• Richard Thornburgh, Former Chief Legal Officer for U.S., Says Case Without Merit Because:
  • U.S. RICO Law Was Not Intended to be Applied by Foreign Courts
  • The Bank of New York Was Never Found to Have Committed Any Violation of U.S. Criminal Law by Any U.S. Court as Required for RICO
  • RICO Law Requires Proof of Damages, Which the Plaintiff Has Not Provided
• Prominent Russian Legal Experts, Including Former First Deputy Chairman of the Russian Federation High Arbitrazh Court, Agree There Are No Grounds For Meritless Claims Against Bank
• Company Remains Confident Any Adverse Judgment Could Not Be Enforced and That There Will Be No Material Financial Impact on The Bank of New York Mellon or Its Shareholders

NEW YORK, May 19, 2008 — The Bank of New York Mellon Corporation (NYSE: BK) said today that it had submitted expert testimony from former U.S. Attorney General Richard Thornburgh, the former chief legal officer for the United States, and numerous independent Russian legal experts, that strongly supports the Company's motion to dismiss the case brought against it in a Russian court by Florida trial lawyers representing the Russian Federal Customs Service (FCS).

Leading Russian legal experts, including the former First Deputy Chairman of the Russian Federation High Arbitrazh Court as well as scholars from the prestigious Moscow State Institute for International Relations and the Institute for the Study of the USA and Canada of the Russian Academy of Sciences, have filed expert opinions on behalf of the Bank. These expert opinions agree with Mr. Thornburgh's conclusion that the entire case is based on a misapplication of U.S. RICO law.

Mr. Thornburgh's testimony was submitted for a hearing today in Moscow that addressed procedural matters. The proceedings were adjourned until June 30, 2008, and there continues to be no ruling on the merits of the case. The Company remains confident that any adverse judgment could not be enforced, given the substantial, well-established legal and financial safeguards in place, and that there will be no material financial impact on the Company or its shareholders.

The meritless claims in the case, which were devised by trial lawyers from Miami, Florida, center on unspecified customs duties that the FCS alleges were owed to Russia on funds transferred out of the country in the 1990s, some of which moved through accounts at The Bank of New York. U.S. courts have summarily dismissed attempts by these trial lawyers to use the same legal theories to bring similar claims for customs duties against U.S. tobacco companies on behalf of Belize, Ecuador and Honduras.

Former U.S. Attorney General Dick Thornburgh Says There Is No Basis for a RICO Claim and FCS's Failure to Prove Damages Requires Dismissal

Mr. Thornburgh submitted two expert opinions that strongly support the Company's motion to dismiss based on the application of U.S. RICO law. In the first of his two affidavits, the former U.S. Attorney General explains that the FCS's jurisdictional argument is without merit because:

• No U.S. court has ever found that The Bank of New York committed any violation of U.S. law in connection with the events referenced in the FCS claim;
• In order to render judgment on the FCS's RICO claim for damages, a court would first have to determine that the Company had violated a number of U.S. criminal laws, which did not happen; and
• The U.S. Congress never intended that the U.S. RICO statute be applied by foreign courts.

The Company also filed expert opinion from Mr. Thornburgh that makes clear that under RICO, a plaintiff must provide proof of damages, which the FCS has not done. In fact, at the April 7, 2008 court hearing in Moscow, the FCS admitted that it did not have any evidence of unpaid customs duties. FCS lawyers were not even able to estimate the amount of any such damages, and said in court: "there is no such information...(and) even an approximate estimate does not seem possible in this instance." Mr. Thornburgh stressed that U.S. law requires summary dismissal of a RICO case if the plaintiff cannot prove damages, as is the case here.

Leading Russian Legal Experts Agree That the Claim Against The Bank Is Without Any Basis, Including Under Russian Law

The Bank's most recent motion to dismiss is supported by legal opinion from five prominent Russian experts who explain, among other points, that the case cannot proceed because U.S. RICO law is a criminal statute from the standpoint of Russian and U.S. law, and the Arbitrazh Court does not have jurisdiction over matters of criminal law.

The Russian experts who provided legal opinion in support of the Bank's motion are:

• M.K. Yukov, former First Deputy Chairman of the Russian Federation High Arbitrazh Court, Doctor of Law and Professor;
• A.A. Malinovsky, Candidate of Law, Associate Professor in the Criminal Law; Department, Moscow State Institute of International Relations (University), Russian Federation Ministry of Foreign Affairs;
• V.A. Vlasikhin, Ph.D. in Law and lead research fellow of the Institute for the Study of the USA and Canada of the Russian Academy of Sciences;
• V.V. Yarkov, Doctor of Law, Professor, Head of the Civil Procedure Department of the Ural State Law Academy; and
• A.T. Bonner, Doctor of Law, Professor of the Civil Procedure Department of Moscow State Law Academy.

