• GOVERNMENT

OF THE BAHAMAS

• GRAND BAHAMA PORT AUTHORITY

• HARCOURT • VICTIMS

• OTHER PARTIES OF INTEREST1

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Table of contents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 2Three Main Grievances . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3Executive summary of easily implemented remedies . . . . . . 4Solved by Co-operation, Enforcement or Litigation . . . . . . . 5Pictorial view of grievances . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6Demonstration by FRC vacationers –May/08 . . . . . . . . . . 7Implications of the shortcut path access closure . . . . . . . . . 8Ontario Bahamia Prospectus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

– relied on for first Bahamia Land PurchasePurchaser’s Info Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

– relied on for subsequent property acquisitionsLegally pertinent language in various documents . . . . . . . . 11Harcourt cannot evade ‘successor developer’ obligations . . . . 12Some obligations attach to the assets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13Possible non-legal reasons, that transparency exposes . . . . . 14Devco / Princess approved our Shortcut Access path in 1981 . . 15 Sunrise Hwy diversion fundamentally flawed . . . . . . . . . . 16Access Easement needs to be recorded in conveyances . . . . . 17Bahamia Beach Club obligation is indisputable . . . . . . . . . 18 Golf Privilege

– what the Ontario Prospectus says . . . . . . . . . . . . 19- what the Purchaser’s Info Report says . . . . . . . . . . 20

- what Princess (original developer) said and did . . . . 21Comments on our damages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22Damage mitigation opportunity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23Summary of suggested remedies – assuming no litigation . . . . . 24Exhibit summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

Exhibits

Exh # 1 – Chrono events since path closure Nov/04 . . . 26

. . . 27 . . . 28

Exh # 2 - FRC Rebuttal to Harcourt’s Open Letter . . 29- 31

Exh # 3 – Summary view of FRC grievances/damages . . 32 - Details of FRC grievances / damages . . . 33 – 36

Exh # 4 - Driftwood’s Legacy emulated by Harcourt . . . 37

Exh # 5 - FRC Damage detailed Work Sheet . . . . . . . 38 ( May be provided to potential defendants )

Exh # 6 – FRC Rebuttal to Harcourt’s Aug 15/08 letter . 39-44

2

FREEPORT RESORT & CLUB

1. SHORTCUT ACCESS TO BAZAAR2. BAHAMIA BEACH CLUB3. REAL GOLF PRIVILEGES

THREE MAIN GRIEVANCES

3

OUR SUGGESTED REMEDIES ARE REASONABLE RESTORE OUR RIGHTS NOW, AND

HARCOURT CAN AVOID MONEY DAMAGES WITH CO-OPERATION

ACCESS• RE-OPEN FOOTPATH 3Q 2008 / ARRANGE ACCESS EASEMENT IN

RECORDABLE FORM / PERMIT GOLF CART ACCESS

BAHAMIA BEACH CLUB• COMMIT TO REPLACE IN A REASONABLE TIME, PER THE PROSPECTUS• STOP THREATS OF FUTURE BEACH ACCESS

GOLF PRIVILEGES• RE-OPEN RUBY GOLF COURSE IN AUGUST/08 & EMERALD ASAP AND

RENEW COMMITMENT TO KEEP COURSES OPEN CONTINUOUSLY • COMMIT TO THE PROSPECTUS ‘PRIVILEGE RATE’ ( 50% OF PUBLIC RATE )

CONFLICT OF INTEREST / UNFAIR COMPETITION• NO UNDUE INFLUENCE, UNFAIR COMPETITION OR PREDATORY PRACTISES4

FRC GRIEVANCES HARCOURT SHOULD COMPLY WITH OUR ‘RIGHT OF ACCESS’ AND HONOR OUR BEACH AND GOLF PRIVILEGES ENSHRINED IN THE ‘BAHAMIA PROSPECTUS’, BUT HAVE REFUSED AS PER THEIR LETTERS OF JAN/08,

JULY/08, AND AUG 15/08 DESPITE BEING SUCCESSOR DEVELOPER.

OR BE FORCED TO DO SO BY: BAHAMAS GOVERNMENT AND GBPA GROUP OF COMPANIES WHICH

THIS PRESENTATION SEEKS TO ACCOMPLISH, AND IF THIS FAILS,

THEN BY A COURT OF LAW,

AFTER A HUGE INTERNATIONAL SCANDAL

5

PICTORIAL VIEW OF FRC GRIEVANCES

GOLF ISSUESBEACH ISSUES

IT’S ALL ABOUT:LOCN, LOCN, LOCN

THESE RIGHTS ARESUPPORTED BY:

• BAHAMIA LAND PROSPECTUS

• SUCCESSOR OBLIGATIONS

• CONSTITUTION, COMMON LAW, ‘LAND TAKING’, BUSINESS ETHICS

6

MAY 27/08 DEMONSTRATION AT RANFURLY CIRCUS

DEMONSTRATION PARTICIPANTS

- 1000 +complaintletters

- From 50states, provinces, countries

-To Govt,GBPA, CofC,Harcourt,Newspapers,Ambassadors

-Escalatingeach week,now on web

-Othervictims joining

7

IMPLICATIONS OF PATH CLOSURE

1. PERIOD OF ACCESS RIGHT BREACH: - 3 YEARS BY DRIFTWOOD - 9 MONTHS BY HARCOURT

2. FRC VACATIONERS NOT RETURNING

3. INT’L EXCHANGEES COMPLAIN

4. CONSTRUCTION AND INSURANCE USED AS ‘LAME’ EXCUSES

5. AS BENEFICIARY OF THE ‘LAND TAKING’THEY MUST PROVIDE “EASEMENT”

6. OUR PATH MUST BE RE-OPENED NOWTO STOP THE DAMAGE TO US AND AID THE BAZAAR SHOP OWNERS.

7. HARCOURT NOW SAYS OUR PATH WILL NOT BE RE-OPENED UNTIL AFTER THEIR2011 PROJECTED RESORT RE-OPENING.

GUESTS MUST NOW TRAVEL SEVEN( 7 ) TIMES FURTHER, UNSAFELY !

8

THERE WERE SEVERAL PROSPECTUSESCANADA PERMANENT TRUST CO, 1977AGENT, FOR PRINCESS REALTY LTD. ONT. PROSPECTUS, 1977

PURCHASER’S INFO REPORT

THERE ARE SEVERAL VERSIONS OF THIS PROSPECTUS GIVENTO PURCHASERS IN FREEPORT.

SELLER HADTO COMMITTO AND FILEPROSPECTUSIN ONTARIOBEFORE THEYWERE ABLETO SOLICIT LAND BUYERS INBAHAMIA, SO THE PROSPECTUS IS BINDING ! 9

HOW COULD HARCOURT NOW SAY THEY KNOW NOTHING OF ANY PROSPECTUS AND SAY THE PURCHASER’S INFO REPORT IS NOT LEGALLY BINDING !!!

PURCHASER’S INFO REPORT, JAN 1/77

* 100% OF HLOB SURVEY RESPONDENTS IN 2001 SAID THAT DRIFTWOOD, AS SUCCESSOR TO PRINCESS, IS OBLIGATED TO BAHAMIAPROSPECTUS PROMISES !

IT IS NOT JUST FRC SAYING THIS

10

LEGALLY PERTINENT LANGUAGE IN:ONTARIO PROSPECTUS-5.(G) COVERS RECREATIONAL FACILITIES-GOLF AND BEACH CLUB ( MORE ON THIS LATER )-21. RELATES TO 1118 LOTS IN BAHAMIA; AND 11. ALL LOTS ARE ACCESSIBLE BY VEHICLE-13. GOLF COURSES & BEACH CLUB PART OF PURCHASE CONSIDERATION

PURCHASER’S INFO REPORT-2. COVERS RECREATIONAL FACILITIES; 3. ALL LOTS ACCESSIBLE BY PUBLIC ROAD

VARIOUS LAND PURCHASE AGREEMENTS-8. AGREEMENT SHALL BE BINDING UPON THE HEIRS PERSONAL REPS, SUCCESSORS AND ASSIGNS OF THE PURCHASER AND THE VENDOR; 11.(B) SAYS ‘VENDOR’ MEANS PRINCESS REALTY LTD., ITS SUCCESSORS IN TITLE OR ASSIGNS; 13. DEED WORDING

BAHAMIA PLAT PLAN / MAP-SHOWS SUNRISE HWY AS A TWO WAY PUBLIC HIGHWAY, NOT PRIVATE LAND

BAHAMIA CONVEYANCE COVENANTS -THIS INDENTURE BY PRINCESS, CALLED THE ‘VENDOR’, SHALL INCLUDE ITS ASSIGNS-AT WHERAS (A) THE CROWN GRANT TO THE GBPA THEN TO YORKSHIRE DEV. WHERE THIS SUBDIVISION (“THE SAID PLAN”) AND EACH OWNER SHALL BE BOUND BY THE STIPULATIONS AND RESTRICTIONS FOR THE BENEFIT AND PROTECTION OF ALL OTHER OWNERS AND THE VENDOR.

ALL SUPPORT - VENDOR’S SUCCESSORS AND ASSIGNS ARE OBLIGATED.

11

HARCOURT CANNOT EVADE ITS SUCCESSOR DEVELOPER OBLIGATIONS JUST BECAUSE IT BOUGHT ROYAL OASIS ASSETS ONLY AND

PROCLAIMS IT DOESN’T RECOGNIZE FORMER OBLIGATIONS !

(SOME DRIFTWOOD DEBTS MAY BE AVOIDED, LIKE ACCOUNTS PAYABLE, IF THEY DON’T ATTACH TO ANY ASSET.)

DRIFTWOOD, AS SUCCESSOR TO PRINCESS, PREVIOUSLY HAD THESE OBLIGATIONS, NOT BECAUSE THEY BOUGHT THE PRINCESS CO’S, BUT BECAUSE THEY, LIKE

HARCOURT NOW, HAVE INHERITED THESE ENCUMBRANCES WHICH CANNOT BEEXPUNGED SIMPLY DUE TO AN OWNERSHIP CHANGE.

12

SOME OBLIGATIONS ATTACH TO THE ASSETS :

• CAR LOAN LIEN OR A HOUSE MORTGAGE ENCUMBER THE CAR OR HOUSE, EVEN AFTER THE CAR OR HOUSE IS SOLD.

