PLEASE BE FURTHER ADVISED that pursuant to an Order of the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware (the “Court”), dated July 9, 2013 (the “Scheduling Order”), a hearing (the “Settlement Hearing”) will be held on September 9, 2013, at 10:00 a.m., before The Honorable Leo E. Strine, Jr., in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware, New Castle County Courthouse, 500 North King Street, Wilmington, DE 19801. The purpose of the Settlement Hearing is: (a) to determine whether Plaintiffs and Counsel for the Plaintiffs have adequately represented the interests of Outdoor and its stockholders; (b) to determine whether a Stipulation of Settlement dated July 8, 2013 (the “Stipulation”), and the terms and conditions of the Settlement proposed in the Stipulation, are fair, reasonable, adequate and in the best interests of Outdoor and its stockholders; (c) to determine whether the Court should enter an Order and Final Judgment, substantially in the form attached as Exhibit F to the Stipulation, dismissing the Derivative Action with prejudice, and releasing, barring, and enjoining the prosecution of any Released Plaintiff Claims against the Released Defendant Persons and any Released Defendant Claims against the Released Plaintiff Persons; (d) to consider the application by Counsel for the Plaintiffs for an award of attorneys’ fees and expenses; (e) hear and determine any objections to the Settlement and/or Counsel for the Plaintiffs’ application for an award of attorneys’ fees and expenses; and (f) to rule on such other matters as the Court may deem appropriate.The Derivative Action and Settlement address claims alleging that Clear Channel Communications, Inc. (“Clear Channel”) and its private-equity sponsors, Bain Capital Partners, LLC and Thomas H. Lee Partners, L.P., breached their fiduciary duties to Outdoor and its stockholders by requiring the Company to agree to amend the terms of the Revolving Promissory Note, dated as of November 10, 2005, between Clear Channel, as maker, and Outdoor, as payee (as amended by the first amendment dated as of December 23, 2009, and as may be further amended, the “Note”), to extend the maturity date of the Note and to amend the interest rate payable on the Note (the “Contract Rate”). According to the derivative complaints, the terms of the amended Note were unfair to Outdoor because, among other things, the Contract Rate was below market. The derivative complaints allege that Clear Channel and its private-equity sponsors were unjustly enriched as a result of the foregoing transaction. The derivative complaints also allege that certain current and former directors of Outdoor and Clear Channel breached their fiduciary duties to Outdoor in connection with the transaction and that the transaction constituted corporate waste. The derivative complaints also allege that the Clear Channel Board of Directors (the “Board”) breached its fiduciary duties to Outdoor and its stockholders by refusing to demand repayment of the outstanding balance of the Note despite the contractual right to do so. On April 4, 2012, the Board formed the SLC consisting of independent directors to review and investigate Plaintiffs’ derivative claims and determine the course of action that serves the best interest of the Company and its stockholders.