SVEA HOVRÄTT DOM Mål nr Avdelning 02 2011-08-31 T 4050

Sid l (15)
SVEA HOVRÄTT
Avdelning 02
Rotel 020102
DOM
2011-08-31
Meddelad i
Stockholm
Mål nr
T 4050-10
KÄRANDE
Perstorp Aktiebolag, 556024-6513
284 80 Perstorp
Ombud: Advokaterna Pär Andersson och Linda Lundin
Mannheimer Swartling Advokatbyrå AB
Box 1384
251 13 Helsingborg
SVARANDE
Silver Lining Finance SA i likvidation
60 Grand - Rue, 1st floor, L 1660
P.O. Box 653
L-2016 Luxembourg
Luxemburg
Ombud: Advokaten Johan Karlbom
Setterwalls Advokatbyrå AB
Box 11235
404 25 Göteborg
SAKEN
Klander av skiljedom
KLANDRAD SKILJEDOM
Skiljedom meddelad den 4 maj 2010 av Stockholms Handelskammares
Skiljedomsinstitut i mål V (115/2007), bilaga A.
HOVRÄTTENS DOMSLUT
1. Hovrätten avslår käromålet.
2. Hovrätten förpliktar Perstorp Aktiebolag att ersätta Silver Lining Finance SA för
dess rättegångskostnader med 278 200 kr, 70 588 norska kr samt l 800 euro, varav
265 000 kr avser ombudsarvode, jämte ränta på beloppen enligt 6 § räntelagen från
dagens datum till dess betalning sker.
Dok.Id 963879
Postadress
Box 2290
103 17 Stockholm
Besöksadress
Birger Jarls Torg 2
Telefon
Telefax
08-56167000
08-56167509
08-561 675 00
E-post: svea.avd2@dom.se
www.svea.se
Expeditionstid
måndag - fredag
09:00-15:00
SVEA HOVRÄTT
Avdelning 02
DOM
2011-08-31
Sid 2
T 4050-10
BAKGRUND
Parternas avtal
Perstorp Aktiebolag (Perstorp) är ett svenskt bolag i specialkemibranschen. Silver
Lining Finance SA (Silver Lining) är ett investeringsbolag med säte i Luxemburg.
Perstorp och Silver Lining ingick den 11 mars 2005 ett aktieöverlåtelseavtal (SPAavtalet). Genom detta avtal köpte Perstorp från Silver Lining samtliga aktier i det
holländska bolaget Franklin Holding B.V. Bolaget som överläts på detta sätt bytte
senare firma till Perstorp Waspik B. V. Den l april 2005 tillträdde Perstorp aktierna.
I SPA-avtalet angavs att svensk lag ska vara tillämplig på avtalet. Vidare innehöll
avtalet en skiljeklausul enligt vilken alla tvister i samband med avtalet skulle lösas
genom skiljeförfarande i Stockholm enligt Stockholms Handelskammares
Skilj edomsinstituts skilj edomsregler.
Priset för aktierna skulle enligt SPA-avtalet delas upp i två delar, nämligen en fast del
och en rörlig del. Den rörliga delen bestod av en tilläggsköpeskilling som kunde
bestämmas på olika sätt. Enligthuvudregeln skulle tilläggsköpeskillingen under tre års
tid från tillträdesdagen årligen beräknas enligt en modell baserad på det överlåtna
bolagets resultat per utgången av respektive resultatår. Det fanns dock angivet ett
maximalt belopp enligt vilken tilläggsköpeskillingen kunde bestämmas. Detta belopp
uppgick till 2 960 000 euro. I avtalet fanns vidare bestämmelser som gav rätt till denna
maximala tilläggsköpeskilling oberoende av det överlåtna bolagets resultat, om det
skedde en extern försäljning av aktierna i det överlåtna bolaget.
I punkt 7.8 i SPA-avtalet föreskrevs i nu relevanta avseenden följande.
"Should the Purchaser before the end of the Earn Out Year III sell the shares in the Company to a third
party, the remaining part of the Additional Purchase Price shall be paid within thirty (30) calendar days
after the closing of such a share transfer. In such case, the Additional Purchase Price for the period from
said closing to the end of the Earn Out Year III shall be calculated and the basis for such calculation
shall be the maximum amount, i.e. EUR 2,969,000 per full Earn Out Year. Such annual maximum
SVEA HOVRÄTT
Avdelning 02
DOM
2011-08-31
T
Sid 3
4050-10
amount shall be proportionally adjusted on the basis of the number of months between said closing and
the next end of an Earn Out Year
"
"The term "third party" in this Section 7.8 shall not include any company within the group of companies
to which the Purchaser belongs."
