gPgm s7eo REoG Reig Sess ° a528 a = = 5 Ss = = 2 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF MAURITIUS In the matter of 4, ENL Land Lid. of ENL House, Vivea Business Park, Moka 2. Rogers and Company Limited of No. 5, President John Kennedy Street, Port Louis Plaintiffs vis Kriti Taukoordass of Unicorn House Port Louis And In the presence of 1, The Financial Services Commission of 54 Cybercity, Ebéne New Mauritius Hotels Limited of Beachcomber House Botanical Garden ‘Street, Curepipe ‘Swan Life Ltd. of Swan Building Intendance Street Port Louis ‘The Stock Exchange of Mauritius Ltd, of 4* Floor One Cathedral Square, Port Louis ‘Third Parties PLAINT WITH SUMMONS, 1 THE PARTIES ‘The Plaintiff No.1 (hereinafter referred to as “ENLL") is a listed company on the Stock Exchange of Mauritius Ltd, since the 27" December 1989 with a market capitalisation of Rs 14 billion. It has significant operational activities in property, hospitality, agro- industry, logistics, financial services, aviation, and technology with operations covering Africa, the Indien Ooean region, Asia and France. ENLL is the successor to the rights of ENL Investment Ltd, with which it amalgamated on the ‘# February 2016.‘The Piaintif No. 2 (hereinafter referred to as “Rogers’), is a listed company on the Stock Exchange of Mauritius Ltd. since 1990, is a subsidiary of ENLL, and is an international services and investment company with expertise in financial technology, hospitality, logistics, and property. It is one of the largest multi-business corporate enterprises in Mauritius and has been a pioneer in the country’s hospitality industry and a founding shareholder of New Mauritius Hotels Limited, the Third Party No. 2. ‘The Defendant (hereinafter referred to as “KT") is @ Chertered Accountant who is partner at Mazars and was purportedly appointed under section 44A of the Financial Services Act 2007 as Investigator to look into whether “there may have been a breach of the Securities Act and the Securities (Takeover) Rules 2010 in relation to the transactions, conceming the shares of New Mauritius Hotels Lia’, the Third Party No.2, by the Plaintiffs. For the avoidance of doubt, the Plaintiffs do not accept the validity of KT's aforesaid appointment or of any action taken by KT (or omission made by him) in purported pursuance thereof, and nothing in this Plaint should be understood otherwise ‘The Third Party No.1 (hereinafter referred to as the “FSC’) is the regulator under the Financial Services Act 2007, is the Authority having the responsibilty of overseeing all the companies covered by the Securities Act, and is the Authority responsible for regulating takeovers. The Third Party No. 2 (hereinafter referred to as "NMH") trades under the brand "Beachcomber Hotels & Resorts’. I owns and manages 8 hotels in Mauritius, 1 hotel in the Seychelles and 1 hotel in Morocco. It also operates an in-flight catering business (operating as ‘Plaisance Catering’) and 5 tour operating companies around the world. NMH is the biggest and oldest hotel group in Mauritius with about 2077 rooms. It is one of the largest companies listed on the Stock Exchange of Mauritius by market capitalization, The Third Party No. 3 (hereinafter referred to as “Swan’) is a subsidiary of Swan General Lt¢., one of the pillars of the insurance industry in Mauritius. Swan is listed on the Stock Exchange of Mauritius Ltd. since 2006, Its Entorprise Value is of nearly Rs 5 Billion and has assets of some Rs 45 Billion under management. ‘The Third Perty No 4 (hereinafler referted {o as “SEM") regulates the stock market of Mauritius and is the party responsible for the operation and promotion of an efficientand regulated securities market in Mauritius. Section 24 of the Securities Act also specifically assigns to the SEM the duty to investigate possible market abuses including insider dealing INVESTMENTS IN NMH BY ENLL, ROGERS AND SWAN 8. ENLL’s and Rogers’ longstanding strategy has been to hold a diverse set of investments, including a significant stake in the hotel and leisure sectors. Rogers in particular, as @ pioneer in the country’s hospitality industry, was the founder of NMH. ‘The ENL Group and Rogers have over more than 60 years always maintained their long-standing interest in NM. Each of the Piaintifs did so because they believed in