-----BEGIN PRIVACY-ENHANCED MESSAGE-----
Proc-Type: 2001,MIC-CLEAR
Originator-Name: webmaster@www.sec.gov
Originator-Key-Asymmetric:
 MFgwCgYEVQgBAQICAf8DSgAwRwJAW2sNKK9AVtBzYZmr6aGjlWyK3XmZv3dTINen
 TWSM7vrzLADbmYQaionwg5sDW3P6oaM5D3tdezXMm7z1T+B+twIDAQAB
MIC-Info: RSA-MD5,RSA,
 NJPo+bjiZZRirSesdcILDyhWvS2MvVde4+AdMP9pTr1yrFAgkPbnfwU2Mv8RirOs
 ceQ5UOG+AnQJbnfvQLew0w==

<SEC-DOCUMENT>0000950123-10-094180.txt : 20101019
<SEC-HEADER>0000950123-10-094180.hdr.sgml : 20101019
<ACCEPTANCE-DATETIME>20101019162203
ACCESSION NUMBER:		0000950123-10-094180
CONFORMED SUBMISSION TYPE:	SC 14D9/A
PUBLIC DOCUMENT COUNT:		2
FILED AS OF DATE:		20101019
DATE AS OF CHANGE:		20101019

SUBJECT COMPANY:	

	COMPANY DATA:	
		COMPANY CONFORMED NAME:			BlueLinx Holdings Inc.
		CENTRAL INDEX KEY:			0001301787
		STANDARD INDUSTRIAL CLASSIFICATION:	WHOLESALE-LUMBER, PLYWOOD, MILLWORK & WOOD PANELS [5031]
		IRS NUMBER:				000000000
		STATE OF INCORPORATION:			DE
		FISCAL YEAR END:			0101

	FILING VALUES:
		FORM TYPE:		SC 14D9/A
		SEC ACT:		1934 Act
		SEC FILE NUMBER:	005-80230
		FILM NUMBER:		101130600

	BUSINESS ADDRESS:	
		STREET 1:		4300 WILDWOOD PARKWAY
		CITY:			ATLANTA
		STATE:			GA
		ZIP:			30339
		BUSINESS PHONE:		770-953-7000

	MAIL ADDRESS:	
		STREET 1:		4300 WILDWOOD PARKWAY
		CITY:			ATLANTA
		STATE:			GA
		ZIP:			30339

FILED BY:		

	COMPANY DATA:	
		COMPANY CONFORMED NAME:			BlueLinx Holdings Inc.
		CENTRAL INDEX KEY:			0001301787
		STANDARD INDUSTRIAL CLASSIFICATION:	WHOLESALE-LUMBER, PLYWOOD, MILLWORK & WOOD PANELS [5031]
		IRS NUMBER:				000000000
		STATE OF INCORPORATION:			DE
		FISCAL YEAR END:			0101

	FILING VALUES:
		FORM TYPE:		SC 14D9/A

	BUSINESS ADDRESS:	
		STREET 1:		4300 WILDWOOD PARKWAY
		CITY:			ATLANTA
		STATE:			GA
		ZIP:			30339
		BUSINESS PHONE:		770-953-7000

	MAIL ADDRESS:	
		STREET 1:		4300 WILDWOOD PARKWAY
		CITY:			ATLANTA
		STATE:			GA
		ZIP:			30339
</SEC-HEADER>
<DOCUMENT>
<TYPE>SC 14D9/A
<SEQUENCE>1
<FILENAME>g24923sc14d9za.htm
<DESCRIPTION>SC 14D9/A
<TEXT>
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<TITLE>sc14d9za</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<!-- PAGEBREAK -->
<H5 align="left" style="page-break-before:always"><A HREF="#toc">Table of Contents</A></H5><P>
<DIV style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif">

<DIV style="width: 100%; border-bottom: 2pt solid black; font-size: 1pt">&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV style="width: 100%; border-bottom: 1pt solid black; font-size: 1pt">&nbsp;</DIV>



<DIV align="center" style="font-size: 14pt; margin-top: 12pt"><B>UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION</B>
</DIV>

<DIV align="center" style="font-size: 12pt"><B>Washington, D.C. 20549</B>
</DIV>


<DIV align="center" style="font-size: 18pt; margin-top: 18pt"><B>SCHEDULE 14D-9</B>
</DIV>

<DIV align="center" style="font-size: 10pt"><B>(Rule&nbsp;14d-101)</b></div>
<DIV align="center" style="font-size: 12pt"><B>(Amendment No.&nbsp;4)</B></DIV>


<DIV align="center" style="font-size: 12pt; margin-top: 12pt"><B>Solicitation/Recommendation Statement<BR>
Under Section&nbsp;14(d)(4) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934</B></DIV>


<DIV align="Center" style="font-size: 24pt; margin-top: 6pt"><B>BLUELINX HOLDINGS INC.</B>
</DIV>
<DIV align="center" style="font-size: 10pt"><I>(Name of Subject Company)</I></DIV>



<DIV align="Center" style="font-size: 24pt; margin-top: 6pt"><B>BLUELINX HOLDINGS INC.</B>
</DIV>
<DIV align="center" style="font-size: 10pt"><I>(Name of Person Filing Statement)</I></DIV>


<DIV align="center" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 12pt"><B>Common stock, par value $0.01 per share</B><BR>
<I>(Title of Class of Securities)</I></DIV>

<DIV align="center" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 12pt"><B>09624H109</B><BR>
<I>(CUSIP Number of Class of Securities)</I></DIV>

<DIV align="center" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 12pt"><B>Dean A. Adelman<BR>
Chief Administrative Officer<BR>
4300 Wildwood Parkway<BR>
Atlanta, Georgia 30339<BR>
(770)&nbsp;953-7000</B><BR>
<I>(Name, address and telephone number of person authorized to receive<BR>
notices and communications on behalf of the persons filing statement)</I></DIV>

<DIV align="center" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 12pt"><B><I>With copies to:</I></B></DIV>

<DIV align="center">
<TABLE style="font-size: 10pt" cellspacing="0" border="0" cellpadding="0" width="100%">
<!-- Begin Table Head -->
<TR valign="bottom">
    <TD width="47%">&nbsp;</TD>
    <TD width="5%">&nbsp;</TD>
    <TD width="47%">&nbsp;</TD>
</TR>
<TR></TR>
<!-- End Table Head -->
<!-- Begin Table Body -->
<TR valign="bottom">
    <TD align="center" valign="top"><B>Sara Epstein, Esq.</B>
</TD>
    <TD>&nbsp;</TD>
    <TD align="center" valign="top"><B>Mark L. Hanson, Esq.</B></TD>
</TR>
<TR valign="bottom">
    <TD align="center" valign="top"><B>BlueLinx Corporation</B>
</TD>
    <TD>&nbsp;</TD>
    <TD align="center" valign="top"><B>Jones Day</B></TD>
</TR>
<TR valign="bottom">
    <TD align="center" valign="top"><B>4300 Wildwood Parkway</B>
</TD>
    <TD>&nbsp;</TD>
    <TD align="center" valign="top"><B>1420 Peachtree St., N.E.</B></TD>
</TR>
<TR valign="bottom">
    <TD align="center" valign="top"><B>Atlanta, Georgia 30339</B>
</TD>
    <TD>&nbsp;</TD>
    <TD align="center" valign="top"><B>Atlanta, GA 30309</B></TD>
</TR>
<TR valign="bottom">
    <TD align="center" valign="top"><B>(770)&nbsp;953-7000</B>
</TD>
    <TD>&nbsp;</TD>
    <TD align="center" valign="top"><B>(404)&nbsp;521-3939</B></TD>
</TR>
<!-- End Table Body -->
</TABLE>
</DIV>

<DIV align="left" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 6pt"><FONT style="font-family: Wingdings">&#111;</FONT> Check the box if the filing relates solely to preliminary communications made before the
commencement of a tender offer.
</DIV>


<DIV style="width: 100%; border-bottom: 1pt solid black; margin-top: 10pt; font-size: 1pt">&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV style="width: 100%; border-bottom: 2pt solid black; font-size: 1pt">&nbsp;</DIV>












<P align="center" style="font-size: 10pt"><!-- Folio -->&nbsp;<!-- /Folio -->
</DIV>

<!-- PAGEBREAK -->
<P><HR noshade><P>

<DIV style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif">

<!-- TOC -->
<A name="toc"><DIV align="CENTER" style="page-break-before:always"><U><B>TABLE OF CONTENTS</B></U></DIV></A>

<P><CENTER>
<TABLE border="0" width="90%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0">
<TR>
	<TD width="3%"></TD>
	<TD width="3%"></TD>
	<TD width="3%"></TD>
	<TD width="3%"></TD>
	<TD width="3%"></TD>
	<TD width="3%"></TD>
	<TD width="3%"></TD>
	<TD width="3%"></TD>
	<TD width="76%"></TD>
</TR>
<TR><TD></TD><TD colspan="8"><A HREF="#000">Item&nbsp;8. Additional Information</A></TD></TR>
<TR><TD></TD><TD colspan="8"><A HREF="#001">Item&nbsp;9. Exhibits</A></TD></TR>
<TR><TD colspan="9"><A HREF="#002">SIGNATURE</A></TD></TR>
<TR><TD colspan="9"><A HREF="g24923exv99wew16.htm">EX-99.E.16</A></TD></TR>
</TABLE>
</CENTER>
<!-- /TOC -->
<P><HR noshade><P>
<H5 align="left" style="page-break-before:always"><A HREF="#toc">Table of Contents</A></H5><P>



<DIV align="left" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 12pt"><B>Purpose of the Amendment</B>
</DIV>


<DIV align="left" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 6pt">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;This Amendment No.&nbsp;4 (this &#147;<B>Amendment</B>&#148;) amends and supplements the Solicitation/Recommendation
Statement on Schedule&nbsp;14D-9 (together with the exhibits and annexes thereto and as amended and/or
supplemented from time to time, the &#147;<B>Schedule&nbsp;14D-9</B>&#148;), originally filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission (the &#147;<B>Commission</B>&#148;) on August&nbsp;13, 2010 by BlueLinx Holdings Inc., a Delaware
corporation (the &#147;<B>Company</B>&#148; or &#147;<B>BlueLinx</B>&#148;) as subsequently amended and restated on September&nbsp;27,
2010 and as further supplemented on October&nbsp;4, 2010 and October&nbsp;6, 2010, relating to the tender
offer by Cerberus ABP Investor LLC, a Delaware limited liability company (&#147;<B>CAI</B>&#148;), and a
wholly-owned subsidiary of Cerberus Capital Management, L.P. (&#147;<B>Cerberus Capital</B>&#148;), pursuant to
which CAI has offered to purchase all outstanding shares of common stock, par value $0.01 per share
of the Company (the &#147;<B>Shares</B>&#148;) not otherwise owned by CAI for $4.00 net per Share in cash, without
interest and less any applicable withholding taxes (the &#147;<B>Offer Price</B>&#148;), upon the terms and subject
to the conditions set forth in the Offer to Purchase, dated August&nbsp;2, 2010, as supplemented by the
Second Supplement to Offer to Purchase dated September&nbsp;22, 2010, and the related Letter of
Transmittal (which, together with any amendments or supplements thereto, collectively, constitute
the &#147;<B>Offer</B>&#148;). The Offer is described in a Tender Offer Statement on Schedule&nbsp;TO, filed by CAI and
Cerberus Capital with the Commission on August&nbsp;2, 2010 (as amended and/or supplemented from time to
time, and together with the Exhibits thereto, the &#147;<B>Schedule&nbsp;TO</B>&#148;).
</DIV>

<DIV align="left" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 6pt">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;All information in the Schedule&nbsp;14D-9 is incorporated into this Amendment by reference, except
that such information is hereby amended to the extent specifically provided herein.
</DIV>

<DIV align="left" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 6pt">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;This Amendment is being filed to reflect certain updates as reflected below.
</DIV>
<!-- link2 "Item&nbsp;8. Additional Information" -->
<DIV align="left"><A NAME="000"></A></DIV>

<DIV align="left" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 12pt"><B>Item&nbsp;8. Additional Information.</B>
</DIV>


<DIV align="left" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 6pt">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<B><I>Litigation.</I></B>
</DIV>

<DIV align="left" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 6pt">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<I>The following paragraph is inserted after the last paragraph of this subsection:</I>
</DIV>

<DIV align="left" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 6pt">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;We are aware that on October&nbsp;5, 2010, an individual stockholder of the Company filed a
complaint in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York, commencing a putative
class action lawsuit against CAI, the Company and each of the individual members of the Board. The
complaint, styled as <I>Gabriella Centonze v. George Judd, et al. </I>(Case No.&nbsp;651270/2010) seeks, among
other remedies, to preliminarily and permanently enjoin the Offer and Merger. In general, the
complaint alleges, among other things, that the members of the Board breached their fiduciary duty
by, among other things, allegedly failing to disclose material facts regarding the Offer and the
Merger. On October&nbsp;6, 2010, the Court denied the plaintiff&#146;s motion for injunctive relief. The
Company believes this case has no merit.
</DIV>

<DIV align="left" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 6pt">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<I>The following is inserted at the end of this section</I>:
</DIV>

<DIV align="left" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 6pt">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<B><I>Expiration of the Offer</I></B>.
</DIV>

<DIV align="left" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 6pt">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;On October&nbsp;19, 2010, CAI announced that the Offer expired at 12:00 midnight, New York City
time, on October&nbsp;18, 2010, without acceptance of the tendered Shares, due to the 90% Condition not
having been satisfied. According to the Schedule&nbsp;TO, a total of approximately 11,321,393 Shares
needed to be tendered and not withdrawn in order to satisfy the 90% Condition. According to CAI&#146;s
announcement, approximately 6,747,593 Shares were validly tendered. CAI and Cerberus Capital have instructed the depositary
for the Offer to promptly return all Shares tendered.
</DIV>

<P align="center" style="font-size: 10pt"><!-- Folio -->&nbsp;<!-- /Folio -->
</DIV>

<!-- PAGEBREAK -->
<P><HR noshade><P>
<H5 align="left" style="page-break-before:always"><A HREF="#toc">Table of Contents</A></H5><P>