Skiljetvisten och skiljedomen
SPA-avtalet har gett upphov till flera tvister. Här kan följande nämnas.
I juli 2006 inledde Perstorp ett skiljeförfarande mot Silver Lining eftersom parterna
inte kunde enas om hur den på det första intjänandeåret belöpande tilläggsköpeskillingen skulle beräknas. Skiljedom meddelades den 20 december 2007. En
klandertalan väcktes därefter i Svea hovrätt av Silver Lining (T 2375-08). Hovrätten
lämnade denna klandertalan utan bifall i en dom 21 januari 2011. Domen kunde inte
överklagas.
Parterna kunde inte heller enas om tilläggsköpeskillingens storlek för det andra
resultatåret. I september 2007 påkallade därför Perstorp ett skiljeförfarande för
fastställande av tilläggsköpeskillingen för detta år. Under skiljeförfarandets gång kom
parterna överens om att utöka skiljeförfarandet till att även omfatta tilläggsköpeskillingen för det tredje resultatåret. Skiljedom i denna tvist meddelades den 4 maj
2010. Skiljenämnden bestod av advokaterna Anders Ryssdal, Torgny Wetterberg och
Christer Danielsson. Det är denna skiljedom som nu klandras av Perstorp.
I skiljetvisten framfördes yrkanden från Perstorp som kärande och från Silver Lining
som genkärande. Såvitt nu är av intresse framställde Silver Lining ett yrkande under
den pågående skiljetvisten om att skiljenämnden skulle förplikta Perstorp att betala det
maximala tilläggspriset om 2 960 000 euro för det första respektive andra resultatåret.
Som en grund för detta yrkande gjorde Silver Lining gällande att det skett en
ägaröverlåtelse till en "third party" som utlöst betalningsskyldighet enligt den ovan
redovisade bestämmelsen i punkt 7.8 i SPA-avtalet. Perstorp invände att någon
SVEA HOVRÄTT
Avdelning 02
DOM
2011-08-31
Sid 4
T 4050-10
överlåtelse inte skett till "third party" som en sådan definieras i avtalet och att Silver
Lining känt till överlåtelsen sedan årsskiftet 2005/2006.
Perstorp invände även att Silver Lining inte reklamerat och framfört sitt krav i skälig
tid (no notification of the claim within reasonable time). Inom parentes angavs detta i
skiljedomen som "sw. allmän reklamationsskyldighet".
Skiljenämnden bedömde frågan om betalning enligt punkt 7.8 i SPA-avtalet på s. 2123 i skiljedomen.
Skiljenämnden konstaterade inledningsvis att Silver Lining gjort gällande att
betalningsskyldigheten enligt punkt 7.8 utlösts genom två överlåtelser som skett den
22 december 2005 och därefter den 22 mars 2006. Skiljenämnden konstaterade vidare
att Perstorp gjort gällande att dessa överlåtelser inte utlöst någon tillämpning av punkt
7.8. Vidare skrev skiljenämnden bl.a. att Perstorp gjort gällande att Silver Lining under
lång tid känt till överlåtelserna utan att protestera och att kravet därför inte kunde
bifallas. Skiljenämnden konstaterade vidare att Silver Lining vidhållit att de två
omnämnda överlåtelserna innebar överlåtelse enligt punkt 7.8 och att deras krav är
framställt i rätt tid ("... and that its claim is timely").
Skiljenämnden gick sedan vidare och bedömde om de av Silver Lining påtalade
överlåtelserna utlöst en skyldighet för Perstorp att betala maximal tilläggsköpeskilling
enligt punkt 7.8. Nämnden kom här till den slutsatsen att överlåtelsen den 22 december
2005 i sig själv inte utlöste skyldighet att betala maximal tilläggsköpeskilling, men att
den tillsammans med överlåtelsen den 22 mars 2006 innebar att betalningsskyldigheten
hade utlösts samt att denna skyldighet hade utlösts för såväl det andra som tredje
resultatåret.
I det näst sista stycket på s. 22 i skiljedomen kom skiljenämnden att behandla frågan
om kravet från Silver Lining framförts för sent. Nämnden konstaterade här bl.a. att det
inte fanns några omständigheter som visade att Silver Lining kände till överlåtelsen
den 22 mars 2006 förrän denna överlåtelse presenterades under den aktuella
SVEA HOVRÄTT
Avdelning 02
DOM
2011-08-31
Sid 5
T 4050-10
skiljetvisten och att Silver Lining därför inte förlorat sin rätt att åberopa punkt 7.8 i
SPA-avtalet. Skiljenämnden avslutade det aktuella stycket med följande konstaterande.
