Defendant(s) Sumitomo __Lindsey Weiss Harris Michael Devlin by by by by by The Court has considered the status of this case [and determined that the Court’s order of June 14_, 20.24 has not been complied with in that ]___ document production is not complete.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that _document production shall continue and the parties shall exchange privilege logs by August 23, 2024.

The parties are directed to continue compliance with the discovery schedule set forth in this court's June 14, 2024 order.

Absent good cause shown, any discovery issues not raised herein will be deemed waived.

Failure to comply with these directives may result in the imposition of costs or sanctions including dismissal or default judgment.

It is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED: That for the reasons stated in the Court's Opinion and Order dated July 3, 2024, McKinsey's motion to dismiss is GRANTED, and both the Individual Defendants' motion to dismiss and Alix's and AlixPartners' motion to dismiss the counterclaims are deemed moot.

(The parties' latest discovery disputes, see ECF Nos. 397 & 400, are also moot.).

Judgment entered in favor of Defendants, and the case is closed.

Dated: New York, New York July 8, 2024

Acting Clerk of Court

Sumitomo nevertheless argues that “the SPAs unambiguously allocate responsibility for the disputed taxes to South32,” and that “South32’s contrary interpretation of the SPAsis fundamentally flawed”(see, defendants’ mem oflaw, NYSCEF doc. no. 30, at 11-21).

Extrinsic evidence to the agreementor varying interpretations of the contract provisions will not be considered where the intention of the parties 650642/2023|SOUTH32 CHILE COPPER HOLDINGSPTY LTD (FORMERLY BLUE MURRAY PTY Page 4 of 6

Pursuant to CPLR 3001, declaratory judgmentis a discretionary remedy which may be granted “as to the rights and otherlegal relationsofthe parties to a justiciable controversy

Therefore, the court finds that plaintiffs second cause ofaction isalso adequately pled for the purposes of CPLR 3211 (a) (7) and denies defendants motion to dismiss pursuantto that statute.

no. 001) is denied; andit is further ORDEREDthat the balance ofthis action shall continue in accordance with the status conference order entered by the court on June 14, 2024 (NYSCEFdoc.

The question turns on the complex interplay between Article III standing — which generally requires proof that, at the time a case was filed, the plaintiff suffered a cognizable injury — and Rule 17 — which allows a “real party in interest” to ratify, join, or be substituted into an action.

Applying that principle, the Second Circuit held in Federal Treasury Enterprise Sojuzplodoimport v. SPI Spirits Ltd., 726 F.3d 62 (2d Cir. 2013), that even when a ratifying entity “endorses [the plaintiff’s] authority to bring [the] suit and is willing to be bound” by its results — as Alix argues is the case here — “plaintiffs cannot deploy Rule 17 to bypass” a statutory standing requirement, id. at 83.

AMI sued “partially in its own right and partially as assignee of the selling shareholders,” relying in part on purported assignments that gave “AMI the power to commence and prosecute to final consummation or compromise any suits, actions or proceedings at law or in equity in any court of competent jurisdiction which arise from the above-[described] claims.” Id. at 14.

Indeed, in Fund Liquidation Holdings itself, the Circuit characterized Advanced Magnetics as “indicating that courts have the power to permit a real party in interest to join an action under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 17 where the originally named plaintiff had standing.” 991 F.3d at 380 (emphasis added).

To proceed would “carr[y] the [C]ourt[] beyond the bounds of authorized judicial action and thus offend[] fundamental principles of separation of powers.” Steel Co., 523 U.S. at 94; see also Murthy v. Missouri, — S. Ct. —, No. 23-411, 2024 WL 3165801, at *7 (U.S. June 26, 2024) (“If a dispute is not a proper case or controversy, the courts have no business deciding it, or expounding the law in the course of doing so.” (cleaned up)).

South32 Chile Copper Holdings Pty Ltd (formerly Index NG, __Soeereievew_ Blue MurrayPty Ltd) Appearance No.___—903— 650642/2023

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that (1) Document production to be substantially completed by June 27, 2024: (2) Party depositions to be completed by September 30, 2024: (3) Third-party depositions to be completed by October 31, 2024 (4) Parties to submit a joint stipulation setting forth an expert discovery schedule by December6, 2024; contemplating the exchangeofall initial expert disclosures, rebuttal disclosures, and expert depositions (5) Expert discovery to be completed by February 20, 2025; and (6) End of disclosures: February 27, 2025.