• SAME APPLIES TO THE BAHAMIA PROSPECTUS, CONTRACT FOR PURCHASE, OTHERWISE ‘PURCHASE CONSIDERATIONS’ ARE A FARCE FOR ANY LONG TERM TRANSACTION.

* HARCOURT IS A VETERAN (NOT A NOVICE) IN INT’L REAL ESTATE, WERE GIVEN HUGE CONCESSIONS AND KNEW BEFORE THEY

BOUGHT THAT THEY HAD THESE INHERITED OBLIGATIONS !

* HARCOURT DID THEIR DUE DILIGENCE SO MUST LIVE WITH IT13

POSSIBLE NON-LEGAL REASONS, THAT TRANSPARENCY EXPOSES

FOR ANYONE IN AUTHORITY WHO COULD ASSIST IN RESOLVING THESE INJUSTICES, IT MAY TAKE VIGILANCE AND DETERMINATION TO TRY TO ASSESS WHETHER THE IMPEDIMENTS ARE CAUSED BY IGNORANCE, GREED, INSINCERETY, MEDIOCRITY, UNDUE INFLUENCE, IRRESPONSIBILITY, INTIMIDATION OR A FORM OF MORAL CORRUPTION !

THOSE WHO, UNINTENTIONALLY ARE

RESPONSIBLE FOR

ABUSE OF POWER,

NO COMPASSION,

SECRET AGENDAS, OR WHO

PASS THE BUCK OR LIVE WITH

APATHY OR

REGRET, WILL

EVENTUALLY SEE THAT

NEGLECT AND

CALOUS DISREGARD WILL

YIELD HUGE UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES 14

DEVCO & PRINCESS APPROVED PATH IN 1981COOPER APPROVES PATH IN VIEW OF SUNRISE HWY WIDENING IN FUTURE

WARDELL (PRINCESS) DREW PATH PLAT WHICH WAS USED FOR 20 YRS UNTIL 2001

OUR PATH HAD:-LIGHTING-SECURITY ALARM SYSTEM-CLEAR VIEW BY SECURITY STAFF-LANDSCAPED-IT WAS SAFE AND CONVENIENT, NOW 7 TIMES FURTHER – DARK AND UNSAFE

SO THE DIVERSIONOF SUNRISE HWYHAS BEEN DAMAGING TO HUNDREDS OF VACATIONER FAMILIES AND HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF TRIPS TO THE INT’L BAZAAR. 15

SUNRISE HWY DIVERSION WAS FUNDAMENTALLY FLAWED

• IT WAS DRIFTWOOD’S PLOY TO AID ITS “FLIP THIS PROPERTY” AGENDA• BURTON MILLER/CFC (JAN 20/01 FPT NEWS) SUMS IT UP VERY WELL: “…CRY OF A COMMUNITY SEEKING INFORMATION, JUSTICE AND FAIR PLAY OF PEOPLE SEEKING INCLUSION AND NOT

EXCLUSION”….”THERE ARE TOO MANY LEADERS IN THIS CITY WITH PERSONAL AGENDAS”…..”WE MUST COME TO THE PLATE AND BAT FOR REMOVING THE SHACKLES OF ECONOMIC DISCRIMINATION & INFORMATION ISOLATION” …AND ….”THE DAYS OF TELLING WHAT WILL BE, IRRESPECTIVE OF ACCEPTANCE, IS COMING TO AN END.”

• THE 2001 SURVEY DIDN’T MEET POLLING STANDARDS WITH A BIASED PHRASE “IF IT MEANS SAVING 1800 JOBS” / IT WAS A ‘FAIT ACCOMPLI’* EVEN DROETTBOOM, PORT SVC MGR, IN HIS ROTARY SPEECH, SAYS “THEY WERE NOT ON THE

BEACH SO NEEDED A WATER FEATURE, BUT MOST IMPORTANT, NEEDED THE ROAD CLOSED TO CONSOLIDATE THE 2 RESORTS OR IT WAS NO DEAL, SO THE PORT RELUCTANTLY AGREED.

• WHEN I TOLD BUDDEMEYER THAT MARRIOTT HAD TO TUNNEL UNDER A1A TO GET TO THE BEACH, HE REPLIED-HIS HOTEL MGR HAS INFLUENCE AT THE PORT SO IT WILL HAPPEN!

• ON NOV 30, 2000, 69 FRC TIMESHARE/BAHAMIA LAND OWNERS WROTE TO PM INGRAHAM AND ALBERT MILLER, GBPA, RE: ISSUES WITH DRIFTWOOD, INCL SUNRISE DIVERSION.

• IN MAY/01 AND AGAIN IN DEC/02 FRC SOUGHT THE OPENING OF AN ALTERNATE PATH ROUTE AND APPROVAL IN WRITING AND EMPHASIZED THE ECONOMIC BENEFITS TO DRIFTWOOD. SUCH ALTERNATE PATH ON FRC EAST SIDE ONTO DRIFTWOOD’S PARKING LOT HEADING TO THE INT’L BAZAAR PAST THE GOLF PRO SHOP WAS OPENED LATER, ONLY TO BE RECLOSED NOV/04.

• “THE “END DOES NOT JUSTIFY THE MEANS”, SO REGARDLESS OF THE DIVERSION, FRC’S RIGHT OF ACCESS SHOULD BE RESTORED PERMANENTLY FOR MANY REASONS.

• IT NEVER DID CONSIDER THE HUGE NEGATIVE IMPACT ON THE INT’L BAZAAR SHOP OWNERS16

REASONS WHY AN “ACCESS EASEMENT” NEEDS TO BE RECORDED IN THE CONVEYANCE

1. TO PERMANENTLY CORRECT MORE THAN 8 YEARS OF ABUSE. 2. TO ENSURE THAT A FUTURE SUCCESSOR DEVELOPER OR OPERATOR

WILL NOT INFLICT ACCESS DENIAL EVER AGAIN.3. TO ENSURE OUR ACCESS RIGHTS ARE PROTECTED UNDER:

a. MAY 1981 PATH APPROVAL BY DEVCO / PRINCESS b. THE BAHAMAS CONSTITUTION c. COMMON LAW d. THE DOCTRINE OF SQUATTERS RIGHTS - UNDISTURBED FOR 20 YRS

e. RULES UNDER A “LAND TAKING”OR “ADVERSE POSSESSION” WHERE THE AUTHORITIES AND THE BENEFICIARY MUST MAKE ANY DAMAGED PARTY ‘WHOLE’

f. THE BAHAMIA PROSPECTUS, PURCHASER’S INFO REPORT,LAND PURCHASE AGREEMENTS, ‘BAHAMIA MASTER PLAN’ STIPULATIONS AND PROTECTIONS.

g. SOUND BUSINESS PRACTISES AND ETHICS.17

BAHAMIA BEACH CLUB OBLIGATION - INDISPUTABLE

ONTARIO PROSPECTUS 1977

• COMPLETED BY SEP/78• NO MENTION OF $ COST• NO CHARGE TO BAHAMIA

PROPERTY OWNERS

* WILL HAVE CHANGE, BEACH,BATHING FACILITIES

PURCHASER INFO REPORT 1977

• COMPLETED BY SEP 30/78• MIN. OF $100K IMPROVEMENTS• NO COST OR ASSESSMENT TO

COMPLETE* SOLE BENEFIT OF BAHAMIA

PROPERTY OWNERS / RESIDENTS

BUILT, OPENED AND USED FOR MANY YEARS, THEN IT WAS CLOSED, MADE UNAVAILABLE , THEN MYSTERIOUSLY SOLD WITH FUNDS RETAINED ! NOW THEY SAY IT WAS SOLD TO A 3RD PARTY AND A PLAN EXISTED TO REPLACE IT.DRIFTWOOD DENIED RESPONSIBILITY TO REPLACE THE BAHAMIA BEACH CLUB, SO WHY DID

THEY REMOVE ANY REFERENCE TO IT IN THEIR 2001 PROSPECTUS ? TO EVADE RESPONSIBILITY !They had a deal with Princess to replace the Bahamia Beach Club, at another location, so why quibble and reneg now .Princess staff knew all about it and were hired by Driftwood and are now with Harcourt – why the secrecy & deception.

IT IS NOT JUST CB / FRC - HERE IS WHAT THE HLOB SURVEY RESPONDENTS SAID:- 93 % ARE CONCERNED WITH ADEQUATE ACCESS TO THE BEACH.- 91 % SAID BAHAMIA BEACH CLUB IMPROPERLY SOLD AND SHOULD BE REPLACED.- 87 % SAID BAHAMIA BEACH CLUB PROMISE WAS IMPORTANT IN LAND PURCHASE. 18

WHAT THE ONTARIO PROSPECTUS SAYS ABOUT THE GOLF PRIVILEGE COMMITMENT• ANNUAL MEMBERSHIPS AT THE EMERALD AND RUBY

COURSES ARE CURRENTLY WITHOUT CHARGE TO BAHAMIA PROPERTY OWNERS

• PROPERTY OWNERS AND RESIDENTS SHARE USE WITH THE PUBLIC AND HOTEL GUESTS

• THE FREE MEMBERSHIP FOR PROPERTY OWNERS CHARGED AND GREEN FEES CHARGED OTHER USERS

ARE SUBJECT TO CHANGE

SECTION 13. SHOWS BOTH COURSES AS 100% COMPLETE, AND THERE IS NO PROVISION FOR GOLF COURSE CLOSURE (3 YEARS BY DRIFTWOOD & NOW 9 MOS UNDER HARCOURT)

THIS MAJOR RECREATIONAL AMENITY WAS PART OF THE PURCHASE CONSIDERATION SO THE RUBY AND EMERALD COURSES ARE ENCUMBERED.

