Item 5 of the Schedule 14D-9 (“Persons/Assets, Retained, Employed, Compensated or Used”) is hereby amended and supplemented by changing the last sentence of the first paragraph thereof as follows:

“During 2009, Stephens assisted the Company with a subordinated debt offering and also assisted the Company with considering potential acquisition targets and potential acquirers of the Company. Potential acquisition targets and/or potential acquirers included approximately nine companies with potential strategic interest in a prospective transaction with the Company. During the past four years, Stephens has received fees from the Company in the aggregate amount of $794,000.”

Item 8 of the Schedule 14D-9 is hereby amended and supplemented by adding the following sentence at the end of the subsection entitled “Appraisal Rights”:

“In connection with the settlement of the litigation described below, the Company has agreed that it will not assert that a stockholder’s demand for appraisal is not timely under Section 262 if such stockholder who otherwise satisfies the requirements of Section 262 submits a written demand for appraisal within 30 calendar days of the special meeting of stockholders held to adopt the Merger Agreement (with any such deadline being extended to the following business day should the 30^th day fall on a holiday or weekend). In addition, the Company will not assert that (i) a stockholder who is entitled to appraisal rights may not file a petition in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware demanding a determination of the value of the Shares held by all stockholders if such petition is not filed within 120 days of the Effective Time as long as such petition is filed within 150 days of the Effective Time, (ii) a stockholder may not withdraw such stockholder’s demand for appraisal and accept the terms offered by the Merger if such withdrawal is not made within 60 days of the Effective Time and (iii) a stockholder may not, upon written request, receive from the surviving corporation a statement setting forth the aggregate number of Shares not voted in favor of the Merger with respect to which demands for appraisal have been received and the aggregate number of holders of such Appraisal Shares if such request is not made within 120 days of the Effective Time as long as such request is made within 150 days of the Effective Time.”

Item 8 of the Schedule 14D-9 is hereby further amended and supplemented by adding the following under the subsection entitled “Litigation” in its entirety as follows:

“The Company, its directors and Purchaser and Parent have entered into a Memorandum of Understanding with the plaintiffs in the previously described litigation concerning the Offer and Merger to settle all components of that litigation in all of the cases. Subject to approval by the Rogers County District Court in the Gibbs case noted above, the settlement includes (a) certification of a settlement class consisting of all record and beneficial holders of the Company’s Shares at any time from April 1, 2010 through and including the date of the closing of the Merger; (b) certain supplemental disclosures contained in this Amendment No. 1 to Schedule 14D-9; (c) certain amendments to the Merger Agreement described herein; (d) extension of the Expiration Date of the Offer from June 7, 2010 to June 14, 2010; (e) a release of all claims by class members against all defendants arising from the Offer and subsequent Merger; (f) orders or judgments of dismissal with prejudice in all cases comprising the litigation; (g) an attorneys’ fee, including expenses for plaintiffs’ counsel, of $500,000; and (h) further terms, all as detailed in the Memorandum of Understanding attached as Exhibit (a)(1)(K).”

“The Memorandum of Understanding provides that the Company and its directors, and Purchaser and Parent each have denied, and continue to deny, that they have committed, attempted to commit, or aided and abetted the commission of, any violation of law or engaged in any of the wrongful acts alleged in the complaints, and expressly maintain that they have diligently and scrupulously complied with their fiduciary duties and other legal duties and are entering into the settlement solely to eliminate the burden and expense of continued litigation. Notwithstanding their belief that the allegations are without merit, in order to eliminate the litigation burden and expense, the defendants have concluded that it is desirable that the claims against them be settled on the terms reflected in the Memorandum of Understanding, and the Company has agreed to make the additional disclosures set forth in this Amendment No. 1 without agreeing that any of such disclosures are material and despite denying that the previous disclosures were inadequate.”

4