January 30, 1995 (pf to df) We refer to the meeting at 1.

15pm today at your office and write to instruct your goodselves to issue on behalf a confirmed irrevocable, divisible, assignable and transferable cash blocked Swift Wire Transfer in favor of Arrow Agencies for the amount of USD$2,950,000 for one ship load of grade E cane sugar of 12,500 metric ton (+/-)5%) at USD$236 per metric ton.. Kindly telefax the said Instrument direct to Arrow Agencies banker (Nedbank) urgently.

January 30, 1995 (df to pf) (1) Our commitment on the facilities offered to you clearly stated on the Letter of Offer (dated June 13, 1994), that the disbursement of facilities are only against Letter of Credit or later can be converted to Trust Receipt. (2) Since your instruction to us to confirm irrevocable, divisible, assignable and transferable cash backed Swift Wire Transfer in favor of Arrow Agencies for USD$2,950,000. Therefore, we request you to place the same amount with us before we may deliver the message to Arrow Agencies. On February 2, 1995, Gula Padang Terap wrote to the defendant giving an undertaking to: (a) Instruct our banker to issue an irrevocable letter of credit in favour of your client Insan Budi Sdn Bhd in accordance to the terms and condition of the agreement, and (b) Pay to Bank Utama for account of Insan Budi Sdn Bhd as per terms and condition stipulated in the said letter of credit. CONFIRMATION OF CASH BACKED SWIFT (pg 716) We refer to the above and write to inform your goodselves that we are in the midst of proceeding to confirm the SWT for the sum of USD $2,950,000 for the first shipment of 12,500 metric ton and the confirmation shall be send to you soonest possible. The delay in processing the same was due To the fact that there was a week long holiday in Malaysia last week.

On February 8, 1995, the defendant issued onother offer letter comprising, inter alia, a confirmed irrevocable, divisible, assignable and transferable cash backed SWIFT for USD2.95 million for one shipload of 12,500 metric tons of Grade E sugar at USD236 per metric ton. The security for the facility was a letter of credit from Gula Padang Terap. Other terms and conditions included: (a) The plaintiff indemnifying the defendant for all risks relating to the transaction; (b) Plaintiff authorizing the defendant to debit the formers account for all charges incurred for the transaction and other overdue charges related to the previous letter of credit issued, i.e. the defendants first letter of credit; and (c) The plaintiff to provide satisfactory background of Arrow Agencies. The offer was accepted by the plaintiff. On the same day (February 8, 1995) the Plaintiff gave the defendant a letter of indemnity and mandate to debit overdue charges and commission as required by the defendant. The defendant then prepared a SWIFT Wire Transfer message to Nedbank Division as per the terms of the defendants letter dated February 8, 1995 reproduced earlier.

February 11, 1995 (pf to df) Re: BANKING FACILITIES TO INSAN BUDI SDN.BHD. FOR THE PURCHASE OF RAW SUGAR FROM ARROW AGENCIES C.C. DURBAN, SOUTH AFRICA, 100,000 METRIC TON We refer to the above and to your letter dated 8th February 1995 and regret to note that the swift wire transfer was only sent by fax to our client banker, and not actual swift itself. Our supplier had arranged for the first shipment of the goods on the 8th February 1995 itself, but due to the none arrival of the swift the shipment is again delayed and they have incurred 3 days demurrage charges for USD 45,000 at USD 15,000 oer day. And they have threatened to debit our account for this delay. As such we instruct your goodselves to issue a proper swift their banker by 10am on 11th February 1995 without fail. Please ensure that the details our clients banker namely Nedbank International Division and its account number are properly and correctly imprint.

Kindly also change the date of swift for the purpose of nomination of the vessel as the swift dated 8th February 1995 could not be met by our client since 72 hours deadline will expire shortly. On February 13, 1995, the defendant wrote to the plaintiff in response to the letter of the defendant dated February 8, 1995, stressing that the irrevocable, divisible, assignable and transferable cash backed SWIFT Wire Transfer is valid until March 5, 1995 at 1500 hours This was acknowledged by the plaintiff. The response from Nedbank reads: We are unable to process the above mentioned SWIFT as it is an unauthenticated message. We have discharged the SWIFT from our files as null and void and no further action will be taken. Fax sent on February 13, 1995 by Arrow Agencies to the plaintiff. (page 717) RECEIVED A COPY OF THE CONDITIONAL SWIFT FOR AMOUNT OF US42.95 MILLION AT MY BANKERS, BUT THE SWIFT (WAS) NOT CODED OR KEYED FOR CLEARENCE. KINDLY ADVISE YOUR BANK TO OPEN CORRESPENDENCE WITH MY BANK.