<DIV style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif">
<!-- link2 "Item&nbsp;9. Exhibits" -->
<DIV align="left"><A NAME="001"></A></DIV>

<DIV align="left" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 12pt"><B>Item&nbsp;9. Exhibits.</B>
</DIV>


<DIV align="left" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 6pt">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<I>Item&nbsp;9 is hereby amended to add the following exhibit</I>:
</DIV>
<DIV align="center">
<TABLE style="font-size: 10pt" cellspacing="0" border="0" cellpadding="0" width="100%">
<!-- Begin Table Head -->
<TR valign="bottom">
    <TD width="8%">&nbsp;</TD>
    <TD width="2%">&nbsp;</TD>
    <TD width="90%">&nbsp;</TD>
</TR>
<TR style="font-size: 8pt" valign="bottom">
    <TD nowrap align="left" style="border-bottom: 1px solid #000000"><B>Exhibit No.</B></TD>
    <TD>&nbsp;</TD>
    <TD nowrap align="left" style="border-bottom: 1px solid #000000"><B>Description</B></TD>
</TR>

<!-- End Table Head -->
<!-- Begin Table Body -->
<TR valign="bottom">
    <TD valign="top"><DIV style="margin-left:0px; text-indent:-0px">(e)(16)
</DIV></TD>
    <TD>&nbsp;</TD>
    <TD align="left" valign="top">Complaint entitled <I>Gabriella Centonze v. George Judd, et al.</I>
filed on October&nbsp;5, 2010 in the Supreme Court of the State of
New York, County of New York.</TD>
</TR>
<!-- End Table Body -->
</TABLE>
</DIV>


<P align="center" style="font-size: 10pt"><!-- Folio -->- 2 -<!-- /Folio -->
</DIV>

<!-- PAGEBREAK -->
<P><HR noshade><P>
<H5 align="left" style="page-break-before:always"><A HREF="#toc">Table of Contents</A></H5><P>

<DIV style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif">

<!-- link1 "SIGNATURE" -->
<DIV align="left"><A NAME="002"></A></DIV>

<DIV align="center" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 18pt"><B>SIGNATURE</B>
</DIV>


<DIV align="left" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 6pt">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;After due inquiry and to the best of my knowledge and belief, I certify that the information
set forth in this Statement is true, complete and correct.
</DIV>

<TABLE width="100%" border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" style="font-size: 10pt">
<TR>
    <TD width="48%">&nbsp;</TD>
    <TD width="1%">&nbsp;</TD>
    <TD width="1%">&nbsp;</TD>
    <TD width="35%">&nbsp;</TD>
    <TD width="15%">&nbsp;</TD>
</TR>
<TR>
    <TD valign="top" align="left">&nbsp;</TD>
    <TD colspan="3" align="left"><B>BLUELINX HOLDINGS INC.</B><BR>
&nbsp;</TD>
    <TD>&nbsp;</TD>
</TR><TR>
    <TD align="left">&nbsp;</TD>
    <TD valign="top">By:&nbsp;&nbsp;</TD>
    <TD colspan="2" style="border-bottom: 1px solid #000000" align="left">/s/ H. Douglas Goforth&nbsp;</TD>
    <TD>&nbsp;</TD>
</TR><TR>
    <TD align="left">&nbsp;</TD>
    <TD>&nbsp;</TD>
    <TD valign="top">Name:&nbsp;&nbsp;</TD>
    <TD align="left">H. Douglas Goforth&nbsp;</TD>
    <TD>&nbsp;</TD>
</TR><TR>
    <TD align="left">&nbsp;</TD>
    <TD>&nbsp;</TD>
    <TD valign="top">Title:&nbsp;&nbsp;</TD>
    <TD align="left">Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer&nbsp;</TD>
    <TD>&nbsp;</TD>
</TR>
<TR>
    <TD colspan="5">&nbsp;</TD>
</TR>
</TABLE>
<DIV align="left" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 6pt">Dated: October&nbsp;19, 2010
</DIV>



<P align="center" style="font-size: 10pt"><!-- Folio -->- 3 -<!-- /Folio -->
</DIV>



</BODY>
</HTML>
</TEXT>
</DOCUMENT>
<DOCUMENT>
<TYPE>EX-99.E.16
<SEQUENCE>2
<FILENAME>g24923exv99wew16.htm
<DESCRIPTION>EX-99.E.16
<TEXT>
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<TITLE>exv99wew16</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<!-- PAGEBREAK -->
<DIV style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif">


<DIV align="right" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 12pt"><B>Exhibit (e)(16)</B>
</DIV>

<DIV align="center">
<TABLE style="font-size: 10pt" cellspacing="0" border="0" cellpadding="0" width="100%">
<!-- Begin Table Head -->
<TR valign="bottom">
    <TD width="47%"></TD>
    <TD width="5%"></TD>
    <TD width="47%"></TD>
</TR>
<!-- End Table Head -->
<!-- Begin Table Body -->
<TR valign="bottom">
    <TD align="left" valign="top">&nbsp;
</TD>
    <TD>&nbsp;</TD>
    <TD align="right" valign="top">INDEX NO. 651270/2010</TD>
</TR>
<TR valign="bottom">
    <TD align="left" valign="top">NYSCEF DOC. NO. 26
</TD>
    <TD>&nbsp;</TD>
    <TD align="right" valign="top">RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/05/2010</TD>
</TR>
<!-- End Table Body -->
</TABLE>
</DIV>

<DIV align="center">
<TABLE style="font-size: 10pt" cellspacing="0" border="0" cellpadding="0" width="100%">
<!-- Begin Table Head -->
<TR valign="bottom">
    <TD width="50%">&nbsp;</TD>
    <TD width="10%">&nbsp;</TD>
    <TD width="40%">&nbsp;</TD>
</TR>
<TR></TR>
<!-- End Table Head -->
<!-- Begin Table Body -->
<TR valign="bottom">
    <TD valign="top"><DIV style="margin-left:0px; text-indent:-0px">SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK</DIV></TD>
    <TD>&nbsp;</TD>
    <TD align="left" valign="top">&nbsp;</TD>
</TR>
<TR valign="bottom">
    <TD valign="top"><DIV style="margin-left:0px; text-indent:-0px">COUNTY OF NEW YORK</DIV></TD>
    <TD>&nbsp;</TD>
    <TD align="left" valign="top">&nbsp;</TD>
</TR>
<TR valign="bottom">
    <TD valign="top"><DIV style="margin-left:0px; text-indent:-0px">-----------------------------------------------------------------------------x</DIV></TD>
    <TD>&nbsp;</TD>
    <TD align="left" valign="top">&nbsp;</TD>
</TR>
<TR valign="bottom">
    <TD valign="top"><DIV style="margin-left:0px; text-indent:-0px">GABRIELLA CENTONZE, individually and</DIV></TD>
    <TD>&nbsp;</TD>
    <TD align="left" valign="top">&nbsp;</TD>
</TR>
<TR valign="bottom">
    <TD valign="top"><DIV style="margin-left:0px; text-indent:-0px">on behalf of all others similarly situated,</DIV></TD>
    <TD>&nbsp;</TD>
    <TD align="left" valign="top">&nbsp;</TD>
</TR>
<TR valign="bottom">
    <TD valign="top"><DIV style="margin-left:0px; text-indent:-0px">&nbsp;
</DIV></TD>
    <TD>&nbsp;</TD>
    <TD align="left" valign="top">Index No.&nbsp;651270/2010</TD>
</TR>
<TR valign="bottom">
    <TD align="right" valign="top"><DIV style="margin-left:0px; text-indent:-0px">Plaintiff,</DIV></TD>
    <TD>&nbsp;</TD>
    <TD align="left" valign="top">&nbsp;</TD>
</TR>
<TR valign="bottom"><!-- Blank Space -->
    <TD valign="top"><DIV style="margin-left:0px; text-indent:-0px">&nbsp;</DIV></TD>
    <TD>&nbsp;</TD>
    <TD align="left" valign="top">&nbsp;</TD>
</TR>
<TR valign="bottom">
    <TD valign="top"><DIV style="margin-left:0px; text-indent:-0px">v.</DIV></TD>
    <TD>&nbsp;</TD>
    <TD align="left" valign="top">&nbsp;</TD>
</TR>
<TR valign="bottom"><!-- Blank Space -->
    <TD valign="top"><DIV style="margin-left:0px; text-indent:-0px">&nbsp;</DIV></TD>
    <TD>&nbsp;</TD>
    <TD align="left" valign="top">&nbsp;</TD>
</TR>
<TR valign="bottom">
    <TD valign="top"><DIV style="margin-left:0px; text-indent:-0px">GEORGE JUDD, HOWARD COHEN,</DIV></TD>
    <TD>&nbsp;</TD>
    <TD align="left" valign="top">&nbsp;</TD>
</TR>
<TR valign="bottom">
    <TD valign="top"><DIV style="margin-left:0px; text-indent:-0px">ROBERT WARDEN, M. RICHARD</DIV></TD>
    <TD>&nbsp;</TD>
    <TD align="left" valign="top">&nbsp;</TD>
</TR>
<TR valign="bottom">
    <TD valign="top"><DIV style="margin-left:0px; text-indent:-0px">WARNER, STEVEN MAYER, MARK</DIV></TD>
    <TD>&nbsp;</TD>
    <TD align="left" valign="top">&nbsp;</TD>
</TR>
<TR valign="bottom">
    <TD valign="top"><DIV style="margin-left:0px; text-indent:-0px">SUWYN, RICHARD GRANT, RICHARD</DIV></TD>
    <TD>&nbsp;</TD>
    <TD align="left" valign="top">&nbsp;</TD>
</TR>
<TR valign="bottom">
    <TD valign="top"><DIV style="margin-left:0px; text-indent:-0px">MARCHESE, CHARLES MCELREA, ALAN</DIV></TD>
    <TD>&nbsp;</TD>
    <TD align="left" valign="top">&nbsp;</TD>
</TR>
<TR valign="bottom">
    <TD valign="top"><DIV style="margin-left:0px; text-indent:-0px">SCHUMACHER, BLUELINX HOLDINGS</DIV></TD>
    <TD>&nbsp;</TD>
    <TD align="left" valign="top">&nbsp;</TD>
</TR>
<TR valign="bottom">
    <TD valign="top"><DIV style="margin-left:0px; text-indent:-0px">INC., and CERBERUS ABP INVESTOR</DIV></TD>
    <TD>&nbsp;</TD>
    <TD align="left" valign="top">&nbsp;</TD>
</TR>
<TR valign="bottom">
    <TD valign="top"><DIV style="margin-left:0px; text-indent:-0px">LLC,</DIV></TD>
    <TD>&nbsp;</TD>
    <TD align="left" valign="top">&nbsp;</TD>
</TR>
<TR valign="bottom"><!-- Blank Space -->
    <TD valign="top"><DIV style="margin-left:0px; text-indent:-0px">&nbsp;</DIV></TD>
    <TD>&nbsp;</TD>
    <TD align="left" valign="top">&nbsp;</TD>
</TR>
<TR valign="bottom">
    <TD align="center" valign="top"><DIV style="margin-left:200px; text-indent:-15px">Defendants</DIV></TD>
    <TD>&nbsp;</TD>
    <TD align="left" valign="top">&nbsp;</TD>
</TR>
<TR valign="bottom">
    <TD valign="top" nowrap><DIV style="margin-left:0px; text-indent:-0px">-----------------------------------------------------------------------------x</DIV></TD>
    <TD>&nbsp;</TD>
    <TD align="left" valign="top">&nbsp;</TD>
</TR>
<!-- End Table Body -->
</TABLE>
</DIV>


<DIV align="center" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 18pt"><B>MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF&#146;S</B><BR>
<U><B>MOTION FOR A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER</B></U>
</DIV>

<DIV align="center">
<TABLE style="font-size: 10pt" cellspacing="0" border="0" cellpadding="0" width="100%">
<!-- Begin Table Head -->
<TR valign="bottom">
    <TD width="50%">&nbsp;</TD>
    <TD width="10%">&nbsp;</TD>
    <TD width="40%">&nbsp;</TD>
</TR>
<TR></TR>
<!-- End Table Head -->
<!-- Begin Table Body -->
<TR valign="bottom">
    <TD valign="top"><DIV style="margin-left:0px; text-indent:-0px">&nbsp;
</DIV></TD>
    <TD>&nbsp;</TD>
    <TD align="left" valign="top"><B>LEVI &#038; KORSINSKY, LLP</B></TD>
</TR>
<TR valign="bottom">
    <TD valign="top"><DIV style="margin-left:0px; text-indent:-0px">&nbsp;
</DIV></TD>
    <TD>&nbsp;</TD>
    <TD align="left" valign="top">Joseph E. Levi </TD>
</TR>
<TR valign="bottom">
    <TD valign="top"><DIV style="margin-left:0px; text-indent:-0px">&nbsp;
</DIV></TD>
    <TD>&nbsp;</TD>
    <TD align="left" valign="top">Shannon L. Hopkins </TD>
</TR>
<TR valign="bottom">
    <TD valign="top"><DIV style="margin-left:0px; text-indent:-0px">&nbsp;
</DIV></TD>
    <TD>&nbsp;</TD>
    <TD align="left" valign="top">30 Broad Street, 15th Floor </TD>
</TR>
<TR valign="bottom">
    <TD valign="top"><DIV style="margin-left:0px; text-indent:-0px">&nbsp;
</DIV></TD>
    <TD>&nbsp;</TD>
    <TD align="left" valign="top">New York, New York 10004 <BR>Tel: (212)&nbsp;363-7500</TD>
</TR>
<TR valign="bottom">
    <TD valign="top"><DIV style="margin-left:0px; text-indent:-0px">&nbsp;
</DIV></TD>
    <TD>&nbsp;</TD>
    <TD align="left" valign="top">Fax: (212)&nbsp;363-7171</TD>
</TR>
<TR valign="bottom"><!-- Blank Space -->
    <TD valign="top"><DIV style="margin-left:0px; text-indent:-0px">&nbsp;</DIV></TD>
    <TD>&nbsp;</TD>
    <TD align="left" valign="top">&nbsp;</TD>
</TR>
<TR valign="bottom">
    <TD valign="top"><DIV style="margin-left:0px; text-indent:-0px">&nbsp;
</DIV></TD>
    <TD>&nbsp;</TD>
    <TD align="left" valign="top"><I>Attorneys for Plaintiff</I></TD>
</TR>
<TR valign="bottom"><!-- Blank Space -->
    <TD valign="top"><DIV style="margin-left:0px; text-indent:-0px">&nbsp;</DIV></TD>
    <TD>&nbsp;</TD>
    <TD align="left" valign="top">&nbsp;</TD>
</TR>
<TR valign="bottom">
    <TD valign="top"><DIV style="margin-left:0px; text-indent:-0px">&nbsp;
</DIV></TD>
    <TD>&nbsp;</TD>
    <TD align="left" valign="top">DATED: October&nbsp;4, 2010</TD>
</TR>
<!-- End Table Body -->
</TABLE>
</DIV>



