Free Exhibit to a Document - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1:04-cv-01482-GMS

Document 87-2

Filed 05/31/2005

Page 1 of 57

Case 1:04-cv-01482-GMS

Document 87-2

Filed 05/31/2005

Page 2 of 57

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ______________________________________ BASE METAL TRADING SA et al Plaintiffs v. RUSSIAN ALUMINUM et al. Defendants ______________________________________ Docket No. 00 Civ. 9627

DECLARATION OF MARINA ASHIKHMINA I, Marina Ashikhmina, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. §1746, herby declare as follows: 1. I am a citizen of Russia. I am an attorney duly qualified to practice law in Russia.

I submit this declaration to explain certain events surrounding (a) the sham and intentional nature of the bankruptcy proceedings against Kachkanarsky Ore Mining Plant "Vanadium" ("GOK"), and (b) the fraudulent misappropriation of the shares of Foston Management Limited ("Foston") in GOK. Pursuant to a General Power of Attorney, I was authorized to represent the interests of several GOK shareholders, including Foston, and several creditors, including Nexis Products LLC ("Nexis Products"), in various matters. SHAM BANKRUPTCY Background 2. On March 30, 2000, the Sverdlovsk Arbitrazh Court initiated bankruptcy

proceedings against GOK pursuant to the complaint filed by the electric energy supply company "Krasnouralskmezhraygaz" ("Krasgaz").

HFNWK1: #38235 v.1 #06141-0001 09/15/2002

Case 1:04-cv-01482-GMS

Document 87-2

Filed 05/31/2005

Page 3 of 57

3.

I represented the interests of several GOK creditors during the relevant time. As

evidenced by the actions of Kozitsin, the acting General Director of GOK, Kozyrev, the temporary manager, and the Arbitrazh Court of the Sverdlovsk Region, all three pursued the same goal: to put GOK into bankruptcy by all means -- notwithstanding the opportunities to avoid it -- to introduce external management in GOK, and thus exclude the shareholders from control over the plant. 4. It is clear to me from the events described in the present declaration that the

Sverdlovsk Arbitrazh Court ignored Kozitsin's and Kozyrev's blatant violations of the law, and lent its full support to their actions, regardless of their legality.

Violations of Law in Setting the Date of the August 22, 2000 Hearing 5. A GOK creditor, Nexis Products was owed $7 million pursuant to Loan

Agreement No. SWER/07-99 dated July 13, 1999. Although Nexis Products was aware that the Arbitrazh Court had scheduled a hearing for September 27, 2000, Nexis Products was not notified by the Court that the hearing was changed from September 27, 2000 to August 22, 2000. For this reason, Nexis Products did not participate in the hearing on August 22, 2000, which prevented it from objecting to the introduction of external management at GOK. It also prevented Nexis Products from being able to establish its claim against GOK and thus to acquire standing to participate at the hearing. 6. I was present at the August 22 hearing, having learned about it two days earlier in

my capacity as the attorney for certain shareholders. There, I witnessed multiple violations of law.

2
HFNWK1: #38235 v.1 #06141-0001 09/15/2002

Case 1:04-cv-01482-GMS

Document 87-2

Filed 05/31/2005

Page 4 of 57

7.

First, several creditors, including Leneks, OOO Nexis, Northwest Systems, and

Stalkomplekt, raised the issue of the sham nature of the bankruptcy based upon the chain of transactions that resulted in an artificial inflation of GOK's debt and its accumulation in the hands of a small company called Lebaut. The creditors underscored the sham nature of the Lebaut transaction (this transaction is described in greater detail in the declaration of Zanadvorov). The court not only ignored these arguments, but also failed to reflect them in the minutes of the hearing. (Exhibit 26) 8. In addition, Leneks pointed out that certain transactions in this chain violated

provisions of Russian law, which proscribe the pursuit of "interested" transactions. Again, the court failed to reflect this argument in the minutes of the hearing. (Exhibit 26) 9. Furtherduring the hearing, I introduced Mr. Joseph Traum, a shareholders'