the prospects of NMH in the long term as @ valuable and sustainable investment, Acquisition of NMH shares by the Plaintiffs and Swan in 2016 9. Between 16" and 18% February 2016, ENLL and Rogers invested, through several transactions, in 20,337,289 and 7,827,486 further ordinary shares and 3,797,115 and 1,387,235 further preference shares in NMH, respectively. ("the 2016 Acquisitions") 10. Swan also acquired additional NMH shares at the same time. Acquisition of shares in NMH in January 2017 and the mandatory offer 11..On 19" January 2017, ENLL and Rogers then decided to purchase an additional 715,000 ordinary shares in NMH, in propor to their existing holdings (the "2017 Acquisitions’). These purchases took ENLL and Rogers together over the 30% shareholding threshold under the Securities (Takeover) Rules 2010 (the "Takeover Rules") beyond which they would be required to make a mandatory offer for the remaining shares in NMH. 12. Consequently, on the 19" January 2017, ENLL and Rogers jointly: (2) wrote to the FSC, copied to the SEM, to notify it that they had effected the 2017 Acquisitions and that they would be making a mandatory offer to the shareholders of NMH under Rule 33(1)(b) of the Takeover Rules. (b) issued a firm intention letter to the board of NMH to make that mandatory offer under Rule 9 of the Takeover Rules. 3(c) made a joint public announcement that they would proceed with a mandatory offer as described above, pursuant to Rule 12(1)(d) of the Takeover Rules. 43. On the 27% January 2017, ENLL and Rogers issued a joint communiqué to inform the shareholders of NMH and the public of the key dates relating to the mandatory offer and of a number of ancillary practical matters. 14.0n the 6 February 2017, ENLL and Rogers filed a copy of the offer document relating to the mandatory offer with the FSC, copied to the SEM, pursuant to Rule 16 of the Takeover Rules. 15.By letter dated 8 February 2017, the FSC required ENLL and Rogers to make amendments to the offer document. ENLL and Rogers complied with that request and an amended offer document was filed with the FSC, copied to the SEM, on the 13" February 2017. 16. By letter dated 13" February 2017, the FSC informed ENLL and Rogers that it would Not object to the circulation of the offer document as amended to the shareholders of NM. 17. On the 20% February 2017, the FSC orally requested ENLL and Rogers to attend an urgent meeting at its offices, the purpose of which was to seek clarifications regarding the 2016 Acquisitions. Immediately following the said meeting, ENLL and Rogers wrote jointly to the FSC to confirm that they did not control Swan and its investment decisions. ENLL and Rogers further confirmed that there was, neither at that time nor at the time of the 2016 Acquisitions, any agreement or understanding, whether formal or informal pursuant to which ENLL and Rogers on the one hand and ‘Swan on the other hand cooperated to obtain or consolidate effective control of NMH. ENLL and Rogers further confirmed that the combined shareholdings of the Plaintifis as well as Swan and Swan General Ltd. had already exceeded the 30% threshold well before the 2016 Acquisitions. 18, Subsequently on the 20" February 2017, the FSC issued a communiqué (‘the First Communiqué’) headed “New Mauritius Hotels Limited (‘NMH')" regarding “the allegations reported in the press relating to dealings in shares of INMH] with respect to the mandatory offer that Is being launched today”. The First Communiqué continued“The FSC has continuously been monitoring the matter since February 2016. The FSC wishes to inform the public that, from the evidence gathered so far and the materials available on record, it does not consider that any breach of the Securities (Takeover) Rules 2010 has taken place.” 19.On the 20" February 2017, ENLL's and Rogers’ mandetory offer was sent to the shareholders of NMH, and ENLL and Rogers informed the SEM of the same by way of a letter dated 22 February 2017. On the 27 March 2017, ENLL and Rogers’ mandatory offer wes accepted in respect of 25,546,555 ordinary shares in NMH. On the 31% March 2017, ENLL and Rogers issued a joint communiqué to announce this ‘outcome of the mandatory offer. COMPLAINT BY SUNNYSTARS: 20. Sunnystars Resorts Holdings Ltd. (‘Sunnystars") is a company incorporated in Mauritius on the 24" September 2016. Its sole directors are Sivakumaren Mardemootoo ("RM") and Anthony Charles Desir ("Desir"). Sunnystars has no stated capital, but has 400 unpaid ordinary shares allotted to Sunnystars Consultancy Holdings Ltd. ("Sunnystars Consultancy"). Likewise, Sunnystars Consultancy has no stated capital but has 200 unpaid ordinary shares, with RM and Desir each holding 100 unpaid shares. RM and Desir are also the sole directors of Sunnystars Consultancy. 