February 6, 1995 (df to Arrow Agencies) CONFIRMATION OF CASH BACKED SWIFT We refer to the above and write to inform your goodselves that we are in the midst of processing to confirm the SWT for the sum of USD$2,950,000 for the first shipment of 12,500 metric ton and the confirmation shall be send to you soonest possible.

February 13, 1995 (Arrow Agencies to pf) RECEIVED A COPY OF THE CONDITIONAL SWIFT FOR AMOUNT OF US42.95 MILLION AT MY BANKER, BUT THE SWIFT (WAS) NOT CODED OR KEYED FOR CLEARANCE. KINDLY ADVISE YOUR BANK (TO) OPEN CORRESPONDENCE WITH MY BANK.

A meeting was held on February 16, 1995. Arising out of that meeting, two letters were sent out on the same day. The first is a letter by an advocate & solicitor to Arrow Agencies, copied to the plaintiff. Unfortunately the solicitor did not mention he was acting for whom. I think from the content and the fact that it was copied to the plaintiff, the solicitor was acting for the plaintiff. The letter reads: Re: INSAN BUDI SDN. BHD CREDIT FACILITIES WITH BANK UTAMA (MALAYSIA) BERHAD FOR THE PURCHASE OF GRADE E RAW SUGAR 100,000 TONS CONFIRMATION OF THE AVAILABILITY AND CLOCKAGE OR FUNDS FOR TRANSFER We refer to the above and to our letter dated 15th February 1995 and write to inform your goodselves that pursuant to the conference held today with Bank Utama (M) Sdn. Bhd. The Directors have agreed to your request as stated in our letter stated above. Unfortunately kindly be informed that the confirmation of blocked funds can only be directed to your bankers in Geneva by Monday morning (20th February 1995) since tomorrow is a public holiday here Nuzul Quran. Upon receipt of the same kindly arrange the necessary follow up and keep us informed of the developments accordingly. As such we apologise on behalf of our client and ensure your goodselves that there shall be no more hithches in the future. The second is the letter from the defendant to Arrow Agencies, that reads: STANDBY LETTER OF CREDIT FOR SUPPLY OF RAW GRADE E SUGAR FROM ARROW AGENCIES, SOUTH AFRICA FOR 100,000 MT With reference to the above, please be informed that we are in the midst of processing to consider for issuing the above Standby Letter of Credits as requested by our client, Insan Budi Sdn. Bhd.

On the following day ( February 17, 1995) the plaintiff formally applied for the issuance of confirmation of blocked funds of USD 20.65 million to Union Bank of Switzerland. Upon receipt of the said confirmation, the said bank would issue a 108% performance guarantee and that upon receipt of the same, the defendant would issue the standby letter of credit. On February 22, 1995 the plaintiff wrote to the defendant, inter alia: (i) As you aware our total contract with Arrow Agencies amounts to USD$23.6 million for the purchase of the above commodity for our onwards transmission to Gula Padang Terap Sdn. Bhd.

(ii)

(iii)

On the 27th of January 1995 your goodselves had issued a Confirmation of the Availability and Blockage of Funds to Arrow Agencies c.c. for the sum of USD$19.8 million. On the 8th February 1995 your goodselves had issued a Swift Wire Transfer to Arrow Agencies being the sum of USD$2.95 million for the first shipment of 12,500 metric ton. However the Supplier could not activate the first shipment since they require confirmation of the full funds available for this transaction albeit there is still a balance of USD$20.65 and in principle your goodselves have agreed to issue the Standby Letter of Credit for the above sum since this will be backed by the performance guarantee of 108% from Union Bank of Switzerland. This means to say that no Letter of Credit will be issued before the performance guarantee is issued.

The confirmation of the Availability And Blockage of Funds will not bind your goodselves with the Suppliers bankers as it is conditional upon the issuance of the performance guarantee on behalf of the supplier to us as stated above. Here we do not see any risks involved on the banks part since the transaction is to be fully secured by the performance guarantee. What the Supplier requires now is the Confirmation of the Availability And Blockage of Funds in order to enable them to activate the first shipment secured by the Swift Wire Transfer dated 8th February 1995.

