FINAL JUDGMENT

ANDRÉ BIROTTE, JR., District Judge.

This action came on regularly for trial between January 8, 2019, and January 15, 2018, in Courtroom 7B of this United States District Court, the Honorable André Birotte Jr. presiding. The Plaintiff ChinaCast Education Corporation ("ChinaCast") appeared by attorneys James P. Menton of Robins Kaplan LLP and Rachel S. Fleishman, Gregory S. Schwegmann and Keith Y. Cohan of Red Collins and Tsai LLP. Defendants Zhuoguo Chen and Huan Wang appeared by Rod Pacheco and Brian Neach of Pacheco & Neach P.C.

A jury of eight persons was regularly empaneled and sworn. Witnesses were sworn and testified, and documentary evidence was introduced and received into evidence. After hearing the evidence and arguments of counsel, seven of the eight members of the jury were duly instructed by the Court and the case was submitted to the jury. The seven jurors deliberated and thereafter returned the following special verdict:

JURY VERDICT

We, the jury, unanimously agree to the answers to the following questions and return them under the instructions of this court as our verdict in this case:

I. CONVERSION

Question No.1: Did ChinaCast prove by a preponderance of the evidence that Defendant Zhuoguo Chen or Defendant Huan Wang is liable to ChinaCast for conversion?

If you answered "Yes" to Question 1(a) and/or Question 1(b), then answer Question 2. If you answered "No" to question 1(a) and Question 1(b), skip Question 2, and answer Question 3.

Question No. 2: Where did ChinaCast's claim for conversion arise? (Choose One.)

If you answered Question 2, proceed to answer Question 3.

II. MONEY HAD AND RECEIVED

Question No. 3: Did ChinaCast prove by a preponderance of the evidence that Defendant Zhuoguo Chen or Defendant Huan Wang is liable to ChinaCast for money had and received?

If you answered "Yes" to Question 3(a) and/or Question 3(b), then answer Question 4. If you answered "Yes' to Question 1(a) and/or Question 1(b) and "No" to Questions 3(a) and Question 3(b), skup Question 4, then answer Question 5. I you answered "No" to all of the following: Question 1(a), Question 1(b), Question 3(a), and Question 3(b), then stop here, answer no further questions, and have the presiding juror sign and date this form.

Question No. 4: Where did ChinaCast's claim for money had and received arise? (Choose One.)

If you answered Question 4, then answer Question 5.

III. DAMAGES

Question No. 5: What amount do you award ChinaCast against Defendants on its claim for conversion and/or claim for money had and received?

If you answered Question 5 and found ChinaCast proved any damages, answer Question 6. If you answered Question 5 and you found ChinaCast did not prove any damages, then stop here, answer no further questions, and have the presiding juror sign and date this form.

Question No.6: Is ChinaCast entitled to receive prejudgment interest on any of the damages that you awarded in Question 5?

On March 6, 2017, the Court granted summary judgment in favor of Defendant Zhuoguo Chen on Plaintiff ChinaCast Education Corporation's claims of fraud, aiding and abetting fraud, and aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty.

On January 15, 2019, following the jury's verdict, the Court found in favor of Defendants Zhuoguo Chen and Huan Wang on Plaintiff ChinaCast Education Corporation's claim of unjust enrichment.

By reason of the verdict, orders, and ruling above, NOW THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED, AJUDGED, AND DECREED that:

IT IS SO ORDERED AND ENTERED. JUDGMENT IS DEEMED ENTERED AS OF THE DATE SET FORTH BELOW.