at Russian
Institute
of Modern
Arbitration
at Russian
Institute
of Modern
Arbitration
A dispute regarding a put option exercise arose between participants of a company. Two participants (Lenders) arranged a conclusion of an agreement with the company, under which it was granted a loan, while the other two participants (Managers) had to prevent the company from going bankrupt. To safeguard their interests, the Lenders entered into a put option contract with the Managers. According to the contract provisions, the Lenders received an irrevocable offer to buy the company’s interest. That offer could be accepted if certain conditions of the option are met. One of the Lenders found these conditions to have been met and accepted the offer. However, the Managers refused to pay for the company’s share, because the Lender allegedly had not confirmed certain events and had not conducted an independent assessment of the interest. After an exchange of documents, the Parties managed to settle the dispute.
04.03.2022
The Parties concluded a contract for the provision of services for the carriage of goods. The Claimant (the contractor) notified the Respondent (the customer) of the arrival of the vehicles for the removal of the equipment, but on the appointed day the vehicles were not allowed to the loading area, after three days, left the place of waiting, The Claimant then applied to the RAC for a fine (penalty) for the delay (demurrage) of the vehicles and a fine (penalty) for failure to declare the goods for carriage. Considering the dispute, the Arbitral Tribunal examined (1) the correctness of the calculation of the fine (penalty) executed by the Claimant, (2) the Claimant’s grounds for recovery from the Respondent of the fine (penalty) for failure to declare the goods for carriage in the absence of the Claimant’s refusal to perform the contract of carriage under Art. 5. 10 Federal Law of 08.11.2007 259-FZ «Charter of Road Transport and Urban Ground Electric Transport», as well as (3) proportionality established by law and levied by the Plaintiff fine (penalty) for failure to declare the cargo for carriage and fines (penalty) For the delay (demurrage) of the vehicles, the consequences of the Respondent’s breach of its obligations, taking into account the factors that the Respondent asked to take into account when deciding on the reduction of fines (penalties) under Article 4. 333 Civil Code of the Russian Federation
27.01.2022
In 2018, a dispute arose between the Parties over the date on which the obligation to develop the RCD was to be fulfilled. As a result, the Arbitral Tribunal decided that the period of performance for the Respondent began to run from the date of the Claimant’s last comment to the draft RCD. In 2021, the Claimant again sued the Respondent, stating that the latter had been given all the necessary data for the development of the RCD, he had fulfilled his obligation of delay. The Respondent, objecting again, did not consider itself guilty of missing its obligation - numerous coordinating organizations sent additional comments to the draft or provided information in a timely manner. The Arbitral Tribunal agreed with the Respondent, noting that, although the coordinating organizations were not parties to the contract, the Respondent could not ignore their opinion because of the role they played in the legal relations of the Parties.
29.12.2021
The law firm filed a claim for the recovery of $70,000 in arrears for legal services rendered to represent the Respondent’s interests in the LCIA. Under the contract, the Claimant’s remuneration was limited to the amount of $25,000, but due to the Defendant’s refusal of the contract, this limitation ceased to apply, according to the Claimant. The Respondent objected to the poor quality of the services provided by the Claimant: failed to challenge the jurisdiction of the LCIA or to suspend the process, proposed an inappropriate expert candidate. Having assessed the arguments of the Parties and the work done by the Claimant, the Arbitral Tribunal disagreed with the Respondent’s arguments, as the Claimant had not promised to achieve certain results in the course of the work and in the Arbitrator’s opinion it was practically impossible to achieve them. However, the Claimant’s claims were satisfied subject to a contractual fee limit, as otherwise the agreement of the Parties would be meaningless and would create legal uncertainty for the Respondent.
17.12.2021
17.12.2021
17.12.2021
The Claimant appealed to the RAC with a demand for the recovery of a penalty for violation of the delivery period and termination of the contract. The Arbitral Tribunal noted that the Respondent had breached the contract on the quality and completeness of the goods. The subsequent refusal of the Respondent to correct the breach on the ground of absence of working capital of the enterprise constitutes improper performance of the contract. The Arbitral Tribunal also concluded that the Claimant had the right to refuse performance of the contract, so that the contract should be considered avoided.
30.11.2021
The Claimant field applied to RAC with a demand for Respondent to recover penalties for violation of the terms under the contract, according to which the Respondent accepted the obligations to develop TOR (private term of reference), WDD (working design documentation), QP (quality plan), manufacture and supply of equipment. The Arbitral Tribunal found the asserted claims reasonable and didn’t agree with the Respondent’s argument that the Claimant demanding a forfeit for the delay in fulfilling obligations to develop TOP, WDD, QP, and to supply of equipment, seeks to impose on the Respondent burden of triple civil law liability. An award also assessed the Respondent’s reference to the actions of third parties, not parties to the contract, to the establishment of non-working days in connection with the spread of COVID – 19, as the reasons for the delay in the fulfillment of obligations.
14.09.2021
The Claimant claimed damages for late performance of obligations under the contract of delivery. The Respondent admitted the fact and the period of delay, but due to the difficult economic situation requested to reduce the amount of penalties and to use the double rate of interest of the Bank of Russia, which existed at the time of such violation. The Arbitral Tribunal considered whether the economic consequences of the pandemic were relevant to the stated claims for penalties.
07.09.2021
A dispute under the contract of delivery arising from a breach by the supplier of its obligations. The Respondent ignored all communications about the arbitration prior to the first oral hearing, which, in sum, the Parties' unwillingness to provide the necessary explanations and evidence was the reason for the postponement of the hearing twice. During the arbitration, the Parties disputed the date of actual delivery and the presence of obligatory accompanying documents complete with the delivered products. In order to establish the time of delivery of the products, witnesses whose testimony was taken into account by the Arbitral Tribunal in rendering the decision were brought by the Claimant. The Respondent sought an exemption on the grounds of COVID-19 but failed to prove a causal link between the COVID-19 pandemic and the impossibility or delay of performance.
24.08.2021