"...Bearing in mind that the rightto full Earn Out under the provision in concern was triggered by the
transfer under item 2 above, the Arbitral Tribunal finds that Respondent has not löst its right to invoke
Art. 7.8 in support of its claim for maximum Additional Purchase Price even if there existed an
obligation for Respondent to raise the issue."
Därefter konstaterade skiljenämnden i det sista stycket på s. 22 att det över huvud taget
inte funnits någon skyldighet för Silver Lining att reklamera. Skiljenämnden uttryckte
detta på följande sätt.
"The Arbitral Tribunal would like to add, however, that under Art. 7.8, the Claimant is under a
contractual duty to itself identify the transfer triggering the payment of the maximum Additional
Purchase Price, and to make payment within 30 calendar days after the closing of the relevant transfer. It
is not Respondent's responsibility to identify the transfer or to make a claim. Claimant did not make any
payment under Art. 7.8 as a result of the transfer mentioned in item 2. In view of the Arbitral TribunaFs
finding that such transfer triggers payment of the maximum Additional Purchase Price Claimant erred in
law, for which Claimant must itself bear the risk. There is simply no room for general notification
principles ("allmän reklamationsskyldighet") to reduce Claimanfs obligations under Art.7.8."
Efter att skiljenämnden därefter behandlat ytterligare en tvistig fråga om kravet
framförts i rätt tid konstaterade den att Silver Lining hade rätt till maximal
tilläggsköpeskilling för både det första och det andra resultatåret.
I punkt 2 i domslutet förpliktades därför Perstorp att betala sammanlagt 5 920 000 euro
jämte ränta i maximal tilläggsköpeskilling för det två aktuella resultatåren. I punkt 7
förpliktades dessutom Perstorp att ersätta Silver Linings rättegångskostnader med vissa
belopp. I punkt 9 förpliktades Perstorp och Silver Lining att solidariskt ersätta
kostnaderna för skiljemännen. I övriga punkter beslutades andra frågor som inte är av
särskilt intresse här.
YRKANDEN I HOVRÄTTEN
Perstorp har yrkat att hovrätten upphäver skiljedomen i de delar skiljedomen avser
SVEA HOVRÄTT
Avdelning 02
DOM
2011-08-31
Sid 6
T 4050-10
förpliktigande för Perstorp att till Silver Lining utge maximal
tilläggsköpeskilling för resultatår två och tre (punkt 2 i skiljedomen), samt
ersättning för rättegångskostnader och fördelning parterna emellan av ansvaret
för kostnader för skiljeförfarandet (punkterna 7 och 9 i skiljedomen).
Silver Lining har bestritt yrkandena. Silver Lining har dock vitsordat att punkterna 7
och 9 i skiljedomen ska undanröjas för den händelse hovrätten undanröjer punkt 2.
Partena har vidare yrkat ersättning för sina rättegångskostnader i hovrätten.
GRUNDER M.M
Parterna har till grund och utveckling av sin respektive talan anfört i huvudsak
följande.
Perstorp
Skiljedomen ska undanröjas enligt 34 § första stycket 2 lagen (1999:116) om
skiljeförfarande därför att nämnden har överskridit sitt uppdrag. Uppdragsöverskridandet har skett genom att skiljenämnden har grundat sin bedömning avseende
maximal tilläggsköpeskilling på omständigheter som inte har åberopats av Silver
Lining inom ramen för skiljeförfarandet.
Skiljenämnden har nämligen grundat sin skiljedom i frågan om betalningsskyldighet
enligt punkt 7.8 i SPA-avtalet på två sammanhängande rättsfakta som inte åberopats av
Silver Lining. Dessa icke åberopade rättsfakta återfinns i sista stycket på s. 22 i
skiljedomen (se under Bakgrund ovan). Skiljenämnden har där grundat sin dom på att
det funnits en skyldighet för Perstorp att identifiera en aktieöverlåtelse som innebar att
en sådan ägarförändring skett som gav rätt till maximal tilläggsköpeskilling och
erlägga betalning till Silver Lining inom 30 dagar samt att allmänna reklamationsprinciper avtalats bort mellan parterna.
S VE A HOVRÄTT
Avdelning 02
DOM
2011-08-31
Sid?