representative, and asked the court to grant permission for Mr. Traum to make a statement. The judge allowed Mr. Traum to make a statement, who went on to explain that in order to wind up the bankruptcy proceedings against GOK, he was prepared to pay off the GOK debt to Krasgaz and to its other legal creditors. Mr. Traum also stated that Kozitsin had failed to inform the shareholders of the initial correspondence with Krasgaz. 10. The judge ignored Mr. Traum's statements: she failed to ask any questions or to

make any comments. Further, neither the presence of Mr. Traum at the hearing nor his statement to the Court was made part of the record. Despite the offer of the shareholders to save GOK from bankruptcy, the Court appointed an external manager, which resulted in the shareholders' loss of control over the plant.

3
HFNWK1: #38235 v.1 #06141-0001 09/15/2002

Case 1:04-cv-01482-GMS

Document 87-2

Filed 05/31/2005

Page 5 of 57

Nexis Products' Argument Concerning the Invalidity of the Lebaut and Sirius Claims 11. Subsequently, Nexis Products pursued its attempts to exclude the claims of

Lebaut and its assignee, Sirius, from the claims' register. I was the attorney for Nexis Products in the court proceedings which I describe below, and was acting on the basis of the General Power of Attorney issued on November 15, 2000. (Exhibit 27) 12. Nexis Products argued the invalidity of the Lebaut transactions on the ground that

they violated various provisions of Russian law, which require Board approval prior to the issuance of promissory notes, such as those which were eventually assigned to Lebaut. Notwithstanding the clear impropriety of the transaction, in its Order of February 19, 2001, the Sverdlovsk Arbitrazh Court denied Nexis Products' claims, failing even to address the applicable law. (Exhibit 28) 13. On March 28, 2001, Nexis Products raised similar objections in connection with

Kozyrev's decision to include Sirius, an assignee of Lebaut, in the list of the creditors. Nexis Products also objected to the Lebaut transactions on the ground that they violated the law regulating the order of entering into "large" transactions. (Exhibit 29) But, once again, the Sverdlovsk Arbitrazh court, in its order of April 18, 2001, denied Nexis Products' claim without addressing these issues. (Exhibit 30) 14. Nexis Products raised the issue again on April 19, 2001 in the hearing before the

Appellate Instance of Sverdlovsk Arbitrazh concerning the February 19, 2001 decision. (Exhibit 31) Although the Appellate Instance finally looked into the issue of these large scale transactions, it came to the legally untenable conclusion that a set of interrelated transactions for alienation of promissory notes does not constitute a set of transactions within the meaning of the law governing such transactions. (Exhibit 32) Moreover, the court reached the equally absurd 4
HFNWK1: #38235 v.1 #06141-0001 09/15/2002

Case 1:04-cv-01482-GMS

Document 87-2

Filed 05/31/2005

Page 6 of 57

conclusion that the issuance of notes does not amount to the placing of securities for which Board approval is required pursuant to Article 65 of the Corporate Act. (Exhibit 25) 15. On May 8, 2001 Nexis Products filed a cassation appeal of the decision of April

19, 2001 with the Federal Arbitrazh Court of the Ural District, which was dismissed on procedural grounds on July 12, 2001. (Exhibits 33, 34) The basis for the dismissal was the court's finding that I was not authorized to act on behalf of Nexis Products because the General Power of Attorney issued in my name did not carry the apostille. In fact, the documents did have an apostille; however, the apostille was attached to the affidavit attesting that the Power of Attorney in my name was a true and correct original, and not directly to the Power of Attorney. 16. Further, and as I myself pointed out to the court, there was a misprint in the date

of the affidavit attesting to the validity of the Power of Attorney, which mistakenly carried the month of September instead of the correct one, November. The misprint was so apparent that no one ever had questioned the validity of this Power of Attorney as confirmation of my authority to act on behalf of Nexis Products. However, looking for an excuse to dismiss the appeal, the Federal Arbitrazh Court for the Ural District chose a hypertechnical approach and viewed the document as if no apostille was in place at all.