HARCOURT IS CONTINUING THE SAME POLICY OF TOTAL DISRESPECT FOR THIS SUCCESSSOR DEVELOPER INHERITED OBLIGATION. WHILE WE HAVE EMPATHY FOR HARCOURT’S POSITION, HARCOURT IS ABUSING THE PATIENCE OF GOLF VICTIMS. 19

WHAT THE PURCHASER’S INFO REPORT SAYS ABOUT THE GOLF PRIVILEGE COMMITMENT

• EMERALD AND RUBY COURSES ARE COMPLETED• PROPERTY OWNERS / RESIDENTS SHARE USE WITH HOTEL GUESTS• FAMILY MEMBERSHIP CURRENTLY WITHOUT CHARGE TO PROPERTY OWNERS• MEMBERSHIP ENTITLES FAMILY TO USE BOTH COURSES WITHOUT

ADDITIONAL GREEN FEES AND THE USE OF CLUBHOUSE / OTHER FACILITIES• CURRENT GREEN FEES ARE $10 AND CARTS AN ADDED $14• FREE MEMBERSHIP AND GREEN FEES & CART CHARGES, SUBJECT TO CHANGE • LAND FOR A THIRD 18 HOLE COURSE HAS BEEN SET ASIDE AS OPEN RECREATIONAL USE

OUR GRIEVANCES ARE THAT THE COURSES SHOULD BE AVAILABLE ALWAYS , AND THE ‘PRIVILEGED RATE’ SHOULD REMAIN CONSTANT IN COMPARISON TO WHAT THE PUBLIC IS CHARGED.

WE NEED ASSURANCES THAT THE TACTICS OF THE PAST WILL NOT BE REPEATED, LIKE CHANGING THE DEFINITION OF THE FAMILY TO MEAN 2 PERSONS OR DILUTING THE ‘PRIVILEGED RATE’ FROM THE ORIGINAL 60% OFF DOWN TO A MEAGRE 5%.

HLOB RESPONDENTS SAID THE RATE SHOULD BE 42% OFF AND 71% SAID ‘PRIVILEGED GOLF RATE’ WAS IMPORTANT IN LAND PURCHASE.

20

WHAT PRINCESS SAID IN 1982 ABOUT THE GOLF PRIVILEGE RATE !• GREAT SALES TOOL TO BE ABLE TO OFFER

“ FREE GREEN FEES ” ON TWO

CHAMPIONSHIP COURSES

• FOR A COUPLE, THE SAVING IS 2 X 6 DAYS x

$17 = $204, TWICE THAT IF TWO OTHERS

STAYING WITH THEM, which

-WOULD PAY ANNUAL MTC FEE

-IF THEY STAY FOR TWO WEEKS, IT

WOULD PAY THEIR AIRFARE ( A TRULY SIGNIFICANT PRIVILEGE BENEFIT )

• PROJECTS IN BAHAMIA ALSO RECEIVE

A 50% DISCOUNT

THEIR OWN PRACTISE CLOSELY FOLLOWED THE PROSPECTUS GUIDELINE FOR PRIVILEGED RATES FOR THOSE IN BAHAMIA IN THE 1979 – 1982 PERIOD.

THIS WAS CONTEMPORANEOUS WITH THE PROSPECTUS FILINGS AND ACTIVE LAND SALES, AND MOST IMPORTANTLY WHEN PRINCESS WAS A SALES AGENT FOR FRC TIMESHARE OFFERING !

21

COMMENTS ON OUR DAMAGES

A CO-OPERATIVE AND NEGOTIATED SOLUTION:

• IF THE PARTIES ACT TO RESTORE OUR RIGHTS, WE WILL BE CO-OPERATIVE.

• HARCOURT HAS THE GOLDEN OPPORTUNITY TO MITIGATE THE DAMAGE EXPOSURE TO THEM AS SHOWN ON THE DAMAGE WORKSHEET.

• WE ALSO HOPE THAT BOTH GOV’T AND THE PORT CO’S DO THEIR ENFORCEMENT PART TO CORRECT THE BREACHES TO OUR RIGHTS.

THE UNNECCESSARY LITIGATED SOLUTION:• UNFORTUNATELY THIS ROUTE IS

NOT ONLY LENGTHY BUT COSTLY, AND WILL NOT ONLY INVITE COMPENSATORY MONEY DAMAGES, BUT PUNITIVE DAMAGES AS WELL.

• THE PREVAILING PARTY ALSO IS PAID FOR ITS LEGAL FEES & COSTS.

• RIGHT NOW THE PLAINTIFFS ARE FRC DEVELOPER, IT’S HUNDREDS OF TIMESHARE OWNERS, BUT THIS COULD SOON INCLUDE THOUSANDS OF BAHAMIA LAND OWNERS AND OTHERS.

• THE DAMAGE IS INTERNATIONAL IN SCOPE AND IS ESCALATING BY THE DAY. WE HAVE DONE OUR PART.

• 87% OF HLOB SURVEY RESPONDENTSWOULD SUPPORT LEGAL ACTION

WE REALIZE THERE COULD BE SEVERAL DEFENDANTS, DUE TO THE LONG GRIEVANCE PERIOD , AND THE LACK OF ENFORCEMENT. WE HAVE NOT SAT ON OUR RIGHTS SO ALL OPTIONS ARE ON THE TABLE. THE STEPS WE

HAVE TAKEN TO DATE SHOW WE PREFER A NEGOTIATED SETTLEMENT VS COURT JUDGMENT, IF POSSIBLE.

22

DAMAGE WORKSHEETSHOWS HOW HARCOURT CAN MITIGATE DAMAGE EXPOSURE

- By re-opening our path soon could eliminate access damage since the Nov/07 closing

- Agreement to a satisfactory Bahamia Beach Club replacement could eliminate any relateddamage since Nov/07 closing

- Re-opening the Ruby course soon (Aug/08) ata real “privileged rate” with a satisfactory planfor the re-opening of the Emerald course couldeliminate all related damages since Nov/07 closing

23

SUMMARY OF SPECIFIC, REASONABLE REMEDIES( ASSUMING NO LITIGATION )

OUR RIGHTS MUST BE RESTORED, BUT PAST DAMAGES COULD BE OFFSET BY OTHER CONCESSIONS with GBPA help

ACCESS• FOOTPATH RE-OPENED 3Q08• ACCESS EASEMENT PUT IN RECORDABLE FORM• GOLF CART ACCESS PERMITTED• FAVORABLE ZONING AND SIGNAGE TO OFFSET SUNRISE DIVERSION

BAHAMIA BEACH CLUB• COMMIT TO REPLACE IN A REASONABLE TIME, PER THE PROSPECTUS• STOP THREATS OF FUTURE BEACH ACCESS AND OFFER BEACH

ENJOYMENT ENHANCEMENT IDEAS AND PROGRAMS INSTEAD

GOLF PRIVILEGES• RE-OPEN RUBY GOLF COURSE IN AUGUST/08 & EMERALD ASAP AND

RENEW COMMITMENT TO KEEP COURSES ON A CONTINUOUS BASIS • ESTABLISH ‘PRIVILEGE RATE’ AT 50% OF PUBLIC RATE, AND NO TRICKS

CONFLICT OF INTEREST / UNFAIR COMPETITION* NO UNDUE INFLUENCE, UNFAIR COMPETITION OR PREDATORY PRACTISES24

E X H I B I T SCONTAINS

POST DRIFTWOOD CLOSURE CHRONO EVENTS,HARCOURT’S POLICY LETTERS

AND FRC REBUTTALS, DETAILS OF FRC GRIEVANCES & DAMAGES

( coded to be easily identified on the Aerial photo )

25

EXH # 1 - CHRONO EVENTS FROM THE DATE OF OUR ALTERNATE SHORTCUT PATH CLOSURE

NOV 23/04 – ARCHER, ROYAL OASIS DICTATES THAT OUR PATH BE CLOSED FOR SAFETY / CONSTRUCTION REASONS, AND THAT FRC CAN NO LONGER USE ROYAL OASIS PREMISES TO ACCESS AREAS

OUTSIDE ROYAL OASIS. THIS IGNORES OUR RIGHTS AND SHOWS HOW INCONSIDERATE THEY WERE TO CLOSE OUR PATH WHEN THEY COULD TAKE ADVANTAGE OF FRC PATRONAGE AFTER THEY SHUT DOWN, BUT FRC COULD STILL PATRONIZE THE BAZAAR BUSINESS OWNERS. THIS

WAS TOTALLY UNNECESSARY ACT BY AN UNGRATEFUL “LAND TAKING” BENEFICIARY.

JAN 17 & 18/05 - FRC MEETS AND TO GET SHORTCUT PATH RE-OPENED. CORDIAL BUT NO RESULTS.

JAN 24/05 – FRC WRITES TO ARCHER, RO REQUESTING OUR PATH BE RE-OPENED AS THE TARGETED FEB/05 RE-OPENING WOULD NOT BE AS PREVIOUSLY REPORTED AND SUCH FURTHER DELAY IN RE-OPENING OUR PATH

WOULD HAVE A HUGE NEGATIVE IMPACT. PHOTOS WERE ENCLOSED TO VERIFY THE ROUTE HAD NO EXPSOURE AND WOULD BE A BENEFIT TO FRC VACATIONERS AND A BOOST FOR THE BAZAAR OWNERS. NO REPLY TO THIS LETTER OR FAVORABLE REACTION TO ANY LATER TELEPHONE COMMUNICATIONS.

FEB 2/05 – FRC WRITES TO PM PERRY CHRISTIE ADVISING OF DRIFTWOOD’S CLOSURE OF OUR PATH AND BREACHES TO THE BAHAMIA PROSPECTUS. DUE TO THE PAST GOVT INVOLVEMENT IN THE SALE AND

CONCESSIONS GIVEN, IT IS IN THE BEST POSITION TO EXERCISE THE NECESSARY CLOUT TO CONTROL THE DEBTOR , ESPECIALLY DUE TO ITS FINANCIAL MISMANAGEMENT. IT APPEARS ALSO THAT IT WOULD BE INAPPROPRIATE TO LET THE DEBTOR RETAIN INSURANCE PROCEEDS AND WALK. “WE WERE HEARTENED TO HEAR YOU SAY THAT NO SALE WILL BE ALLOWED UNLESS ALL OF DRIFTWOOD’S LIABILITIES AND COMMITMENTS ARE FULFILLED.” NO REPLY WAS RECEIVED OR KNOWN ACTION TAKEN.

APR 13/05 – FRC WRITES TO HARCOURT, PRESIDENT IRELAND, WITH CC. TO PM PERRY CHRISTIE AND WILLIE MOSS, GBPA, STATING WE READ THAT HARCOURT SIGNED AN AGREEMENT IN

PRINCIPLE TO ACQUIRE THE FORMER DRIFTWOOD ROYAL OASIS OPERATIONS AND FELT AN URGENT DUTY TO ADVISE HARCOURT OF UNRESOLVED ISSUES THAT MAY AFFECT YOUR FINAL CONTRACT AND THEIR FUTURE OPERATIONS. IT SPOKE OF THE BAHAMIA PROSPECTUS BREACHES AND CLOSURE OF OUR SHORTCUT PATH. THE LETTER MENTIONED A 2002 HLOB SURVEY THAT 100% OF RESPONDENTS DID

BELIEVE DRIFTWOOD, AS PRINCESS SUCCESSSOR, IS OBLIGATED FOR THE PROSPECTUS PROMISES. NO REPLY OR INQUIRY AND MAIL WAS NOT RETURNED.