Absent good cause shown, any discovery issues not raised herein will be deemed waived.

Failure to comply with these directives may result in the imposition of costs or sanctions including dismissal or default judgment.

Dates set forth may not be extended or adjourned except with advance approval of the Court.

At IAS Part 43 of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, held in and for the County of New York, at the Courthouse, 60 Centre Street, New York, New York 10007 on this __ day of _______, 2024.

Robert R. Reed, J.S.C.

This request having been brought before the Court by counsel for Defendants, for an Order granting issuance of a Letter of Request for International Judicial Assistance (“Letter of Request”) pursuant to the Hague Convention of 18 March 1970 on the Taking of Evidence Abroad in Civil or Commercial Matters, 23 U.S.T.

No. 7444 (“Hague Convention”), and it appearing to the Court that the issuance of this Letter of Request is supported by good cause and is necessary for Defendants to obtain the documents from PricewaterhouseCoopers Belastingadviseurs N.V.; NOW, upon review of the Affirmation of Matthew A. Peller dated May 28, 2024 (the “Peller Affirmation”), the exhibits attached thereto and all of the pleadings and papers heretofore filed herein, and upon due consideration, it is ORDERED that, pursuant to the Hague Convention, a Letter of Request, in the form attached to the Peller Affirmation as Exhibit 2 be, and hereby is, issued out of this Court to counsel for Defendants for forwarding to the District Court in The Hague (Rechtbank Den Haag), located in The Netherlands.

Robert R. Reed Justice, Supreme Court of the State of New York County of New York, Commercial Division

But none of them stuck.

While DCG cites to cases in which courts have allowed claims objections in the context of an adversary answer or a responsive brief, none of these involved an omnibus claims objection, which is specifically governed by the requirements ...

Crucial to the Debtor Releases, the Debtors have determined that none of the Released Parties have claims against the Debtors: [t]he Special Committee’s investigation has not identified wrongdoing on the part of the Released Genesis ...

The parties have already submitted transcript excerpts from these same depositions as sealed or redacted exhibits in the motion to dismiss and opposition Rule 17 briefs.

Indeed, the deposition transcript excerpts that the Individual Defendants and Defendants seek to file under seal are littered with details of private discussions between AlixPartners’ former general counsel and board members, references to or quotes from AlixPartners’ board materials, the Company’s competitively sensitive, internal strategies, and descriptions of the relationship between the Company and some of its largest stakeholders.

Moreover, as noted in AlixPartners’ prior letter-motions to seal, the Company relied on the protection of its confidentiality designation when it put its general counsel up for a deposition.

Redacted References to Exhibits Previously Filed Under Seal (Dkt. Nos. 369, 371): In addition to deposition testimony, the Individual Defendants’ and Defendants’ reply briefs quote from or refer to sensitive corporate governance documents and board materials that were previously filed under seal.

*** AlixPartners appreciates that Your honor directed these materials remain under temporary seal in prior orders.

The Honorable Jesse M. Furman Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse 40 Foley Square New York, NY 10007 Pursuant to the Court's Orders at ECF Nos. 374 & 375, the documents at issue will remain sealed temporarily.

In their Reply Briefs, Defendants quote and describe testimony designated as Confidential under the Stipulated Protective Order, entered in this case on January 31, 2024 (ECF No. 297).

Defendants have not challenged Alix’s confidentiality designations under the Stipulated Protective Order, and unsealing would reveal sensitive business information of both Plaintiff and AlixPartners, a private company and McKinsey’s competitor.

Additionally, at this time, Alix’s deposition transcript is not a “judicial document,” as it has not been and may never be considered by the Court in performing its Article III functions.

As set forth above, the testimony cited by Defendants in connection with their Reply Briefs concerns non-public information relating to the business of Alix and/or AlixPartners.

AND NOW, this ___ day of April 2024, upon consideration of the Parties’ Joint Motion to 19th Amend Case Management Order, it is hereby ORDERED that the Parties’ motion is granted: 1.

Defendants’ surreply expert reports, limited specifically to the contents of Plaintiffs’ experts’ reply reports, are due on or before May 3, 2024.

Plaintiffs’ depositions of Defendants’ experts with respect to their surreply expert reports shall occur on or before June 4, 2024.

April 19 Dated: ______________, 2024

s/Robert J. Colville The Honorable Robert J. Colville United States District Judge

The Court will assess whether to keep the documents at issue sealed or redacted when resolving the underlying motion.