Challenging the Validity of the Settlement Agreement 17. At the March 11, 2001 meeting, the creditors of GOK approved the Settlement

Agreement, which was made possible with the support of the Lebaut and Sirius votes, whose illegal claims amounted to 65 percent of the total debt. (Exhibit 35) On April 19, 2001, the Sverdlovsk Arbitrazh Court affirmed the Settlement Agreement, which ended the bankruptcy proceedings against GOK. (Exhibit 36) 5
HFNWK1: #38235 v.1 #06141-0001 09/15/2002

Case 1:04-cv-01482-GMS

Document 87-2

Filed 05/31/2005

Page 7 of 57

18.

Nexis Products did not vote for the approval of the Settlement Agreement

because, as previously described, it opposed the inclusion of Lebaut and Sirius in the list of creditors. On May 29, 2001, Nexis Products filed a claim with the Appellate Instance of the Sverdlovsk Arbitrazh Court, appealing the April 19, 2001 decision, which had affirmed the Settlement Agreement. (Exhibit 37) 19. The court heard the appeal on June 27, 2001 but did not even address the

arguments raised by Nexis Products. Instead, the court dismissed the appeal on the technical grounds discussed in paragraphs 15 and 16 above. (Exhibit 38) It is noteworthy that in the past, the Sverdlovsk Arbitrazh Court had never doubted my authority to act on behalf of Nexis Products and always accepted this very document as the confirmation of such authority. 20. In the cassation appeal of the June 27, 2001 decision, heard by the Federal

Aribitrazh Court for the Ural District on August 21, 2001, the Court also did not address the merits of the case and dismissed the appeal on the grounds that the Court "received no proof of authority to sign appeals of judicial acts by the representatives." (Exhibit 39) 21. On October 9, 2001, I filed a cassation appeal of the August 21, 2001 dismissal,

but it was dismissed on the same grounds on October 29, 2001. (Exhibit 40)

FRADULENT MISAPPROPRIATION OF THE SHARES OF FOSTON MANAGEMENT IN GOK Background 22. From November 1, 2000 until the present, I have been representing Foston in a

number of matters according to a General Power of Attorney. Among other things, and in accordance with the Power of Attorney dated October 1, 2001, I was authorized by Foston to

6
HFNWK1: #38235 v.1 #06141-0001 09/15/2002

Case 1:04-cv-01482-GMS

Document 87-2

Filed 05/31/2005

Page 8 of 57

request and receive from GOK's registrar information regarding Foston's shares in GOK. (Exhibit 22)

Discovery of the Fraudulent Transfer 23. As of September 25, 2000, Foston owned 37,779,600 of GOK shares, or 19,7

percent of the total outstanding shares. (Exhibit 1) On November 22, 2000, I sought to verify the status of Foston's account with AOZT VRK ("VRK"), which was the entity that maintained the shares' register for GOK. 24. In response to my request, on December 14, 2000, I received from VRK an

extract/certificate attesting to the activities on Foston's account with VRK from October 3, 2000 until December 7, 2000. Incredibly, this certificate showed that virtually all of Foston's shares -37, 715,167 of them -- were removed from Foston's account, purportedly pursuant to a court execution sheet dated October 10, 2000. (Exhibit 2) This was the first time that Foston had learned of the theft of its shares. 25. Although VRK provided me with the above-mentioned certificate, it did not give

any details concerning the court decision, including the identity of the court, when the decision was rendered, or the parties to the action. The following day, I contacted VRK and asked for clarification of these issues. 26. On December 28, 2000, VRK informed me that the shares were removed from

Foston's account pursuant to the decision of the Solntsevo Intermunicipal Court of the City of Moscow ("Solntsevo Court"), dated September 29, 2000.