<P align="center" style="font-size: 10pt"><!-- Folio --><!-- /Folio -->
</DIV>



<!-- PAGEBREAK -->
<P><HR noshade><P>
<H5 align="left" style="page-break-before:always">&nbsp;</H5><P>
<DIV style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif">


<DIV align="center" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 18pt"><u><B>TABLE OF CONTENTS</B></u>
</DIV>

<DIV align="center">
<TABLE style="font-size: 10pt" cellspacing="0" border="0" cellpadding="0" width="100%">
<!-- Begin Table Head -->
<TR valign="bottom">
    <TD width="94%">&nbsp;</TD>
    <TD width="2%">&nbsp;</TD>
    <TD width="1%">&nbsp;</TD>
    <TD width="1%">&nbsp;</TD>
    <TD width="2%">&nbsp;</TD>
</TR>
<TR></TR>
<!-- End Table Head -->
<!-- Begin Table Body -->
<TR valign="bottom">
    <TD><DIV style="margin-left:15px; text-indent:-15px">INTRODUCTION</DIV></TD>
    <TD>&nbsp;</TD>
    <TD>&nbsp;</TD>
    <TD align="right">1</TD>
    <TD>&nbsp;</TD>
</TR>
<TR valign="bottom"><!-- Blank Space -->
    <TD><DIV style="margin-left:15px; text-indent:-15px">&nbsp;</DIV></TD>
    <TD>&nbsp;</TD>
    <TD>&nbsp;</TD>
    <TD>&nbsp;</TD>
    <TD>&nbsp;</TD>
</TR>
<TR valign="bottom">
    <TD><DIV style="margin-left:15px; text-indent:-15px">STATEMENT OF FACTS</DIV></TD>
    <TD>&nbsp;</TD>
    <TD>&nbsp;</TD>
    <TD align="right">3</TD>
    <TD>&nbsp;</TD>
</TR>
<TR valign="bottom"><!-- Blank Space -->
    <TD><DIV style="margin-left:15px; text-indent:-15px">&nbsp;</DIV></TD>
    <TD>&nbsp;</TD>
    <TD>&nbsp;</TD>
    <TD>&nbsp;</TD>
    <TD>&nbsp;</TD>
</TR>
<TR valign="bottom">
    <TD><DIV style="margin-left:15px; text-indent:-15px">I. Company Background</DIV></TD>
    <TD>&nbsp;</TD>
    <TD>&nbsp;</TD>
    <TD align="right">3</TD>
    <TD>&nbsp;</TD>
</TR>
<TR valign="bottom"><!-- Blank Space -->
    <TD><DIV style="margin-left:15px; text-indent:-15px">&nbsp;</DIV></TD>
    <TD>&nbsp;</TD>
    <TD>&nbsp;</TD>
    <TD>&nbsp;</TD>
    <TD>&nbsp;</TD>
</TR>
<TR valign="bottom">
    <TD><DIV style="margin-left:15px; text-indent:-15px">II. The Proposed Transaction is Coercive</DIV></TD>
    <TD>&nbsp;</TD>
    <TD>&nbsp;</TD>
    <TD align="right">6</TD>
    <TD>&nbsp;</TD>
</TR>
<TR valign="bottom"><!-- Blank Space -->
    <TD><DIV style="margin-left:15px; text-indent:-15px">&nbsp;</DIV></TD>
    <TD>&nbsp;</TD>
    <TD>&nbsp;</TD>
    <TD>&nbsp;</TD>
    <TD>&nbsp;</TD>
</TR>
<TR valign="bottom">
    <TD><DIV style="margin-left:15px; text-indent:-15px">III. The Materially Misleading and Incomplete Recommendation Statement</DIV></TD>
    <TD>&nbsp;</TD>
    <TD>&nbsp;</TD>
    <TD align="right">8</TD>
    <TD>&nbsp;</TD>
</TR>
<TR valign="bottom"><!-- Blank Space -->
    <TD><DIV style="margin-left:15px; text-indent:-15px">&nbsp;</DIV></TD>
    <TD>&nbsp;</TD>
    <TD>&nbsp;</TD>
    <TD>&nbsp;</TD>
    <TD>&nbsp;</TD>
</TR>
<TR valign="bottom">
    <TD><DIV style="margin-left:30px; text-indent:-15px">A. Material Mistakes in the computations of Value in the Fairness Opinion</DIV></TD>
    <TD>&nbsp;</TD>
    <TD>&nbsp;</TD>
    <TD align="right">8</TD>
    <TD>&nbsp;</TD>
</TR>
<TR valign="bottom"><!-- Blank Space -->
    <TD><DIV style="margin-left:15px; text-indent:-15px">&nbsp;</DIV></TD>
    <TD>&nbsp;</TD>
    <TD>&nbsp;</TD>
    <TD>&nbsp;</TD>
    <TD>&nbsp;</TD>
</TR>
<TR valign="bottom">
    <TD><DIV style="margin-left:30px; text-indent:-15px">B. Material Omissions in the Fairness Opinion</DIV></TD>
    <TD>&nbsp;</TD>
    <TD>&nbsp;</TD>
    <TD align="right">10</TD>
    <TD>&nbsp;</TD>
</TR>
<TR valign="bottom"><!-- Blank Space -->
    <TD><DIV style="margin-left:15px; text-indent:-15px">&nbsp;</DIV></TD>
    <TD>&nbsp;</TD>
    <TD>&nbsp;</TD>
    <TD>&nbsp;</TD>
    <TD>&nbsp;</TD>
</TR>
<TR valign="bottom">
    <TD><DIV style="margin-left:30px; text-indent:-15px">C. Material Omissions regarding the Sales Process</DIV></TD>
    <TD>&nbsp;</TD>
    <TD>&nbsp;</TD>
    <TD align="right">12</TD>
    <TD>&nbsp;</TD>
</TR>
<TR valign="bottom"><!-- Blank Space -->
    <TD><DIV style="margin-left:15px; text-indent:-15px">&nbsp;</DIV></TD>
    <TD>&nbsp;</TD>
    <TD>&nbsp;</TD>
    <TD>&nbsp;</TD>
    <TD>&nbsp;</TD>
</TR>
<TR valign="bottom">
    <TD><DIV style="margin-left:15px; text-indent:-15px">ARGUMENT</DIV></TD>
    <TD>&nbsp;</TD>
    <TD>&nbsp;</TD>
    <TD align="right">13</TD>
    <TD>&nbsp;</TD>
</TR>
<TR valign="bottom"><!-- Blank Space -->
    <TD><DIV style="margin-left:15px; text-indent:-15px">&nbsp;</DIV></TD>
    <TD>&nbsp;</TD>
    <TD>&nbsp;</TD>
    <TD>&nbsp;</TD>
    <TD>&nbsp;</TD>
</TR>
<TR valign="bottom">
    <TD><DIV style="margin-left:15px; text-indent:-15px">I. THE PROPOSED TRANSACTION SHOULD BE ENJOINED TO PREVENT
SHAREHOLDERS FROM SUFFERING IRREPARABL HARM</DIV></TD>
    <TD>&nbsp;</TD>
    <TD>&nbsp;</TD>
    <TD align="right">13</TD>
    <TD>&nbsp;</TD>
</TR>
<TR valign="bottom"><!-- Blank Space -->
    <TD><DIV style="margin-left:15px; text-indent:-15px">&nbsp;</DIV></TD>
    <TD>&nbsp;</TD>
    <TD>&nbsp;</TD>
    <TD>&nbsp;</TD>
    <TD>&nbsp;</TD>
</TR>
<TR valign="bottom">
    <TD><DIV style="margin-left:30px; text-indent:-15px">A. Applicable Standard for Granting Injunctive Relief</DIV></TD>
    <TD>&nbsp;</TD>
    <TD>&nbsp;</TD>
    <TD align="right">13</TD>
    <TD>&nbsp;</TD>
</TR>
<TR valign="bottom"><!-- Blank Space -->
    <TD><DIV style="margin-left:15px; text-indent:-15px">&nbsp;</DIV></TD>
    <TD>&nbsp;</TD>
    <TD>&nbsp;</TD>
    <TD>&nbsp;</TD>
    <TD>&nbsp;</TD>
</TR>
<TR valign="bottom">
    <TD><DIV style="margin-left:30px; text-indent:-15px">B. The Tender Offer is Coercive</DIV></TD>
    <TD>&nbsp;</TD>
    <TD>&nbsp;</TD>
    <TD align="right">14</TD>
    <TD>&nbsp;</TD>
</TR>
<TR valign="bottom"><!-- Blank Space -->
    <TD><DIV style="margin-left:15px; text-indent:-15px">&nbsp;</DIV></TD>
    <TD>&nbsp;</TD>
    <TD>&nbsp;</TD>
    <TD>&nbsp;</TD>
    <TD>&nbsp;</TD>
</TR>
<TR valign="bottom">
    <TD><DIV style="margin-left:30px; text-indent:-15px">C. Plaintiff Is Likely to Succeed on His Claim That the Board Failed to
Provide Shareholders with Material Information</DIV></TD>
    <TD>&nbsp;</TD>
    <TD>&nbsp;</TD>
    <TD align="right">16</TD>
    <TD>&nbsp;</TD>
</TR>
<TR valign="bottom"><!-- Blank Space -->
    <TD><DIV style="margin-left:15px; text-indent:-15px">&nbsp;</DIV></TD>
    <TD>&nbsp;</TD>
    <TD>&nbsp;</TD>
    <TD>&nbsp;</TD>
    <TD>&nbsp;</TD>
</TR>
<TR valign="bottom">
    <TD><DIV style="margin-left:45px; text-indent:-15px">1. Material Mistakes in the computations of Value in the Fairness Opinion</DIV></TD>
    <TD>&nbsp;</TD>
    <TD>&nbsp;</TD>
    <TD align="right">17</TD>
    <TD>&nbsp;</TD>
</TR>
<TR valign="bottom"><!-- Blank Space -->
    <TD><DIV style="margin-left:15px; text-indent:-15px">&nbsp;</DIV></TD>
    <TD>&nbsp;</TD>
    <TD>&nbsp;</TD>
    <TD>&nbsp;</TD>
    <TD>&nbsp;</TD>
</TR>
<TR valign="bottom">
    <TD><DIV style="margin-left:45px; text-indent:-15px">2. Material Omissions and Misrepresentations Regarding Financial
Analyses Performed by Citadel</DIV></TD>
    <TD>&nbsp;</TD>
    <TD>&nbsp;</TD>
    <TD align="right">19</TD>
    <TD>&nbsp;</TD>
</TR>
<TR valign="bottom"><!-- Blank Space -->
    <TD><DIV style="margin-left:15px; text-indent:-15px">&nbsp;</DIV></TD>
    <TD>&nbsp;</TD>
    <TD>&nbsp;</TD>
    <TD>&nbsp;</TD>
    <TD>&nbsp;</TD>
</TR>
<TR valign="bottom">
    <TD><DIV style="margin-left:30px; text-indent:-15px">D. Defendants&#146; Failure to Disclose Material Information Will Cause
Irreparable Harm to BlueLinx Shareholders</DIV></TD>
    <TD>&nbsp;</TD>
    <TD>&nbsp;</TD>
    <TD align="right">20</TD>
    <TD>&nbsp;</TD>
</TR>
<TR valign="bottom"><!-- Blank Space -->
    <TD><DIV style="margin-left:15px; text-indent:-15px">&nbsp;</DIV></TD>
    <TD>&nbsp;</TD>
    <TD>&nbsp;</TD>
    <TD>&nbsp;</TD>
    <TD>&nbsp;</TD>
</TR>
<TR valign="bottom">
    <TD><DIV style="margin-left:30px; text-indent:-15px">E. The Equities Are Balanced in Plaintiff&#146;s Favor</DIV></TD>
    <TD>&nbsp;</TD>
    <TD>&nbsp;</TD>
    <TD align="right">21</TD>
    <TD>&nbsp;</TD>
</TR>
<TR valign="bottom"><!-- Blank Space -->
    <TD><DIV style="margin-left:15px; text-indent:-15px">&nbsp;</DIV></TD>
    <TD>&nbsp;</TD>
    <TD>&nbsp;</TD>
    <TD>&nbsp;</TD>
    <TD>&nbsp;</TD>
</TR>
<TR valign="bottom">
    <TD><DIV style="margin-left:15px; text-indent:-15px">CONCLUSION</DIV></TD>
    <TD>&nbsp;</TD>
    <TD>&nbsp;</TD>
    <TD align="right">23</TD>
    <TD>&nbsp;</TD>
</TR>
<!-- End Table Body -->
</TABLE>
</DIV>



<P align="center" style="font-size: 10pt"><!-- Folio -->i<!-- /Folio -->
</DIV>




<!-- PAGEBREAK -->
<P><HR noshade><P>
<H5 align="left" style="page-break-before:always">&nbsp;</H5><P>
<DIV style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif">


<DIV align="center" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 18pt">TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
</DIV>