The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate ECF No. 366.

The Honorable Jesse M. Furman United States District Court, Southern District of New York Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse 40 Foley Square New York, NY 10007-1312 April 19, 2024 Re: Jay Alix v. McKinsey & Co., Inc., et al., No. 18-CV-4141(JMF) Dear Judge Furman: Pursuant to Rule 7(C) of Your Honor’s Individual Rules and Practices in Civil Cases, Defendants respectfully request leave to file under seal, in redacted form, (i) Defendants’ Reply Memorandum of Law in Support of Their Motion for Dismissal Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 17 (“Reply Memorandum”), and (ii) an exhibit to the Declaration of Benjamin Sirota in Support of Defendants’ Rule 17 Reply.

Defendants seek to file the Reply Memorandum under seal because it references and quotes documents that have been designated as Confidential or Highly Confidential by Alix or AlixPartners.

Pursuant to the Court’s rules (at 7(C)(i)), Defendants hereby notify counsel for Alix and AlixPartners of their need to file letters, within three business days, explaining the need for sealing.

The Court will assess whether to keep the documents at issue sealed or redacted when resolving the underlying motion.

The Honorable Jesse M. Furman United States District Court, Southern District of New York Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse 40 Foley Square New York, NY 10007-1312 April 19, 2024 Re: Jay Alix v. McKinsey & Co., Inc., et al., No. 18-CV-4141(JMF) Dear Judge Furman: Pursuant to Rule 7(C) of Your Honor’s Individual Rules and Practices in Civil Cases (“Individual Rules”), Defendants Dominic Barton, Kevin Carmody, Jon Garcia, Seth Goldstrom, Mark Hojnacki, Virginia Molino, Alison Proshan, Robert Sternfels, and Jared Yerian (together, the “Individual Defendants”) in the above-referenced action respectfully request leave to file under seal an unredacted Reply Brief in Support of Their Motion to Dismiss Under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 17 (“Reply Brief”) and certain exhibits to the Declaration of Ariel N. Lavinbuk accompanying that Reply Brief.

The exhibits being submitted under seal concern information currently marked Confidential by Alix or AlixPartners.1 Individual Defendants seek to file an unredacted Reply Brief under seal because the Reply Brief references and quotes those exhibits.

The exhibits Individual Defendants seek to file under seal are as follows:  Exhibit 1 – Excerpts of the transcript of the February 27, 2024, deposition of Jay Alix  Exhibit 2 – Excerpts of the transcript of the March 1, 2024, deposition of Kathryn Koorenny Pursuant to Rule 7(C)(i) of Your Honor’s Individual Rules, Individual Defendants have met and conferred with counsel for Alix and AlixPartners.

1 Individual Defendants reserve the right to seek relief from the Court with respect to these or other documents.

The parties appeared as Plaintiff(s) South 32 Chile by Lindsey Weiss Harris by Andrew Basso by

Defendant(s)SumitomoMetal__ by Thomas C. White by _Robert Jones by _Michael Devlin The Court has considered the status of this case [and determined thatthe-Gourts-orcerof_i, ; Hed-within-that ]_th ti

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that counsels are directed to confer with their clients about attempting ADR either through the Commercial Division program or private mediation.

Absent good cause shown, any discovery issues not raised herein will be deemed waived.

canbe Failure to comply with these directives may result in the imposition of costs or sanctions including dismissal or default judgment.

The deposition transcript excerpts Mr. Alix seeks to file under seal are littered with details of private discussions between AlixPartners’ board members, references to or quotes from AlixPartners’ board materials, the Company’s competitively sensitive, internal strategies, and descriptions of the relationship between the Company and some of its largest stakeholders, among other highly sensitive topics.

Moreover, as noted in AlixPartners’ prior letter-motion to seal, the Company relied on the protection of its confidentiality designation when it put its general counsel up for a deposition.

Abu Dhabi  Beijing  Brussels  Century City  Dallas  Denver  Dubai  Frankfurt  Hong Kong  Houston  London  Los Angeles Munich  New York  Orange County  Palo Alto  Paris  Riyadh  San Francisco  Singapore  Washington, D.C.

This highly sensitive correspondence reflects AlixPartners’ confidential business information and should remain under seal.

AlixPartners respectfully submits this letter-motion seeking to ensure the documents Mr. Alix filed on April 10, 2024 remain redacted and sealed throughout the course of this litigation.