24. Sunnystars became a shareholder of NMH on the 22% October 2015 by investing Rs18,000 for 1,008 NUH shares. 22. Sunnystars through Ms. Komachi Mardemootoo, attorney-at- law, wrote to the FSC on its behalf on the 22” and the 26 March 2017 in the terms set out below. Given that Sunnystars is a shell company operated by and for the benefit of RM and Desir, itis inferred that Sunnystars did so at their behest.23. In the letter dated the 2% Merch 2017, Sunnystars alleged that the Plaintiffs and ‘Swan had breached Rule 33(1)(b) of the Takeover Rules by acting in concert in the 2016 Acquisitions, and requested the FSC, to suspend the mandatory offer made by ENLL and Rogers and to institute an investigation to look into the 2016 Acquisitions. 24. The letter of the 26" March 2017, suggested a further spurious legal basis on whitch it claimed that the Plaintiffs and Swan ought to have made a mandatory offer for shares in NMH in February 2016. It reiterated the prayers of Sunnystars’ previous correspondence and stated that the 2016 Acquisition had breached section 94(3) of the Securities Act. Sunnystars changed the basis of its complaint to introduce that irrespective of the lack of any ‘acting in concert’ to acquire effective control between the Plaintifs and Swan, the latter had nevertheless somehow breached Section 94 of the Securities Act given that Swan is an ‘associate’ of ENLL. 25. The allegations in Sunnystars’ letters of the 22" and the 26 March 2017 are false, the legal analysis contained therein is misconceived, and the Plaintiffs have responded to them appropriately in the course of their dealings with the FSC. 26. Nonetheless, Sunnysiars' letters have been made available publicly through the press in a transparent attempt to sully the Plaintiffs’ reputation, and no doubt place pressure on the FSC in the discharge of its statutory duties. 27. The Plaintiffs were not copied on either of these letters. Nor have they been sent copies of them, despite formal request to this effect. In fact, it is only through the press leaks described above that the Plaintiffs became aware of their contents, 28. The Plaintiffs have subsequently learnt that around the same time as the letters referred to above, Ms. Mardemootoo also sent the FSC a mise en demeure on Sunnystars' behalf, repeating its allegations and requesting the FSC to accede to its prayers as stated in its letters of complaint. 29, Given the nature of Sunnystars ‘complaints’ and allegations and the grave effect they were having on a publicly isted company (NMH) and on its longstanding institutional shareholders, and particularly on the Plaintiffs, it wes essential that i any investigation were to be conducted into the 2016 Acquisitions (none being in fact warranted on a true and fair appraisal of the situation), such investigation be conducted fairly, transparently and in good faith. As explained below, KT, as investigator appointed in that respect, has acted in the exact opposite manner.‘THE CLAIM AGAINST KT 30. The present Plaint is brought by the Plaintiffs against KT for the improper manner in which he has conducted his investigation, prompted by Sunnystars’ unfounded allegations referred to above and in spite of the FSC’s statement in the First Communiqué. Purported basis of KT's investigation 31.0n the 31# March 2017. the FSC issued @ communiqué (the “Second Communiqué’), informing the public that it had, under section 44A of the Financial Services Act 2007, purported to appoint KT as Investigator. The Second Communiqué stated that a special investigation was being set up to look into whether there had been any breach of the Takeover Rules or the Securities Act by the Plaintiffs and Swan in respect of transactions involving the shares of NMH. 32, From the outset KT has failed to respond to the Ptaintiffs! request (made in writing on the St April 2017) to be made aware of his terms of reference. 