<DIV align="center">
<TABLE style="font-size: 10pt" cellspacing="0" border="0" cellpadding="0" width="100%">
<!-- Begin Table Head -->
<TR valign="bottom">
    <TD width="90%">&nbsp;</TD>
    <TD width="2%">&nbsp;</TD>
    <TD width="3%">&nbsp;</TD>
    <TD width="1%">&nbsp;</TD>
    <TD width="3%">&nbsp;</TD>
</TR>
<TR style="font-size: 8pt" valign="bottom">
    <TD nowrap align="left"><B>Cases</B></TD>
    <TD>&nbsp;</TD>
    <TD>&nbsp;</TD>
    <TD>&nbsp;</TD>
    <TD>&nbsp;</TD>
</TR>

<!-- End Table Head -->
<!-- Begin Table Body -->
<TR valign="bottom">
    <TD><DIV style="margin-left:15px; text-indent:-15px"><I>Arnold v. Soc&#146;y for Sav. Bancorp., Inc.</I>, 650 A.2d 1270 (Del. 1994)</DIV></TD>
    <TD>&nbsp;</TD>
    <TD>&nbsp;</TD>
    <TD align="right">16</TD>
    <TD>&nbsp;</TD>
</TR>
<TR valign="bottom">
    <TD><DIV style="margin-left:15px; text-indent:-15px"><I>Blanchette v. Providence &#038; Worcester Co., </I>428 F. Supp. 347 (D. Del. 1977)</DIV></TD>
    <TD>&nbsp;</TD>
    <TD>&nbsp;</TD>
    <TD align="right">16</TD>
    <TD>&nbsp;</TD>
</TR>
<TR valign="bottom">
    <TD><DIV style="margin-left:15px; text-indent:-15px"><I>Burlington Indus., </I>666 F. Supp. 799</DIV></TD>
    <TD>&nbsp;</TD>
    <TD>&nbsp;</TD>
    <TD align="right">23</TD>
    <TD>&nbsp;</TD>
</TR>
<TR valign="bottom">
    <TD><DIV style="margin-left:15px; text-indent:-15px"><I>Cruz v. McAneney</I>, 29 A.D.3d 512, 813 N.Y.S.2d 671 (2d Dep&#146;t 2006)</DIV></TD>
    <TD>&nbsp;</TD>
    <TD>&nbsp;</TD>
    <TD align="right">13</TD>
    <TD>&nbsp;</TD>
</TR>
<TR valign="bottom">
    <TD><DIV style="margin-left:15px; text-indent:-15px"><I>In re Anderson</I>, 519 A.2d 669</DIV></TD>
    <TD>&nbsp;</TD>
    <TD>&nbsp;</TD>
    <TD align="right">24</TD>
    <TD>&nbsp;</TD>
</TR>
<TR valign="bottom">
    <TD><DIV style="margin-left:15px; text-indent:-15px"><I>In re Emerging Commun&#146;s., Inc. S&#146;holder Litig.</I>, No.&nbsp;Civ. A. 16415, 2004 WL 1305745
(Del. Ch. June&nbsp;4, 2004)</DIV></TD>
    <TD>&nbsp;</TD>
    <TD>&nbsp;</TD>
    <TD align="right">18</TD>
    <TD>&nbsp;</TD>
</TR>
<TR valign="bottom">
    <TD><DIV style="margin-left:15px; text-indent:-15px"><I>In re HCA Inc. S&#146;holders Litig.</I>, 2006 WL 3480273 (Del. Ch. Nov. 20, 2006)</DIV></TD>
    <TD>&nbsp;</TD>
    <TD>&nbsp;</TD>
    <TD align="right">21</TD>
    <TD>&nbsp;</TD>
</TR>
<TR valign="bottom">
    <TD nowrap><DIV style="margin-left:15px; text-indent:-15px"><I>In re Netsmart Technologies, Inc. S&#146;holders Litig</I>., C.A. No.&nbsp;2563-VCS, 924 A.2d 171
32 Del. J. Corp. L. 941 (Del. Ch. 2007)</DIV></TD>
    <TD>&nbsp;</TD>
    <TD>&nbsp;</TD>
    <TD align="right">21</TD>
    <TD>&nbsp;</TD>
</TR>
<TR valign="bottom">
    <TD><DIV style="margin-left:15px; text-indent:-15px"><I>In re PNB Hldg. Co. S&#146;holder Litig.</I>, No.&nbsp;Civ. A. 28-N, 2006 WL 2403999 (Del. Ch.
2006)</DIV></TD>
    <TD>&nbsp;</TD>
    <TD>&nbsp;</TD>
    <TD align="right">18</TD>
    <TD>&nbsp;</TD>
</TR>
<TR valign="bottom">
    <TD><DIV style="margin-left:15px; text-indent:-15px"><I>In re Pure Resources, Inc. S&#146;holder Litig., </I>808 A.2d 421 (Del. Ch. 2002)</DIV></TD>
    <TD>&nbsp;</TD>
    <TD>&nbsp;</TD>
    <TD nowrap align="right">14, 20, 21</TD>
    <TD>&nbsp;</TD>
</TR>
<TR valign="bottom">
    <TD><DIV style="margin-left:15px; text-indent:-15px"><I>In re Staples S&#146;holder Litig.</I>, 792 A.2d 934 (Del. Ch. 2001)</DIV></TD>
    <TD>&nbsp;</TD>
    <TD>&nbsp;</TD>
    <TD align="right">23</TD>
    <TD>&nbsp;</TD>
</TR>
<TR valign="bottom">
    <TD><DIV style="margin-left:15px; text-indent:-15px"><I>In re the MONY Group Inc. S&#146;holder Litig.</I>, 852 A.2d 9 (Del. Ch. 2004)</DIV></TD>
    <TD>&nbsp;</TD>
    <TD>&nbsp;</TD>
    <TD align="right">20</TD>
    <TD>&nbsp;</TD>
</TR>
<TR valign="bottom">
    <TD><DIV style="margin-left:15px; text-indent:-15px"><I>ODS Technologies, L.P. v. Marshall</I>, 832 A.2d 1254 (Del. Ch. 2003)</DIV></TD>
    <TD>&nbsp;</TD>
    <TD>&nbsp;</TD>
    <TD nowrap align="right">21, 22</TD>
    <TD>&nbsp;</TD>
</TR>
<TR valign="bottom">
    <TD><DIV style="margin-left:15px; text-indent:-15px"><I>Ortsman v. Green, </I>2007 Del. Ch. LEXIS 29 (Del. Ch. Feb. 28, 2007) C.A. No.&nbsp;2670-N</DIV></TD>
    <TD>&nbsp;</TD>
    <TD>&nbsp;</TD>
    <TD align="right">21</TD>
    <TD>&nbsp;</TD>
</TR>
<TR valign="bottom">
    <TD><DIV style="margin-left:15px; text-indent:-15px"><I>Qwest Communications Int&#146;l Inc. v. Nat&#146;l Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh</I>,
821 A.2d 323 (Del. Ch. 2003)</DIV></TD>
    <TD>&nbsp;</TD>
    <TD>&nbsp;</TD>
    <TD align="right">14</TD>
    <TD>&nbsp;</TD>
</TR>
<TR valign="bottom">
    <TD><DIV style="margin-left:15px; text-indent:-15px"><I>Rosenblatt v. Getty Oil Co.</I>, 493 A.2d 929 (Del. 1985)</DIV></TD>
    <TD>&nbsp;</TD>
    <TD>&nbsp;</TD>
    <TD nowrap align="right">16, 17</TD>
    <TD>&nbsp;</TD>
</TR>
<TR valign="bottom">
    <TD><DIV style="margin-left:15px; text-indent:-15px"><I>Shell Petroleum, Inc. v. Smith</I>, 606 A.2d 112 (Del. 1992)</DIV></TD>
    <TD>&nbsp;</TD>
    <TD>&nbsp;</TD>
    <TD align="right">16</TD>
    <TD>&nbsp;</TD>
</TR>
<TR valign="bottom">
    <TD><DIV style="margin-left:15px; text-indent:-15px"><I>Simonetti Rollover IRA v. Margolis</I>, C.A. No.&nbsp;3694-VCN, 2008 WL 5048692
(Del. Ch. June&nbsp;27, 2008)</DIV></TD>
    <TD>&nbsp;</TD>
    <TD>&nbsp;</TD>
    <TD nowrap align="right">17, 20</TD>
    <TD>&nbsp;</TD>
</TR>
<TR valign="bottom">
    <TD><DIV style="margin-left:15px; text-indent:-15px"><I>Stroud v. Grace</I>, 606 A.2d 75 (Del. 1992)</DIV></TD>
    <TD>&nbsp;</TD>
    <TD>&nbsp;</TD>
    <TD align="right">16</TD>
    <TD>&nbsp;</TD>
</TR>
<TR valign="bottom">
    <TD><DIV style="margin-left:15px; text-indent:-15px"><I>TSC Indus., Inc. v. Northway, Inc.</I>, 426 U.S. 438 (1976)</DIV></TD>
    <TD>&nbsp;</TD>
    <TD>&nbsp;</TD>
    <TD align="right">17</TD>
    <TD>&nbsp;</TD>
</TR>
<TR valign="bottom">
    <TD><DIV style="margin-left:15px; text-indent:-15px">W. T. Grant Co. v. Srogi, 52 N.Y.2d 496, 438 N.Y.S.2d 761 (1981)</DIV></TD>
    <TD>&nbsp;</TD>
    <TD>&nbsp;</TD>
    <TD align="right">13</TD>
    <TD>&nbsp;</TD>
</TR>
<TR valign="bottom">
    <TD><DIV style="margin-left:15px; text-indent:-15px"><I>Zirn v. VLI Corp.</I>, 621 A.2d 773 (Del. 1993)</DIV></TD>
    <TD>&nbsp;</TD>
    <TD>&nbsp;</TD>
    <TD align="right">16</TD>
    <TD>&nbsp;</TD>
</TR>
<!-- End Table Body -->
</TABLE>
</DIV>



<P align="center" style="font-size: 10pt"><!-- Folio -->ii<!-- /Folio -->
</DIV>



<!-- PAGEBREAK -->
<P><HR noshade><P>
<H5 align="left" style="page-break-before:always">&nbsp;</H5><P>
<DIV style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif">


<DIV align="left" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 6pt">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Pursuant to CPLR 6301 <I>et seq.</I>, Plaintiff Gabriella Centonze (&#147;Plaintiff&#148;), by her
attorneys, respectfully submits this memorandum of law in support of his Motion for a Temporary
Restraining Order.
</DIV>

<DIV align="center" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 18pt"><u><B>INTRODUCTION</B></u>
</DIV>


<DIV align="left" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 6pt">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Shareholders of Defendant BlueLinx Holdings Inc. (&#147;BlueLinx&#148; or the &#147;Company&#148;) stand to suffer
irreparable harm due to the proposed merger between BlueLinx and Cerberus ABP Investor LLC
(&#147;Cerberus&#148;) whereby Cerberus seeks to acquire all of the outstanding shares of BlueLinx for $4.00
per share (the &#147;Tender Offer&#148; or the &#147;Proposed Transaction&#148;). The Proposed Transaction will take
the form of an all-cash tender offer by Cerberus, which <B><I>expires on October&nbsp;8, 2010</I></B>, four days from
now.
</DIV>

<DIV align="left" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 6pt">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;The Proposed Transaction should be enjoined for multiple reasons. BlueLinx&#146;s board of
directors (the &#147;Board&#148;), whom the Company&#146;s shareholders depend upon to maximize shareholder value,
conducted a flawed and hurried sales process by, among other things, failing to seek out potential
acquirers for the Company. Moreover, the tender offer is coercive. The Offer to Purchase filed by
Cerberus on September&nbsp;23, 2010 and the Stockholder Agreement entered into between the Company and
Cerberus on September&nbsp;22, 2010 (the &#147;Stockholder Agreement&#148;) do not adequately protect the
Company&#146;s minority stockholders. Pursuant to the terms of these agreements, if following the
expiration of the tender offer, Cerberus owns less than 90% of the Company&#146;s outstanding stock, the
tender offer will still be completed, and will thus leave the Company&#146;s minority stockholders who
did not tender their shares holding virtually illiquid stock. Accordingly, to prevent holding
potentially illiquid shares, the Company&#146;s minority stockholders are practically being forced to
tender their shares in the Proposed Transaction.
</DIV>

<P align="center" style="font-size: 10pt"><!-- Folio -->1<!-- /Folio -->
</DIV>

<!-- PAGEBREAK -->
<P><HR noshade><P>
<H5 align="left" style="page-break-before:always">&nbsp;</H5><P>

<DIV style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif">

<DIV align="left" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 6pt">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;On September&nbsp;23, 2010, Cerberus formally commenced the Tender Offer, which is scheduled to
expire on Friday, October&nbsp;8, 2010. Also on September&nbsp;27, 2010, BlueLinx filed its Schedule&nbsp;14D-9
Solicitation/Recommendation Statement (the &#147;Recommendation Statement&#148;), wherein the Company&#146;s Board
set forth certain information about the Proposed Transaction and recommended that BlueLinx
shareholders tender their shares to Cerberus before expiration of the offer on <B><I>October&nbsp;8, 2010</I></B>.
</DIV>

<DIV align="left" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 6pt">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Pursuant to well-established corporate jurisprudence, BlueLinx&#146;s Board members are obligated
to provide shareholders with all material information concerning the Proposed Transaction, yet the
Recommendation Statement contains numerous material misrepresentations and omissions. In
particular, the Recommendation Statement fails to disclose material facts concerning the
methodologies, inputs, and analyses performed by the Company&#146;s financial advisor, Citadel
Securities, LLC (&#147;Citadel&#148;), used in rendering its fairness opinion on the $4.00 per share merger
consideration, as well as material information concerning the sales process. Disclosure of this
information is crucial to any shareholder that attempts to evaluate the fairness of the meager
$4.00 consideration being offered by Cerberus, and Defendants&#146; failure to provide these disclosures
constitutes a clear breach of their fiduciary duties owed to BlueLinx shareholders.
</DIV>

