IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF SHAWNEE, COUNTY KANSAS

DIVISION 12

RE: In Re KINDER MORGAN, INC., Case No. 06 C 801

The Court has reviewed the motions to appoint lead counsel and/or co-lead counsel in this action. At this point, it does not appear that any of the out-of-state attorneys seeking to be appointed as lead or co-lead counsel have been admitted Pro Hac Vice to practice law in the State of Kansas as required by Kansas Supreme Court Rule 116. It should be recognized that the Court will require all of the attorneys appearing in this case in any capacity to either be licensed in Kansas or admitted Pro Hac Vice.

To date, the court file reflects that the law firms of Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP of Radnor, Pennsylvania and Wechsler Harwood LLP of New York, New York seek to be appointed as co-lead counsel in this action. In addition, the court file reflects that the law firm of Chimicles & Tikellis LLP of Wilmington, Delaware and the Nygaard Law Firm of Leawood, Kansas also seek to be appointed as co-lead counsel. Although there are several other law firms mentioned in the court file, the Court is not aware of any others seeking to be appointed as lead counsel or co-lead counsel at this point in time.

Needless to say, all of the law firms which have indicated an interest in serving as lead or co-lead counsel in this purported class action are composed of a number of experienced attorneys. However, since law firms do not practice law, this Court is much more concerned with the professionalism and experience of the attorneys who would actually be working on this file than it is about the general reputation of a particular law firm. Thus, the Court hereby directs those law firms who seek to be appointed as lead or co-lead counsel to provide additional information

Specifically, regarding each of the attorneys who would be working on this litigation, the Court will want to review information including, but not limited to, the following:

1. Name;
2. Location of Primary Office;
3. Current Position with Law Firm;
4. Summary of Education and Professional Experience;
5. Admissions to State and Federal Bars;
6. Martindale-Hubbell or Similar Ratings;
7. Disclosure of any Public or Private Discipline imposed by any Federal Court, State Court and/or Bar Association (including sanctions, admonishments, censures or other disciplinary action);
8. Anticipated Role in this Litigation;
9. Experience in Similar Litigation;
10. Prior or Current Pro Hac Vice Admissions to State or Federal Courts;
11. Any State or Federal Courts Refusing to Admit Pro Hac Vice;
12. Expertise in Kansas or Delaware Law;
13. Expertise in Shareholder Litigation and/or Class Actions;
14. Any Possible Conflicts of Interest;
15. Other Current Complex Litigation (which could have an impact on the time available to work on this case);
16. Willingness to Give this Litigation Priority; and,
17. Any Claims or Lawsuits for Legal Malpractice (including the outcome of such claim or lawsuit).

All attorneys or law firms interested in being appointed to serve as lead counsel or co-lead counsel in the current litigation pending in the District Court of Shawnee County, Kansas against Kinder Morgan, Inc. shall submit additional information to the Court no later than 5:00 p.m. on July 14, 2006. As Coordinating Counsel, Mr. Hamilton is hereby directed to share this letter with any attorney or law firm listed in the court file other than Ms. Meagher, Mr. Droege, and Mr. Sullivan.

Moreover, Plaintiffs desiring to serve as a representative of the purported class shall provide the Court with sufficient information in support of their appointment by 5:00 p.m. on July 14, 2006. The Court will be reviewing the information provided to determine who can fairly and adequately protect the interests of all of the members of the purported class. As such, any possible conflicts of interest must be disclosed to the Court. In appointing a representative or representatives for the purported class, the Court is primarily concerned with the quality of the representation to be provided rather than with the quantity of shares which a particular Plaintiff may own.

Finally, counsel for the parties are directed to confer as soon as possible to determine whether early alternative dispute resolution should be undertaken in a good faith attempt to resolve the issues presented. Based on the allegations contained in the various Petitions which have been filed, it would appear that all of the parties could benefit from the early resolution of this dispute. Mr. Hamilton and Mr. Sullivan are directed to give the Court a written status report on these preliminary discussions no later than 5:00 p.m. on July 14, 2006.

This letter shall serve as an Order of the Court. No further Journal Entry is required

Entered by,

David E. Bruns
District Court Judge