33. Nor has KT responded to the Plaintiffs’ o Swan's repeated requests (made in writing on the 10" April 2017) to be made aware of the nature of his investigation, that is, ‘whether it was regulatory, disciplinary or criminal in nature and to explain what new facts (if any) had prompted his investigation in the first place, given the public statement in the First Communiqué that no breach of the Takeover Rules had been found 34. KT has similarly ignored the Plaintiffs’ objections as to the validity of his appointment raised in writing on the 20" April 2017, and proceeded with his investigation without awaiting (or indeed requesting) clarification from the FSC in that respect. 35.Further, KT has positively misled the Plaintiffs as to his terms of reference as Investigator: (2) On the 5 April 2017, the Plaintiffs made a written request to be informed of KT's terms of reference as investigator. By way of a letter dated the 11° April 2017, KT sent his purported terms of reference to the Plaintiffs, (b) During a hearing on the 12 April 2017, questions were once again raised regarding KT's terms of reference and the scope of the investigation. inresponse, KT handed over a document that was similar to the document sent fon 11% April 2017, ( By way of letter dated the 18" April 2017, Swan raised three issues regarding the document communicated in a letter dated 11" April 2017 and during the hearing of the 12" April 2017. KT and the Third Party No. 1 did not respond (@) KT's true terms of reference were eventually stated as part ofa reply made in the National Assembly by the Honourable Minister S. Seesungkur as late 2s the 9* Mey 2017. The terms of reference as spelt out in the National Assembly by the Honourable Minister were materially different to those sent by KT on the 11% April 2017. As such, KT has misled the Plaintifs as to the ‘scope of his investigation and terms of reference. 36. Despite requests made in writing to that effect (on the 5é, 10 and 20% April 2017), the FSC has similarly failed to provide any details of the basis for the purported launch of an investigation under section 44A of the Financial Services Act, and KT has for his part refused (without even communicating the fact of that refusal to the Plaintiffs) to suspend his investigation pending clarification of the same by the FSC. ‘The result of this is that KT has impermissibly purported to arrogate to himseff the definition of his own mandate. 37. The Plaintiffs have accordingly been made the subject of an investigation without being provided with the facts giving rise to It, the substance of the complaints made against them, the nature of the investigation, or even the investigator's terms of reference. This is a fundamental breach of faimess and due process. As noted above, far from suspending his investigation pending remediation of these procedural flaws as he ought to have done, KT proceeded with his investigation, without so much as informing the Plaintiffs that he was doing so, and (as described further below) without ever giving the Plaintiffs an opportunity to address him on the facts or on the law. Its the Plaintiffs’ understanding (also as described further below) that the reason put forward by KT himself for acting in that way was to seek to prevent the possibility of a Court of law halting his unlawful actions. This is wholly incompatible with KT's duties as a neutral and fair-minded investigator, and demonstrates an abus de droit, faute, andlor faute lourde and/or bad faith in the conduct of the investigation.Lack of impartiality 38, Swan raised a separate objection to KT's appointment in a letter dated the 18" April 2017 on the basis that KT has previously been involved in litigation with Swan (previously known as Anglo Mauritius Assurance Society Ltd.) through his management company, Apostle International Manegement Services Ltd ("Apostle"). 