International Court of Arbitration Cour internationale d'arbitrage ...

Recommendations

Info

22Vision N.V. and Vision B.V. reserved the right to adjust this amount inthe course of the present procedure and the Supreme Court procedure.e) On October 26, 1999, Valvision entered a recourse against the judgmentrendered by the Court of Appeal of Versailles dated October 1,1999 rejecting Valvision's request to have the RCF shares put in escrowuntil the decision of the present Arbitral Tribunal.If, as a result of the Supreme Court procedure and a new decision ofa Court of Appeal, the shares of RCF were put in escrow and the presentArbitral Tribunal ruled in between that Vision N.V. had notbreached the Sale and Purchase Agreement, Vision N.V. could suffersevere damages as it could receive a claim from M6diareseauxand/or Brussels and Gillam;Vision N.V. and Vision B.V. expressly reserved the right also to entera counterclaim against Valvision for those damages mentioned underthe present point 3.e.;4. Valvision be ordered to pay the amount mentioned under 3 above.Vision N.V. and Vision B.V. reserved the right to complete, substantiate and developtheir responses to Valvision's request for Arbitration, reply and responseto counterclaim dated September 13, 1999 and summary of claims dated November24, 1999.32. In C.sub 2, Valvision requested that it be awarded damages in the amountof 67.2 millions (p. 51). Valvision requested also that the Tribunal specificallystate that "KPN" breached the SPA.Valvision requested the Tribunal to declare that there was no merit to the Counterclaimand that the Respondents had submitted no evidence in support of theCounterclaim. Valvision also requested that costs be awarded in its favour (p.52).33. In R.sub 2, Vision N.V. and Vision B.V. requested that Valvision's claim berejected (p. 39) and requested that Valvision be ordered to pay an amount of221,952.52 corresponding to the costs of the various procedures:- an amount of 63,131.75 ((FRF 182,299.70 = 27,791.41) + 19,242.49 +16,097.85) paid to Loyens & Loeff in Paris for lawyers costs in the presentarbitration procedure (R.55);an amount of NLG 14,828.65 (= 6,728.94) paid to Loyens & Loeff in theNetherlands for lawyers' costs in the present arbitration proceE INTV COUR INTERNATIONALE D'ARBITRAGE tr+A02338488/0.31/16 Oct 2002INTERNATIONAL COURT OF ARBITRATION VOACHAMBER_!-
23an amount of FRF 337,100 (= 51,390.56) paid to Gide Loyrette Nouelwhich handled the procedures at the "Tribunal de Commerce" of Nanterreand the Court of Appeal of Versailles (R.54);an amount of FRF 4,600 excl. VAT (= 701.27 excl. VAT) for translationcosts (R.54).In total, the Respondents had already paid an amount of 121,952.52 for lawyersand translation costs. As this amount was likely to be higher at the end ofthe present arbitration procedure, the Respondents asked that Valvision be orderedto pay an additional amount of legal assistance, procedural and translationcosts incurred by the present procedure until its end, which in addition tothe aforesaid amount could be set at 100,000.The Respondents therefore requested that Valvision be ordered to pay a totalamount of 221,952.52 (121,952.52 + 100,000).34. In C.sub 3, in order to expedite the proceedings, Valvision decided tomodify the relief requested and to stipulate for these proceedings only damagesin the amount of 15,000,000 even though it considered that its damages weregreater and it reserved the right to pursue additional and other remedies (p. 44).The Claimant reserved the right to submit its claims for the costs of arbitrationwhen the Tribunal directed it to do so.35. In R.sub 3, the Respondents requested that the Arbitral Tribunal reject allof Valvision's allegations and requests for relief and order Valvision to pay209,104.88 for legal fees and 1 as symbolic damages for damage to theircommercial reputation.The relief requested by the parties had not been modified before the hearingheld on 10 July 2001, as confirmed by Valvision (Tr 10/7/2001, p. 42 and 43).36. In C.sub 4 Costs, the Claimant has requested the payment of:- its arbitration costs and expenses, which amount to 1,295,033.19;- the reimbursement of its advances to the ICC in the amount of $268,500;- the costs claimed by CSFB in the amount of £35,467.50.37. In R. sub 4, the Respondents commented on the request filed in C.sub 4Costs but did not modify their own request regarding the costs of the procedure.d COUR INTERNATIONALE D'ARBITRAGEINTERNATIONAL COURT OF ARBITRATIONVA02338488/0.31/16 Oct 2002&41 -At. CHAMBER
Page 1 and 2: International Chamber of CommerceTh
Page 3 and 4: In the matter of an arbitrationBETW
Page 5 and 6: 37. Conclusion 545. The context of
Page 7 and 8: 51. ABBREVIATIONS - DEFINITIONSP. A
Page 9 and 10: 7II.THE PARTIESThe parties in this
Page 11 and 12: 9agreement entered into in 1995 bet
Page 13 and 14: 115. The Terms of Reference were si
Page 15 and 16: 13On February 6, 2001, a witness su
Page 17 and 18: 15In particular, the Arbitral Tribu
Page 19 and 20: 17On April 15, 1999, the seller sen
Page 21 and 22: 19On the same day, Vision N.V. waiv
Page 23: 21Valvision had incurred substantia
Page 27 and 28: 251. IN GENERAL§1. THE JURISDICTIO
Page 29 and 30: 27The Arbitral Tribunal is of the o
Page 31 and 32: 2949. The question arises as to the
Page 33 and 34: 3153. As a conclusion, the Arbitral
Page 35 and 36: 33paragraphs of this provision appe
Page 37 and 38: 35bank employees, including Sunday.
Page 39 and 40: 37could reasonably derive from each
Page 41 and 42: 39§5. VISION N.V. AND VISION B.V.'
Page 43 and 44: 4180. In R.sub 5, Vision N.V. and V
Page 45 and 46: 43UPC se developpe rapidement en Eu
Page 47 and 48: 45the General Agreement and, more s
Page 49 and 50: 47towards the seller. (See also, Pr
Page 51 and 52: 49ers a price adjustment, which mig
Page 53 and 54: 51Should Vision N.V. and Vision B.V
Page 55 and 56: 53F.2: "Seller shall furnish Purcha
Page 57 and 58: 55He reiterated the same message on
Page 59 and 60: 57Such interpretation, which is con
Page 61 and 62: 59Vision N.V. also allowed the Core
Page 63 and 64: 61123. The Arbitral Tribunal is how
Page 65 and 66: 63128. The concept of "damage" refe
Page 67 and 68: 65the Hoge Raad of February 20, 197
Page 69 and 70: 672. The abstract method138. This t
Page 71 and 72: 69presented together to the judge/a
Page 73 and 74: 71Proportion of Mediareseaux' purch
Page 75 and 76:
733. Valvision lawyers' fees149. Va
Page 77:
75Place of arbitration : Londonv V,
show all

International Court of Arbitration Cour internationale d'arbitrage ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?