T 4050-10
Enligt svensk rätt - som skiljenämnden skulle tillämpa - gäller som huvudregel att en
part som vill kräva ersättning eller göra en annan påföljd gällande med anledning av ett
kontraktsbrott eller annat avtalsreglerat förhållande ska framställa sitt krav till
motparten. Parten har en initiativplikt. Reklamationsplikten utgör ett uttryck för att
initiativplikten ligger på den som vill göra gällande en påföljd. Undantagsvis kan
initiativplikten ligga på den part som påstås vara prestationsskyldig. Reklamationsplikten kan avtalas bort. I sin skiljedom på s. 22 sista stycket har skiljenämnden lagt
initiativplikten på den påstått prestationsskyldiga parten, dvs. på Perstorp, och
konstaterat att reklamationsplikten fallit bort utan att Silver Lining har åberopat detta.
Silver Lining åberopade endast att bolaget reklamerat i rätt tid ("its claim is timely"). I
detta ligger ett vitsordande av att det finns en reklamationsplikt, men att den har
fullgjorts i tid. Silver Lining har inte åberopat att reklamationsplikten har avtalats bort.
I den sammanställning ( "table of claims") som parterna gjort och som tagits in i
skiljedomen finns inte något påstående om att initiativplikten gått över på Perstorp och
att den allmänna reklamationsplikten ska ha avtalats bort. Något sådant påstående
fanns inte heller i övrigt i skiljetvisten.
Silver Lining
Det bestrids att skiljenämnden har överskridit sitt uppdrag och att det finns grund för
att undanröja skiljedomen enligt 34 § första stycket 2 lagen om skiljeförfarande.
Det bestrids att skiljenämnden har grundat sitt avgörande på omständigheter som inte
har åberopats. De uttalanden som skiljenämnden gjort i sina domskäl under sista
stycket på s. 22 i skiljedomen är inte att betrakta som rättsfakta utan det är frågan om
en rättstillämpning från skiljenämndens sida. Om uttalandena kan anses omfatta
rättsfakta så har dessa ändå åberopats av Silver Lining inom ramen för
skilj efbrfarandet. Silver Lining har gjort tillräckliga åberopanden för att skiljenämnden
ska få lägga de omständigheter som nämns i det aktuella stycket till grund för sin
skiljedom.
Den sammanställning ("table of claims") som gjordes i målet var inte en sammanställning av grunder utan av yrkanden. I en inlaga till skiljenämnden från den 2
SVEA HOVRÄTT
Avdelning 02
DOM
2011 -08-31
Sid 8
T 4050-10
december 2009 bemötte vidare Silver Lining ett påstående från Perstorps sida att Silver
Lining inte kunde framföra sitt krav på maximal tilläggsköpeskilling på grund av att
man inte vidtagit vissa åtgärder som stipulerades i punkt 8.5 i SPA-avtalet. Samtidigt
bemöttes Perstorps påstående om för sen reklamation. Dessa frågor behandlades i
punkt 3.3.2 i den aktuella inlagan som löd på följande sätt.
"Respondent rejects that Respondent is barred to put forward a claim for maximum earn out. There is no
such limitation in the SPÄ in this regard. Section 8.5 in the SPÄ, which is the section referred to by
Claimant as basis for its position, refers only to the draft earn out calculations and thus the items
pertaining to these calculation. No time limitation is put forward pertaining section 7.8, which is the
relevant provision in the SPÄ in this part".
Silver Lining gjorde genom det sagda gällande att punkt 7.8 i SPA-avtalet var
tillämplig när det gällde maximal tilläggsköpeskilling och att det av den punkten följde
att det inte fanns någon reklamationsfrist för Silver Lining. Skiljenämnden har endast
med stöd av principen om att domstolen känner rätten (jura novit curia) tillämpat vissa
rättsregler på de av Silver Lining åberopade omständigheterna.
Under alla förhållanden har de omständigheter som behandlas under sista stycket på
s. 22 i skiljedomen inte lagts till grund för skiljedomen. Det framgår av sammanhanget
och ordalydelsen att det är fråga om ett s.k. "obiter dictunf'. I det näst sista stycket i
domskälen på s. 22 har skiljenämnden behandlat Perstorps invändning om för sen
reklamation och därvid konstaterat att Silver Lining har reklamerat i tid.
Skiljenämnden har således grundat sin dom i reklamationsfrågan på att reklamation
skett i tid. Det som skiljenämnden sedan skrev om att det inte funnits någon
reklamationsplikt utgjorde endast ett tillägg utöver skälen för domslutet. I vart fall
finns inget orsakssamband mellan ett eventuellt uppdragsöverskridande och utgången i
skiljeförfarandet.
