25th July, 2012

TELECONFERENCE TERRITORY OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS Wednesday, 25th July 2012 APPLICATIONS AND APPEALS Case Name: Kenneth M. Krys and Joanna Lau (as Joint Liquidators of Fairfield Sentry Limited, Fairfield Sigma Limited and Fairfield Lambda Limited) [High Court Civil Appeal No. 69 of 2011] Coram: The Hon. Mde. Janice M. Pereira, Chief Justice [Ag.] The Hon. Mr. Davidson K. Baptiste, Justice of Appeal The Hon. Mr. Don Mitchell, Justice of Appeal [Ag.] Appearances: Appellants / Applicants: Mr. Alan Maclean, QC and Mr. Stephen Midwinter and Mr. William Hare Issues: Application by Liquidators for order continuing or for court’s sanction to proceed with appeal to Privy Council and to continue with US Redeemer actions pending determination of appeals by Privy Council – Whether this Court can grant extensions of time to appeal to Privy Council or whether application should be made directly to Privy Council Result / Order: [Oral delivery]

1.The Applicant do have sanction, pursuant to the winding up Orders of each of Fairfield Sentry Limited (in Liquidation), Fairfield Sigma Limited (in Liquidation) and Fairfield Lambda Limited (in Liquidation), (“the Companies”) to pursue appeals to the Privy Council against the dismissal by this Court of appeals from: a. the Order of the Honourable Justice Bannister, QC of 16 September 2011 giving Judgment for the Defendants on the ‘good consideration’ Preliminary Issue in claim number BVIHC (Com) 30/2010 – Fairfield Sentry Limited (in Liquidation) and others v Bank Julius Baer & Co. Ltd. and 33 others and seven other claims; and b. the Order of the Honourable Justice Bannister, QC of 10 October 2011 granting summary judgment in the said proceedings in favour of defendants thereto.

2.The Applicant do have sanction to resist appeals to the Privy Council brought by any party against the dismissal by this Court of appeals from the Order of the Honourable Justice Bannister, QC of 16 September 2011 giving Judgment for the Claimants on the ‘Article 11’ Preliminary Issue in claim number BVIHC (Com) 30/2010 – Fairfield Sentry Limited (in Liquidation) and others v Bank Julius Baer & Co. Ltd. and 33 others and seven other claims.

3.Pending the final determination by the Privy Council of the said appeals: a. The Companies in liquidation have sanction and approval from the Court to take such steps as are necessary or appropriate further to prosecute expeditiously any and all common law claims which they are asserting (or may assert) in the United States and elsewhere (including, for the avoidance of doubt, claims based on mistaken payment, unjust enrichment and other common law causes of action); and assistance is requested by this Court from the Courts in the United States and elsewhere to enable, facilitate and implement the sanction and approval granted herein; and b. The liquidator has sanction and approval from the Court to take such steps as are necessary or appropriate further to prosecute expeditiously in the United States Bankruptcy Court claims brought pursuant to ss. 245 and 246 of the Insolvency Act 2003; and assistance is requested by this Court from the relevant Courts in the United States to enable, facilitate and implement the sanction and approval granted herein.

4.In the event that the Applicant does not pursue any appeal to the Privy Council as referred to in paragraph 1 above, the sanction set out in paragraph 3 above shall lapse forthwith. Reason: The sanctions which were given by Court of Appeal on 5th December 2011 were limited to the appeals proceeding before the Court of Appeal. However, the Court was persuaded that there should be further sanction to allow the liquidators to appeal to the Privy Council and that during that time and until determination of the appeal to Privy Council, the US Redeemer actions should continue.

1TELECONFERENCE TERRITORY OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS Wednesday, 25th July 2012APPLICATIONS AND APPEALS Case Name: Kenneth M. Krys and Joanna Lau (as Joint Liquidators of Fairfield Sentry Limited, Fairfield Sigma Limited and Fairfield Lambda Limited) [High Court Civil Appeal No. 69 of 2011] Coram: The Hon. Mde. Janice M. Pereira, Chief Justice [Ag.] The Hon. Mr. Davidson K. Baptiste, Justice of Appeal The Hon. Mr. Don Mitchell, Justice of Appeal [Ag.] Appearances: Appellants / Applicants: Mr. Alan Maclean, QC and Mr. Stephen Midwinter and Mr. William Hare Issues: Application by Liquidators for order continuing or for court’s sanction to proceed with appeal to Privy Council and to continue with US Redeemer actions pending determination of appeals by Privy Council – Whether this Court can grant extensions of time to appeal to Privy Council or whether application should be made directly to Privy Council Result / Order: [Oral delivery] 1. The Applicant do have sanction, pursuant to the winding up Orders of

each of Fairfield Sentry Limited (in Liquidation), Fairfield Sigma Limited (in Liquidation) and Fairfield Lambda Limited (in Liquidation), (“the Companies”) to pursue appeals to the Privy Council against the dismissal by this Court of appeals from: a. the Order of the Honourable Justice 2Bannister, QC of 16 September 2011 giving Judgment for the Defendants on the ‘good consideration’ Preliminary Issue in claim number BVIHC (Com) 30/2010 – Fairfield Sentry Limited (in Liquidation) and others v Bank Julius Baer & Co. Ltd. and 33 others and seven other claims; and b. the Order of the Honourable Justice Bannister, QC of 10 October 2011 granting summary judgment in the said proceedings in favour of defendants thereto. 2. The Applicant do have sanction to resist appeals to the Privy Council brought by any party against the dismissal by this Court of appeals from the Order of the Honourable Justice Bannister, QC of 16 September 2011 giving Judgment for the Claimants on the ‘Article

11’ Preliminary Issue in claim number BVIHC (Com) 30/2010 – Fairfield Sentry Limited (in Liquidation) and others v Bank Julius Baer & Co. Ltd. and 33 others and seven other claims. 3. Pending the final determination by the Privy Council of the said appeals: a. The Companies in liquidation have sanction and approval from the Court to take such steps as are necessary or appropriate further to prosecute expeditiously any and all common law claims which they are asserting (or may assert) in the United States and elsewhere (including, for the avoidance of doubt, claims based on mistaken payment, unjust enrichment and other common law causes of action); and 3assistance is requested by this Court from the Courts in the United States and elsewhere to enable, facilitate and implement the sanction and approval granted herein; and b. The liquidator has sanction and approval from the Court to take such steps as are necessary or appropriate further to prosecute expeditiously in

the United States Bankruptcy Court claims brought pursuant to ss. 245 and 246 of the Insolvency Act 2003; and assistance is requested by this Court from the relevant Courts in the United States to enable, facilitate and implement the sanction and approval granted herein; 4. In The event that the Applicant does not pursue any appeal to the Privy Council as referred to in paragraph 1 above, the sanction set out in paragraph 3 above shall lapse forthwith. Reason: The sanctions which were given by Court of Appeal on 5th December 2011 were limited to the appeals proceeding before the Court of Appeal. However, the Court was persuaded that there should be further sanction to allow the liquidators to appeal to the Privy Council and that during that time and until determination of the appeal to Privy Council, the US Redeemer actions should continue.