Law Firm Milberg Weiss Announces Class Action Lawsuit Against AremisSoft Corporation.

Business Editors & Legal Writers

NEW YORK--(BUSINESS WIRE)--May 25, 2001

The law firm of Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP announces that a class action lawsuit was filed on May 24, 2001, on behalf of purchasers of the securities of AremisSoft Corporation ("AremisSoft" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: AREM) between December 17, 1999 and May 17, 2001, inclusive.

A copy of the complaint filed in this action is available from the Court, or can be viewed on Milberg Weiss' website at: http://www.milberg.com/aremissoft/

The action is pending in the United States District Court, District of New Jersey, located at Mitchell H. Cohen U.S. Courthouse, One John F. Gerry Plaza, Fourth and Cooper Streets, Camden, New Jersey 08101-2797, against defendants AremisSoft, Lycourgos Kyprianou ("Kyprianou") (Chief Executive Officer until July 2000 and Chairman of the Board of Directors) and Roys Poyiadjis ("Poyiadjis") (President and Chief Executive Officer after July 2000). The docket number for the case has not yet been assigned nor has a presiding judge been designated. A further notice to class members will be published when this information becomes available.

The Complaint alleges that defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. At the start of the Class Period, on December 17, 1999, defendants issued a press release announcing that AremisSoft had been awarded a contract by the National Health Insurance Fund of Bulgaria to automate the national healthcare system of Bulgaria and that the contract was valued at $37.5 million (the "Bulgarian Contract"). Following this announcement, and throughout the Class Period, defendants highlighted the Bulgarian contract and its value in the Company's press releases and public filings. Towards the end of the Class Period, however, questions began to be raised concerning the value of the Bulgarian Contract. Finally, on May 17, 2001, an article in the New York Times reported that officials of the World Bank and Bulgaria indicated that the value of their contract with AremisSoft is for less than $4 million, a far cry from the $37.5 million value that defendants attributed to the contract. Additionally, during the Class Period, defendants Poyiadjis and Kyprianou created blind trusts naming their families as beneficiaries and transferred 4.8 million shares, as well as options for 5.8 million shares, into them. As reported in a March filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission, the shares in the blind trusts have been sold and the options exercised and sold.

In response to the New York Times article and the serious questions raised therein concerning the value of the Bulgarian Contract, trading in the shares of AremisSoft were halted on May 18, 2001, until late afternoon, when AremisSoft issued a press release concerning the Bulgarian Contract and in effect admitted that its prior representations concerning the Bulgarian Contract had been misleading as the Company had not disclosed that AremisSoft had only won a small portion of the overall contract to automate the Bulgarian national healthcare system and that the Company would have to engage in competitive bidding for the remainder of the contract. When trading in AremisSoft stock reopened the price declined from $13.28 per share to $11.98 per share - a decline of 9.8% and a 35% decline from $18.47 per share, the price at which AremisSoft common stock was trading prior to the rumors concerning the value of the Bulgarian Contract began to filter through the market.

If you are a member of the proposed class, as defined above, and you wish to file a motion to serve as Lead Plaintiff in the Action, you must file such a motion by July 23, 2001, in the Office of the Clerk of the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, Mitchell H. Cohen U.S. Courthouse, One John F. Gerry Plaza, Fourth and Cooper Streets, Camden, New Jersey 08101-2797.

The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (the "PSLRA") sets forth the following requirements, among others, for any person seeking to serve as a representative:

Each plaintiff seeking to serve as a representative party on behalf of a class shall provide a sworn certification, which shall be personally signed by such plaintiff and filed with the complaint, that:

-- (1) states that the plaintiff has reviewed the complaint and authorized its
filing;

-- (2) states that the plaintiff did not purchase the security that is the
subject of the complaint at the direction of the plaintiff's counsel or in
order to participate in any private action arising under this chapter;

-- (3) states that the plaintiff is willing to serve as a representative party
on behalf of a class, including providing testimony at deposition and trial, if
necessary;

-- (4) sets forth all of the transactions of the plaintiff in the security that
is the subject of the complaint during the class period specified in the
complaint;

-- (5) identifies any other action under this chapter, filed during the 3-year
period preceding the date on which the certification is signed by the
plaintiff, in which the plaintiff has sought to serve as a representative party
on behalf of a class; and

-- (6) states that the plaintiff will not accept any payment for serving as a
representative party on behalf of a class beyond the plaintiff's pro rata share
of any recovery, except as ordered or approved by the court in accordance with
paragraph (4). 15 U.S.C.ss.78 u-4(a)(2)(A)(i)-(iv).

In addition, the PSLRA provides that the Court shall appoint as Lead Plaintiff the member or members of the class that the Court determines to be most capable of adequately representing the interests of class members. In determining the "most adequate plaintiff," the PSLRA provides that the Court shall adopt a rebuttable presumption that the most adequate plaintiff is the person or group that has either filed a complaint or made a motion for appointment as Lead Plaintiff, has the largest financial interest in the relief sought by the class, and otherwise satisfies the requirements of Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 15 U.S.C. ss. 78 u- 4(a)(3)(iii). At the Lead Plaintiff selection stage, this latter requirement involves a preliminary showing that the proposed Lead Plaintiff's claims are typical of the claims of the class members, and that the Lead Plaintiff will be an adequate representative of the class. Any member of the alleged class may seek to be appointed as Lead Plaintiff, even if that person has not filed a complaint. Your ability to share in any recovery is not, however, affected by the decision whether or not to serve as a lead plaintiff. You may retain Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP, or other counsel of your choice, to serve as your counsel in this action.

Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP, a 170-lawyer firm with offices in New York City, San Diego, San Francisco, Los Angeles, Boca Raton, Seattle and Philadelphia, is active in major litigations pending in federal and state courts throughout the United States. Milberg Weiss has taken a leading role in many important actions on behalf of defrauded investors, consumers, and companies, as well as victims of World War II and other human rights violations, and has been responsible for more than $30 billion in aggregate recoveries. The Milberg Weiss Web site (http://www.milberg.com) has more information about the firm.

If you wish to discuss this action with us, or have any questions concerning this notice or your rights and interests with regard to the case, please contact the following attorneys:

Steven G. Schulman or Samuel H. Rudman

One Pennsylvania Plaza, 49th fl.

New York, NY, 10119-0165

Phone number: (800) 320-5081

Email: aremissoftcase@milbergNY.com

Website: http://www.milberg.com