Perstorp
Det bestrids att uttalandena i sista stycket s. 22 i skiljedomen endast utgör
rättstillämpning eller att de förhållanden som påtalas där varit åberopade.
SVEA HOVRÄTT
Avdelning 02
DOM
2011-08-31
Sid 9
T 4050-10
Silver Linings uttalanden i sin inlaga från den 2 december 2009 under punkt 3.3.2
avsåg endast tillämpligheten av punkt 8.5 i SP A-avtal et. Silver Lining gjorde inte
gällande att punkt 7.8 i avtalet innebar en skyldighet för Perstorp att identifiera en
aktieöverlåtelse som utlöste bestämmelsens tillämpning och att betala till Silver Lining
inom viss tid. Silver Lining gjorde inte heller gällande att punkt 7.8 skulle innebära att
allmänna reklamationsprinciper avtalats bort. Det förekom inte sådana rättsfakta som
skiljenämnden dömt över. Skiljenämnden har inte gjort de omtvistade uttalandena
enligt principen om att domstolen känner rätten utan frågan är om en avtalstolkning
baserad på rättsfakta som inte åberopats.
Skiljenämndens bedömning om att Perstorp haft en initiativplikt och att den allmänna
reklamationsplikten avtalats bort utgör inte ett s.k. obiter dictum. Uttalandet gällde en
konkret situation i målet och måste uppfattas som ytterligare skäl för skiljenämndens
avgörande. Genom bedömningen i sista stycket på s. 22 blev ju dessutom
skiljenämndens bedömning i frågan om reklamation skett i rätt tid irrelevant.
Skiljenämndens bedömning angående intitiativplikt och bortavtalad allmän
reklamationsplikt kan vidare ha färgat nämndens bedömning i frågan om reklamation
skett i rätt tid. Den bedömning som skiljenämnden gjort i sistnämnda fråga framstår
nämligen inte som rimlig mot bakgrund av de omständigheter och skriftliga handlingar
som Perstorp åberopade i skiljetvisten.
Något krav på orsakssamband mellan ett uppdragsöverskridande och utgången i
skiljeförfarandet finns inte för att en skiljedom ska upphävas.
Övrigt
Utöver det som redovisats ovan har parternas talan i hovrätten huvudsakligen bestått i
att de redogjort för parternas mellanhavanden, SP A-avtalet om ständigheterna kring
skiljeförfarandet och innehållet i skriftliga handlingar. Det som framförts i dessa
avseenden redovisas under domskälen i den mån det har betydelse för hovrättens
bedömning.
SVEA HOVRÄTT
Avdelning 02
DOM
2011-08-31
Sid 10
T 4050-10
BEVISNING
På begäran av Silver Lining har vittnesförhör ägt rum med skiljenämndens ordförande,
den norske advokaten Anders Ryssdal. Båda parter har åberopat skriftlig bevisning.
HOVRÄTTENS DOMSKÄL
Enligt 34 kap. första stycket 2 lagen om skiljeförfarande ska en skiljedom helt eller
delvis hävas om skiljemännen har överskridit sitt uppdrag. I förarbetena till
bestämmelsen uttalas att om skiljemännen grundar sitt avgörande på en omständighet
som inte åberopats av en part bör de anses ha överskridit sitt uppdrag (prop.
1998/99:35 s. 145). Innebörden är i princip densamma som förbudet i 17 kap. 3 §
rättegångsbalken för en domstol att i dispositiva mål grunda en dom på omständighet
som inte av part åberopats till grund för talan. Om skiljemännen således grundar sitt
avgörande på ett rättsfaktum som inte åberopats av en part bör de anses ha överskridit
sitt uppdrag. Visserligen har större flexibilitet ansetts vara påkallad i internationella
tvister eftersom man här inte kan räkna med en bundenhet till den svenska processuella
begreppsapparaten. Under alla förhållanden kan det dock inte komma ifråga att döma
över en grund eller invändning som över huvud taget inte förts på tal under
skiljeförfarandet (se t.ex. Madsen, Skiljeförfarande i Sverige, 2005, s. 247).
Perstorp har gjort gällande att skiljenämnden överskridit sin befogenhet genom att den
grundat sin bedömning i frågan om betalningsskyldighet enligt punkt 7.8 i SPA-avtalet
på rättsfakta som inte åberopats av Silver Lining. Dessa icke åberopade rättsfakta
utgörs enligt Perstorp av en skyldighet för Perstorp att identifiera en aktieöverlåtelse
som innebär att en sådan ägarförändring skett som gav rätt till maximal
tilläggsköpeskilling enligt den aktuella avtalsbestämmelsen och erlägga betalning för
denna till Silver Lining inom 30 dagar samt att allmänna reklamationsprinciper avtalats
bort mellan parterna.