<DIV align="left" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 6pt">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Due to the controlling status of Cerberus (owns approximately 55.39% of the Company), the
Proposed Transaction to be reviewed by the Courts under enhanced scrutiny to determine whether the
tender offer is entirely fair. The Individual Defendants disregard their fiduciary duties to
BlueLinx and its public shareholders by rushing to bind
the Company in a deal with Cerberus, rather than adequately inform themselves, seek other
suitors and at the very least attempt to maximize shareholder value.
</DIV>

<P align="center" style="font-size: 10pt"><!-- Folio -->2<!-- /Folio -->
</DIV>

<!-- PAGEBREAK -->
<P><HR noshade><P>
<H5 align="left" style="page-break-before:always">&nbsp;</H5><P>

<DIV style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif">

<DIV align="left" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 6pt">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;BlueLinx shareholders will suffer irreparable harm if they are forced to decide whether to
tender their shares in reliance upon the materially incomplete misleading Recommendation Statement
(a coercive tactic by Cerberus) and be deprived of potentially millions of dollars in additional
consideration. This motion seeks to prevent such harm by asking this Court to issue a temporary
restraining order to enjoin BlueLinx from consummating the Proposed Transaction. Accordingly,
Plaintiff must act now in order to ensure that he can enjoin the Tender Offer before it expires on
<B><I>October&nbsp;8, 2010</I></B>.
</DIV>

<DIV align="center" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 18pt"><u><B>STATEMENT OF FACTS </B></u>
</DIV>


<DIV align="left" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 12pt"><B>I. Company Background</B>
</DIV>


<DIV align="left" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 6pt">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;BlueLinx is a leading distributor of building products in the United States. The Company
operates in all of the major metropolitan areas in the United States and, as of January&nbsp;2, 2010,
has distributed more than 10,000 products to approximately 11,500 customers through their network
of more than 70 warehouses and third-party operated warehouses. The Company distributes products in
two principal categories: structural products and specialty products. Structural products, which
represented approximately 44% and 50% of their fiscal 2009 and fiscal 2008 gross sales, include
plywood, oriented strand board, rebar and remesh, lumber and other wood products primarily used for
structural support, walls and flooring in construction projects. Specialty products, which
represented approximately 56% and 50% of their fiscal 2009 and fiscal 2008 gross sales, include
roofing, insulation, specialty panels, moulding, engineered wood products, vinyl products (used
primarily in siding), composite decking and metal products (excluding rebar and remesh).
</DIV>

<DIV align="left" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 6pt">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Like most other companies participating in the housing industry, BlueLinx has recently
suffered from the housing market downturn that began a few years ago. However, BlueLinx has
successfully survived through it and is now poised to see future growth in its business. On
</DIV>

<P align="center" style="font-size: 10pt"><!-- Folio -->3<!-- /Folio -->
</DIV>

<!-- PAGEBREAK -->
<P><HR noshade><P>
<H5 align="left" style="page-break-before:always">&nbsp;</H5><P>

<DIV style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif">
<DIV align="left" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 6pt">February&nbsp;17, 2010, the Company reported financial results for the fourth quarter ending January&nbsp;2,
2010. For the quarter, the Company generated net income of $12.0&nbsp;million compared with a net loss
of $25.1&nbsp;million in the year-ago period. The Company reported that revenues decreased 27% to $366.1
million from $501.5&nbsp;million for the same period a year ago. BlueLinx President and CRO George Judd
(&#147;Judd&#148;) was optimistic that the Company had reached the bottom of a &#147;four-year decline&#148; and that
the Company was poised to improve in 2010. As he stated: &#147;While conditions remain difficult, I
believe that we have reached the bottom of this four-year decline...As we move forward in 2010, we
are confident in our ability to both increase our share of the market and maintain the operating
discipline that we demonstrated throughout 2009.&#148;
</DIV>


<DIV align="left" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 6pt">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;As predicted, the Company began to improve in
2010. On May&nbsp;6, 2010, BlueLinx announced its financial results for the first quarter ending April
3, 2010. The Company reported a net loss of $14.7&nbsp;million for the quarter, which was a significant
improvement to the staggering net loss of $60.7&nbsp;million the Company reported for the same quarter
in 2009. In addition, the Company reported that revenues increased 6% to $431.1&nbsp;million from $407.1
million for the same period a year ago. The Company also reported that gross profit for the quarter
totaled $52.3&nbsp;million, up 18% from $44.3&nbsp;million in the prior-year period. Judd commented that the
results would have even been better had their not been &#147;unusually severe weather conditions
throughout the country,&#148; and that demand for the Company&#146;s products is poised for increase. As he
stated: &#147;While we achieved our first year over year quarterly increase in revenue in four years,
our results were hindered by unusually severe weather conditions throughout the country...However,
<B><I>since the later part of the first quarter, we have seen an increase in demand for our products as
the housing market appears to have begun its recovery</I></B>.&#148; &#091;Emphasis Added&#093;.
</DIV>


<P align="center" style="font-size: 10pt"><!-- Folio -->4<!-- /Folio -->
</DIV>




<!-- PAGEBREAK -->
<P><HR noshade><P>
<H5 align="left" style="page-break-before:always">&nbsp;</H5><P>
<DIV style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif">

<DIV align="left" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 6pt">The Company showed even more improvement during the second quarter. On August&nbsp;5, 2010, the
Company announced its results for the second quarter of 2010 announcing that (a)&nbsp;revenues increased
27.7% to $540.8&nbsp;million from $423.5&nbsp;million for the same period a year ago; (b)&nbsp;Overall unit volume
rose 11.9% compared to the year-ago period; and (c)&nbsp;gross profit for the second quarter totaled
$64.1&nbsp;million, up 32.8% from $48.3&nbsp;million in the prior-year period. Judd commented on the
Company&#146;s solid performance during the quarter staging: &#147;The second-quarter business climate was
characterized by unprecedented volatility in the structural wood-based products market and a
sluggish recovery of demand for products related to new home construction...Despite this
challenging environment, we performed well as we grew our unit volume by 11.9% and increased our
gross profit by 32.8%...&#148;
</DIV>


<DIV align="left" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 6pt">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;In an August&nbsp;5, 2010 conference call discussing the Company&#146;s financial results, Judd
commended the Company&#146;s ability to survive the downturn and was optimistic about the Company&#146;s
future success, stating in part:
</DIV>


<DIV align="left" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 6pt; margin-left: 2%">As we have done since the housing market downturn began over four years ago, we have
tightly managed our accounts receivable portfolio and credit approval processes. Our bad
debt expense is down 75% over the prior year quarter. We continued to aggressively manage
inventories, receivables, and keep our tight controls on our cost structure without
diminishing our ability to achieve our business objectives.
</DIV>


<DIV align="left" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 6pt; margin-left: 2%">In May we added Joe Costello &#091;ph&#093; to our senior management team as senior vice president of
our western regions. Joe is a former senior executive with several other companies, most
recently Louisiana Pacific. He will lead our Western operations, which have been performing
below their potential. I am excited to have someone of Joe&#146;s caliber joining the BlueLinx
team, and look forward to his leadership as we work to facilitate growth in our Western
operations. There continues to be uncertainty around the macro economic factors that drive
our business. I believe when consumer competence rises and unemployment rates decline, we
will begin to see sustainable improvements in the housing market.
</DIV>


<DIV align="left" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 6pt; margin-left: 2%">In closing, we cannot control the external environment but we can work to ensure our
company is well positioned in this challenging environment, and ready to capitalize on
opportunities as business resumes a more normal phase. Guided by
</DIV>

<P align="center" style="font-size: 10pt"><!-- Folio -->5<!-- /Folio -->
</DIV>

<!-- PAGEBREAK -->
<P><HR noshade><P>
<H5 align="left" style="page-break-before:always">&nbsp;</H5><P>

<DIV style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif">


<DIV align="left" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 6pt; margin-left: 2%">our long-term objectives, I believe the actions and decisions we are making each day
position BlueLinx for long-term success.
</DIV>

<DIV align="left" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 12pt"><B>II. The Proposed Transaction is Coercive</B>
</DIV>


<DIV align="left" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 6pt">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;With the Company poised for growth, Cerberus used it as the perfect opportunity to snatch away
the Company while it was undervalued. On July&nbsp;22, 2010, Cerberus issued a press release announcing
that it intends to make a tender offer to acquire all of the outstanding shares of BlueLinx for
$3.40 per share. In addition, in a letter sent to the Board on July&nbsp;21, 2010, Cerberus stated that
it was interested only in acquiring the BlueLinx shares not already owned by it and that it had no
current interest in selling its stake in BlueLinx nor would it currently expect to vote in favor of
any alternative sale, merger or similar transaction.
</DIV>

<DIV align="left" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 6pt">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;On August&nbsp;2, 2010, Cerberus filed an Offer to Purchase with the SEC commencing the tender
offer. On September&nbsp;23, 2010, Cerberus filed an amended Offer to Purchase (the &#147;Offer to Purchase&#148;)
which increased the tender offer to price to $4.00 per share and set the expiration of the tender
offer to October&nbsp;8, 2010. Pursuant to the Offer to Purchase, if following the consummation of the
tender offer, Cerberus owns 90% or more of the Company&#146;s outstanding shares, Cerberus will
consummate a short form merger between the Company and Cerberus, the Company will become a
privately-held Company, and the rights of the public shareholders to share in the future growth of
the Company will be extinguished. If, however, Cerberus owns less than 90% of the Company&#146;s common
stock, the Offer to Purchase provides that Cerberus may still complete the tender offer, which
would thus leave the minority stockholders who did not tender their shares holding a virtually
illiquid stock.
</DIV>

<DIV align="left" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 6pt">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;The tender offer is coercive. The Offer to Purchase and Stockholder Agreement do not
adequately protect the Company&#146;s minority shareholders in case Cerberus owns less than 90% of the
Company&#146;s common stock following expiration of the tender offer.
</DIV>

<P align="center" style="font-size: 10pt"><!-- Folio -->6<!-- /Folio -->
</DIV>

<!-- PAGEBREAK -->
<P><HR noshade><P>
<H5 align="left" style="page-break-before:always">&nbsp;</H5><P>

<DIV style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif">
<DIV align="left" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 6pt">If following expiration of the tender offer Cerberus owns at least 90% of the Company&#146;s outstanding
shares it will effectuate a short-form merger pursuant to the Delaware General Corporation Law.
However, if following expiration of the tender offer, Cerberus owns less than 90% of the Company&#146;s
outstanding stock, the tender offer will still be completed. The Offer to Purchase provides that
&#147;Cerberus may waive the 90% Condition and complete the &#091;Tender&#093; Offer, in which case any Shares not
tendered in the &#091;Tender&#093; Offer or the subsequent offering period would remain outstanding.&#148; In such
a scenario, the Company&#146;s minority stockholders who do not tender their shares will be left holding
a virtually illiquid stock.
</DIV>


<DIV align="left" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 6pt">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Rather than ensuring that the 90% threshold be a condition to completion of the tender offer,
the Special Committee negotiated a series of so-called additional protections for the Company&#146;s
minority shareholders to prevent the illiquidity of their shares. These provisions are in fact
illusory whose occurrence is left to Cerberus&#146;s &#147;best efforts.&#148; For example, pursuant to the
Stockholder Agreement, Cerberus has agreed to use its &#147;best efforts&#148; to ensure that the Company not
cease to maintain the Company&#146;s status as a public reporting company and will use its &#147;best
efforts&#148; to continue to have the shares listed for trading on the NYSE. In addition, Cerberus and
the Company agreed that should it own less than 90% of the Company&#146;s outstanding shares upon
expiration of the tender offer, it will extend the tender offer for a mere five days. In all, the
terms of the Stockholder Agreement do not adequately protect the Company&#146;s minority shareholders in
case Cerberus does not reach the 90% threshold. Accordingly, to prevent holding potentially
illiquid shares, the Company&#146;s minority stockholders are practically being forced to tender their
shares in the Proposed Transaction and is thus a coercive tender offer.
</DIV>

<P align="center" style="font-size: 10pt"><!-- Folio -->7<!-- /Folio -->
</DIV>

<!-- PAGEBREAK -->
<P><HR noshade><P>
<H5 align="left" style="page-break-before:always">&nbsp;</H5><P>

<DIV style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif">

<DIV align="left" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 12pt"><B>III. The Materially Misleading and Incomplete Recommendation Statement</B>
</DIV>


<DIV align="left" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 6pt">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;On September&nbsp;27, 2010, BlueLinx filed a Schedule&nbsp;14D-9 Recommendation Statement (the
&#147;Recommendation Statement&#148;) with the SEC. Plaintiff and Plaintiff&#146;s counsel fastidiously reviewed
the Recommendation Statement and other public documents and ascertained that the Recommendation
Statement contained materially misleading misrepresentations or omissions concerning, <I>inter alia</I>,
the fairness of the sales process and the valuation methods used by the Company&#146;s financial
advisor, Citadel to determine that the price being offered was supposedly fair, making it
impossible for BlueLinx shareholders to make a fully informed decision whether to tender their
shares and cast their votes in favor of the Proposed Transaction.
</DIV>

<DIV align="left" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 6pt">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;The Recommendation Statement fails to provide the Company&#146;s shareholders with material
information and provides them with materially misleading information thereby rendering the
shareholders unable to make an informed decision on whether to tender their shares in the Proposed
Transaction.
</DIV>


<DIV align="left" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 6pt; margin-left: 2%"><B>A. Material Mistakes in the computations of Value in the Fairness Opinion</B>
</DIV>

<DIV align="left" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 6pt">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;The Recommendation Statement provided the financial projections prepared by BlueLinx
management, for fiscal years 2010 &#151; 2015 designated as the &#147;Base Case&#148;, &#147;Downside Case&#148;, and
&#147;Upside Case.&#148; As an exhibit to the Recommendation Statement is Citadel&#146;s Discounted Cash Flow
Analysis (&#147;DCF&#148;) set forth on page 32 of the Presentation to the Special Committee where, using the
Base Case projections, Citadel concludes the implied value per share for BlueLinx is negative $0.41
to $3.53 per share, with a mid-point value of $1.48 per share, assuming a 9&nbsp;percent discount rate
and a terminal value EBITDA multiple of 6x.
</DIV>