(cont’d)

26

EXH # 1 CONT’D - CHRONO EVENTS FROM THE DATE OF OUR ALTERNATE SHORT CUT PATH CLOSURE - 4 YRS AGO

• AUG 24/06 – FRC WROTE TO J. MILLER, ATTY FOR W.I.H. WITH CC. TO M.O.T., WILCHCOMBE, A. MILLER, CHISHOLM AND LEHMAN BROS, ADVISING W.I.H., AS POTENTIAL BUYER OF ROYAL OASIS, THAT THERE ARE ISSUES-ACCESS BREACHES AND BAHAMIA PROSPECTUS OBLIGATIONS THAT THEY WOULD INHERIT, SO TAKE THAT INTO ACCOUNT IN THEIR NEGOTIATIONS. NO REPLY OR ACKNOWLEDGEMENT, AND DUE TO HARCOURT’S RENEWED INTEREST, NO FOLLOW-UP WAS DONE.

• SEPT/06 – FRC HIRED ATTORNEY TO HANDLE FRC GRIEVANCES IF LITIGATION BECOMES NECESSARY. DECIDED NOT TO FILE AN INJUNCTION TO STOP HARCOURT FUNDS GOING TO DRIFTWOOD/LEHMAN BY FORCING RESOLUTION OF OUR GRIEVANCES PRIOR TO THE CLOSING, BUT INSTEAD CHOSE TO WRITE TO HARCOURT AGAIN TO DOUBLY ENSURE THEY HAD THE INFO AND THE TIME TO NGOTIATE A FAIR PRICE AND TERMS FOR THEIR INHERITED OBLIGATIONS.

• MAY 12/07 – FRC WROTE TO HARCOURT, THEIR ATTY, ANTONI, PM INGRAHAM, MOT GRANT, AND GRAY, GBPA - ALL TO ADVISE OF THE STATUS OF OUR UNRESOLVED ISSUES AND TO SOLICIT THEIR SUPPORT IN RESOLVING OUR GRIEVANCES. A POSITION PAPER GIVING CHRONO DETAILS OF EACH OF THE THREE MAJOR ISSUES, AERIAL PHOTOS, IMPACT ON VACATIONERS, AS WELL AS A SUMMARY OF MITIGATING REMEDIES / SUGGESTED SOLUTIONS WERE INCLUDED. THE ONLY RESPONSE WAS FROM MOT NEKO GRANT SAYING THE PM IS HANDLING THE ROYAL OASIS SALE AND HE WILL TAKE OUR GRIEVANCES INTO ACCOUNT. IT DOES NOT APPEAR THAT THEY WERE CONSIDERED.

• JUNE 13/07 – MOT GRANT RESPONDS THAT THE PM IS HANDLING OUR ISSUES.• JULY 13/07 – FRC WRITES TO PM INGRAHAM, CC. DOHERTY OF HARCOURT, MOT

NEKO GRANT - TO GIVE A HEADS UP ON WHAT WE ARE DOING, THAT WE COULD ASSIST IN THE PVCI CLASS ACTION SO WE ARE A POSITIVE CATALYST. WE FURTHER SUGGESTED THAT HARCOURT GET CONCESSIONS FOR NOT ONLY RESOLVING THE DRIFTWOOD BREACHES, BUT TO RESOLVE THE PVCI

TIMESHARE OBLIGATIONS, FOR WHICH THE GOVT HAS LEVERAGE FOR DRIFTWOOD TO CO-OPERATE. NO REPLY OR ACKNOWLEDGEMENT WAS RECEIVED FROM ANY OF THE ADDRESSEES.

• AUG-DEC/07 – MET AND CONVERSED WITH BRUEY, LOCAL HARCOURT REP TO OUTLINE OUR GRIEVANCES, TO WHICH BRUEY GAVE A POSTIVE REACTION THAT HARCOURT WOULD SOLVE OUR GRIEVANCES. WE REQUESTED A MEETING WITH THE HARCOURT IRELAND EXECUTIVE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE ROYAL OASIS AND SPECIFICALLY ASKED THAT THE ACCESS PATH BE RE-OPENED, AS A GOOD FAITH GESTURE TO SHOW THAT HARCOURT INTENDS TO SOLVE OUR PAST PROBLEMS, AS THE SUCCESSOR DEVELOPER/OPERATOR. THE IRELAND REP DID NOT HAVE TIME TO MEET AND INSTEAD THEY SENT THEIR STANCE IN THE FORM OF A JAN 14/08 LETTER, WHICH TO SAY THE LEAST, WAS TOTALLY CONTRARY TO WHAT WE WERE PREVIOUSLY TOLD. THEY IN EFFECT SAID, THEY COULD NOT RE-OPEN THE PATH, THE GOLF COURSES WOULD BE OPEN, WHEN THEY ARE READY, AND THAT THE BAHAMIA BEACH

CLUB SHOULD NOT BE CONSIDERED AN AMENITY OF THE BAHAMIA DEVELOPMENT - WOW WHAT A SHOCKER !( Cont’d )

27

EXH # 1 CONT’D - CHRONO EVENTS FROM THE DATE OF OUR ALTERNATE SHORTCUT PATH CLOSURE - 4 YRS AGO

• NOV-DEC/07 – FRC OWNERS WROTE SOME 800 COMPLAINT LETTERS TO VARIOUS AUTHORITIES REGARDING THEIR GRIEVANCES AND THEY CAME FROM 45 DIFFERENT STATES, PROVINCES COUNTRIES. NO POSITIVE REACTION BECAME EVIDENT.

• JAN 14/08 – HARCOURT LETTER/EMAIL SPEAKS LOUD.THEY REFUTE EVERYTHING – PATH ACCESS, GOLF PRIVILEGE AND BAHAMIA BEACH CLUB AND EVEN DARE TO THREATEN FUTURE ACCESS TO THE BEACH AT XANADU AT SAME TIME AS REFUSING TO REPLACE BAH BCH CLUB!

• JAN 26/08 – FRC OWNERS ON VACATION HOLD MEETING , THEN HAND DELIVER A LETTER TO FPO NEWS ABOUT FRC GRIEVANCES THAT THEY WERE EXPERIENCING AND HARCOURT’S REFUSAL TO

RE-OPEN OUR PATH AND HONOR BAHAMIA PROSPECTUS OBLIGATIONS.

• APR 25/08 - FRC WROTE TO PM INGRAHAM ADVISING THAT HARCOURT IS FOLLOWING THE SAME FAILED, DAMAGING POLICIES AS DRIFTWOOD.

• MAY 27/08 – FRC TIMESHARE OWNERS ON VACATION DEMONSTRATE AT RANFURLY CIRCUS .

• JUNE/08 - FRC TIMESHARE OWNERS BEGIN WRITING TO AMBASSADORS SIEGEL, SMITH, KELLY AND TO HARCOURT, DUBLIN, IRISH TIMES, ASKING FOR HELP IN REVERSING HARCOURT’S POLICIES.

• JULY 14/08 – FRC WROTE TO HARCOURT, DUBLIN, AMBASSADORS, NEW Min. of Tourism PROVIDING BACKGROUND TO LETTERS THEY WERE RECEIVING AND SOLICITED THEIR SUPPORT.

• JULY 16/08 –HARCOURT DUBLIN RESPONSE TO COMPLAINT LETTERS. DISENGENUOUS !

• JULY 21/08 – FRC AUTHORS REBUTTAL TO SET RECORD STRAIGHT AND OFFER TRANSPARENCY.

• JULY 21/08 – FRC OFFERS PRESENTATION TO STUBBS, CHRISTIANSEN, MOT, PM

• JULY 31/08 - FRC LTR TO HARCOURT, PM, PGL, GBPA – A DIFF WAY OF CONFLICT RESOL’N

• AUG15/08 – HARCOURT ISSUES REPONSE TO FRC VACATIONER COMPLAIN• AUG 22/08 – FRC REBUTTAL – HARCOURT NOWS SAYS IT KNOWS NOTHING ABOUT

ANY PROSPECTUS, FINALLY DISCLOSES Beach Club was sold to a 3rd party and a plan existed for it to be replaced at another location. Finally Harcourt’s

new schedule calls for a huge delay – our path & Emerald course delayed 4-5 years.