7
HFNWK1: #38235 v.1 #06141-0001 09/15/2002

Case 1:04-cv-01482-GMS

Document 87-2

Filed 05/31/2005

Page 9 of 57

The Stolen Court Records 27. A short time later, Foston, together with other GOK shareholders whose rights

had been violated, filed repeated complaints with the Federal Securities Commission. The last complaint that was filed alleged that VRK violated the law by transferring Foston's shares without giving Foston prior notice. (Exhibit 19) 28. The response from the Deputy Chairman of the Federal Securities Commission,

dated January 15, 2001, stated that the shares were written off pursuant to a decision of the Solnsevo Court. (Exhibit 20) A copy of the Decision in the Case No. 2-2747/2000 was attached to the Commission's response. (Exhibit 3) The decision did not identify an attorney representing Foston at the hearing, which is contrary to the standard procedure of the Russian courts. 29. According to this decision, 37,715,167 shares were transferred from Foston's

account to OAO Nizhnetagilsky Metallurgical Combine ("NTMC"), OOO Inrosmet, and ZAO Standard Trust. It is well known that NTMC is controlled by Iskander Makmudov. 30. Having obtained a copy of the decision, I, on Foston's behalf, applied to the

Solntsevo Court to obtain information on the case. The court clerk informed me that the Court could not provide me with the case materials because they were missing from the court files. 31. The only two documents that remained on file were (a) a copy of the purported

demand from the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation requesting that the file be sent to it, and (b) a letter by a Mr. Kurkin in which Kurkin stated that the materials requested by the Supreme Court had been given to him. (Exhibits 4, 5) Interestingly, the Supreme Court's demand for the court file was dated November 23, 2000, one day after Foston first asked VRK to verify its account. 8
HFNWK1: #38235 v.1 #06141-0001 09/15/2002

Case 1:04-cv-01482-GMS

Document 87-2

Filed 05/31/2005

Page 10 of 57

32.

After I learned of this, Mr. Polyakevich, an attorney, who also acted under the

power of attorney, at my request sent a copy of the above-mentioned demand of November 23, 2000 to the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation together with an inquiry about its request for the court file. In response, the Supreme Court issued a letter on January 24, 2001, stating that it had never issued the demand for the case materials, that the copy of the request on file was fraudulent, and that Mr. Kurkin was not a Supreme Court employee. (Exhibit 6) 33. Ultimately, in connection with Foston's appeal of the Solntsevo decision -- the

appeal is discussed in greater detail below -- I was able to review certain materials relating to the September 29, 2000 decision. My review of the documents revealed a number of irregularities that demonstrate the illegality of the proceeding. 34. First, the Solntsevo Court clerk's records related to the cases heard by Judge Il'in,

who purportedly rendered the decision that divested Foston of its shares, did not indicate that case No. 2-2747/2000 was among the four or five cases heard by this judge on September 29, 2000. 35. Second, the transcript of the hearing of September 29, 2000 did not identify the

person or persons who represented the defendants at that hearing. This omission is unusual, given that attorneys are generally identified in these transcripts. When the case was subsequently heard on the cassation appeal in the Moscow City Court, and the plaintiffs in the Solntsevo case submitted copies of the case materials that were missing from the court, I learned that the attorney that purported to represent Foston was a man named Artur Yanovich Shulrufer. But Shulrufer was not Foston's attorney and was not authorized to represent Foston. 36. Third, the transcript of the September 29, 2000 hearing identified several

documents, such as bank transfer papers and telegrams, including telegrams allegedly sent by 9
HFNWK1: #38235 v.1 #06141-0001 09/15/2002

Case 1:04-cv-01482-GMS

Document 87-2

Filed 05/31/2005

Page 11 of 57

Foston, which Foston had not sent. In fact, all those documents must have been fraudulent -- the reason being that they have the October 2000 dates, even though the hearing allegedly took place on September 29, 2000. Those documents were also included in the case file. The Subsequent Solntsevo Court Proceedings 37. Based upon the foregoing, Foston took certain procedural steps in an effort to

undo the fraud. First, Foston applied to the Solntsevo Court to reinstate the case. On February 19, 2001, this motion was granted, which had the effect of reactivating the matter. (Exhibit 18) 38. Second, Foston applied to the Solntsevo Court to reinstate the term for the

cassation appeal. The time for the appeal had expired because Foston had never been apprised of the Solntsevo Court's decision. Accordingly, it was necessary for Foston to obtain the ability to appeal that decision. On February 20, 2001, the Court granted Foston's motion and reinstated the term for the cassation appeal. (Exhibit 7) 39. Thereafter, on January 26, 2001, I filed a cassation appeal of the Solntsevo