FCS's "Expert" Testimony from a Miami-Based Plaintiff's Attorney Contains Multiple Misstatements

Lawyers for the FCS submitted an "expert affidavit" on U.S. RICO law from Michael Hanzman, who, like FCS's lead counsel Steven Marks, is a plaintiffs' lawyer also based in Miami, Florida. Hanzman specializes in initiating class actions in product liability and securities law cases, not RICO law. Further, his "expert affidavit" is full of misstatements of fact and governing law, and fails to address key points made by The Bank of New York Mellon in its motion to dismiss the case for lack of jurisdiction. For example:

• Hanzman repeats the falsehood, also cited in the FCS's Statement of Claim, that the Company admitted violating various U.S. criminal statutes in its Non-Prosecution Agreement with the U.S. Department of Justice. As is clear from the face of the Non-Prosecution Agreement and Mr. Thornburgh's affidavit, the Company was never charged with violating any of those criminal statutes, and it certainly did not admit to violating them as Hanzman erroneously claims in his affidavit.
• Hanzman inexplicably cites from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, Republic of the Philippines v. Marcos, where the government of the Philippines brought a RICO claim in a U.S. court. This case, instead of supporting the FCS's position, in fact supports the Company's legal argument that all RICO cases must be brought in U.S. courts.
• Hanzman fails to cite a single case where a foreign court has applied U.S. RICO law, apparently because no such case exists.
• His affidavit completely fails to address the Company's argument that RICO requires a court to engage in a criminal law analysis and that this particular court, the Russian Arbitrazh Court, does not and cannot apply criminal law.

Background on the Russian Court Case

The underlying facts of this case involve a series of unauthorized fund transfers coming from Russia through The Bank of New York nearly ten years ago that were conducted by a former, self-admitted "rogue" employee of the Company without the knowledge of the Bank. Investigations of these transfers in the late 1990s by the U.S. government, working in concert with U.K. and Russian authorities, were concluded and resolved by agreements between the Bank and regulatory and legal authorities.

The Bank of New York was never charged with any wrongdoing nor was it accused of the crimes upon which the Russian claims are purportedly based. As part of a non-prosecution agreement with the U.S. Department of Justice, the Company acknowledged a failure to adequately monitor and supervise wire transfer activity and paid a fine of $14 million. The former employee and her husband pled guilty in February 2000 to conspiracy and assisting the operation of an unlicensed foreign bank in the U.S. The Company took swift disciplinary action against the employee and took corrective action to help prevent such activity from occurring in the future.

The meritless claims in the Russian case, which were devised by trial lawyers from Miami, Florida, center on customs duties that were allegedly owed to Russia on unspecified imports that were allegedly partially purchased using the transferred funds. Customs duties — if owed by anyone in this matter — are due from Russian companies and Russian banks that were involved in importing goods into Russia at that time. The Company is not liable to Russia for any customs duties. The trial lawyers previously attempted to use the same legal theories to bring similar claims for customs duties against U.S. tobacco companies on behalf of Belize, Ecuador, and Honduras, and those cases were summarily dismissed by U.S. courts.

The Bank of New York Mellon Corporation is a global financial services company focused on helping clients manage and service their financial assets, operating in 34 countries and serving more than 100 markets. The company is a leading provider of financial services for institutions, corporations and high-net-worth individuals, providing superior asset management and wealth management, asset servicing, issuer services, clearing services and treasury services through a worldwide client-focused team. It has more than $23 trillion in assets under custody and administration, more than $1.1 trillion in assets under management and services $12 trillion in outstanding debt. Additional information is available at bnymellon.com.

This document contains statements relating to future events that are considered "forward-looking statements." These statements, which may be expressed in a variety of ways, including the use of future or present tense language, relate to, among other things, the potential outcomes and impact of the claim made by the Federal Customs Service of the Russian Federation on The Bank of New York Mellon Corporation. These forward-looking statements are based on assumptions that involve risks and uncertainties and are subject to change based on various important factors (some of which are beyond the control of The Bank of New York Mellon Corporation). Actual results may differ materially from those expressed or implied as a result of these risks and uncertainties, including but not limited to the risk factors and other uncertainties detailed in the annual report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2007 filed by The Bank of New York Mellon Corporation with the Securities and Exchange Commission and other reports filed with the Commission pursuant to the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. All statements in this document speak only as of May 19, 2008, and The Bank of New York Mellon Corporation undertakes no obligation to update any statement to reflect events or circumstances after May 19, 2008 or to reflect the occurrence of unanticipated events.