28

EXH #2 - FREEPORT RESORT & CLUB DEVELOPER’S REBUTTAL TO HARCOURT’S JULY/08 OPEN LETTER

-Harcourt’s July/08 Open Letter is as negative to Freeport Resort’s grievances as their Jan 14/08 response was.-Harcourt’s statement is that our shortcut path may not be re-opened until 2010 or 2011.-Harcourt is emphatic about not being responsible for the Bahamia Prospectus obligations. -Harcourt plans to restore the recreational amenities but they offer no terms for how FRC can use them.-Harcourt does not address our grievances, because they imply they are unfounded. -Harcourt wants the focus on Driftwood only so they can avoid their inherited responsibilities. -Harcourt’s newly crafted ‘PR sugar coated’ explanation is intended to appease, buy time, and avoid scrutiny. -Harcourt tries to undermine FRC principals, who are protecting FRC timeshare owners rights.-In summary, Harcourt denies responsibility for our grievances and commits to nothing to fix them.  HARCOURT’S JULY/08 OPEN LETTER, sent to those who complained (excerpts of their letter are in red)-Their open letter is intended to apprise complainers of Harcourt’s plans for Royal Oasis specifically and Bahamia in general. -Some of Harcourt’s present staff implemented the destructive policies under Princess and especially Driftwood, to whom they now point the finger. They have not earned our trust, which comes by action not words.-Harcourt says it has no liability since they acquired only land and assets, not the companies.  -Harcourt says it should not be singled out for the past actions or in-actions of the former owners. -Harcourt has LIABILITY because the encumbrances attach to the assets. -For Harcourt now to try to expunge such obligations due to an ownership change is absurd.-Harcourt was told in 2005 and 2007 that these obligations existed, so they had the facts in time to fairly negotiate. -Harcourt’s policies rob all previous land buyers in Bahamia of rights, not just Freeport Resort & Club vacationers. -FR&C appears to blame Harcourt for all the prior owner’s in-actions -  Is this fair and equitable ?-Harcourt is trying to do the right thing?  There appears to be a bias.-Where was FRC when Driftwood owned the operation and essentially walked away?-Harcourt’s intention is to not only restore but enhance - including the golf courses and future beach club facilities on Bahamia Beach-a $200 million plus restoration and enhancement project takes time.-Liability does attach to the assets in question - two golf courses, the Bahamia Beach Club and the land (Sunrise Hwy) we had ‘rights of access’ to and no amount of desire on Harcourt’s part to wish it was different will change that.-It is not a question of blame but a question of rights and the rights relate to the commitments and their value , which constitute the encumbrance on the assets, because they were part of the consideration in the sale of “Bahamia” land.-This encumbrance was established and filed in the original Bahamia Prospectus-similar to a car bank loan or a house mortgage lien (encumbrance) which continues to have effect after such car or house is sold to a successor owner. -We have been generous so far- tagging up to 2000-01 timeframe a Princess liability and for 2001-2007 a Driftwood liability, then from Nov/07 closing date forward as a Harcourt liability but banks would tag it to Harcourt’s detriment.-Their question - “where were you when Driftwood owned the operation and walked away - is odd because several Driftwood employees during that timeframe now work in similar positions for Harcourt and know how hard we fought. -Ironically, we did better with Driftwood than we would under Harcourt’s present policies.-We contemplated filing an Injunction to force a resolution to our grievances before the November 2007 closing, but instead chose to write to Harcourt again to doubly ensure Harcourt still had the info and the time to negotiate the price and terms to accommodate such ‘to be inherited’ obligations so it was not a surprise burden.-In 2007 we talked a few times with Harcourt’s Freeport rep., who indicated they would accommodate our grievances. -Further, we recommended to the Bahamas Government that Harcourt be given concessions to accommodate and correct for Driftwood’s breaches so there was no bias and in fact we tried to help Harcourt in several ways. Exh # 2 p2

29

-We recognize Driftwood’s legacy and therefore don’t want Harcourt to continue the damage that Driftwood inflicted.-Renovation takes time but our path and Ruby course should be open now- insurance and construction are no excuse -We will be empathetic in the timing for the Emerald course and Bahamia Beach Club so long as Harcourt co-operates. -RO redevelopment is expected to begin the fall/08 of this year and reopen the summer of 2011 with Ruby Golf Course open late summer/08 of this year and the Emerald Golf Course and Beach Club Facilities late 2010 to mid-2011.-Redevelopment takes time, but does not change the Prospectus Obligations – golf and Beach Club on a continuous basis - obligations enshrined in the Prospectus, repeated in the Contracts of Purchase, the Deeds of Conveyance, etc. -Also, by inference, our short-cut path may not re-open until mid 2011, that is 10 years from the stoppage of our original path and 7 years from the closure of our alternate path, which is unacceptable and avoidable. -What Harcourt ignores is that this intentional denial of the recreational amenities of the Bahamia Prospectus obligations has two components to the damage that such breaches cause – the first is the cost to replace and the second is the damage caused by the loss of its availability. It is troubling that Harcourt does not appreciate either and such defiant attitude may suggest punitive damages to a court of law, as Harcourt is now nearly 9 months in breach.-Harcourt would take a different stance if it took the time to really walk a mile in the shoes of FRC owners. We had empathy for Harcourt prior to Jan14/08 but their actions since reveal their true agenda, so we must stay vigilant. -Solving our grievances would pay huge dividends to Harcourt, by the automatic patronage benefits that would result, but Harcourt fails to acknowledge this obvious economic factor.A common thread in the various emails is the mention of a “Prospectus” or the “Purchaser’s Information Report” of 1978. The report speaks of Recreational Facilities either as free green fees in the case of golf (which is subject to change), or on a fee basis for the others.  When the Ruby Golf Course is back in operation shortly, the timeshare owners at FR&C as well as all the other timeshare resorts and property owners in Bahamia can again enjoy it.-There were several Bahamia Prospectus’s and on our first of several land purchases in Bahamia, we were originally solicited with the Ontario Bahamia Prospectus, filed with the Government of Ontario. A Prospectus was likely filed in several USA states but the “Purchasers Info Report” was the only one that Harcourt referenced in their open letter . -Harcourt infers that the Ruby golf course will soon be open, but fail to talk about what ‘rates’ they will establish as our ‘privileged rates’. We are not saying the privileged rate cannot change, but the calculated discount found in the Purchasers Info Report, compared to public rates, is the ratio that must be maintained. Another past tactic was to change the definition of family to mean only 2 persons. The devil is in the details, and to hide them is disingenuous. The “shortcut path” is not in the “Prospectus”, but has been an accommodation by the former owners of the RO when it was a fully operational with full-time security staff.  -Our construction insurance underwriters cannot permit outside pedestrian traffic, and is not safe for FR&C owners to pass through an active construction site.  Surely, you must understand our position in this matter.  -We envision no impediment on a future accommodation to the FR&C timeshare owners for again having a shortcut path once the hotel is back in full operation.-They are correct that there is no mention of our shortcut path in the Prospectus, which some have misunderstood, but that does not change our right to such access because it was approved by the Port and we used it for 25 years . We do not want a fickle accommodation but our rights of access restored and guaranteed so they can’t be disturbed again.-Taking access rights away is contrary to common law, rights under a land taking, against the Bahamas Constitution, business ethics and common decency. Our easement rights must be protected for the future. Harcourt’s insurance excuse is lame, but regardless, it is a cost that the beneficiaries of a land taking should incur and authorities enforce. Harcourt did not discuss the shortcut path with us – they arbitrarily mandated that it be closed, despite our rights. -Some advocate reversal of Sunrise Hwy diversion which is a huge cost compared to a small insurance premium. 30

-While Harcourt indicates no impediment on a future accommodation, the question is when, under what terms and whether they will commit to never closing it again – so we ask for an easement to be recorded so future operators / successor developers will not deny access ever again. We have already experienced a 4 year closure so why would we simply trust them to not do it again. They have no empathy for the problem as their present ‘excuse ridden’ solution means our path will stay closed another 2-3 years (a route that is 7 times further) and is also unnecessary.May we suggest that during the interim, FR&C acquire a modest van that could transport the owners to the Bazaar, Ruby Golf Course and beach on a regular basis, or, contact Michael Thompson with the SunWorld Travel & Tour Company to have him “again” provide this service as he did for you in the past?  We did buy another van after the 2004 path closure but never did use SunWorld. This hilights their arrogant attitude.-It is ludicrous to use construction as the reason, as none was evident during all of the past 4 years of path closure. -We asked that the path be re-opened before Christmas 2007 as a goodwill gesture, which would go a long way towards helping our owners feel some progress is made and co-operation exists. To not do so was an irresponsible, uncaring action so the complaints and demonstrations are a natural consequence and will continue to escalate ! -Regarding the beach access, the FR&C owners are welcome to enjoy the Bahamia beach area adjacent to Princess Isle as Harcourt owns this property and it plans to develop the future beach club facilities to coincide with the full operation of the RO. -While this sounds more positive than their Jan/08 position which declared that this beach location may not be available in the future, it requires them to define and commit what they will substitute for the original Bahamia Beach Club, which had cooking, change, bathing and beach facilities. -More importantly, the Purchasers Information Report, which they acknowledge above quotes “The Beach Club will be maintained by Bahamia Service Company Limited, an affiliate of the developer, for the sole benefit of property owners and residents of Bahamia.” We need Harcourt to commit to this obligation, rather than it being a marketing facility for them, as developer, for solicitation or other purposes that destroys the sole benefit intent of the original obligation. -In conclusion, regardless what your Principals might have told you, Harcourt is not your adversary, it is your “White Knight!”  All prior amenities will eventually be restored or enhanced but it will not happen tomorrow, this you must understand.  Always recognize that in life, “change” is inevitable but Harcourt will attempt to make the transition fair and equitable…work with us.

The Management & Staff of Harcourt Developments (Bahamas) Limited

-This Harcourt letter shows that they have no plans to directly solve our grievances, and we should be satisfied with whatever they decide to let trickle down with emphasis on the ‘subject to change’ and ‘fee basis’ vs their obligations. -Whatever they do for their bottom line is their business, but the first thing they must do is restore the rights and amenities they now have responsibility to provide and in their control to deliver - that is what is fair and equitable ! Harcourt must commit to more than “attempt to”, and that language says it all, as their priorities do not reflect their responsibilities. We are tired of fighting more battles each time a new manager or successor developer takes control. This time we want our grievances permanently solved.

Jack Grobowsky, President and developer of Freeport Resort & Club 

EXH #2 CONTD

31

EXH # 3 - PICTORIAL VIEW of FREEPORT RESORT & CLUB GRIEVANCES and DAMAGES : The genesis of the breaches we are seeking resolutions for began in 1977 when we were solicited in Toronto, Ontario, Canada by Princess Realty Ltd, through Canada Permanent Trust Co, which the Real Estate and Business Brokers Act required that any potential Bahamia Land Purchaser, solicited in Ontario, be given the Prospectus of Bahamia before purchasing property. In fact, we purchased land on three different occasions and received a Bahamia Prospectus before each purchase. The recreational facilities and amenities outlined in the various Prospectus Documents were relied upon prior to making the land purchases and subsequent development, and were part of the consideration received. For the most part the amenities were received and enjoyed for the first 20 years by the original developer of Bahamia, Princess and its various companies. It was not until Driftwood became successor developer that the Recreational Facilities and our access rights were totally stopped, and has continued for the past four years and now that Harcourt has become Driftwood’s successor, it insists it has no responsibility for the Bahamia Beach Club, will re-open the golf courses when it desires and without designating what the rates will be and refuses to re-open our short-cut path due to a lame insurance excuse. The Bahamia Prospectus amenities, namely the golf privilege and the Bahamia Beach Club were to continue without interruption and not at the pleasure of a subsequent developer. Our right of access must also continue uninterrupted in perpetuity. Harcourt cannot re-write the Bahamia Prospectus Promises or use those assets which were encumbered for another purpose to suit its profit objectives or for any other reason. The old real estate adage, LOCATION, LOCATION, LOCATION is a key basis for why our grievances have caused us so much damage. When Freeport Resort & Club was created, three key features set us apart, made us unique and became valuable features to our Timeshare Buyers who have been 30 year annual returning vacationers. They are:

Access Right-They could walk (300-500 yds) to the restaurants, shops, night spots in the Int’l Bazaar, via a short-cut walking path approved by the GBPA and Princess (the original developer of Bahamia) in 1981

Golf Privilege- They could walk to the golf centre (300 yds), Ruby and Emerald tees(500 yds) to golf AND they got privileged rates (approximately half of what the public paid), promised and previously delivered under the Bahamia Prospectus

Beach Club- While not so close, but they had use of the Bahamia Beach Club – not just beach access but a complete club house with food preparation equip., bathrooms, entertainment facilities and beach facilities, also promised and delivered under the Bahamia Prospectus. Then, Driftwood not only destroyed our access but in diverting Sunrise Hwy they built a man- made beach to enhance their beach facility while calously declaring they would not re-build the Bahamia Beach Club. So, all three of these amenity features have been stopped and have for four or more years, degrading the enjoyment and value of their vacation investment, and despite pleas to re-open and replace, the successor developer refuses. Our survival is at stake, so we plan to continue our grievance complaint efforts until we get justice.