Silver Lining har invänt att de uttalanden av skiljenämnden som Perstorp har hänvisat
till inte är att betrakta som rättsfakta utan att de utgör en rättstillämpning från
skiljenämndens sida. Silver Lining har vidare invänt att om uttalandena kan anses
SVEA HOVRÄTT
Avdelning 02
DOM
2011-08-31
Sid 11
T 4050-10
omfatta rättsfakta så har dessa ändå åberopats inom ramen för skiljeförfarandet. Silver
Lining har därutöver gjort gällande att det som skiljenämnden skrivit i aktuellt
hänseende endast är ett tillägg utan betydelse för prövningen och utgången (obiter
dictum) och att det därför under alla förhållanden inte är fråga om att skiljedomen har
grundats på någon icke åberopad omständighet.
För att korrekt bedöma frågan om en icke åberopad omständighet lagts till grund för
skiljenämndens avgörande måste utgångspunkten vara den grund som Silver Lining
åberopade till stöd för sitt krav på maximal tilläggsköpeskilling för det andra och tredje
resultatåret. Detta krav grundades sig dels på att parterna i SPA-avtalet punkt 7.8
avtalat att maximal tilläggsköpeskilling skulle betalas av Perstorp om det skedde en
viss typ av ägaröverlåtelse, dels att en sådan ägaröverlåtelse faktiskt ägt rum. Av den
av Silver Lining åberopade klausulen i SPA-avtalet framgick också hur och när en
sådan betalning skulle ske.
När det gäller Perstorps grunder för sitt bestridande och Silver Linings bemötanden av
dessa är det tydligt att skiljemännen inte helt uttömmande har redogjort för dessa i
skiljedomen. Den sammanställning ("table of claims") som finns i domen framstår mer
som en lista över de många olika delkraven än en uttömmande redogörelse för de
rättsfakta som förts in i målet av parterna. Vidare har skiljenämnden inledningsvis
skrivit i sina domskäl - dvs. efter redogörelsen av "table of claims" - att nämnden för
varje enskilt krav ska redogöra för de huvudsakliga omständigheterna och hur
nämnden bedömer dessa. Nämnden påpekade dock att denna redogörelse inte gjorts
uttömmande utan att den medvetet begränsats till det som skiljenämnden ansett
relevant för att pröva yrkandena.
När det gäller att bedöma Perstorps grunder för sitt bestridande och Silver Linings
invändningar mot dessa är det mot denna bakgrund nödvändigt att analysera såväl
innehållet i skiljedomen som innehållet i parternas inlagor.
Det är klart och ostridigt att Perstorp till grund för sitt bestridande bl.a. åberopat att
kravet på maximal tilläggsköpeskilling framförts för sent och därför inte kunde
bifallas, dels på grund av att förfarandet i punkterna 8.4 och 8.5 i SPA-avtalet inte
SVEA HOVRÄTT
Avdelning 02
DOM
2011-08-31
Sid 12
T 4050-10
iakttagits, dels på grund av att Silver Lining över huvud taget inte reklamerat i skälig
tid. Frågan är här vad parterna anförde rörande den sistnämnda grunden för
bestridandet.
I skiljenämndens domskäl har endast antecknats att Silver Lining ansåg sig ha framfört
kravet i rätt tid och det är också denna fråga nämnden prövat i det näst sista stycket på
s. 22 i skiljedomen. Enligt hovrättens mening kan denna inställning från Silver Linings
sida dock inte uppfattas som ett vitsordande av att det i och för sig skulle finnas en
reklamationsplikt. Frågan om det som utgångspunkt över huvud taget finns en allmän
reklamationsplikt i en situation som den aktuella måste dessutom närmast betraktas
som en rättslig fråga över vilken skiljenämnden själv äger förfoga.
Vidare anser hovrätten att Silver Lining i sin inlaga från den 2 december 2009 (punkt
3.3.2) får anses ha lämnat ett bemötande av Perstorps påstående att det skulle existera
en reklamationsfrist. I den sista meningen har Silver Lining invänt att "...No time
limitation is put forward pertaining section 7.8, which is the relevant provision in the SPÄ in this part''.
I det aktuella stycket behandlade Silver Lining visserligen först frågan om preklusion
enligt punkterna 8.4 och 8.5 i SPA-avtalet. Den ovan citerade meningen tar dock
tydligt sikte på att det inte finns någon reklamationsfrist enligt punkt 7.8, vilken alltså
var den bestämmelse på vilken Silver Lining grundade sitt krav. Det är svårt att
uppfatta detta på annat sätt än att Silver Lining bestred att det över huvud taget
existerade en reklamationsfrist i aktuell situation.
