Dear All ,

With reference to our exchange below, please be advised that the Court finally ruled on 30 th July and
we are pleased to attach the said judgment.

You will recall that  under the writ of summons, MAISADOUR and cargo underwriters HELVETIA acted
jointly against CMA CGM SA and CMA CGM MAROC for two separate claims:

- A claim for temperature fluctuations and cargo damage for a shipment between Agadir and
Portsmouth under B/L MA1300821 in container CRXU6930527 for an amount of 27.943,50 €.

- A claim for 13 containers of sweet corn not loaded/shipped from Tangiers to Southampton
amounting 524.185,43 € (including the cargo value, commercial losses and other additional
costs).

The Court ruled as follows:

First of all, the judges took admitted our argument regarding the role played by  CMA CGM MAROC
and considered that this company only acted as agent of the Carrier CMA CGM SA and therefore its
liability should not be involved toward cargo interests notwithstanding the action in tort that was
pleaded at length by cargo interests.

Then, as we did in our submissions, the Court ruled on both claims separately.

I. Regarding the first claim (amounting 27.943,50 €):

 On the admissibility:

The Court noted that the corn was sold by the shipper MAISADOUR MAROC to MAISADOUR FRANCE
then to the consignee BARFOOTS. The cargo was considered as a total loss, so no invoice could be
issued to BARFOOTS pointed out the judges, the shipper MAISADOUR MAROC transferred its rights
to MAISADOUR FRANCE through an assignment of rights dated July 20 th, 2011.
HELVETIA, as insurer of MAISADOUR FRANCE, disclosed the insurance policy and the court
considered that it was subrogated in its insured rights for an amount of 27.943,50 euros.

 On the merits:

As you may remember, for this claim, the temperature issues were important, and we had no
possibility to demonstrate an exonerating cause/defense supported by documents/ evidence.

The Court ruled that the invitation to attend a  joint survey, although received by CMA only a few
hours from before the inspection, was binding to the latter and the surveyor’s unilateral findings in
line with a judgment issued by the Court of appeal of Paris on 14 November 1988 while the survey
report was disclosed and could be discussed by the carrier, added the Court.

Based on the survey findings, the Court considered that the damage to cargo was the result of high
temperatures: 33 to 35°C instead of a set point temperature of +2°C.

The Court found CMA CGM liable for the damage to the cargo for this first claim and condemned the
carrier to  pay the amount of 27.943,50 euros with an addition of 7.500 euros for legal costs under
article 700 of the Civil procedure code.

II. Regarding the second claim (amounting 524.185,43 €):

 On the admissibility:

You may remember that for this second claim, we pleaded at length that MAISADOUR have already
been indemnified by HELVETIA for an amount of 99.742,10 €.

We disclosed indeed the email sent by Cabinet BESSE dated October 20 th, 2011 and the attached
subrogation act dated July 28th, 2011 that we insisted to obtain from CMA CGM MAROC and
managed finally to get the document.

This document was quoted and studied in detail by the court in its judgement.
The Court fully admitted our analysis/arguments and considered that MAISADOUR was already
indemnified by its insurer HELVETIA on time of the subrogation act dated July 28 th, 2011.

Therefore, MAISADOUR had no more rights to act against CMA CGM, only HELVETIA, who suffered
the prejudice, could have acted against the carrier for this claim, for both the amount of the
indemnity and all the other amounts claimed.

As from the writ of summons we put forward and its terms, it appeared that HEVELVETIA acted only
for the first claim under B/L MA1300821 but presented no claim for this second event, the Court
considered that MAISADOUR’s action was no longer admissible.

As a consequence, the Court dismissed MAISADOUR’s claim for the failure to load the 13 containers
and the resulting claim for an amount of  524.185,43 euros and condemned MAISADOUR to pay CMA
CGM an amount of 7,500 euros as an indemnity on legal cost incurred pursuant to dispositions of
article 700 of the Civil procedure code.

Consequently, the Court did not examine other questions/arguments raised by us and our opponent
on merits of claim.

We are asking our opponent if they accept the judgment and in the meantime, grateful if Alexandra
and Olivier could let us know their comments on this judgment and the Court decision and whether it
should be appealed under of course only the first claim, although we expect the opponents
themselves to appeal.

Kind regards.

André

Enclosed: Judgment.