<DIV align="left" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 6pt">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;It is the opinion Plaintiff&#146;s expert that the methodology Citadel applied in its DCF
analysis, specifically with respect to the terminal EBITDA value, is unreasonable and results in
</DIV>


<P align="center" style="font-size: 10pt"><!-- Folio -->8<!-- /Folio -->
</DIV>




<!-- PAGEBREAK -->
<P><HR noshade><P>
<H5 align="left" style="page-break-before:always">&nbsp;</H5><P>
<DIV style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif">

<DIV align="left" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 6pt">an understated implied value for the Company. See Exhibit&nbsp;A of the Declaration of Joseph Levi &#151; Affidavit of Cynthia Jones.
</DIV>


<DIV align="left" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 6pt">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;The Base Case forecast projects that BlueLinx&#146;s EBITDA, which was negative $9.3&nbsp;million in
2009, is expected to be negative $6.5&nbsp;million in 2010, and will turn positive in 2011 ($27.3
million) and increase to more than $200&nbsp;million by the end of the forecast period. The increase in
BlueLinx&#146;s revenue and EBITDA is projected to increase as U.S. housing starts improve from
uncharacteristically low levels. In computing the terminal value portion of the DCF, which is the
generally thought of as the value of ongoing operations beyond the forecast period, Citadel
averaged BlueLinx&#146;s historical EBITDA for 2009 with the projected EBITDA for 2010 &#151; 2015 to arrive
at &#147;normalized&#148; EBITDA of $77&nbsp;million. It applied multiples to this average EBITDA of 5.0 to 7.0x
in computing terminal value. Citadel&#146;s terminal value calculation assumes that the recent and
current disruption in the housing market is indicative of a &#147;normal&#148; business cycle, when, in fact,
housing starts in 2009 at .554&nbsp;million were the lowest in the last 50&nbsp;years, and were approximately
one-third of the average housing starts of 1.5&nbsp;million annually since 1959. It does not factor in
the possibility that there will be a sustained recovery in housing starts, beyond the forecast
period, that mimics historical economic cycles.
</DIV>


<DIV align="left" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 6pt">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;The expert replicated the DCF analysis prepared by Citadel. In addition, the expert performed
a sensitivity analysis with regard to the terminal value EBITDA. Her sensitivity analysis shows
three different terminal value EBITDA&#146;s as follows:
</DIV>


<DIV style="margin-top: 6pt">
<TABLE width="100%" border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" style="font-size: 10pt">

<TR valign="top" style="font-size: 10pt; color: #000000; background: transparent">
    <TD width="6%" style="background: transparent">&nbsp;</TD>
    <TD width="3%" nowrap align="left">1)</TD>
    <TD width="1%">&nbsp;</TD>
    <TD>The average EBITDA projected for fiscal years 2011 &#151; 2015,
which results in implied value per share of $5.17 per share;</TD>
</TR>

<TR>
    <TD style="font-size: 6pt">&nbsp;</TD>
</TR><TR valign="top" style="font-size: 10pt; color: #000000; background: transparent">
    <TD width="6%" style="background: transparent">&nbsp;</TD>
    <TD width="3%" nowrap align="left">2)</TD>
    <TD width="1%">&nbsp;</TD>
    <TD>The mid-point EBITDA projected for fiscal year 2013, which
results in implied value per share of $4.47 per share; and</TD>
</TR>


</TABLE>
</DIV>
<P align="center" style="font-size: 10pt"><!-- Folio -->9<!-- /Folio -->
</DIV>

<!-- PAGEBREAK -->
<P><HR noshade><P>
<H5 align="left" style="page-break-before:always">&nbsp;</H5><P>

<DIV style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif">


<DIV style="margin-top: 6pt"><TABLE width="100%" border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" style="font-size: 10pt">


<TR valign="top" style="font-size: 10pt; color: #000000; background: transparent">
    <TD width="6%" style="background: transparent">&nbsp;</TD>
    <TD width="3%" nowrap align="left">3)</TD>
    <TD width="1%">&nbsp;</TD>
    <TD>The final year EBITDA projection, which results in implied value per share of $15.44.</TD>
</TR>

</TABLE>
</DIV>

<DIV align="left" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 6pt">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;The expert&#146;s analysis demonstrates that Citadel&#146;s DCF analysis, and resulting conclusion that
BlueLinx&#146;s implied value is between negative $0.41 and $3.53 per share is highly dependent upon the
assumed terminal value EBITDA. Empirical data for U.S. housing starts supports that the correction
experienced recently was unprecedented as compared to the last 50&nbsp;years. While it may be generally
acceptable to &#147;normalize&#148; EBITDA to account for business cyclicality, in this particular case, the
methodology used understates the implied value of BlueLinx.
</DIV>


<DIV align="left" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 6pt">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Also, the methodology Citadel applied in its <I>Comparable Company Analysis </I>and <I>Precedent
Transaction Analysis, </I>specifically with respect to the use of EBITA multiples (as opposed to
revenue multiples), is unreasonable and results in an understated implied value for the Company.
For example, in the <I>Comparable Company Analysis </I>using the 2010 estimated EBITA multiples of public
distribution companies and applying those multiples to the 2010 estimated EBITA for the Company
yields an implied per share value on the &#147;low&#148; end of the range to be a negative $13.03 per share
and a negative $13.41 on the &#147;high&#148; end of the range. A different multiple should have been used
because the EBITA multiples do not satisfy any reasonableness check.
</DIV>


<DIV align="left" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 6pt">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<B>B. Material Omissions in the Fairness Opinion</B>
</DIV>


<DIV align="left" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 6pt">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;The Recommendation Statement fails to disclose material information concerning the projections
prepared by Company management. In particular, the Recommendation Statement fails to describe the
key assumptions that led to the differences in the Base Case, Downside Case, and Upside Case
projections, as well as Company management&#146;s and the Special Committee&#146;s beliefs as to which set of
projections was the most likely or reasonable to achieve. This is particularly important
considering the financial analyses conducted by Citadel,
</DIV>





<P align="center" style="font-size: 10pt"><!-- Folio -->10<!-- /Folio -->
</DIV>

<!-- PAGEBREAK -->
<P><HR noshade><P>
<H5 align="left" style="page-break-before:always">&nbsp;</H5><P>

<DIV style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif">



<DIV align="left" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 6pt">the Special Committee&#146;s financial advisor, yielded significantly different values of the Company
depending upon which set of projections were used. For example, the <I>Discounted Cash Flow Analysis</I>
conducted by Citadel yielded a value of BlueLinx as high as $6.50 per share under the Upside Case
projections, but a value as high as $3.53 per share and $1.24 per share using the Base Case and
Downside Case projections respectively. Accordingly, it is material for shareholders to know the
key assumptions underlying their differences and the relative likelihood of attaining each set.
</DIV>


<DIV align="left" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 6pt">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;In addition, the Recommendation Statement fails to disclose whether the Special Committee
provided the Stretch Plan projections to Citadel; if not, the reasons for not doing so; and if so,
the reasons Citadel did not use the Stretch Plan projections in its various financial analyses.
</DIV>


<DIV align="left" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 6pt">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Further, the Recommendation Statement completely fails to disclose certain material
information concerning the <I>Precedent Transaction Analysis </I>conducted by Citadel. The Recommendation
Statement fails to disclose the criteria for selecting the transactions used in the analysis and
the reasons all of the transactions selected involved change of control transactions considering
the Proposed Transaction does not involve a change of control. In addition, the Recommendation
Statement should disclose the specific criteria and judgments made by Citadel in selecting the
6.0x-8.0x reference ranges for both the Wood-Products Transactions LTM and Distributors
Transactions LTM multiples. This is particularly important considering such reference ranges were
well below the mean multiples observed for such transactions (a 32.9x mean LTM multiple was
observed for for Wood-Products Transactions and a 9.0x mean LTM multiple was observed for for
Distributors Transactions).
</DIV>





<P align="center" style="font-size: 10pt"><!-- Folio -->11<!-- /Folio -->
</DIV>

<!-- PAGEBREAK -->
<P><HR noshade><P>
<H5 align="left" style="page-break-before:always">&nbsp;</H5><P>

<DIV style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif">




<DIV align="left" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 6pt">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;The Recommendation Statement also fails to disclose what fees Citadel is receiving in
connection with their services to the Special Committee as well as what portion of the fee is
contingent on the Proposed Transaction closing. The Recommendation Statement also fails to disclose
whether Citadel has provided any services to BlueLinx or Cerberus in the past two years, and if so
to disclose the nature and extent of such services and the amount of compensation received. It is
material for shareholders to be informed of any other financial and economic interests Citadel has
in the Proposed Transaction or in the parties involved that could be perceived or create a conflict
of interest.
</DIV>


<DIV align="left" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 6pt">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<B>C. Material Omissions regarding the Sales Process</B>
</DIV>


<DIV align="left" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 6pt">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;The Recommendation Statement also fails to disclose important information concerning the very
limited sales process conducted by the Special Committee as well as the discussions and
negotiations with Cerberus. In particular, the Recommendation Statement fails to disclose (a)&nbsp;the
criteria used to determine the three parties that were deemed to have the &#147;most interest in
discussing a potential transaction&#148;; and (b)&nbsp;the reasons only three companies were contacted to
seek out their interest in a transaction with the Company; and the reasons no additional parties
were contacted after all three parties indicated they were not interested in pursuing a transaction
with the Company.
</DIV>


<DIV align="left" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 6pt">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Moreover, the Recommendation Statement fails to disclose the reasons the Special Committee
recommended the $4.00 per share Proposed Transaction consideration considering that the Special
Committee determined on August&nbsp;16, 2010 that &#147;in order to allow the minority stockholders the
opportunity to share in the upside potential of the Company&#146;s future prospects, $5.00 per Share was
a price at which the Special Committee believed it could provide a favorable recommendation to the
Company&#146;s stockholders.&#148;
</DIV>



<P align="center" style="font-size: 10pt"><!-- Folio -->12<!-- /Folio -->
</DIV>




<!-- PAGEBREAK -->
<P><HR noshade><P>
<H5 align="left" style="page-break-before:always">&nbsp;</H5><P>
<DIV style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif">


<DIV align="left" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 6pt">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Absent this Court&#146;s intervention, Plaintiff and other members of the Class will suffer
irreparable harm if asked to vote on the Proposed Transaction without disclosure of all material
facts concerning the Proposed Transaction necessary to make an informed vote.
</DIV>


<DIV align="center" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 12pt"><B><u>ARGUMENT</u></B>
</DIV>


<DIV style="margin-top: 6pt">
<TABLE width="100%" border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" style="font-size: 10pt">

<TR valign="top" style="font-size: 10pt; color: #000000; background: transparent">
    <TD width="3%" nowrap align="left"><B>I.</B></TD>
    <TD width="1%">&nbsp;</TD>
    <TD><B>THE PROPOSED TRANSACTION SHOULD BE ENJOINED TO PREVENT SHAREHOLDERS FROM SUFFERING IRREPARABL HARM</B></TD>
</TR>

</TABLE>
</DIV>

<DIV align="left" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 6pt">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Injunctive relief is appropriate here because BlueLinx shareholders are being asked to tender
their shares to Cerberus and forfeit their entire interest in the Company in reliance upon a
materially misleading and inadequate Recommendation Statement. Indeed, Plaintiff and all other
shareholders will be prevented from making a fully informed decision on whether to tender their
shares to Cerberus. Because this constitutes irreparable that is appropriately remedied through
injunctive relief, Plaintiff&#146;s motion should be granted.
</DIV>


<DIV align="left" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 6pt">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<B>A. Applicable Standard for Granting Injunctive Relief</B>
</DIV>


<DIV align="left" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 6pt">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;A party is entitled to a temporary restraining order upon a showing of: (i)&nbsp;a likelihood of
success on the merits; (ii)&nbsp;irreparable injury in the absence of injunctive relief; and (iii)&nbsp;that
the equities are balanced in that party&#146;s favor. <I>See, e.g.</I>, W. T. Grant Co. v. Srogi, 52 N.Y.2d
496, 517, 438 N.Y.S.2d 761, 771 (1981); <I>Cruz v. McAneney</I>, 29 A.D.3d 512, 813 N.Y.S.2d 671 (2d Dep&#146;t
2006). The standard for enjoining a transaction is less than that which would be required to secure
final relief following trial because it explicitly requires only that the record establish a
reasonable probability that this greater showing will ultimately be made. <I>Qwest Communications
Int&#146;l Inc. v. Nat&#146;l Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh</I>, 821 A.2d 323, 327-28 (Del. Ch. 2003). As
discussed below, Plaintiff has shown all three elements.
</DIV>








<P align="center" style="font-size: 10pt"><!-- Folio -->13<!-- /Folio -->
</DIV>

<!-- PAGEBREAK -->
<P><HR noshade><P>
<H5 align="left" style="page-break-before:always">&nbsp;</H5><P>

<DIV style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif">




<DIV align="left" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 12pt; margin-left: 4%"><B>B. The Tender Offer is Coercive</B>
</DIV>


<DIV align="left" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 6pt">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;In order to address the potential for coercion and unfairness posed by controlling stockholder
tender/exchange offers (<I>i.e.</I>, what the Court termed the &#147;prisoner&#146;s dilemma&#148;), the Court held that
&#147;our law should consider an acquisition tender offer by a controlling stockholder
non-coercive only when&#148;:
</DIV>


<DIV style="margin-top: 6pt">
<TABLE width="100%" border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" style="font-size: 10pt">

<TR valign="top" style="font-size: 10pt; color: #000000; background: transparent">
    <TD width="2%" style="background: transparent">&nbsp;</TD>
    <TD width="2%" nowrap align="left"><B>&#149;</B></TD>
    <TD width="1%">&nbsp;</TD>
    <TD>it is subject to a non-waivable majority of the minority tender condition;</TD>
</TR>

<TR>
    <TD style="font-size: 6pt">&nbsp;</TD>
</TR><TR valign="top" style="font-size: 10pt; color: #000000; background: transparent">
    <TD width="2%" style="background: transparent">&nbsp;</TD>
    <TD width="3%" nowrap align="left"><B>&#149;</B></TD>
    <TD width="1%">&nbsp;</TD>
    <TD>the controlling stockholder promises to consummate a prompt &#167;253 merger at the same price if
it obtains more than 90% of the shares; and</TD>
</TR>

