UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

_________________________________________X

WILHELMSEN PREMIER MARINE FUELS AS

07 Civ. 5798 (CM)

Plaintiff,

against

ATTORNEY CERTIFICATION

UBS PROVEDORES PTY LTD. AND OF JEANNE-MARIE

RAECORP INTERNATIONAL PTY LTD., VAN HEMMEN IN OPPOSITION

TO PLAINTIFF’S AMENDED MOTION

Defendants TO VACATE THE DISMISSAL ORDER

_________________________________________X

Jeanne-Marie Van Hemmen, hereby certifies, under penalty of perjury, that:

1. I am a partner at the law firm Betancourt, Van Hemmen, Greco & Kenyon, which represents

Defendants UBS Provedores Pty. Ltd. and Raecorp. International Pty. Ltd. ( collectively, “UBS”)

in the captioned matter. I am responsible for the handling of thisfile and am, therefore, fully familiar

with the facts and circumstances before this Court. I submit this certification in support of UBS’

opposition to Plaintiff’s Amended Motion to Vacate this Court’sJanuary 14, 2008 Dismissal Order.

2. Attached as Exhibit A is a true and correct copy of correspondence between UBS and the

U.S. Government concerning the “Government Claims,” as defined in the Settlement Agreement.

I produced these documents to Wilhelmsen’s counsel by email on February 8, 2008, in furtherance

of UBS’ obligation under the Settlement Agreement (“UBS Claims Correspondence”) . Priorto that

production, UBS redacted minor excerpts. Those redactions either contained confidential pricing

information or related to issues other than the Government Claims.

3. Today, by overnight Federal Express, I am forwarding the unredacted version of the UBS

Claims Correspondence to the Court for its in camera review. That review will establish that UBS

Case 1:07-cv-05798-CM-HBP Document 46 Filed 06/17/2008 Page 1 of 2
fully complied with its obligation under the Settlement Agreement to produce the UBS Claims

Correspondence to Wilhelmsen.

4. Attorney Usher opines that the Government’s payment of UBS Invoice 10454 pursuant to

modification 0004 was, in fact, a payment of the Government Claims submitted in connection with

UBS Invoice 10039. He bases his opinion on the fact that UBS Claims Correspondence had a cover

sheet called “Sasebo Claims,” and that “the documents produced by UBS contained no other Sasebo

Claim,” and Modification 0004 referenced Sasebo, Japan. Usher Decl. Para. 16. Attorney Usher

is incorrect.

5. The redacted version ofthe UBSClaimsCorrespondence, in fact,referto two Sasebo claims.

Theysupport UBS’ position herein that the SurgeClaim and the GovernmentClaims are two distinct

claims, and that the U.S. Government’s payment of the Surge Claim has no relevance to UBS’

obligation under the Settlement Agreement to pay additional money to Wilhelmsen if the U.S.

Government pays the Government Claims.

5. An August 3, 2007 email from Bill Rae to Debora Wood, of DESC, identifies two UBS

Sasebo claims as 1) the “Sasebo Oral Claim” and 2) the “Sasebo Claim-price increase.” The Sasebo

Oral Claim is a reference to the Surge Claim. The Sasebo Claim-price increase is a reference to the

Government Claims as defined in the Settlement Agreement. The August 3, 2006 email, contained

in Exhibit A, is also attached hereto as Exhibit B for ease of reference.

Pursuant to 28 United States Code §1746, I declare under penalty of perjury that the

foregoing is true and correct. Executed in Red Bank, NJ on June 17, 2008, 2008.

______________/s/________________

Jeanne-Marie Van Hemmen (JV 6414)

Case 1:07-cv-05798-CM-HBP Document 46 Filed 06/17/2008 Page 2 of 2