Court's September 29, 2000 decision with the Moscow City Court, which sits as an appellate court to the Solntsevo Court. (Exhibit 14) At the March 30, 2001 hearing of the cassation appeal, the Moscow City Court reversed the September 29 decision based upon the absence of any evidence that Foston had been notified of the proceeding. (Exhibit 8) It did not, however, order the transfer of shares back to Foston. 40. On November 30, 2001, the Solntsevo Court heard the case on remand from the

Moscow City Court. At the hearing, the plaintiffs provided the Court with a copy of a Complaint dated October 30, 2001, which they had filed in the Sverdlosk Arbitrazh Court (Exhibit 16) and the Court Order dated November 5, 2001, accepting the case for consideration. .Foston had not been notified of these proceedings as well. 10
HFNWK1: #38235 v.1 #06141-0001 09/15/2002

Case 1:04-cv-01482-GMS

Document 87-2

Filed 05/31/2005

Page 12 of 57

41.

Incredibly, on the basis of plaintiffs' bizarre procedural maneuver, the Solntsevo

Court held that it had no jurisdiction over the case, choosing instead to defer to the Sverdlosk Arbitrazh court. The Court also refused to order the return of shares to Foston. (Exhibit 10) Thus, the very Court which had ordered the divestiture of Foston's shares had inexplicably determined that it had no jurisdiction, yet had left its prior (and presumably jurisdictionally improper) decision intact. Fraud in Sverdlovsk Arbitrazh 42. On October 30, 2001 NTMC, ZAO Inrosmet, and ZAO Standard Trust filed a suit

with the Sverdlosk Arbitrazh Court seeking to invalidate all the share purchase deals in the chain of transactions that led to the acquisition of the shares by Foston. (Exhibit 16) Foston was never notified of the suit filed in Sverdlovsk arbitrazh by NTMC, ZAO Inrosmet, and ZAO Standard Trust. 43. In the court hearing on December 20, 2001 in Sverdlovsk, the plaintiffs petitioned

the court to join Foston as a party to the proceedings. The plaintiffs explained the omission of Foston by pure technical error. The court granted the plaintiffs' petition. (Exhibit 21) It is hard to explain this court ruling because Foston was already named as a defendant on the face of the complaint. 44. Foston was never informed of the suit. Being present at the hearing on behalf of

another defendant, I petitioned the court to dismiss the case. The Court ignored my petition. However, the plaintiffs' petition to postpone the hearing was granted for lack of proof of an adequate notification of one of the other defendants. A new hearing was scheduled for October 3, 2002. (Exhibit 41)

11
HFNWK1: #38235 v.1 #06141-0001 09/15/2002

Case 1:04-cv-01482-GMS

Document 87-2

Filed 05/31/2005

Page 13 of 57

Fraud in the Appeal of the Second Solntsevo Court Decision 45. On December 6, 2001, Foston filed a cassation appeal of the Solntsevo Court's

November 30, 2001 decision which had refused to reinstate Foston's shareholding in GOK. (Exhibit 15) 46. I uncovered a number of instances of fraud perpetrated on the Court in the course

of this appeal. Specifically, when I called the court inquiring about the status of the case, I was informed that Judge Pronyakin of the Solntsevo Court received a letter allegedly from Foston Cyprus. That letter, which was dated January 23, 2002, informed the Court that Foston had decided not to exercise its right of appeal. (Exhibit 11) The Judge stated that this was not consistent with Foston's position and asked for an explanation. I informed the Court that this letter was fraudulent. 47. The Court also received another letter allegedly written by Foston, which was

dated February 1, 2002. That letter stated that all powers of attorney have expired and that attorneys participating in the proceedings on behalf of Foston are not authorized to do so. (Exhibit 12) 48. Both the January 23 and February 1 letters were forgeries. After I informed