38. KT never responded to that allegation during the course of his investigation, deliberately choosing instead to proceed without so much as informing the Plaintiffs that he was doing so, as noted above. This is further evidence of KT's abus de droit, faute, andlor faute Jourde and/or bad faith 40. It is understood that KT has sought to dismiss that allegation in his report as a trivial matter and a mere “dispute in respect of rent due on leased premises". This is inecourate : (a) The lease agreement subject matter of the litigation was for the lease of the first floor of a building known as Old Swan Building, This office space wes in fact occupied by Mazars, of which KT is a partner. (0) Prior to the claim for rent due by Apostle in respect of a lease agreement, there was also @ Writ Habere Facias Possessionem before the Judge in Chambers for the eviction of Apostle from the premises being leased. (0) In respect of the claim for rent due, a settlement agreement was reached and made @ judgment of the Court, whereby Apostle agreed to pay the sums due, although they reneged on this undertaking, resulting in a Statutory Demand under the Insolvency Act to be issued against Apostle. (2) In addition to the obvious conflict of interest raised by this litigation, the dispute sheds further light on KT's disregard for ethical conduct. Whereas the international accounting firms in Mauritius have had to spin off and sell their management company businesses to comply with corporate governance regulatory obligations, the litigation between Apostle and Swan (formerly called Anglo Mauritius Assurance Society) reveals that KT and his firms (Mazars end Apostle) have not done so. KT was involved in Apostle whilst simultaneously being involved in Mazars; Mazars and Apostle are sister‘companies; employees of Mazars have at times acted for Apostle. Both entities have been operated and run as one single entity. All this has been done under the supervision and with the irect involvement of KT as partner of Mazars. (€) It transpires from the Apostle dispute that KT had thus acted mala fide and against regulatory obligations, which in itself should have debarred him from sitting as investigator appointed by the FSC, the regulator for the non-banking financial sector in Mauritius, including management companies. 44. Despite being fully aware of the facts set out above, KT has refused to engage in any way with Swan's objection as to this conflict of interest and lack of neutrality and impartiality. As noted above, this is further evidence of KT's abus de droit andior faute, and/or faute fourde andlor bad faith. KT's conduct of his investigation 42. In addition to the matters set out above conceming KT's lack of impartiality and misleading conduct, KT has conducted his investigation in an improper and biased manner, which further evidences of an abuse of right and lor KT's fauts, and/or faute lourde andlor bad faith. 43, First, KT has refused to disclose to the Plaintiffs any evidence on which he relied or proposed to rely, despite their repeated requests that he do so (made in writing on inter alia the0® and the 20" April 2017). 44. Secondly, KT has failed — again, despite the Plaintifs' reasonable requests in writing that he do so — to set out even in qutline the procedure that he intended to follow in conducting the investigation, and in particular how he intended to guarantee the Plaintiffs’ rights to a fair process. Indeed, KT has failed to adhere to his own limited indications as to the procedure he intended to follow, failing even to depone key directors of the Plaintifs despite his assurance that he would do so (vide KT's letter dated the 11" April 2017). 45, Thirdly, KT has unilaterally decided to conduct the investigation under a “urgent” procedure. There is no basis for any urgent procedure to be adopted, particularly given thet the purported breaches of the Takeover Rules took place more than a year 10ago, and as regards transactions that have already received the FSC’s clearance, as noted above, 46, Fourthly, KT has proceeded to render a report on his investigation to the Acting CEO of the FSC. As is typical of this investigation, the Plaintiffs were not informed of that fact (having not even been notified that the investigation was continuing despite the serious issues raised by them in correspondence and entirely ignored by KT), and learned of this only through leaks in the press. For instance Radio 1 reported on the 30th May 2017 that « un membre dur conseil d’administration de la FSC nous confie sous le couvert de lanonymat que le rapport est & étude ... [et] a voulu nous rassurer quil faudra s‘ettendre & des sanctions dans cette affaire ». Extracts of this Report have further found their way to the media and to the internet. 