Vad skiljenämnden har gjort under det omtvistade sista stycket på s. 22 är att bedöma
om det över huvud taget funnits en reklamationsfrist i aktuell situation. Skiljenämnden
har gjort bedömningen med utgångspunkt i innehållet i den bestämmelse i SPA-avtalet
som Silver Lining åberopat till grund för sitt krav och mot bakgrund av att Silver
Lining påpekat att bestämmelsen saknade en reklamationsfrist. Skiljenämndens
slutsats var att punkt 7.8 helt enkelt inte lämnade något utrymme för allmänna
reklamationsprinciper.
SVEA HOVRÄTT
Avdelning 02
DOM
2011-08-31
Sid 13
T 4050-10
Frågan om parternas syn på existensen av en allmän reklamationsplikt skulle
naturligtvis - i vart fall som hovrätten fått skiljetvisten presenterad för sig - kunnat ha
utretts tydligare under skiljeförfarandet. Mot bakgrund av att skiljenämnden analyserat
frågan rättsligt med utgångspunkt i den bestämmelse som utgjorde grundvalen för
kravet och mot bakgrund av att Silver Lining får anses ha bestritt existensen av en
reklamationsfrist anser hovrätten att skiljenämndens domskäl i denna del knappast kan
anses omfatta en bedömning av omständigheter som inte åberopats av Silver Lining.
Det omtvistade stycket i domskälen måste också analyseras i sitt sammanhang i övrigt.
När skiljenämnden i sina domskäl kom in på frågan om existensen av en
reklamationsplikt hade nämnden redan konstaterat att Silver Lining framfört sitt krav i
rätt tid, för det fall en reklamationsplikt skulle existera. Inledningen av det omtvistade
stycket ("The Arbitral Tribunal would like to add, however...") ger vid handen att det
är något som skiljenämnden önskade tillägga trots att detta inte varit nödvändigt.
Eftersom nämnden redan tidigare hade konstaterat att kravet framförts i tid, även vid
existensen av en reklamationsplikt, är det tydligt att det är ett s.k. obiter dictum från
skiljenämndens sida. Anders Ryssdal, som var ordförande i skiljenämnden, har i sitt
vittnesmål också bekräftat att så var fallet. Bedömningen i detta avseende bör
visserligen främst göras objektivt utifrån innehållet i skiljedomen och inte utifrån vad
skiljemännen må erinra sig vid ett senare tillfälle. I detta fall ger dock Anders Ryssdals
uppgifter stöd för den tolkning som framstår som den rimliga.
Perstorp har vidare gjort gällande att skiljenämnden ändå kan ha påverkats i sin
bedömning av om reklamation skett i tid av sin bedömning i frågan om det över huvud
taget existerade en reklamationsplikt. Perstorp har här påpekat att nämndens
bedömning i den första frågan framstår som märklig mot bakgrund av de
omständigheter och den utredning som Perstorp åberopade i skiljetvisten.
Det ska här först påpekas att skiljenämndens bedömning av om reklamation skett i
skälig tid utgörs av en bevisvärdering av när Silver Lining fick tillräcklig kunskap om
den överlåtelse som utlöste betalningsskyldighet för tilläggsköpeskillingen. Denna
bedömning varken är eller kan vara föremål för klander. Dessutom är det tydligt att
skiljenämnden sett denna bevisvärdering som huvudfrågan och att bedömningen om
SVEA HOVRÄTT
Avdelning 02
DOM
2011-08-31
Sid 14
T 4050-10
reklamationspliktens existens varit föremål för ett förtydligande tillägg. Det framstår
enligt hovrätten som mycket långsökt att skiljenämnden skulle ha gjort en annan
bevisvärdering, om nämnden inte tagit upp frågan om existensen av en allmän
reklamationsplikt. Perstorps påstående om en sådan påverkan kan därför lämnas utan
avseende.
Perstorp har vidare gjort gällande att även om skiljenämndens överväganden under
sista stycket på s. 22 i skiljedomen inte påverkat domslutet är det fråga om ett
uppdragsöverskridande eftersom det inte krävs något orsakssamband mellan
uppdragsöverskridandet och utgången i tvisten. Det är visserligen sant att 34 § första
stycket 2 lagen om skiljeförfarande enligt sin lydelse inte kräver ett sådant samband.