<TR>
    <TD style="font-size: 6pt">&nbsp;</TD>
</TR><TR valign="top" style="font-size: 10pt; color: #000000; background: transparent">
    <TD width="2%" style="background: transparent">&nbsp;</TD>
    <TD width="2%" nowrap align="left"><B>&#149;</B></TD>
    <TD width="1%">&nbsp;</TD>
    <TD>the controlling stockholder has made no retributive threats. <I>In re Pure Resources, Inc.
S&#146;holder Litig., </I>808 A.2d 421, 449 (Del. Ch. 2002).</TD>
</TR>

</TABLE>
</DIV>

<DIV align="left" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 6pt">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;These protections, the Court reasoned, &#147;minimize the distorting influence of the tendering
process on voluntary choice&#148; and &#147;recognize the adverse conditions that confront stockholders who
find themselves owning what have become very thinly traded shares.&#148; <I>Id. </I>The Court also held that
the informational and timing advantages possessed by the controlling stockholder also require some
countervailing protection if the minority is to truly be afforded the opportunity to make an
informed, voluntary tender decision. <I>Id. </I>In this regard, the Court held that the majority
stockholder owes a duty to permit the independent directors on the target board:
</DIV>


<DIV style="margin-top: 6pt">
<TABLE width="100%" border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" style="font-size: 10pt">

<TR valign="top" style="font-size: 10pt; color: #000000; background: transparent">
    <TD width="2%" style="background: transparent">&nbsp;</TD>
    <TD width="2%" nowrap align="left"><B>&#149;</B></TD>
    <TD width="1%">&nbsp;</TD>
    <TD>both free rein and adequate time to react to the tender offer, by (at the very least) hiring
their own advisors and providing the minority with a recommendation as to the advisability of
the offer;</TD>
</TR>

<TR>
    <TD style="font-size: 6pt">&nbsp;</TD>
</TR><TR valign="top" style="font-size: 10pt; color: #000000; background: transparent">
    <TD width="2%" style="background: transparent">&nbsp;</TD>
    <TD width="2%" nowrap align="left"><B>&#149;</B></TD>
    <TD width="1%">&nbsp;</TD>
    <TD>and to disclose adequate information for the minority to make an informed judgment. <I>Id.</I></TD>
</TR>

</TABLE>
</DIV>

<DIV align="left" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 6pt">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;In addition, the Court also held that the controlling stockholder has a duty of fair
disclosure and a duty to avoid misleading the independent directors and the minority
stockholders. <I>Id.</I>, n.47.
</DIV>








<P align="center" style="font-size: 10pt"><!-- Folio -->14<!-- /Folio -->
</DIV>

<!-- PAGEBREAK -->
<P><HR noshade><P>
<H5 align="left" style="page-break-before:always">&nbsp;</H5><P>

<DIV style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif">




<DIV align="left" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 6pt">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;The tender offer is coercive. The Offer to Purchase and Stockholder Agreement do not
adequately protect the Company&#146;s minority shareholders in case Cerberus owns less than 90% of the
Company&#146;s common stock following expiration of the tender offer.
</DIV>


<DIV align="left" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 6pt">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;If following expiration of the tender offer Cerberus owns at least 90% of the Company&#146;s
outstanding shares it will effectuate a short-form merger pursuant to the Delaware General
Corporation Law. However, if following expiration of the tender offer, Cerberus owns less than 90%
of the Company&#146;s outstanding stock, the tender offer will still be completed. The Offer to Purchase
provides that &#147;Cerberus may waive the 90% Condition and complete the &#091;Tender&#093; Offer, in which case
any Shares not tendered in the &#091;Tender&#093; Offer or the subsequent offering period would remain
outstanding.&#148; In such a scenario, the Company&#146;s minority stockholders who do not tender their
shares will be left holding a virtually illiquid stock.
</DIV>


<DIV align="left" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 6pt">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Rather than ensuring that the 90% threshold be a condition to completion of the tender offer,
the Special Committee negotiated a series of so-called additional protections for the Company&#146;s
minority shareholders to prevent the illiquidity of their shares. These provisions are in fact
illusory whose occurrence is left to Cerberus&#146;s &#147;best efforts.&#148; For example, pursuant to the
Stockholder Agreement, Cerberus has agreed to use its &#147;best efforts&#148; to ensure that the Company not
cease to maintain the Company&#146;s status as a public reporting company and will use its &#147;best
efforts&#148; to continue to have the shares listed for trading on the NYSE. In addition, Cerberus and
the Company agreed that should it own less than 90% of the Company&#146;s outstanding shares upon
expiration of the tender offer, it will extend the tender offer for a mere five days. In all, the
terms of the Stockholder Agreement do not adequately protect the Company&#146;s minority shareholders in
case Cerberus does not reach the 90% threshold.
</DIV>


<DIV align="left" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 6pt">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Accordingly, to prevent holding potentially illiquid shares, the Company&#146;s minority
</DIV>








<P align="center" style="font-size: 10pt"><!-- Folio -->15<!-- /Folio -->
</DIV>

<!-- PAGEBREAK -->
<P><HR noshade><P>
<H5 align="left" style="page-break-before:always">&nbsp;</H5><P>

<DIV style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif">



<DIV align="left" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 6pt">stockholders are practically being forced to tender their shares in the Proposed Transaction and is
thus a coercive tender offer.
</DIV>


<DIV style="margin-top: 6pt">
<TABLE width="100%" border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" style="font-size: 10pt">

<TR valign="top" style="font-size: 10pt; color: #000000; background: transparent">
    <TD width="4%" style="background: transparent">&nbsp;</TD>
    <TD width="3%" nowrap align="left"><B>C.</B></TD>
    <TD width="1%">&nbsp;</TD>
    <TD><B>Plaintiff Is Likely to Succeed on His Claim That the Board Failed to
Provide Shareholders with Material Information</B></TD>
</TR>

</TABLE>
</DIV>

<DIV align="left" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 6pt">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Directors &#147;are under a fiduciary duty to disclose fully and fairly all <B><I>material information</I></B>
within the board&#146;s control when it seeks shareholder action.&#148; <I>Arnold v. Soc&#146;y for Sav. Bancorp.,
Inc.</I>, 650 A.2d 1270, 1277 (Del. 1994) (citing, <I>inter alia</I>, <I>Shell Petroleum, Inc. v. Smith</I>, 606 A.2d
112, 114 (Del. 1992)) (emphasis added). <I>See also Shell Petroleum</I>, 606 A.2d at 114 (Del. 1992);
<I>Stroud v. Grace</I>, 606 A.2d 75, 84-5 (Del. 1992); <I>Rosenblatt v. Getty Oil Co.</I>, 493 A.2d 929, 944
(Del. 1985).<SUP style="FONT-size: 85%; vertical-align: text-top">1</SUP> &#147;&#091;M&#093;anagement has a heavy burden to insure that disclosure is complete and
non-misleading, especially with respect to shareholders whose interests may differ from their own.&#148;
<I>Blanchette v. Providence &#038; Worcester Co., </I>428 F. Supp. 347, 354 (D. Del. 1977). The &#147;materiality
standard is an objective one, measured from the point of view of the reasonable investor,&#148; not from
&#147;the subjective views of the directors.&#148; <I>See Zirn v. VLI Corp.</I>, 621 A.2d 773, 779 (Del. 1993). A
fact is material if a reasonable stockholder would consider it important in deciding how to vote.
<I>Rosenblatt</I>, 493 A.2d at 944 (Del. 1985) (citing, <I>inter alia</I>, <I>TSC Indus., Inc. v. Northway, Inc.</I>,
426 U.S. 438, 449 (1976)). An omission is material when it &#147;would have been viewed by the
reasonable investor as having significantly altered the &#145;total mix&#146; of information made available.&#148;
<I>Rosenblatt</I>, 493 A.2d at 944 (quoting <I>TSC</I>, 426 U.S. at 449). The materiality standard &#147;does not
require proof of a substantial likelihood that disclosure of the omitted fact would have caused the
reasonable investor to change his vote.&#148; <I>TSC</I>, 426 U.S. at 449. Rather, the standard requires &#147;a
showing of a substantial likelihood that, under all the
</DIV>



<DIV align="left">
<DIV style="font-size: 3pt; margin-top: 16pt; width: 18%; border-top: 1px solid #000000">&nbsp;</DIV>
</DIV>

<TABLE width="100%" border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" style="font-size: 10pt">
<TR>
    <TD width="3%"></TD>
    <TD width="1%"></TD>
    <TD width="96"></TD>
</TR>

<TR valign="top">
    <TD nowrap align="left"><SUP style="FONT-size: 85%; vertical-align: text-top">1</SUP></TD>
    <TD>&nbsp;</TD>
    <TD>Delaware corporate law applies because BlueLinx is a Delaware corporation.</TD>
</TR>

</TABLE>




<P align="center" style="font-size: 10pt"><!-- Folio -->16<!-- /Folio -->
</DIV>



<!-- PAGEBREAK -->
<P><HR noshade><P>
<H5 align="left" style="page-break-before:always">&nbsp;</H5><P>
<DIV style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif">

<DIV align="left" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 6pt">circumstances, the omitted fact would have assumed actual significance in the deliberations of
the reasonable shareholder.&#148; <I>TSC</I>, 426 U.S. at 449.
</DIV>


<DIV align="left" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 6pt">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;As discussed below, the omitted disclosures are material to BlueLinx shareholders.
</DIV>

<DIV style="margin-top: 6pt">
<TABLE width="100%" border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" style="font-size: 10pt">

<TR valign="top" style="font-size: 10pt; color: #000000; background: transparent">
    <TD width="4%" style="background: transparent">&nbsp;</TD>
    <TD width="3%" nowrap align="left"><B>1.</B></TD>
    <TD width="1%">&nbsp;</TD>
    <TD><B>Material Mistakes in the computations of Value in the
Fairness Opinion</B></TD>
</TR>

</TABLE>
</DIV>

<DIV align="left" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 6pt">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;BlueLinx&#146;s discounted cash flows, which were determined by Citadel and were used to
substantiate the purported &#147;fairness&#148; of the Proposed Transaction, are clearly material to a
shareholder&#146;s ability to evaluate whether a company is better as a standalone entity and, thus,
should have been disclosed. <I>See</I>, <I>e.g., Simonetti Rollover IRA v. Margolis</I>, C.A. No.&nbsp;3694-VCN, 2008
WL 5048692, at *9 (Del. Ch. June&nbsp;27, 2008) (discussing importance of underlying financial forecasts
and projections relied upon in the fairness opinions). Shareholders will not be able to make an
informed decision whether to tender their shares if there are mistakes in the discounted cash flow
methodology used to compute fair value. <I>See</I>, <I>e.g.</I>, <I>In re Emerging Commun&#146;s., Inc. S&#146;holder Litig.</I>,
No.&nbsp;Civ. A. 16415, 2004 WL 1305745, at *37 (Del. Ch. June&nbsp;4, 2004) (finding discounted cash flow
highly material because knowledge of the projections &#147;would have enabled the shareholders to
understand &#091;the company&#146;s&#093; intrinsic worth and the extent of the market&#146;s undervaluation of their
company.&#148;) Especially where, as here, shareholders are receiving cash for their shares, reliable
discounted cash flows regarding company&#146;s future prospects are of obvious materiality to the
electorate. <I>In re PNB Hldg. Co. S&#146;holder Litig.</I>, No.&nbsp;Civ. A. 28-N, 2006 WL 2403999, at *15 (Del.
Ch. 2006).
</DIV>

<DIV align="left" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 6pt">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;The Base Case forecast projects that BlueLinx&#146;s EBITDA, which was negative $9.3&nbsp;million in
2009, is expected to be negative $6.5&nbsp;million in 2010, and will turn positive in 2011
($27.3&nbsp;million) and increase to more than $200&nbsp;million by the end of the forecast period.
The increase in BlueLinx&#146;s revenue and EBITDA is projected to increase as U.S. housing
starts
</DIV>

<P align="center" style="font-size: 10pt"><!-- Folio -->17<!-- /Folio -->
</DIV>

<!-- PAGEBREAK -->
<P><HR noshade><P>
<H5 align="left" style="page-break-before:always">&nbsp;</H5><P>

<DIV style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif">
<DIV align="left" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 6pt">improve from uncharacteristically low levels. In computing the terminal value portion of the DCF,
which is the generally thought of as the value of ongoing operations beyond the forecast period,
Citadel averaged BlueLinx&#146;s historical EBITDA for 2009 with the projected EBITDA for 2010 &#151; 2015
to arrive at &#147;normalized&#148; EBITDA of $77&nbsp;million. It applied multiples to this average EBITDA of 5.0
to 7.0x in computing terminal value. Citadel&#146;s terminal value calculation assumes that the recent
and current disruption in the housing market is indicative of a &#147;normal&#148; business cycle, when, in
fact, housing starts in 2009 at .554&nbsp;million were the lowest in the last 50&nbsp;years, and were
approximately one-third of the average housing starts of 1.5&nbsp;million annually since 1959. It does
not factor in the possibility that there will be a sustained recovery in housing starts, beyond the
forecast period, that mimics historical economic cycles.
</DIV>


<DIV align="left" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 6pt">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;The expert&#146;s analysis demonstrates that Citadel&#146;s DCF analysis, and resulting conclusion that
BlueLinx&#146;s implied value is between negative $0.41 and $3.53 per share is highly dependent upon the
assumed terminal value EBITDA. Empirical data for U.S. housing starts supports that the correction
experienced recently was unprecedented as compared to the last 50&nbsp;years. While it may be generally
acceptable to &#147;normalize&#148; EBITDA to account for business cyclicality, in this particular case, the
methodology used understates the implied value of BlueLinx.
</DIV>