4T. As a confirmation of these rumours, the FSC issued a communiqué on the 31# May 2017 (the “Third Communique’) to the effect that KT had submitted a report dated the 19" May 2017 and made presentation to the Board of the FSC on the 25% May 2017. 48. This report was submitted without engaging with the Plaintiffs in any way whatsoever, deliberately depriving them of the opportunity to put their version across and to refute the spurious allegations against them 49. It is the Plaintiffs’ understanding, according to the media report at large, that KT would have submitted a report wherein he would have stated that his report was according to evidence gathered “so far’, that the purported reason given for acting in this way is a desire to avoid independent scrutiny of his conduct by a Court of law, and that KT would have stated that his conclusions were subject to a major caveat that his conclusions may be different in the light of the testimony of the Plaintiffs and Swan, 50. The Plaintifs verily believe that the report neither mentions nor addresses any of the facts, objections and observations raised by the Plaintifs in the course of the investigation. In so acting, KT has ignored arguments advanced against the case put forward against the Plaintiffs, against himself and against the way in which he was ‘conducting his investigation, and has thus deliberately given an incomplete and Unfair picture to the authorities, and deliberately misled the FSC. This is further evidence of an abus de droit and/or faute, andior faute fourde and/or bad fal un51. The cumulative effect of the above is that KT has deliberately proceeded with his investigation in a manner that was fundamentally flawed, deliberately ignoring the Plaintif’s reasoned (and well-founded) objection to the validity of his appointment ‘and challenge to his impartiality, and has rushed to conclusions on partial, incomplete unverified, and untested evidence. This was a glaring and deliberate breach of natural justice, which clearly evidences KT’s abus de droit, faute, and/or faute lourde andor bad faith. 52. It is the Plaintiffs’ understanding that as @ result of this flawed process conducted in bad feith, KT has purported to make serious (and erroneous) findings against the Plaintiffs including (2) A breach of the mandatory rule offer (Rule 33 of the Securities (Takeover) Rules, whether read on its own or in conjunction with section 94 of the ‘Securities Act) by the Plaintifis and Swan; (b) A breach of Rule 11 of the Securities (Takeover) Rules, by Mr. Hector Espitelier-Noel, Mr. Gilbert Espitalier-Noel, Mr. Jean Pierre Montocchio, Mr. Colin Taylor, and Mr. Louis Rivalland; (0) A breach of section 111(1)(b) of the Securities Act (Insider dealing) by Mr. Hector Espitalier-Noel; (4) A breach of section 111(1}\c) of the Securities Act (Insider dealing) by Mr. Philippe Espitalier-Noel; (e) A breach of section 114 of the Securities Act (Market Rigging) by the Plaintiffs, Swan, Swan Securities Ltd; and (f) A breach of section 116 of the Securities Act (False and Misleading Conduct in Relation to Securities) by the members of the board of NV. 53. KT’s report is of no validity or effect whatsoever. It is, on its own terms, incomplete, and these conclusions are unjustified and should not have been made. Any reasonable investigator in KT's position would have realized that the conduct of the investigation had been fundamentally flawed and thet, above all, it is i Rlegitimately to arrive at such conclusions (whether behind the fig leaf of a purported ‘caveat’ or otherwise) without having given the subjects of the investigation 2 full and fair opportunity to present their case 54, Indeed, with regards to the allegations and purported findings of market rigging, the Stock Exchange of Mauritius disavowed the findings of KT in no uncertain terms by issuing a communique on the 6 June 2017 to the effect that the transaction effected in the preference shares of NMH on 17% February 2016 were made in compliance with the provisions of the SEM's ATS Schedule of Procedures. Abus de droit andlor faute, and/or faute fourde and/or bad faith 56. It is the Plaintifs’ case that the acts and doings of KT constitute an abus de droit and/or a faute, and/or faute lourde and/or bad faith as