32

EXH # 3 - DETAILS - FREEPORT RESORT & CLUB GRIEVANCES and DAMAGES: BEFORE HARCOURT CAN PROPERLY APPRECIATE HOW THEY CAN MITIGATE OUR GRIEVANCES AND AVOID DAMAGES WE HAVE EXPERIENCED AND STILL ARE, THEY MUST UNDERSTAND THE DETAILED BASIS FOR THEM. BASED ON HARCOURT’S LETTERS OF JAN 14/08 AND JULY/08 EMAIL, WE KNOW THAT HARCOURT DOES NOT PROPERLY APPRECIATE THE DAMAGE TO US AND WE HAVE TRIED TO CREATE A DESIRE FOR HARCOURT TO NEGOTIATE A RESOLUTION, WHICH APPEARS TO REQUIRE THEM TO WALK A MILE IN OUR SHOES. The Pictorial View of our grievances vividly shows the impact and damages and they are numbered and color coded on the photo. There are others that are not shown in the photo, so this section is intended to provide the details of our three main grievances and accumulated damages thereto, those prefixed with an “A” relate to ACCESS issues, those prefixed with a “B” relate to BEACH issues and those prefixed with a “G” relate to GOLF. These 3 grievance categories have been breached for over three years by Driftwood, and now nearly 9 months by Harcourt, since their Nov/07 Royal Oasis closing. The colored numbered tags on the PHOTO, Pictorial View of FRC Grievances, are what are referred to below: A - SHORTCUT PATH / ACCESS ( Re-open immediately )A1-Its denial and stoppage is unconstitutional A2-Eminent Domain / Land Taking requires restitution and mitigation A3-Prospectus and related docs showed Sunrise Hwy as a two lane public thoroughfare , which was to become four lane. GBPA and Princess approved our shortcut path in 1981, which was used for nearly 25 years before it was suddenly ‘taken’ for a private use, which violated our access rightsA4-Benefit to one at the expense of another is immoral A5-CB / FRC were the only entities directly affected by Sunrise Diversion -Ruby Swiss to Int’l BazaarA6-Alternate shortcut path after the Sunrise diversion was agreed to verbally, but it too was later closedA7-Denial of access to Int’l Bazaar, causes us an insecure route, 7 times further (2000 yds from 300 yds)A8-Easement wording must be in writing, enforceable by law, and in recordable form, or reverse this violation by re-opening Sunrise Hwy and remove man made beach, at Harcourt expense.A9-Access must never be denied again, by any successor land owner or operatorA10-Some lots are now land-locked without ability to enter or exit – this must be rectifiedA11-Secure shortcut path approved by GBPA and used for nearly 25 years before closed. GBPA’s April 7, 1981 letter stated “approval has been granted for one footpath access onto West Sunrise Hwy.…furthermore, should any further widening of West Sunrise require destruction of the footpath this will be done without compensation to you.” –clearly shows it was a permanent public road. If this public road section formerly known as Sunrise Hwy was sold to Driftwood, with funds received by the GBPA and the land conveyed to Driftwood without mitigating the access issues of Club Baha Ltd. and Freeport Resort & Club, then this damage can be corrected by creating “easement language” that corrects the access problems, which is to be in recordable form, so as to stop any future attempts at such access interference by successors and future operators of any of the adjacent facilities. If the diverted Sunrise Hwy strip of land has not been conveyed to Driftwood, then it is even easier to correct such past access injustices by including such “Easement Language” in any future conveyance to Harcourt.

33

Exh # 3 (cont’d) A12-Land value has been negatively affected and must be correctedA13-Local reasonable vehicle traffic (incl golf carts) should be allowed A14-Owner /operator must pay any costs to permit this access –whether it be insurance, safety, etc.and regardless of whether construction is in progress A15-Our Access damage is not only to 2600 unit week vacationers at FRC, but present and future land owners and occupants on the adjacent acreage of undeveloped parcels also affectedA16-Golf cart access throughout the area and other zoning concessions should be allowed since Driftwood was able to ease its access between its two hotels, due to the diversionA17-Some of the undeveloped adjacent land should be re-zoned to commercial to offset the isolation and negative impact of access restrictions vs. requiring Sunrise diversion be reversed A18-Generous signage should be allowed to offset the caged-in effect, to help restore value of the view from the street (former Sunrise) and help restore lost business that the diversion causedA19-Conflict of Interest – Princess/Driftwood/Harcourt misusing its zoning influence to our detrimentA20-Unfair competition – Princess/Driftwood/Harcourt were/are in the timeshare business and used unfair business practices and abused their conflict of interest powers on access, golf and beach club issues, all of which harmed Freeport Resort & ClubA21-Compensatory and punitive damages should apply against responsible parties G - MEANINGFUL GOLF PRIVILEGES (restore ASAP with a ‘real’ privileged rate)G1-Provide what Bahamia Prospectus promised / delivered vs. using erosion tactics, before being stoppedG2-Golf privilege amenity was a legal consideration in the land purchase and should not be stopped for any reason, company bankruptcy/insolvency, change of operator or sale of propertyG3-The aerial photo shows that FRC is located only 300-500 yards from the Golf Centre, Emerald Tee and Ruby Tee, so this golf privilege was of paramount importance in the purchase of this property in Bahamia, and is a valuable amenity to both FRC and the adjacent undeveloped lots.G4-The cost to provide the golf privilege amenity was a small price the original developer paid as one incentive to sell the lots in Bahamia, in comparison to the $ millions in proceeds obtained from the sale of some 3000 lots, and considering the even greater associated development costs. It should not be abused just because there are no more lots left for sale, or a successor has a different agenda - it was intended for the lifetime of the 3000 lots, not be stopped in 2004.G5-Any disruption should have the consequence of restitution of all costs associated with replacement of this important amenityG6-Most importantly, the privileged rate, which began at 50% - 60% off the public rate, should be re-established in writing and enforceable by law to prevent cheating in the future.G7-Because the ‘golf privilege’ rate was breached, FRC could not qualify as a ‘golf resort’ in the Interval International exchange network of resorts, which the Bahamia Prospectus qualified us to be, so this denial robbed us of our otherwise superior exchange attractiveness in the past. Getting this ‘real’ golf privilege rate, in writing, is key to permanently rectifying this.G8-Failure to restore the meaningful golf privilege rate in the future should be compensated for at the true value of this lost amenity – established by a professional golf consultant, not just for the 2600 unit week vacationing owners at FRC but for the adjacent undeveloped land as well, and all other land owners in Bahamia.

34

EXH # 3 (CONT’D) G9-Damages should be established for the consequential impact of the past selfish policies, not only in lost business, but losses due to dissatisfaction of previous owners who felt betrayed.G10-Not only compensatory damages but punitive damages also should apply to the violators. B - BAHAMIA BEACH CLUB and BEACH ACCESS (commit to rebuilding it now)B1-Like the ‘golf privilege’, the Bahamia Beach Club was another amenity promised in the Bahamia Land Prospectus and must be honoredB2-This amenity was built, used, then mysteriously closed then sold with the sale proceeds retained by the developerB3-Whether the culprit was Princess or not, Driftwood bought the Princess companies, but even if Driftwood did not buy the Princess companies, this obligation was a responsibility of the land developer and the Prospectus Commitments encumbered those physical assets, and Driftwood inherited these obligations…and the same applies to Harcourt as Driftwood’s successor. A new buyer / operator cannot escape this obligation simply because of ownership change. Each successor should have determined these facts during its ‘due diligence’ phase, and it is important to note that they were told of these obligations twice before their purchase B4-Both Driftwood and Harcourt made weak statements that they would honor this Bahamia Beach Club obligation. However, recently in a Jan 14/08 letter from Harcourt, they not only deny responsibility to replace the Bahamia Beach Club, but made outlandish statements such as: -“no actual beach ever existed” -“you’ll just have to accept that this facility is no longer available” -“nor should it be considered part of any amenity of the Bahamia development” and then they had the further audacity to threaten future access by saying: -“For your information, your owners do have access to the Xanadu Beach area but with future development , this may be subject to change.” - they are referring to their beach front hotel they plan to build, and further restrict our beach access !B5-Ironically, the Sunrise Hwy diversion truly exemplified the selfish thinking of Driftwood and now Harcourt - they not only destroyed our access rights, but since they too are not on the beach, they used this “land taking” to create their own ‘man- made beach’, and at the same time deprived us of the Bahamia Beach Club that was committed, built, put in use, then sold with sale proceeds retained, and they also have the audacity of threatening future beach access. Restitution for this cavalier, greedy attitude should be to return the Sunrise Hwy to its original state unless all of our access beach & golf grievances are met. Driftwood was arrogant and shortsighted, and Harcourt should not follow suit. B6-The Bahamia Beach Club promised amenity at today’s costs could be well over $1 million to replace and it must be done or compensation paid for its replacement, and the latter may be the most appropriate solution, unless Harcourt changes its attitude on its inherited obligations.B7-Harcourt, or any other developer, must never be allowed to deny the public access to the beach, as Driftwood tried to do with its Princess Isle development, and it is especially egregious to try to accomplish the same with FRC / CB and the Bahamia Land Owners, who demand that the Prospectus Commitments be met, and due to the past breaches, be exceeded or pay the resulting damages ! Threatening future ‘beach access’, after failing to do the same with its Princess Isle development is not only counter productive, and very distasteful with the Bahamian public, but truly revealing as to its self-serving agenda. The “old guard staff”, originally with the Princess companies, then with the same companies but under  