<DIV align="left" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 6pt">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Also, the methodology Citadel applied in its <I>Comparable Company Analysis </I>and <I>Precedent
Transaction Analysis, </I>specifically with respect to the use of EBITA multiples (as opposed to
revenue multiples), is unreasonable and results in an understated implied value for the Company.
For example, in the <I>Comparable Company Analysis </I>using the 2010 estimated EBITA multiples of public
distribution companies and applying those multiples to the 2010 estimated EBITA for the Company
yields an implied per share value on the &#147;low&#148; end of the range to be a negative $13.03 per share
and a negative $13.41 on the &#147;high&#148; end of the range. A
</DIV>

<P align="center" style="font-size: 10pt"><!-- Folio -->18<!-- /Folio -->
</DIV>

<!-- PAGEBREAK -->
<P><HR noshade><P>
<H5 align="left" style="page-break-before:always">&nbsp;</H5><P>

<DIV style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif">
<DIV align="left" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 6pt">different multiple should have been used because the EBITA multiples do not satisfy any
reasonableness check.
</DIV>


<DIV style="margin-top: 6pt">
<TABLE width="100%" border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" style="font-size: 10pt">

<TR valign="top" style="font-size: 10pt; color: #000000; background: transparent">
    <TD width="4%" style="background: transparent">&nbsp;</TD>
    <TD width="3%" nowrap align="left"><B>2.</B></TD>
    <TD width="1%">&nbsp;</TD>
    <TD><B>Material Omissions and Misrepresentations Regarding
Financial Analyses Performed by Citadel</B></TD>
</TR>

</TABLE>
</DIV>

<DIV align="left" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 6pt">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;The opinion of the target company&#146;s financial advisor is perhaps the most important
information to be disclosed to shareholders in connection with a tender offer. Indeed, it is
fundamental that, in order to make an informed decision, shareholders need certain financial
information including a fair summary of a financial advisor&#146;s analyses. As the Delaware Chancery
Court, which has presided over countless similar-type transactions, has stated:
</DIV>


<DIV align="left" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 6pt; margin-left: 4%">&#091;S&#093;tockholders are entitled to a fair summary of the substantive work
performed by the investment bankers upon whose advice the recommendations
of their board as to how to vote on a merger or tender rely... &#091;T&#093;he
disclosure of the banker&#146;s &#147;fairness opinion&#148; alone and without more,
provides stockholders with nothing other than a conclusion, qualified by a
gauze of protective language designed to insulate the banker from
liability.
</DIV>


<DIV align="left" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 6pt; margin-left: 4%">The real informative value of the banker&#146;s work is not in its bottom-line
conclusion, but in the valuation analysis that buttresses that result.
</DIV>
<DIV align="left" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 6pt"><I>In re Pure Resources, Inc. S&#146;holder Litig., </I>808 A.2d 421, 449 (Del. Ch. 2002) (shareholders
confronted with the choice of tendering their stock or not would find it material to know &#147;key
assumptions&#148; that an investment banker used in performing its analyses).
</DIV>


<DIV align="left" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 6pt">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Stockholders are entitled to a fair summary of the substantive work performed by the
investment bankers upon whose advice they are asked to rely, including the underlying financial
forecasts and projections relied upon in the fairness opinions. <I>Simonetti</I>, 2008 WL 5048692, at *9;
<I>In re the MONY Group Inc. S&#146;holder Litig.</I>, 852 A.2d 9, 25 (Del. Ch. 2004). This is because &#147;&#091;t&#093;he
real informative value of the banker&#146;s work is not in its bottom-line conclusion, but in the
valuation analysis that buttresses that result.&#148; <I>Simonetti</I>, 2008 WL 5048692, at *8-10.
</DIV>

<P align="center" style="font-size: 10pt"><!-- Folio -->19<!-- /Folio -->
</DIV>

<!-- PAGEBREAK -->
<P><HR noshade><P>
<H5 align="left" style="page-break-before:always">&nbsp;</H5><P>

<DIV style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif">

<DIV align="left" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 6pt">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Here the Recommendation Statement provides shareholders with Citadel&#146;s conclusions, but it
crucially fails to disclose the underlying methodologies, key inputs and multiples relied upon and
observed by Citadel, the Company&#146;s financial advisor, so that shareholders can properly assess the
credibility of the various analyses performed by Citadel and relied upon by the Board in
recommending the Proposed Transaction. As detailed above and in the Amended Complaint, the
Recommendation Statement fails to disclose, among other things: (a)&nbsp;the material omission in the
fairness opinion; and (b)&nbsp;the material omission regarding the sales process. Unless the Company
discloses this material information, shareholders will not have a clear and complete understanding
of the analyses performed by Citadel and will not be able to make an informed decision to tender
their shares.
</DIV>

<DIV style="margin-top: 6pt">
<TABLE width="100%" border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" style="font-size: 10pt">

<TR valign="top" style="font-size: 10pt; color: #000000; background: transparent">
    <TD width="2%" style="background: transparent">&nbsp;</TD>
    <TD width="3%" nowrap align="left"><B>D.</B></TD>
    <TD width="1%">&nbsp;</TD>
    <TD><B>Defendants&#146; Failure to Disclose Material Information Will Cause
Irreparable Harm to BlueLinx Shareholders</B></TD>
</TR>

</TABLE>
</DIV>

<DIV align="left" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 6pt">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;It is well-settled that an uninformed shareholder vote constitutes irreparable harm. <I>See,
e.g., ODS Technologies, L.P. v. Marshall</I>, 832 A.2d 1254, 1262 (Del. Ch. 2003) (threat of an
uniformed shareholder vote constitutes irreparable harm); <I>Pure Resources, </I>808 A.2d at 452
(irreparable injury is threatened when a shareholder might make a voting decision on the basis of
materially misleading or inadequate information); <I>see also In re HCA Inc. S&#146;holders Litig.</I>, 2006 WL
3480273, at * 2 (Del. Ch. Nov. 20, 2006) (noting that the &#147;optimal time to bring a disclosure claim
in connection with a proposed merger . . . is <I>before </I>the vote is taken and the deal closes&#148;).
<I>Ortsman v. Green, </I>2007 Del. Ch. LEXIS 29, at *5 (Del. Ch. Feb. 28, 2007) C.A. No.&nbsp;2670-N (&#147;&#091;o&#093;nly
by remedying proxy deficiencies in advance of a vote can irreparable harm be avoided.&#148;). This is
because it would be extremely difficult to either undo a consummated merger or calculate damages
flowing from disclosure deficiencies with any precision.
</DIV>


<P align="center" style="font-size: 10pt"><!-- Folio -->20<!-- /Folio -->
</DIV>




<!-- PAGEBREAK -->
<P><HR noshade><P>
<H5 align="left" style="page-break-before:always">&nbsp;</H5><P>
<DIV style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif">


<DIV align="left" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 6pt">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Consequently, courts in Delaware and elsewhere have consistently found that injunctive
relief is particularly appropriate where shareholders have not been provided with material
information prior to a stockholder vote. <I>See, e.g., In re Netsmart Technologies, Inc. S&#146;holders
Litig</I>., C.A. No.&nbsp;2563-VCS, 924 A.2d 171, 32 Del. J. Corp. L. 941 (Del. Ch. 2007) (&#147;<I>Netsmart</I>&#148;)
(enjoining stockholder vote on merger pending company&#146;s issuance of additional disclosures); <I>ODS
Techs., L.P. v. Marshall</I>, 832 A.2d 1254, 1262-63 (Del. Ch. 2003) ( &#147;&#145;&#091;i&#093;t is appropriate for the
court to address material disclosure problems through the issuance of a preliminary injunction that
persists until the problems are corrected,&#146;&#148;) (internal citations omitted); <I>Gilmartin v. Adobe
Resources Corp.</I>, No.&nbsp;12467, 1992 Del. Ch. LEXIS 80, at *43 (Del Ch. Apr. 6, 1992) (&#147;a preliminary
injunction for a brief period to enable the defendants to make corrective disclosure is the remedy
most likely to vindicate&#148; the shareholders&#146; right to cast an informed vote).
</DIV>

<DIV align="left" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 6pt">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;BlueLinx shareholders are being presented with flawed calculations using the three valuation
methodologies performed by Citadel in rendering their fairness opinion. A temporary injunction
would effectively and efficiently avoid the irreparable harm which BlueLinx&#146;s shareholders would
suffer from being forced to tender their shares on inadequate disclosures because the necessary
supplemental disclosure can be accomplished quickly. Thus, unless the consummation of the Proposed
Transaction is enjoined until curative disclosures are provided, BlueLinx shareholders will be
irreparably harmed.
</DIV>

<DIV align="left" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 6pt">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<B>E.&nbsp;The Equities Are Balanced in Plaintiff&#146;s Favor</B>
</DIV>

<DIV align="left" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 6pt">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Here, the balance of equities weighs heavily in favor of granting injunctive relief. The
denial of this limited interim relief will forever foreclose BlueLinx shareholders from making an
informed investment decision based on the withheld information. Further, if the Court does not
temporarily enjoin the Proposed Transaction, Plaintiff (and the rest of BlueLinx
shareholders)
</DIV>

<P align="center" style="font-size: 10pt"><!-- Folio -->21<!-- /Folio -->
</DIV>

<!-- PAGEBREAK -->
<P><HR noshade><P>
<H5 align="left" style="page-break-before:always">&nbsp;</H5><P>

<DIV style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif">
<DIV align="left" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 6pt">will be forced to determine whether to tender their shares on the basis of materially misleading
and inadequate information. Indeed, BlueLinx shareholders stand to &#147;suffer irreparable harm <I>of the
highest order </I>if this &#147;&#091;C&#093;ourt fails to grant injunctive relief.&#148; <I>Burlington Indus., </I>666 F. Supp.
799 (finding irreparable harm where company would cease to exist following consummation of tender
offer).
</DIV>


<DIV align="left" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 6pt">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;By contrast, injunctive relief will result in the ability of Defendants to comply with their
fiduciary duties owed to Plaintiff and other BlueLinx shareholders. This is especially so in light
of the fact that Defendants failed to disclose to shareholders all material information and are,
thus, themselves responsible for any harm they might suffer.
</DIV>

<DIV align="left" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 6pt">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Moreover, whereas Plaintiff and other BlueLinx shareholders are left with little or no remedy
if a temporary restraining order does not issue, Defendants may redress whatever harm they suffer
in various manners. Defendants may wish to resume or renew merger discussions with the Special
Committee at a later point in time. Furthermore, Defendants may simply reverse course and decide
for BlueLinx to persist as a standalone entity. Each of these options poses far less harm than
Plaintiff&#146;s being forced to decide whether to give up his interest in BlueLinx in reliance upon
materially misleading misstatements and omissions.
</DIV>

<DIV align="left" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 6pt">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Furthermore, Defendants will suffer no prejudice from a short postponement of the closing of
the Proposed Transaction to give shareholders sufficient time to absorb the curative disclosures
and guarantee a back-end short-form merger so that the remaining shareholders who do not tender can
seek appraisal. Any postponement of the closing of the Proposed Transaction, to the extent that is
even necessary, to allow for corrective disclosures is, on balance, worth the cost because it will
ensure an informed decision in connection with the Proposed Transaction.
<I>See In re In re Staples S&#146;holder Litig.</I>, 792 A.2d 934 (Del. Ch. 2001). The shareholders&#146; right
to
</DIV>





<P align="center" style="font-size: 10pt"><!-- Folio -->22<!-- /Folio -->
</DIV>

<!-- PAGEBREAK -->
<P><HR noshade><P>
<H5 align="left" style="page-break-before:always">&nbsp;</H5><P>

<DIV style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif">



<DIV align="left" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 6pt">an informed decision clearly must be protected. Respect for the shareholders&#146; right to determine
the course of this Company&#146;s future compels granting Plaintiff&#146;s motion for a temporary restraining
order. <I>In re Anderson</I>, 519 A.2d 669, 679.
</DIV>


<DIV align="left" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 6pt">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Accordingly, it is clear that the balance of equities favors the issuance of a temporary
restraining order and, thus, this factor weighs in favor of a temporary restraining order.
</DIV>

<DIV align="center" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 18pt"><U><B>CONCLUSION</B></U>
</DIV>


<DIV align="left" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 6pt">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff&#146;s motion for a temporary restraining order should be
granted.
</DIV>

<DIV align="left" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 12pt">DATED: October&nbsp;4, 2010
</DIV>


<TABLE width="100%" border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" style="font-size: 10pt">
<TR>
    <TD width="48%">&nbsp;</TD>
    <TD width="1%">&nbsp;</TD>
    <TD width="1%">&nbsp;</TD>
    <TD width="35%">&nbsp;</TD>
    <TD width="15%">&nbsp;</TD>
</TR>
<TR>
    <TD valign="top" align="left">&nbsp;</TD>
    <TD colspan="3" align="left"><B>LEVI &#038; KORSINSKY, LLP</B><BR>
&nbsp;</TD>
    <TD>&nbsp;</TD>
</TR><TR>
    <TD align="left">&nbsp;</TD>
    <TD colspan="3" style="border-bottom: 1px solid #000000" align="left">/s/ Joseph Levi
&nbsp;</TD>
    <TD>&nbsp;</TD>
</TR><TR>
    <TD align="left">&nbsp;</TD>
    <TD colspan="3" align="left">Joseph Levi &nbsp;</TD>
    <TD>&nbsp;</TD>
</TR><TR>
    <TD align="left">&nbsp;</TD>
    <TD colspan="3" align="left">Shannon L. Hopkins<br>
30 Broad Street, 15<SUP style="FONT-size: 85%; vertical-align: text-top">th</SUP> Floor<br>
New York, New York 10004<br>
Tel: (212) 363-7500<br>
Fax: (212) 363-7171<br>

<br>


<I>Attorneys for Plaintiff</I>&nbsp;</TD>
    <TD>&nbsp;</TD>
</TR>
<TR>
    <TD colspan="5">&nbsp;</TD>
</TR>
</TABLE>


<P align="center" style="font-size: 10pt"><!-- Folio -->23<!-- /Folio -->
</DIV>



</BODY>
</HTML>
</TEXT>
</DOCUMENT>
</SEC-DOCUMENT>
-----END PRIVACY-ENHANCED MESSAGE-----