particularised above and further as follows: (2) Bias and male fide against the Plaintiffs throughout the investigative process; (b) Failure to disclose reasonable grounds on which the investigation was based and scope of investigation despite several requests by the Plaintifs; (c) Deliverately misleading the Plaintiffs on his Terms of Reference for the investigation: (4) Failure to make a full and frank disclosure of his conflicts of interests despite the letters and instances of conflict put forward by the Plaintiffs; (e) Acting as an investigator when conflicted; (f) Acting maliciously and without reasonable cause; (g) Failure to observe any or any proper standard of care applicable in the circumstances; (h) Failure to observe any or any proper duty of reasonably inquiry; (i) Malicious pursuit of an inquiry and/or grossly negligent conduct in the course of the inquiry; 3(j) Intentional disregard of rules of due process and natural justice in the conduct of the investigation; and (k) Reckless submission of purported findings to FSC on an exercise which was under the terms of his own report incomplete, on the stated basis of seeking to avoid scrutiny of his process by a Court of law. 56. Through his abus de droit andior faute, and/or faute fourde andlor bad faith set out above, KT has caused significant and ongoing damage to the Plaintiffs. 57. As explained above, it was essential that if any investigation were to be conducted into the 2016 Acquisitions (none being in fact warranted on a true and fair appraisal of the situation), such investigation be conducted fairly, transparently and in good faith so as to put an end to that damage. Through his actions KT, as investigator appointed in that respect, has acted in the exact opposite manner. 58. The said damage is currently valued at Rs. 250 million per Plaintif, for @ joint amount of Rs. 500 milion, 4PRAYERS 59. The Plaintiffs prays from this Honourable Court for a judgment ordering the Defendant to pay’ (@) ENL Land Ltc, the Plaintiff No.1, the sum of Rs. 250,000,000 together with interest as from the date of service of the Plaint to that of final payment; and (b) Rogers and Compeny Limited, the Plaintiff No.2, the sum of Rs, 250,000,000 together with interest as from the date of service of the Piaint to that of final payment. WITH CosTS Under all legal reservations. Dated at Port Louis, this 14% day of June 2017. BM Chatoo ENSafrica (Mauritius) of 19 Church Street, Port Louis. Plaintiffs’ attorney instructing Patrice Doger de Speville SC, Salim Moollan QC and Shrivan Dabee of Counsel YOU, the said Defendant and Third Parties, are hereby summoned to appear before the Suoreme Court of Mauritius situate at Jules Koenig Street, Port Louis, on the cayot [3° (0+ 2017 at 9.30 am. to answer tothe above named Paints in the above matter, TAKE NOTICE YOU, the above named Defendant and Third Parties that the Plaintiffs in this case propose to adduce as evidence the documents hereunder specified and that the same day be inspected by you, your Attorney-at-law or Agent. at the office of the undersigned Attorney-at-Law on any working days during office hours and that you are hereby required to assist that such document which is an original has been written, signed or executed as it purports to have been given all just exceptions as to the admissibility of the said document as evidenced by this case. 15Documents Number __] Description Date i Firm intention of ENLL to board of NMH 19 January 2017 2 Joint letter of ENLL to FSC 20 February 2077 3 First communique of FSC 20 February 2017 4 2 communique of FSC appointment of | i March 2077 Investigator 5 Letter from ENLLRogers to Investigator FSC B April 2017 Letter from Swan to Investigator on conflict FO Apri 2077 | Tetier rom legal advisor of ENLL and Rogers TF April 2017 to the FSC and the Investigator & | Letter from Investigator to ENLL and Rogers 71 Apri 2017 and “terms of Reference” 9. etter from ENLL/ Rogers to the FSC 20 Apri 2017 70. | Letter from ENLL Rogers to Special 20 April 2017 Investigator informing him of the letter sent to FSC. | 74 Hansard of 09" May 2017 09 May 2017 72, | 3® Communique of FSC on submission of May 2017 report of the investigator 13. | Communique of the Stock Exchange of 06 June 2017 Mauritius on trading in the preference shares of New Mauritius Hotels