Foston of these forgeries, Foston's director prepared an official letter and duly legalized it in Cyprus. The letter to the court stated that the two letters (dated January 23, 2002 and February 1, 2002) were fraudulent and that Foston did not change its intention to pursue its claims. (Exhibit 9) In the same letter Foston also confirmed that my powers as a representative were not revoked and remained valid. 49. In response to this letter, by order dated March 4, 2002, the Solntsevo Court ruled

that Foston's representative should submit a Power of Attorney explicitly stating whether that 12
HFNWK1: #38235 v.1 #06141-0001 09/15/2002

Case 1:04-cv-01482-GMS

Document 87-2

Filed 05/31/2005

Page 14 of 57

representative is authorized to submit cassation appeals of the Solntsevo Court's decision of November 30, 2001. (Exhibit 13) 50. Shortly thereafter I submitted an official letter from Foston to the Solntsevo Court

stating that by April 4, 2002, the required documents would be delivered to the Court. (Exhibit XX missing) 51. In compliance with the Solntsevo Court order and pursuant to the above Foston

letter, on March 27, 2002, Foston again issued a Power of Attorney in my name, which was then submitted to the Solntesevo court. (Exhibit 17) 52. However, on or about March 29, 2002, the Solntsevo Court received a telegram

that identified me as the sender. In this telegram, I purported to state that I did not have a new Power of Attorney and, therefore, was not authorized to pursue the cassation appeal. (Exhibit 23) I did not send this telegram. Judging from the postmark on the telegram, it was sent from Moscow, but I was in Ekaterinburg at the time. It was yet another forgery submitted to the Court. 53. Eventually, Foston clarified that it wished to pursue the cassation appeal and that I

was authorized to pursue that appeal on Foston's behalf. The Solntsevo Court directed the hearing of the Foston cassation appeal to take place on May 22, 2002. 54. At the hearing of May 22, 2002, the Court refused to return the shares to Foston.

My attempts to obtain a copy of that decision have been unsuccessful. 55. That the court so ruled could only be attributed to the fact that it was subject to

improper influence and bias. 56. The decisions against Foston evidenced bias to such a degree that, on July 17,

2002, the Office of the Prosecutor for the City of Moscow brought a protest to the Presidium of 13
HFNWK1: #38235 v.1 #06141-0001 09/15/2002

Case 1:04-cv-01482-GMS

Document 87-2

Filed 05/31/2005

Page 15 of 57

the Moscow City Court in regard to the decisions of the Solntsevo Court of November 30, 2001 and the Moscow City Court of May 22, 2002. (Exhibit 24) 57. On August 22, 2002 the Presidium of the Moscow City Court granted the protest

and remanded the case to the Solntsevo Court for the purpose of reversing the two decisions, which had, in part, refused to reinstate Foston's shareholding in GOK.

14
HFNWK1: #38235 v.1 #06141-0001 09/15/2002

Case 1:04-cv-01482-GMS

Document 87-2

Filed 05/31/2005

Page 16 of 57

I am informed that the contents of the Affidavit in English corresponds to that in Russian. I have executed this affidavit outside the of the United States of America and declare under the penalty of perjury pursuant to the laws of the United States that the foregoing is true to the best of my knowledge and belief.