35

EXH # 3 (CONT’D)

Driftwood ownership, now with Harcourt companies, should be taken to task for perpetrating such malaise on the Bahamia community. Harcourt knew of these obligations long before it closed on the Royal Oasis purchase, and have been given generous incentives by government, so there is no reason for Harcourt to begin its future as successor to the Royal Oasis fiasco, adopting the same avaricious tactics as its predecessor. It would behoove Harcourt to set high moral standards !  CONFLICT OF INTEREST and ABUSE OF AUTHORITY AND POWERS: Harcourt, in its capacity of successor developer of the Royal Oasis property as well being in control of the Bahamia Service Company, which which assesses fees, controls, maintains and enforces zoning matters in the community, must not be allowed to exert undue influence on any matter that permits predatory practices or causes it to engage in policies and procedures that clearly create unfair competition, particularly with regard to its timeshare / vacation club offering and especially with regard to our 3 major grievances, which was prevalent in the Driftwood era. Harcourt must be made to comply with the Bahamia Prospectus commitments and conduct its successor developer duties in compliance with legal, moral and ethical norms. The foregoing should be useful background for the DAMAGE WORKSHEET which was structured as an early draft to make rough calculations of the damages to Club Baha Ltd, developer of FRC and the timeshare vacationers of FRC.  Please note that the Damage Worksheet did not include other potential plaintiffs such as the land owners of Bahamia, the shop keepers of the International Bazaar and others. We wish to again emphasize that we have sought a negotiated settlement of our grievances and despite Harcourt’s treatment of Freeport Resort & Club to date, we still have offered the olive branch for Harcourt to come to its senses and do the right thing, which of course could mitigate substantial money damages and create a healthy neighbor relationship that would reap huge patronage dividends in the future. But , while “You can lead a horse to water, you can’t make it drink” !

36

EXH # 4 - DRIFTWOOD’S LEGACYUNIQUE TO DRIFTWOOD

• ‘FLIP THIS PROPERTY’ AGENDA VS LONG TERM COMMITMENT

• ABUSED EMPLOYEES – JOBS,

SALARIES, PENSIONS, ETC.

• LEFT HUGE UNPAID BILLS AND

FLED THE SCENE – POWER, CASINO TAXES, NIH, ETC.

• NON-COMPLIANCE WITH

TIMESHARE LAW, LEAVING

PVCI VICTIMS STRANDED

HARCOURT IS EMULATING

• BAHAMIA SUCCESSORDEVELOPER OBLIGATIONS:

- DESPITE BEING TOLD IN 2005 AND 2007 THEY IGNORE THE TIMELINESS OR EXISTENCE OF BOTH THE BAHAMIA BEACH CLUB AND GOLF PRIVILEGES

- REFUSING OUR ‘LAND TAKING’ ACCESS RIGHTS WITH CALOUS INDIFFERENCE

* THEIR POLICY LETTERS SHOWTHEY WILL BE MORE DAMAGINGTO FRC THAN DRIFTWOOD WAS !

37

IF HARCOURT IS UNWILLING TO SETTLE OR NEGOTIATE

• THEN ALL OF FRC COSTS FROM DAY 1 WILL BE SOUGHT FOR RECOVERY AS COMPENSATORY DAMAGES

• PLUS WE WILL SEEK PUNITIVE DAMAGES AS WELL

• AND OF COURSE LEGAL COSTS

• IN ADDITION ALL COSTS AND DAMAGES BY NUMEROUS OTHER PLAINTIFFS WILL ALSO BE SOUGHT

• THIS DAMAGE EXPOSURE IS HUGE, BUT IS HARCOURT’S CALL

38

Exh # 5

FREEPORT RESORT & CLUB’S REBUTTAL TOHARCOURT’S AUG 15/08 LETTER

39

THE PREDOMINANT THEME IS - HARCOURT HAS SIGNIFICANTLY DELAYED ITS RE-OPENING DATES; STILL REFUSES TO ACCEPT SUCCESSOR DEVELOPER RESPONSIBILITIES; THEY ARE TOTALLY OBLIVIOUS TO RESTORING RECREATIONAL AMENITIES ON A PRIORITY BASIS, OR PROVIDING ANY DETAILS AS TO THE RATES AND USAGE TERMS OF THE ENCUMBERED ASSETS THAT THEY ARE STEWARDS OF.

TWO NEW NOTEWORTHY ITEMS - WE FINALLY LEARNED SOME DETAILS OF THE SALE OF THE ORIGINAL BEACH CLUB AND HARCOURT SAYS IT IS AWARE OF ONLY THE OCT/78 PURCHASER’S INFORMATION REPORT, WHICH IS NOT LEGALLY BINDING.

DESPITE HARCOURT’S UNYIELDING STANCE TO ANY OF OUR GRIEVANCES, AND OUR CONFIDENCE THAT WE WOULD PREVAIL IN A COURT OF LAW, WE STILL BELIEVE IN A NEGOTIATED SETTLEMENT, SO OUR PRESENTATION CONTAINS AN OFFER FOR HARCOURT TO MITIGATE ITS DAMAGE EXPOSURE AND DO THE RIGHT THING. BUT THEY SAID IN AN AUG 20/08 TEL CALL THAT THEY CANNOT MEET FOR AT LEAST THREE WEEKS, SO WE CAN’T WAIT TO AUTHOR THIS VERY IMPORTANT REBUTTAL TO KEEP ALL OF YOU CURRENT.

As before, we will note Harcourt’s message in ‘red ink’ with FRC’s comments relating thereto in ‘black ink’.

Re: Accusations by Timeshare Owners of Freeport Resort & Club against Harcourt .

FRC developer and FRC timeshare Owners have sought settlement of its grievances for a long time, which has fallen on deaf ears. The only natural reaction therefore was to escalate these grievance complaints in such a way as to solicit remedial support from a number of persons / entities, some of whom have enforcement responsibilities. FRC complaints are not irresponsible accusations, but an expressions of frustration for apparent negligence and callous disregard for damages we suffered for so long.

We represent Harcourt Developments (Bahamas) Limited (“Harcourt”) and are instructed to respond to your recent correspondence to Mr. Pat Doherty, the Prime Minister, The GBPA and others in which you accuse Harcourt of wrongful treatment and failure to comply with developer obligations inherited from its predecessors.

Exh # 6

FRC thanks you for your response, and in the interest of ensuring that all are on the same page, a copy of this will be sent to the Prime Minister, appropriate liaison persons, the Chairmen of GBPA and PGL, FRC timeshare owners and others.

THE PAST You make several references to commitments in the Bahamia Prospectus and the rights contained therein. We are unaware of any Prospectus but have reviewed the Purchaser’s Information Report dated 1st October 1978 which was prepared by Princess Realty Limited the developers of Bahamia. If the “Prospectus” you refer to in your correspondence is other than the Information Report, we would be pleased if you would share this document with us.

As our presentation clearly shows, there were several “Prospectuses” used by Princess, and in all cases they bear a different date than the October 1, 1978 version you referred to. Of course we will provide copies of same, just as we did to Fred Smith, when Callenders & Co. acted as Driftwood’s attorney and negotiating agent, in communications with him and at a meeting held at their law chambers in early 2001. Mr. Gene Bruey and the late Edward St. George were both copied on such communications. Mr . Bruey may also recall that I gave details of the Ontario Prospectus to Mr. William LaCaff, Princess Regional VP in January 1993 and met with and gave similar information to the Princess attorney from New York, Mr. Rudy Funke in December 1993. The latter resulted in an improved arrangement , after such proof was given. So it is naturally surprising to us that this Ontario Prospectus is now a forgotten mystery.

In this Report, reference is made to the Recreational Facilities which property owners and residents of the subdivision would be able to share with the public and guests of the Bahamas Princess Hotel, the Princess Tower and the Xanadu Hotel. These facilities included the Ruby and Emerald Golf Courses, the Bahamia Beach Club located on the southwest corner of the subdivision (next to Mack Town) and the tennis courts at the hotels. Golf course charges for green fees and golf carts were stated as “subject to change”. It also stated that the other facilities would be subject to “nominal use fees” in the future.

Generally speaking, we do not take issue with what is stated here – it is what is not said and ignored that is bothersome to us. Again our presentation specifically addresses all of this so rather than try to make our point here, it is better reviewed during that presentation.

This report was not a legal document. The sole purpose of the information and data contained in this Report was to assist salesman or other persons purporting to act for or on behalf of Princess Realty Limited in the sale of properties in Bahamia.

We take major issue with this comment that this report (and we think you mean The Purchaser’s Information Report) is not a legal document, but simply info to Princess salespersons. There is nothing contemporaneous that supports that argument. It begs the question, “Then why was it given to so many prospective land buyers”? If that was true then why wasn’t it called “The salesmen’s Info Report” or “internal guidelines” ! Rather than debate this matter in this letter, it is better to hear and see what our presentation shows, not only with regard to the Purchaser’s Information Report, but the Ontario Prospectus, which was the first one we were provided with. The whole purpose of a Prospectus is to accurately and completely disclose those factors that a prospective buyer should know and can rely on before he signs a contract,. That is what our solicitation documentation said in 1977 when we were solicited in Ontario by Canada Permanent Trust, agent for Princess, pursuant to the Prospectus Filing that Princess made in Ontario. This qualified Princess to solicit Ontario residents, under the Business Brokers Act, the applicable Ontario Legislation in 1977. They are legally binding !

