MARCH 2011 - According to the Notice: The proposed Settlement creates a fund (the “Settlement Fund”) in the amount of $4,000,000 in cash (the “Settlement Amount”) and will include interest that accrues on the fund prior to distribution. The average cost per share and per note will vary depending on the number of shares and notes for which claims are filed. By Order of the Court, this Notice is being sent to you in the belief that you may be a Member of the Class, to inform you as follows:

• A SETTLEMENT OF THE LITIGATION HAS BEEN REACHED, SUBJECT TO COURT APPROVAL. THIS SETTLEMENT IS WITH ONLY DEFENDANT GERALD COHN, AND INCLUDES A RELEASE OF CLAIMS AGAINST MR. COHN. THE LITIGATION IS CONTINUING AGAINST OTHER DEFENDANTS. THE TERMS OF THE SETTLEMENT ARE DESCRIBED IN SECTION IV BELOW.

• IF YOU MEET THE DEFINITION OF THE CLASS AS OF THE EFFECTIVE DATE, YOU ARE A MEMBER OF THE CLASS AND YOU WILL BE BOUND BY THE SETTLEMENT AND THE RELEASES THAT ARE GIVEN PURSUANT THERETO, UNLESS YOU ACT TO EXCLUDE YOURSELF PURSUANT TO THE INSTRUCTIONS IN SECTION VI BELOW. IF YOU WISH TO REMAIN A MEMBER OF THE CLASS AND TO BE BOUND BY THE SETTLEMENT AND RELEASES, YOU DO NOT NEED TO TAKE ANY ACTION IN RESPONSE TO THIS NOTICE OTHER THAN WHAT IS OUTLINED IN SECTION VII BELOW TO ESTABLISH THE DOLLAR AMOUNT OF YOUR CLAIM.

• YOU MAY OBTAIN MORE DETAILED INFORMATION ABOUT THE LITIGATION BY ACCESSING THE COURT FILE.

Plaintiffs’ Lead Counsel have not received any payment for their services in prosecuting the Litigation against Gerald Cohn on behalf of Plaintiffs and the Members of the Class, nor have they been reimbursed for certain out-of-pocket expenditures. If the Settlement is approved by the Court, Plaintiffs’ Lead Counsel will apply to the Court for attorneys’ fees not to exceed 331⁄3% of the Settlement Amount, or up to $1,333,333, and reimbursement of out-of-pocket expenses incurred of up to $650,000 both of which shall be paid to Plaintiffs’ Lead Counsel from the Settlement Fund with interest from the date such Settlement Fund was funded to the date of payment at the same interest rate that the Settlement Fund earns.

MARCH 2008 - According to a press release dated March 12, 2008, the Lead Plaintiffs in the above captioned action have entered into a Settlement with one of the named Defendants in this Litigation, Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc. (”Merrill Lynch”). The Settlement terms include releases of the Settlement Class’ claims asserted against Merrill Lynch, but not other Defendants, brought pursuant to Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by the Securities and Exchange Commission. Lead Plaintiffs have settled their claims against Merrill Lynch, which was a former lender to DVI and underwriter in certain “securitization” transactions, for cash payment of Four Million Five Hundred Thousand dollars ($4,500,000). The final amount distributed to Settlement Class Members will depend upon the amount of interest earned on these funds and the amount of Court-approved attorneys’ fees, costs and expenses, and Notice and Administration Costs.

AUGUST 2007 - According to a press release dated August 20, 2007, the Lead Plaintiffs in the action have entered into a Partial Settlement with three of the named Defendants in this Litigation, Nathan Shapiro, William Goldberg and John McHugh (the “Settling Defendants”). The Partial Settlement terms include releases of the Class’ claims asserted against the Settling Defendants, but not other defendants, brought pursuant to Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by the Securities and Exchange Commission. Lead Plaintiffs have settled their claims against the Settling Defendants, who are former outside directors of DVI, for cash payment of Three Million Two Hundred Fifty Thousand dollars ($3,250,000), which is being funded from the Settling Defendants’ personal assets. The final amount distributed to Class Members will depend upon the amount of interest earned on these funds and the amount of Court-approved attorneys’ fees, costs and expenses, and Notice and Administration Costs. A hearing will be held before the Honorable Legrome D. Davis in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on November 2, 2007 at 9:00 a.m. to determine whether the proposed Partial Settlement is fair, reasonable and adequate to the Class and should be approved.

NOVEMBER 2006 - On November 20, 2006, the Court entered the Order approving the settlement as to certain defendants, Defendants OnCure Medical Corp., f/k/a OnCure Technologies Corp., Dolphin Medical, Inc. and PresGar Imaging LC. The case is continuing against the remaining defendants.