________________________ Marina Ashikhmina

Date:________________

15
HFNWK1: #38235 v.1 #06141-0001 09/15/2002

Case 1:04-cv-01482-GMS

Document 87-2

Filed 05/31/2005

Page 17 of 57

Case 1:04-cv-01482-GMS

Document 87-2

Filed 05/31/2005

Page 18 of 57

Case 1:04-cv-01482-GMS

Document 87-2

Filed 05/31/2005

Page 19 of 57

Case 1:04-cv-01482-GMS

Document 87-2

Filed 05/31/2005

Page 20 of 57

Case 1:04-cv-01482-GMS

Document 87-2

Filed 05/31/2005

Page 21 of 57

Case 1:04-cv-01482-GMS

Document 87-2

Filed 05/31/2005

Page 22 of 57

Case 1:04-cv-01482-GMS

Document 87-2

Filed 05/31/2005

Page 23 of 57

Case 1:04-cv-01482-GMS

Document 87-2

Filed 05/31/2005

Page 24 of 57

Case 1:04-cv-01482-GMS

Document 87-2

Filed 05/31/2005

Page 25 of 57

Case 1:04-cv-01482-GMS

Document 87-2

Filed 05/31/2005

Page 26 of 57

Case 1:04-cv-01482-GMS

Document 87-2

Filed 05/31/2005

Page 27 of 57

Case 1:04-cv-01482-GMS

Document 87-2

Filed 05/31/2005

Page 28 of 57

Case 1:04-cv-01482-GMS

Document 87-2

Filed 05/31/2005

Page 29 of 57

Case 1:04-cv-01482-GMS

Document 87-2

Filed 05/31/2005

Page 30 of 57

Case 1:04-cv-01482-GMS

Document 87-2

Filed 05/31/2005

Page 31 of 57

Case 1:04-cv-01482-GMS

Document 87-2

Filed 05/31/2005

Page 32 of 57

Case 1:04-cv-01482-GMS

Document 87-2

Filed 05/31/2005

Page 33 of 57

Case 1:04-cv-01482-GMS

Document 87-2

Filed 05/31/2005

Page 34 of 57

Case 1:04-cv-01482-GMS

Document 87-2

Filed 05/31/2005

Page 35 of 57

Case 1:04-cv-01482-GMS

Document 87-2

Filed 05/31/2005

Page 36 of 57

Case 1:04-cv-01482-GMS

Document 87-2

Filed 05/31/2005

Page 37 of 57

Case 1:04-cv-01482-GMS

Document 87-2

Filed 05/31/2005

Page 38 of 57

Case 1:04-cv-01482-GMS

Document 87-2

Filed 05/31/2005

Page 39 of 57

Case 1:04-cv-01482-GMS

Document 87-2

Filed 05/31/2005

Page 40 of 57

Case 1:04-cv-01482-GMS

Document 87-2

Filed 05/31/2005

Page 41 of 57

Case 1:04-cv-01482-GMS

Document 87-2

Filed 05/31/2005

Page 42 of 57

Case 1:04-cv-01482-GMS

Document 87-2

Filed 05/31/2005

Page 43 of 57

Case 1:04-cv-01482-GMS

Document 87-2

Filed 05/31/2005

Page 44 of 57

Case 1:04-cv-01482-GMS

Document 87-2

Filed 05/31/2005

Page 45 of 57

Case 1:04-cv-01482-GMS

Document 87-2

Filed 05/31/2005

Page 46 of 57

Case 1:04-cv-01482-GMS

Document 87-2

Filed 05/31/2005

Page 47 of 57

Case 1:04-cv-01482-GMS

Document 87-2

Filed 05/31/2005

Page 48 of 57

Case 1:04-cv-01482-GMS

Document 87-2

Filed 05/31/2005

Page 49 of 57

Case 1:04-cv-01482-GMS

Document 87-2

Filed 05/31/2005

Page 50 of 57

Case 1:04-cv-01482-GMS

Document 87-2

Filed 05/31/2005

Page 51 of 57

Case 1:04-cv-01482-GMS

Document 87-2

Filed 05/31/2005

Page 52 of 57

Case 1:04-cv-01482-GMS

Document 87-2

Filed 05/31/2005

Page 53 of 57

Case 1:04-cv-01482-GMS

Document 87-2

Filed 05/31/2005

Page 54 of 57

Case 1:04-cv-01482-GMS

Document 87-2

Filed 05/31/2005

Page 55 of 57

Case 1:04-cv-01482-GMS

Document 87-2

Filed 05/31/2005

Page 56 of 57

Case 1:04-cv-01482-GMS

Document 87-2

Filed 05/31/2005

Page 57 of 57