry erase board.
	 
	8.	 	Office #3 (Alberto Negrete): 1 — 3 piece faux
wood top desk, 1 leather
chair, 2 guest chairs, 1 overhead, 1 — 2 drawer file cabinet, 1 — 3 drawer lateral
file cabinet with wood top desk, 1 — 6X4 dry erase board.
	 
	9.	 	Office #4 (Jeanette Gonzalez): 1 leather chair, 5
guest chairs, 3 overheads, 1
 — 2 drawer file cabinet, 1 — 3 drawer file cabinet.
	 
	 	 	The following furniture pieces have faux wood top. 1 — 4 piece “U” shaped desk, 1 — 2 drawer
lateral file cabinet, 1 — 3 drawer lateral file cabinet, 1 — 5 shelf bookcase, 1 round table.
	 
	10.	 	Tone Room: 2 faux wood top desks, 3 cloth chairs, 1 round faux wood top table.
	 
	11.	 	Work Stations: 82 work stations with faux wood top desks, 82 cloth chairs, 12 — 2
drawer file cabinets, 86 — 3 drawer file cabinets, 1 — 2 drawer lateral file cabinet, 6 — 4
drawer lateral file cabinet, 4 — 3 drawer lateral faux wood top file cabinets, 1 — 4 shelf
wood bookcase.
	 
	12.	 	Incharge Podium: 3 faux wood top desks, 2 — 3 drawer lateral file cabinets, 1 —
3 drawer faux wood top lateral file cabinet, 3 cloth chairs.

Page 7 of 8

 

 

	13.	 	Break Room: 28 stackable chairs, 7 round tables, 1 top freezer Gallexy
refrigerator, 1 kitchen with mounted cabinets and a sink, 1 mounted flat screen “Sony 40” TV"
with remote control, 1 folding table located underneath the TV., 2 white metal trash cans.
	 
	14.	 	Office #5 (Victor Flores): 1 oakwood desk with drawers and a credenza, 1 leather chair,
2 guest oakwood chairs, 1
 — 5 shelf faux wood bookcase, 1 — 4 faux wood top lateral
file cabinet, 1 — 6X4 dry erase board.
	 
	15.	 	Office #6 (Corner Office): 1 oakwood desk with drawers and a credenza, 1 cloth chair, 1
round faux wood top table.

SECOND FLOOR

	16.	 	Administrative Area: 2 cloth chairs, 1 — 2 drawer
file cabinet, 6 — 3 drawer file
cabinets, 1 — 2 drawer lateral file cabinet.
	 
	 	 	The following furniture pieces have faux wood top. 2 — 3 piece “L” shape desks, 1 — 4 piece “L”
shaped desk, 1 — 3 drawer lateral file cabinet, 1 — 4 drawer lateral file cabinet, 1 — 3 drawer
lateral file cabinet.
	 
	17.	 	Office #7 (M. Johnson): 1 leather chair. The following furniture pieces are
redwood. 1 — 3 piece “U” shaped desk, 4 guest chairs, 2 — 3 drawer file cabinet 1 — 2 drawer
lateral file cabinet, 1 — 3 shelf bookcase with doors, 2 — 5 shelf bookcase, 1 side chair table,
1 round table.
	 
	18.	 	Office #8 (David Wilder): 1 leather chair, 1 — 6X4 dry erase board, 1 — 4X3 dry
erase calendar. The following furniture pieces are redwood. 1 — 3 piece “U” shaped desk,
2 guest chairs, 2 — 2 shelf bookcases, 2 — 3 file cabinets.
	 
	19.	 	Office #9 (Joseph Holop): 1 leather chair. The following furniture pieces are
redwood. 1 — 3 piece “U” shaped desk, 6 guest chairs, 1 — 5 shelf bookcase, 3 — 2 drawer
lateral file cabinets, 2 — 3 drawer lateral file cabinets, 1 round table.
	 
	20.	 	Office #10 (N. Johnson): 1 leather chair, 1 sofa and 1 chair, 1 large clock. The
following furniture pieces are redwood. 1 desk, 1 — 3 piece “L” shaped credenza, 2 guest
chairs, 1 — 2 door overhead, 1 — 4 door overhead, 1 — 2 door coat hanger, 2 — 3 drawer file
cabinets, 1 — 2 drawer lateral file cabinet, 1 side chair table, 1 cocktail table.
	 
	21.	 	Office #11 (Greg McPherson): 1 leather chair, 2 guest chairs, 1 — 6X4 dry erase
board, 1 — 4X3 dry erase calendar. The following furniture
pieces are oakwood. 1 — 3 piece “U”
shaped desk, 1 — 2 shelf bookcase, 2 — 3 drawer file cabinets, 1 — 2 drawer lateral file
cabinet.
	 
	22.	 	Office #12 (Walter Wilson): 1 leather chair, 1 sofa and 1 chair, 1 — 4X3 dry erase
board. The following furniture pieces are oakwood. 1 desk with drawers and 1 credenza with
drawers, 2 guest chairs, 1 — 2 shelf bookcase, 1 — 2 drawer lateral file cabinet, 1 square
cocktail table.
	 
	23.	 	Office #13 (Diana Aguirre): 1 leather chair, 2 guest chairs, 1 round faux wood table.
The following furniture pieces are oakwood. 1 desk, 2 guest chairs, 2
— 2 shelf bookcases, 1 — 2 drawer lateral file cabinet. The
following furniture pieces are redwood. 1 credenza, 1 — 1
door coat hanger, 1 — 5 shelf bookcase with door, 1 — 4 overhead.
	 
	24.	 	Break Room: 2 round tables, 8 stackable chairs, 1 top freezer Frigidaire
refrigerator, 1 white metal trashcan, built-in kitchen cabinets with granite top and a sink.
	 
	25.	 	Work Stations (Behind Conference): 4 — 4 piece “U” shaped faux wood top desks, 2 cloth
chairs, 2 leather chairs, 2
 — 2 drawer file cabinets, 3 — 3 drawer file cabinets, 1 — 2 drawer lateral file cabinet, 1
plotter, 1 — 60X20 table, 1 — 36X24 table.
	 
	26.	 	Conference Room: 1 conference redwood table, 10 leather chairs, 2 — 2 door redwood
cabinet, 1 dry erase board with wooden doors.
	 
	27.	 	(Accounting Department): 6 cloth chairs, 3 — 2 drawer file cabinets, 6 — 3 drawer
file cabinets, 7 — 2 drawer lateral file cabinets, 1 — 4 shelf metal bookcase, 3 — 5 shelf
bookcases, 7 — 5 drawer lateral file cabinets, 5 overheads, 6 guest chairs, 1 — 6X4 dry erase
board, 1 safe. The following furniture pieces are faux wood top. 5 — 3 piece “L” shaped desks,
1 — 1 piece desk, 1 — 4 piece “U” shaped desk, 1 round table.

Page 8 of 8

Source: [{"source": "alea-institute/alea-institute/kl3m-data-edgar-agreements/train-00180-of-00352.parquet"}, [{"source": "alea-institute/alea-institute/kl3m-data-edgar-agreements/train-00180-of-00352.parquet"}]]