40

Since Princess undoubtedly filed a Prospectus on Bahamia in the USA too as it did with DEVCO / GBPA, it is significant to note that what DEVCO filed with HUD in the USA with regard to their Lucaya subdivision in their Oct 2/78 Property Report is totally opposite to what Princess did with their Bahamia subdivision filing. When we read the Lucaya Property Report before we decided to offer Timeshare we appreciated the Recreational Facilities commitments even more. For eg. in the Lucaya Report, they simply mention the beaches at Taino, Fortune, Churchill as being 100% complete as is the Shannon Park Golf and Country Club and the Lucaya Park and Country Club also as being 100% complete with NO special privileges, or actual physical facilities as part of the consideration. In the column entitled “Developer Obligated” it is shown as N/A in every case. On its face it states it is unlawful to make any representation contrary to its contents. Likewise, the Ontario Prospectus says, in accordance with the requirements of The Real Estate and Business Brokers Act, RSO, 1970, Chapter 401 the Purchaser acknowledges receipt of and was afforded the opportunity to read said Prospectus before signing the Sales Agreement. It is a legally binding Prospectus. We made several property acquisitions in the 1977 to 1980 timeframe and at no time did Princess Realty or its agents ever state that the document given, whether it was the Ontario Prospectus or the Purchaser’s Information Report was not legal, or binding – in fact the opposite was true.

As you know, Princess Realty Limited sold the Xanadu Hotel and the Bahamia Beach Club to a separate entity long before selling the hotels, golf courses and unsold properties in Bahamia to Mr. Buddemeyer and the Driftwood group in 2000. The Beach Club sale was predicated on the promise by Princess that they would construct an alternate Beach Club on Bahamia Beach adjacent to and east of the present Princess Isle Subdivision. This, unfortunately, was not done prior to selling the Royal Oasis, and the associated companies, to Driftwood. However, the Bahamia Property Owners’ use of these Beach Club facilities could not be denied by the new owner .

What is extremely revealing is the admission that the Bahamia Beach Club was in fact sold and was predicated on an alternate beach club being developed elsewhere. Mr. Bruey , as former President of Princess Realty is one of the persons who should have had full knowledge of these events as a Princess employee, then Driftwood employee, so why wouldn’t Driftwood know of this or discover it during its due diligence. In a discussion I had with Mr. Buddemeyer in early 2001 and later followed up in a memo with Mr. Fred Smith, Driftwood’s attorney, dated Feb 13, 2001, subject “Alternative location for Bahamia Beach Club”, I suggested that Driftwood not auction off the lot next to the Princess Isle, as it was the perfect location to re-locate the Bahamia Beach Club, which Mr. Buddemeyer emphatically denounced. This new revelation that there was some understanding by Driftwood about this obligation solidifies the fact that Driftwood inherited this obligation and became the successor developer, independent of the fact that Driftwood bought the Princess companies. In the case of Harcourt, it was a wise decision not to buy a bankrupt company known for abandoning its debts and obligations. The fact that Harcourt bought the assets does not relieve them of this successor obligation, for many reasons which are amply covered in our presentation, which we will give very soon, as requested. The legal guidelines for legitimately avoiding Driftwood’s accounts payable (power, NIH, casino taxes, etc) are much different than the rules on first mortgages, liens or encumbrances, such as the prior Prospectus Obligations with regard to the Bahamia Beach Club and the Ruby/Emerald golf courses.

41

Sometime in 2000 after the strip of West Sunrise Highway was closed to public and the ring road was constructed, Driftwood extended a courtesy to your owner s by allowing them access across the Royal Oasis. This was merely a casual arrangement which conveyed no right of access or legal rights to your owners. If we are mistaken in our submission, kindly provide us with documentation to support your position.

This is another significant difference of opinion that appears to have created a blind spot of indifference to the consequences of a seemingly illicit concession (diverting a primary public thoroughfare to make space for a private man-made beach) that was viewed by many (per news articles) as being ill advised in its conception, approved through a process of apparent undue influence, which denied the public of its due process, loaded with an unfair and biased survey attempt to paper the files of an event that was already a “fait de compli”. It not only accomplished Driftwood’s agenda to ‘flip the property’, but smothered transparency in the process. The ‘end does not justify the means’, but even worse was that in this case the end was one of the most devastating that GBI has experienced. That is a legacy that the Bahamas cannot afford to repeat. Our presentation addresses other legal issues, namely the 1981 access approval not only by Devco but Princess as well, the Bahamas Constitution, Common Law, squatters rights, land taking or adverse possession, and all of the clauses in the various legal documents that support our position.

In 2004, Harcourt purchased Bahamia Service Company Limited from Driftwood and some properties in Bahamia. Harcourt also acquired developers rights. Later that year, as we all can remember, Hurricanes Frances and Jeanne dealt a devastating blow to Grand Bahama which resulted in the closing of the Royal Oasis and your access. Surely you do not hold Harcourt responsible for your access being closed in 2004 when Harcourt did not own the Royal Oasis.

Harcourt acts like it made a “cafeteria style” purchase with the luxury of picking, choosing or denying what inherited obligations it is prepared to accept and unilaterally decide an implementation that suits its financial goals but ignores the encumbrances. You don’t just acquire developer rights without responsibility for the previously established obligations. We don’t hold Harcourt responsible for our access path being closed in 2004, but we do starting with their Nov/07 closing. Construction and insurance have been the excuses both Driftwood and Harcourt have used to callously deny the re-opening of this access, which has hurt the FRC developer, hundreds of FRC timeshare owners, hundreds of thousands of ‘would be trips’ to the Int’l Bazaar. This has starved the restaurant and shop keeper owners of a semblance of patronage that could have mitigated their loss. There has been no evidence of construction or danger for the past four years or since Nov/07 – so was a lame excuse. Why has Harcourt adopted these failed policies? The common denominator is the ‘old guard’ staff that were originally employed by Princess, then Driftwood and now Harcourt. This fact compelled us to ask Harcourt, Dublin to verify that it condones the actions of Harcourt Freeport, and the reply , as evidenced by the July 2008 Open Letter and this August 15/08 fax communication, signals a clear yes ! Our previous stance has been to lay responsibility to Princess up to 2000, Driftwood until Nov/07 and Harcourt thereafter. This is predicated on responsive co-operation and a negotiated settlement , without litigation. This ‘reaching out’ attitude to Harcourt in our many letters to Government and Harcourt reflected this.

THE PRESENT AND THE FUTUREHarcourt is committed to redeveloping the Royal Oasis commencing in the fall of this year with a projected re-opening in the summer of 2011. Some off-site facilities will be available sooner, e.g. Ruby Golf Course by October this year and the Beach Club facilities in early to mid 2011. The Emerald Golf Course will follow the re-opening of the Resort.

42

Here is where we are discouraged by the fact that Harcourt, the newest successor developer, fails to see the urgency in fulfilling a three decade old obligation and make it an integral part of its plan of revitalization. Harcourt’s timetable is nonresponsive to their obligations to our grievances as they should have been on-going and not disturbed and to continue this only exacerbates the problems. To be fair we have recognized the importance for Harcourt to not only survive but thrive. It can do so by earning its patronage and that begins with being a good corporate citizen neighbour. Rather than trying to evade its successor developer obligations, it would behoove Harcourt to correct the underlying weaknesses that existed in the past that relied on ‘trust’ only. For eg., Harcourt did buy the Royal Oasis assets, but it must recognize that on some of the assets Harcourt is really the steward of those recreational facilities such as the Bahamia Beach Club and the two golf courses, which had long ago been encumbered by Prospectus Promises. Those obligations must be delivered with the highest priority, not the lowest. This would set the stage for the organization and management of those facilities such that their continuance and availability, to those who paid a consideration for same, are guaranteed, regardless of the financial worthiness or changed agenda of the present steward of such assets. Driftwood’s legacy taught Grand Bahama that this predicament must never arise again so in moving forward it is time to get the fundamentals straightened out. To do otherwise promotes the call for receivership over these encumbered assets to ensure the original mandate will be carried out.

Once the Ruby is back in operation, your owners will be able to enjoy it at discounted rates, likewise for the Emerald.

It ignores the priority and urgency to deliver, uninterrupted, the facilities promised in the Prospectus. We have been told the Ruby would re-open early 2008 (and we physically verified that it appeared ready for play), then it was mid year, then August and now October. Not only are Harcourt’s announcements unreliable but nonresponsive. There is no mention of what the discounted rates will be, so we want to make sure that whatever rates Harcourt decides on for the golf rates to the public, that our ‘privileged rate’ will be a discount rate that corresponds to the same ratio that is calculated by the parameters of the Prospectus and delivered in the 1977-1982 timeframe. Lastly, Harcourt now says the Emerald course will open after the revitalized resort re-opens. We have tried to be reasonable with the circumstances Harcourt found itself at closing, November 2007, but to suggest that the Emerald would not re-open for another 4-5 years is a clear indication that Harcourt will be more damaging to FRC than even Driftwood was.

Until the Hotel is re-opened, no un-authorized individuals will be granted access to and across our property. Access through the hotel property during construction by your owners is not only unsafe for them for the obvious reasons but Harcourt’s construction insurance underwriters have mandated that no access be granted. Until the new planned Beach Club facilities are constructed on Bahamia Beach your owners are welcome to enjoy the beach area at their leisure between the Xanadu and the Princess Isle. We will not repeat what has been previously said on this topic. Suffice to say that our presentation will describe with clarity the reasons for our positions which are supported by the clauses in the Bahamas Constitution including those outlined under the Protection of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms of the Individual.

43

We trust this answers your questions and will put an end to the mis-leading, libellous campaign of yours to defame the reputation of Harcourt.

Neither FRC developer or its hundreds of timeshare owners desire or intend to defame Harcourt nor believe they have made any libellous remarks. To the contrary, considering Driftwood’s legacy and our assessment that Harcourt is emulating portions of it with no real efforts to resolve our grievances responsively or to seriously recognize its successor developer obligations, the actions taken so far have not only been extremely measured but conciliatory as well. The comments made to date are a predictable reactionary response to Harcourt’s Jan/08 and July/08 policy statements. We are confident that transparency will result in reason and common sense prevailing over emotion and self interest by being candid and forthright. Should you wish to discuss this matter further, Gene Bruey and I are available to meet with you at your convenience .

Yes definitely, as this is what we have been seeking since our April 13, 2005 letter to Harcourt when we first learned of Harcourt’s interest in acquiring the Royal Oasis, as well as our recent July 31, 2008 letter where we promote a negotiated resolution to our grievances. The best way to encourage more communications in the future is to begin with our presentation.

Signed by M. Kirk Antoni, Cafferata & Co cc. Gerry Comaskey, Gene E. Bruey, Donald Archer Rebuttal authored August 22, 2008 by Jack Grobowsky, President, FREEPORT RESORT & CLUB, on behalf of the developer and its timeshare owner vacationers.

44