http://www.vianalelaw.com/Docs/Lucent.pdf

TO ALL PERSONS WHO HELD THE COMMON STOCK OF LUCENT TECHNOLOGIES
INC. ("LUCENT" OR THE "COMPANY"), EXCLUDING DEFENDANTS AND
THEIR
IMMEDIATE FAMILIES, AT ANY TIME DURING THE PERIOD FROM AND
INCLUDING APRIL 2, 2006 THROUGH AND INCLUDING NOVEMBER 30, 2006 (THE
"CLASS PERIOD"), INCLUDING ANY AND ALL OF THEIR IMMEDIATE OR REMOTE
SUCCESSORS IN INTEREST, PREDECESSORS, REPRESENTATIVES, TRUSTEES,
EXECUTORS, ADMINISTRATORS, HEIRS, ASSIGNS OR TRANSFEREES, AND ANY
PERSON OR ENTITY ACTING FOR OR ON BEHALF OF, OR CLAIMING UNDER, ANY
OF THEM, AND EACH OF THEM (THE "SETTLEMENT CLASS"). MEMBERS OF THE
SETTLEMENT CLASS ARE CALLED THE "CLASS MEMBERS."
PLEASE READ ALL OF THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY. YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE
AFFECTED BY THE LEGAL PROCEEDINGS IN THIS CLASS ACTION LITIGATION. IF
THE COURT APPROVES THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT, YOU WILL BE FOREVER
BARRED FROM CONTESTING THE FAIRNESS OF THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OR
FROM PURSUING THE RELEASED CLAIMS (AS DEFINED HEREIN).
IF YOU HELD LUCENT COMMON STOCK FOR THE BENEFIT OF ANOTHER, PLEASE
PROMPTLY TRANSFER THIS DOCUMENT TO ALL SUCH BENEFICIAL OWNERS.

1. Prior to the transaction discussed herein, Defendant Lucent was a
Delaware
corporation, with corporate offices located at 600 Mountain Avenue,
Murray Hill, NJ 07974.
2. Defendants Patricia F. Russo, Linnet F. Deily, Robert E. Denham,
Daniel S.
Goldin, Edward E. Hagenlocker, Karl J. Krapek, Richard C. Levin, Henry
B. Schacht, Franklin
A. Thomas, and Ronald A. Williams (collectively, the "Individual
Defendants," and collectively
with Lucent, the "Defendants") were members of the Lucent board of
directors (the "Lucent
Board") during the period at issue in the Action.
3. On April 2, 2006, Lucent announced it had entered into a merger
agreement with
Alcatel SA (the "Merger Agreement"), dated as of April 2, 2006,
pursuant to which shares of
Lucent would be converted into 0.1952 of an American Depositary Share
of Alcatel at such time
as the merger (the "Merger") is completed.
4. On April 3, 2006, plaintiffs Herbert Resnik and Ruby Resnik filed a
complaint
against Defendants in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Union County,
styled Resnik et al. v.
Lucent Technologies Inc. et al., Docket No. L-001230-06.
5. On May 12, 2006, AR Maley Trust filed a complaint in U.S. District
Court for the
Southern District of New York alleging that the terms of the Merger
were unfair and were the
product of fiduciary breaches by the Defendants (the "SDNY
Action"). The SDNY Action
complaint was amended on June 23, 2006.
6. Defendants have filed Answers to the Action and the SDNY Action
denying the
material allegations thereof, and Defendants continue to deny
vigorously any liability with
respect to all claims alleged in the Action or that they have committed
any violations of duty or
law or have acted in bad faith. While denying any fault or wrongdoing,
and relying on the
provision of the Stipulation that it shall in no event be construed as
or deemed to be evidence of
an admission or concession on the part of Defendants or any Released
Person (as defined below)
of any fault or liability whatsoever, and without conceding any
infirmity in their defenses against
the claims alleged in the Action, Defendants consider it desirable that
the Action be settled and
dismissed, subject to the terms and conditions of the Stipulation,
because the Settlement will (i)
halt the expense, inconvenience and distraction of continued litigation
of Plaintiffs' claims; (ii)
finally put to rest those claims; and (iii) dispel any uncertainty that
may exist as a result of this
litigation.
7. The parties recognize the uncertainties, time, and expenses involved
in litigation,
and have determined that it is in their best interests to resolve the
differences between them by
compromise and settlement of the claims and causes of action that were
or could have been
asserted by Plaintiffs in the Action or the SDNY Action, without any
admission of liability on
the part of either of the parties or their successors.
8. Counsel for the parties reached an agreement providing for the
proposed
settlement of the Action in a Memorandum of Understanding dated
September 1, 2006.