CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION FOR JYOTI

Both sides have been preparing carefully for this dialogue for months now. Written exchanges
so far have amounted to debates concerning the right or lack of access to coverage and
differences over the claim. This will be the parties’ first in-person conversation following the
rejection of the claim. Tensions have been high. Discussions have been emotionally intense,
and both sides have grown apprehensive of one another. You know that regrettably some of
the opinions of Jyoti’s executives about Chilam’s incompetence in controlling its risks have
reached its ears via “gossip” in the market. You are also outraged with the harsh remarks
Chilam has made regarding insurance. You believe that only a reasonable and objective
discourse about the situation might get you closer to resolution. You hope that the mediator
can assist the parties reestablish a fruitful climate for communication.

There was, in fact, an informal examination in March 2015, undertaken by Jyoti at the UTC
site, through which Jyoti became aware that improvements and alterations to the complex were
being carried out to enable for Chilam’s transfer to the Heera company. In preparation for the
session, your internal discovery uncovered an internal email notifying high-level management
of this. Even yet, Chilam did not officially alert Jyoti, as per policy requirements.
Notwithstanding, you are absolutely convinced this is an uncovered claim. You genuinely think
the belt breakdown was caused by a lack of equipment maintenance and unjustified risk
augmentation, releasing Jyoti of covering responsibilities. You don’t see grounds for a claim
there. But sources from within the Chilam revealed that, despite the lack of maintenance to
the conveyor belt & Adjustment report, a continuous supply of low/high voltage electricity
from the main power station of Kolar also contributed a part in the serious meltdown of
Conveyor belt in the month of February. This situation was not under the control of Chilam.

There is a fundamental notion in insurance. It was just a question of lack of maintenance and
wear of certain components, possibly owing to an insufficient amount of investment in
adapting the plant to the new mineral. The forklift collapse, on the other hand, would be
covered, but payment is not required since the value fallswithin the USD 10 million deductible
set forth in the policy. You also feel that the forklift was worthless. It did not contribute to the
production of the plant and the ramp-up duration verifies this fact. Until today, the forklift has
never been replaced. Jyoti finds no need to pay for the collapsed forklift’s contribution to the
business disruption claim if this is included in Chilam’scalculations.
You are quite anxious about the prospect of lawsuit. It does not feel right to you. You feel
you are facing a serious threat of a lawsuit from Chilam and are well-aware of the hazards
connected with suing in Kolar: unexpected court judgements, over decade-long procedures
and reported local-company favourability. Even so, you can’t disregard the Adjustment
Report. The Report’s findings are a direct reflection of how the reinsurance market perceives
the situation. You believe that every dollar spent in compensation must have a compelling
basis to back it, or else you would have difficulty securing approval from the Steering
Committee and recovering from your reinsurers. You are open to listening.

All things considered; you would be willing to settle the matter at this session for an acceptable
price. In your perspective, if Chilam provides a believable tale, you would be able to go as far
as USD 60-80 million. You consider that any value over that represents a substantial credit risk
for Jyoti, meaning that your reinsurers would not follow. You believe that it is in the best
interest of Jyoti to turn this page, avoid litigation and get rid of Chilam for good, if acceptable
conditions are reached. That is your aim.