SEPTEMBER 2006 - According to a press release dated September 7, 2006, Lead Plaintiffs have settled their claims against OnCURE, Dolphin and PresGar for cash payments of $1,175,000, $960,000 and $750,000, respectively, for total Partial Settlements with these Defendants of $2,885,000. A hearing will be held before the Honorable Legrome D. Davis in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on November 9, 2006 at 10:00 a.m. to determine whether the proposed Partial Settlements are fair, reasonable and adequate to the Class and should be approved; whether the proposed Plan of Allocation is fair, reasonable and adequate to the Class and should be approved; whether a proposed Final Judgment should be entered; to determine the amount of fees and expenses that should be awarded to Plaintiffs’ Lead Counsel; and to rule upon such other matters as the Court may deem appropriate

As summarized by the Notice of Pendency, on September 20, 2004, the plaintiffs filed a Third Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint. On November 1, 2004, the named Defendants filed motions to dismiss the Complaint. On May 31, 2005, the Court granted in part and denied in part Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss. The Court, on February 16, 2006, denied Defendants’ motions for reconsideration and for certification for interlocutory appeal of the Court’s May 31, 2005 decision. Plaintiffs, on September 30, 2005, amended the Complaint to add Section 20(a) claims against Thomas Pritzker, the Pritzker Organization LLC and certain unnamed Pritzker family members as controlling parties. In addition, Plaintiffs, on April 7, 2006, added Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5(a) and (c) claims against DVI’s former lead legal counsel, Clifford Chance LLP and Clifford Chance (US) LLP. The Court’s denial, in part, of Defendants’ motions to dismiss Plaintiffs’ Complaint only addressed the sufficiency of Plaintiffs’ pleadings and did not determine the merits of Plaintiffs’ claims

AUGUST 2003 - On August 20, 2003, another similar class action complaint was filed against DVI, Inc. and certain individuals. According to the docket for that case, docket 03-CV-04795, on August 28, 2003, a suggestion of bankruptcy was filed by DVI, Inc. under Chapter Number 11 of the Bankruptcy Code in the Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware. On September 15, 2003, the Court entered the Order staying the action as to DVI, Inc. On November 26, 2003, the Court entered the Memorandum and Order that the motions of the Cedar Street Group in Grossman et al. vs. Merrill Lynch & Co., et al., case number 03-5336, for consolidation, appointment as lead plaintiff, approval of selection of lead counsel and liaison counsel are granted in all respects. Further, the related cases were consolidated into lead case 03-CV-5336 and captioned In Re DVI Inc. Securities Litigation.

According to the docket for the first complaint filed, on August 21, 2003, the plaintiff James Bennett filed a notice of voluntary dismissal as to all defendants. On August 26, 2003, the Court entered the Order signed by U.S. District Judge Legrome D. Davis dismissing the matter without prejudice to the plaintiff’s request for voluntary dismissal.

The original Complaint alleges that defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, by issuing a series of material misrepresentations to the market between November 7, 2001 and June 27, 2003, thereby artificially inflating the price of DVI’s publicly traded securities. The Complaint alleges that these statements were materially false and misleading because they failed to disclose and misrepresented the following adverse facts, among others: (1) that the Company had failed to timely write down the value of certain assets which had become impaired; (2 ) that the Company’s accounting and financial reporting policies and procedures for non-systematic (non-recurring) transactions were inadequate; (3) that the Company lacked adequate internal controls and was therefore unable to ascertain the true financial condition of the Company; and (4) that as a result, the values of the Company’s assets, net income and earnings per share were materially overstated at all relevant times.

The Class Period ends on June 27, 2003. On that date, DVI shocked the investing public when it announced that the SEC had rejected its March 30, 2003 quarterly report because it had not been reviewed by an independent auditor. The Company also disclosed that it was continuing to consider the need for the accounting change, and, if adopted, its net income for the third quarter of fiscal 2003, its earnings per share for the first nine months of fiscal 2003 and its net income for the fiscal year 2002 would all be drastically reduced. Specifically, the Company’s net income for the third quarter of fiscal 2003 would be reduced by $1.4 million, or 44.47% , its earnings per share for the nine months ended March 31, 2003 would be reduced by $0.10, or 44.45% and its net income for fiscal year ended June 30, 2002 would be reduced by $1.395 million or 34.12%. Investor reaction was swift and negative, with DVI stock falling from a close of $5.84 on June 26, 2003 to a close of $4.30 on June 27, 2003, or a single-day decline of more than 26% on very high trading volume.