12.07.2015 Views

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

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

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

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

38bank holidays in The Netherlands, Mr Stumphius would be unlikely to have forgottenthem).It could also not be reconciled with the computation <strong>of</strong> the 20 Business Days putforward by Valvision.The arbitrators are therefore at a loss to understand what Mr. Stumphius mighthave meant or how he made this calculation.The Arbitral Tribunal will therefore not give consideration to this letter, whichdoes not support either position.6. Conclusion72. Based on the above considerations, the Arbitral Tribunal is <strong>of</strong> the opinionthat Saturdays were not included in the Business Days as defined in the GeneralAgreement.Consequently, the pre-emption rights were exercised on time by the Core MinorityShareholders, i.e., within the deadline provided for in the General Agreement.P. COLLUSION73. Valvision has argued that Vision N.V. and Vision B.V. colluded with theCore Minority Shareholders to share the additional pr<strong>of</strong>it obtained by the CoreMinority Shareholders from the resale <strong>of</strong> the shares to Mediareseaux and hasdevoted considerable length <strong>of</strong> memoranda and pleading time to the variouscontacts that had occurred between IntercommHolding, the Core MinorityShareholders and Vision N.V. and Vision B.V. around the time the SPA wassigned.Valvision has however failed to put forward sufficient evidence as to the existence<strong>of</strong> any sort <strong>of</strong> payment or so called "kickback" that would have been paidby the Core Minority Shareholders or would otherwise have benefited to VisionN.V. or Vision B.V.. The existence <strong>of</strong> a "kickback" has been denied by thecounsel for Vision N.V. and Vision B.V. as well as by Mr. Van der Hoeven in histestimony (R.23).The Arbitral Tribunal dismisses this allegation in the absence <strong>of</strong> evidence thatVision N.V. or Vision B.V. would have benefited from the higher purchase pricethat the Core Minority Shareholders were able to obtain from UPC.pNtMERCE INTNTj0A02338488/0.31/16 Oct 2002U COUR INTERNATIONALE D'ARBITRAGEtrINTERNATIONAL COURT OF ARBITRATION QV/41-, O0` 00CHAMBER

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!