Between: (1) Lea Lilly Perry (2) Tamar Perry Plaintiffs v (1) Lopag Trust R (2) Private Equity Services (Curacao) NV (3) Fiduciana Verwaltungsanstalt (4) Gal Greenspoon (5) Yael Perry (6) Dan Greenspoon (7) Ron Greenspoon (8) Mia Greenspoon (9) Admintrust Verwaltungsanstalt Defendants

• Jurisdiction: Cayman Islands
• Judgment Date: 28 March 2024
• Docket Number: Claim No FSD 205 of 2017 (NSJ)
• Court: Grand Court (Cayman Islands)

Between:

(1) Lea Lilly Perry

(2) Tamar Perry

Plaintiffs

and

(1) Lopag Trust Reg

(2) Private Equity Services (Curacao) NV

(3) Fiduciana Verwaltungsanstalt

(4) Gal Greenspoon

(5) Yael Perry

(6) Dan Greenspoon

(7) Ron Greenspoon

(8) Mia Greenspoon

(9) Admintrust Verwaltungsanstalt

Defendants

Claim No FSD 205 of 2017 (NSJ)

IN THE GRAND COURT OF THE CAYMAN ISLANDS

FINANCIAL SERVICES DIVISION

RULING ON THE PAPERS ON THE FORM OF ORDER TO BE MADE TO GIVE EFFECT TO THE COURT'S JUDGMENT DATED 19 JANUARY 2024

1 The parties have been unable to agree the form of order to be made to give effect to my judgment dated 19 January (the Judgment) and (after various extensions of time) have filed (in accordance with the directions I have given) the forms of order they each ask the Court to make with written submissions explaining their respective positions.

2 I have reviewed and considered the submissions (with draft orders) filed by the Trustees on 7 March 2024 and by the Plaintiffs and the Fifth Defendant on 8 March 2024. I did ask the parties to provide me with a single copy of the draft order with the agreed wording in black and the wording proposed by the Plaintiffs, the Trustees and the Fifth Defendant in separate colours to make a review of the competing wording easier but I have still not received this and have decided not to delay further the handing down of my ruling by waiting for it.

3 I attach the form of order that I shall make (in a clean version and a mark-up to show the changes to the Trustees' draft).

4 I do not propose to provide a detailed explanation of my reasoning since the wording of the amended form of order is, I believe, self-explanatory. But I would make the following points.

5 I accept the Trustees' submissions regarding the approach to be adopted in relation to the recitals.

6 As regards the form of the order:

• (a). paragraph 3: the Judgment makes it clear that the Amended Undertakings can only be terminated if the funds deposited in the jurisdiction with the Court (or in another account approved by the Court) have been lawfully transferred and will be available to satisfy a judgment obtained by the Trustees in respect of the Trustees' Damages Claim. It seems to me that the Trustees' addition of the words “ unencumbered funds from an unimpeachable source” adequately captures this requirement (and if a US$20 million deposit is made and a dispute arises as to whether this requirement has been satisfied an application to Court can be made). I have also made some drafting changes to spell out that the funds held on deposit will be held pending a further order of the Court and, consistently with the approach taken in paragraph 2 of the Amended Undertaking, to require that the terms on which the funds are deposited are approved by the Court (and not just the Trustees). I do not agree with the Trustees' introduction of the reference to “ security.” While the purpose of the deposit is to give the Trustees security by having a fund available in the jurisdiction against which a judgment could be executed, the Trustees will not have (or at least it has not yet been established that the Trustees should have) a security interest in the deposit.

• (b). paragraph 5: I accept the Trustees' submissions as to the wording of this paragraph.

• (c). paragraph 6: I accept the Plaintiffs' submissions, and form of order, as to costs.

7 As regards the drafting of the Amended Undertakings:

CAUSE NO: FSD 205 OF 2017 (NSJ)

IN THE GRAND COURT OF THE CAYMAN ISLANDS

FINANCIAL SERVICES DIVISION

IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF ISRAEL IGO PERRY DECEASED

BETWEEN:

(1) LEA LILLY PERRY

(2) TAMAR PERRY

Plaintiffs/Counterclaim Defendants

and

(1) LOPAG TRUST REG.

(2) PRIVATE EQUITY SERVICES (CURACAO) N.V.

(3) FIDUCIANA VERWALTUNGSANSTALT

(4) GAL GREENSPOON

(5) YAEL PERRY

(6) DAN GREENSPOON

(7) RON GREENSPOON

(8) MIA GREENSPOON

(9) ADMINTRUST VERWALTUNGSANSTALT

Defendants/Counterclaim Plaintiffs (First and Ninth Defendants)

Judge of the Grand Court

SCHEDULE A

The undersigned (the Plaintiffs) hereby jointly and severally undertake that pending the determination of the Trustees' Damages Claim or further order of the Court in the meantime:

• (a). introductory wording: I have in the introductory wording added a definition of the Plaintiffs and a stipulation that they give the undertakings jointly and severally.

• (b). paragraph 2 introductory wording: it seems to me that, having regard at least to the English translation of SFPF's articles of association, the correct term to use to describe the payments covered by paragraph 2 (and paragraph 3) is “ distributions”. Accordingly, I have added/substituted that term where appropriate. I have also added wording that clarifies the capacity in which the distributions are to be made to the Plaintiffs.

• (c). paragraph 2a: I note and accept the points made by the Plaintiffs on this, namely that the current Curacao proceedings do not contemplate an order being made which would approve or permit a distribution of the type referred to. However, it seems to me that there can be no objection to retaining (and that it might be of assistance to the Plaintiffs to retain) a provision which permits the distribution to be made if pursuant to another application the Curacao Court does make an order approving the distribution.

• (d). paragraph 2b: it seems to me that paragraph 2b provides the Plaintiffs with the main mechanism for obtaining the US$20 million they need to fund the deposit in the jurisdiction and to obtain the discharge/termination of the Amended Undertakings. That mechanism, consistently with the Judgement, needs to provide for advance notice of the proposed date of the distribution and service of an affidavit from a suitably qualified person, sufficiently in advance to allow the Trustees to apply to this Court for an order to prohibit the distribution being made. 28 days seems to me to be needed rather than 21 days (although if all the parties are agreed that 21 days is appropriate that period should be adopted). The paragraph needs to make explicit what was implicit namely that the distribution cannot be made before the notified distribution date if this Court has before that date made an order prohibiting the Plaintiffs' exercise of their powers to procure the distribution.

• (e). paragraph 3 (previously paragraph 2c): the Judgment did (see [71(f)]) confirm that it would be acceptable for the Amended Undertakings to be varied to permit the Plaintiffs to procure that SFPF makes distributions from the Pictet Account to a beneficiary other than the Plaintiffs. But the Judgment made it clear that that any such distributions must be properly authorised and lawful and that following the making of such a distribution the Plaintiffs must remain entitled to distributions, there will be sufficient funds retained to allow distributions to be made to the Plaintiffs subsequently in an amount of at least US$20 million, and that any such distribution does not adversely affect or prejudice the Plaintiffs' rights to be paid distributions of at least US$20 million or prevent SFPF making, or make it less likely that SFPF will make, distributions to the Plaintiffs in such an amount. So it seems...