NRL Neuberger BM RE

Neuberger Berman Real Estate Income Fund Inc. (NYSE: NRL) announced that the federal district court for the District of Maryland issued an Opinion this week in the case Neuberger Berman Real Estate Income Fund Inc. v. Lola Brown Trust No. 1B et al., 04-cv-03056 (AMD) that stems from the hostile tender offer commenced by the Lola Brown Trust No. 1B (the �Trust� or �Lola Trust�) in 2004 in an effort to gain control of NRL. The Opinion issued by Judge Andre M. Davis addresses those claims described in the court�s April 2007 Declaratory Judgment Order and resolves most of the other claims between the parties. The Opinion confirms that NRL�s adoption of serial rights agreements to defend against the tender offer does not violate federal or state law or the Fund�s charter, i.e., that NRL�s �poison pill� defense is valid. Noting that the Lola Trust had taken no substantial steps toward a negotiation aimed at improving its offer �despite a dramatic increase in the market value of NRL shares throughout the pendency of this case,� the court held that the Board did not violate the law in adopting serial rights agreements �pending a final resolution of the legality of its defensive measures taken in the good faith belief that shareholder value was at risk.� Additionally, the court upheld NRL�s interpretation of the scope of any exemption for the Lola Trust under the Maryland Control Share Acquisition Act (the �MCSAA�), ruling that although the Trust could vote the NRL shares it held at the time NRL opted into the MCSAA, the Trust may only vote any shares that it acquired after NRL�s opt-in on September 23, 2004, or that it acquires hereafter, with the approval of two-thirds of NRL�s disinterested stockholders, as that statute provides. The court also held that the Lola Trust is not an investment company and is not a constituent entity of an investment company within the meaning of the Investment Company Act of 1940, and is not prohibited by section 12(d) thereof from owning more than 3% of the outstanding voting shares of NRL. In the Opinion, Judge Davis also held that NRL did not violate the prohibition against insider trading when it completed a private sale of NRL common stock to its affiliate, Neuberger Berman, LLC, after the tender offer commenced. Finally, having determined that NRL acted in accordance with the law in adopting defensive measures to thwart the tender offer, the court dismissed the claim that NRL�s defensive measures wrongfully interfered with the Lola Trust�s ability to do business. The claim of wrongful interference was the sole basis on which the Trust sought to recover a monetary award against NRL. The Opinion addresses all pending claims in the litigation with the exception of NRL�s claim under the Williams Act that the tender offer (as amended on October 4, 2004) contains false and/or misleading statements. The court denied the motions for summary judgment filed by all parties regarding this claim and indicated that �[i]f this issue is not rendered effectively moot by the [analyses in the Opinion], then a prompt trial will be calendared.� Forward-Looking Statements Statements made in this release that look forward in time involve risks and uncertainties and are forward-looking statements within the meaning of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. Such risks and uncertainties include, without limitation, the adverse effect from a decline in the securities markets or a decline in the Fund�s performance, a general downturn in the economy, competition from other funds, changes in government policy or regulation, inability of the Fund�s investment advisor to attract or retain key employees, inability of the Fund�s investment advisor to implement its investment strategy, inability of the Fund to manage unforeseen costs and other effects related to legal proceedings or investigations of governmental and self-regulatory organizations.