February 28, 1995 (Arrow Agencies to df) THE SWIFT TRANSFER FOR US42.95 MILLION DOLLARS FORWARDED TO MY BANKERS NEDBANK INTERNATIONAL HAS NOT BEEN ACCEPTED. KINDLY ARRANGE TO REMIT WITH AN ORDINARY DOCUMENTARY LETTER OF CREDIT FOR WHICH WE ARE FORWARDING A DRAFT COPY. THE L/C SHOULD NOT CONTAIN ANY PERFORMANCE BOND CLAUSES AS THIS IS INCLUDED IN THE CONTRACT FROM THE SWISS BANK. PLEASE FACILITATE OUR REQUEST URGENTLY. DUE TO THE BLOCKED FUNDS LETTER BEING REMITTED SHORTLY, THE MILL WOULD DESPATCH A VESSEL WITHIN 7 DAYS, AND I WOULD NEED THE FINANCIAL INSTRUMENT AS THE NEGOTIATING DOCUMENT. KINDLY TREAT AS TOP PRIORITY IN ORDER TO AVOID ANY DELAYS IN DESPATCHING THE CONSIGNMENTS.

On the same day ( February 28, 1995 the defendant forwarded to Arrow Agencies confirmation of the availability of credits facilities amounting to USD20.65 million. However the letter went on to state: The availability of this credit facilities is subject to the following:(a) Issuance of a performance Bank Guarantee in the form and substance to our satisfaction from a first class and reputable bank acceptable to us for not less than 108% of the standby letter of credit; (b) Our client complying to the terms and conditions of our offer and utilization of the credit facilities; (c) Satisfactory legal advise from our solicitors. On the same day also, on Indus Systems Inc with an address in Florida, USA wrote to the defendant c/o Arrow Agencies in South Africa, inter alia: It was a pleasure talking to you this morning, my time. We are in receipt of your banks letter dated February 28, 1995. Although we have complete trust and faith in your financial ability to conclude the transaction successfully, we are unable to use the letter in the format presented. I am enclosing a confirmation of block funds format which we insist the bank to use to enable us to conclude the transaction. Further, please send by DHL the original of your letter dated February 28th and the new block funds letter requested. Fax to me the DHL receipt for us to track it in the USA. Your prompt attention is required or we will lose the allocation at the refinery. I will await your call from the bank mid-night my time tonight.

March 2, 1995 (pf to df) We refer to our letter dated 1st March 1995 and write to inform you that our supplier had duly informed us that they are furious and upset with us since we had failed to issue the Confirmation Letter within the time limit (28th February 1995 and extended to 1st March 1995) in accordance with the format given to you as per your confirmation letter dated 27th January 1995. However since we informed them that we also have the Standby Letter of Credit Facilities, they require confirmation from you to that effect without fail. As such we instruct you to write formally to them in the following manner without any further changes and delay as below:

 We, Bank Utama (confirming Bank ..) upon proof of product provided by you, bank to bank for 100,000 mt Ton of Grade E sugar will open a Standby Letter of Credit on London Short Form 3034 for USD .. (in numbers).( in words), in your favour for a period of one year and one day with the beneficiary to be named by you. I am enclosing a copy of Form 3034. After receiving the above letter, the refinerys bank will telex your bank proof of product. In the meantime for the first shipment please liaise directly with Nedbank South Africa (particular are all in your file) for the Swift wire transfer dated on 8th February 1995 as we have been informed that you had persitenly failed to do so by Test Key Method. If you do not have it in the first place, why issue it? As such find alternative means to activate the same and to ensure the genuinity of the document is accepted by the Suppliers banker. Kindly issue the said mandate for confirmation that we still have the Standby letter of credit Facilities as approved by the board of directors on the 28th February 1996 by 5.00 p.m South African time today.

March 2, 1995 (dfs solicitor to pf) We are instructed by our clients to inform you that our clients are not able to issue any letters of information/confirmation as required by you in your above letter unless the qualifications as set out in our draft letter to you of 1st March 1995 which was faxed to you at 7.22pm yesterday is acceptable to Arrow Agencies C.C.