Ett uppdragsöverskridande av aktuellt slag ska dock vara inriktat på att skiljenämnden
grundat sitt avgörande på en omständighet som inte åberopats (prop. 1998/99:35 s.
145). I detta måste anses ligga ett krav på att den omständighet som inte åberopats haft
någon betydelse för utgången (jfr Lindskog, Skiljeförfarande, En kommentar, 2005, s.
932).
Enligt hovrättens mening är det mot den nämnda bakgrunden tydligt att de
omständigheter som skiljenämnden bedömt under det omtvistade stycket inte haft
någon betydelse för utgången utan att skrivningen endast inneburit ett s.k. obiter
dictum samt att omständigheterna därmed inte heller kan sägas ha legat till grund för
skiljedomen.
Sammanfattningsvis anser hovrätten således att de omständigheter som skiljenämnden
bedömt under det omtvistade stycket ryms under de åberopanden som Silver Lining
har gjort samt att det aktuella stycket under alla förhållanden utgjort ett förtydligande
som inte kan sägas ha legat till grund för avgörandet. Mot denna bakgrund kan
skiljenämnden inte anses ha överskridit sitt uppdrag genom att ha grundat sin
bedömning avseende maximal tilläggsköpeskilling på omständigheter som icke har
åberopats av Silver Lining inom ramen för skiljeförfarandet.
Käromålet ska således avslås.
SVEA HOVRÄTT
Avdelning 02
DOM
2011-08-31
Sid 15
T 4050-10
Denna utgång i målet innebär att Perstorp ska ersätta Silver Lining för dess
rättegångskostnader. Perstorp har vitsordat den yrkade ersättningen som skälig förutom
vad avser ersättningen för vittnet Anders Ryssdal. Hovrätten anser att den begärda
ersättningen får godtas.
Hovrättens dom får enligt 43 § andra stycket lagen (1999:116) om skiljeförfarande inte
överklagas.
7
%
/
I avgörandet har deltagit hovrättslagmannen Kristina Boutz, hovrättsrådet Anders
Dereborg, referent, och tf. hovrättsassessorn Elisabeth Hovmöller. Enhälligt
BILAGA 1
ARBITRATION INSTITUTE OF
THE STOCKHOLM CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
P.O.Box 16050, SE-103 21 Stockholm, Sweden
Phone: +46 8 555 100 50
Fax:
+46 8 566 316 50
Ink. till Svea hovrätt
Avd. &.JT 2Q/6
Måll nr/ yö^ ,/
Aktbil £
Ingivare
FINAL AWARD
Date: 4 May 2010
Place of Arbitration: Stockholm
Case no: SCC V(115/2007)
Claimant:
Perstorp AB
SE-284 80 Perstorp
Sweden
Claimanfs counsel:
Advokat Pär Andersson/advokat Linda Lundin
Mannheimer Swartling Advokatbyrå AB
P.O,Box 1384
SE-251 13 Helsingborg, Sweden
Tel: +46 42 489 2210
Fax: 046 42 489 2201
E-mail: pan@msa.se
Respondent:
Silver Lining Finance SA
60 Grand Rue, lst Floor, L 1660
P.O.Box 653
L-2016 Luxembourg
Luxembourg
Respondenfs counsel:
Arbitral Tribunal:
Advokat Johan Karlbom/advokat Shervin Shikhan
Setterwalls Advokatbyrå
P.O.Box 11235
SE-404 25 G0teborg, Sweden
Tel: +46 31 701 1700
Fax:+46 31 701 1701
E-mail: johan.karlbom@setterwalls.se/
shervin.shikhan@setterwalls.se
Dr, Anders Ryssdal, Chairman
Mr. Torgny Wetterberg
Mr. Christer Danielsson
M1862927/1/H5630-008/ASR
1.
THE PARTIES AND THE CONTRACT
Claimant is a Swedish company having its principal office in Perstorp and Respondent is a company
having its statutory seat in Luxembourg.
Claimant and Respondent entered into a Share Purchase Agreement on 11 March 2005 ("the SPÄ").
According to the SPÄ Claimant purchased and Respondent sold all of the shares in Franklin Holding
B.V., a Dutch company entered into the Trade Register of the Netherlands under no. 18116759
("the Company"). The shares constituted the entire stock capital of the Company.
2.
ARBITRATION AND GOVERNING LAW
The SPÄ contains the following provisions on choice of law and arbitration:
"Governing Law
This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance wlth the laws of Sweden,
without giving effect to the conflict of law principles thereof.
Dispute Resolution
Arbitration
Subject to Section 15.2, any dispute, controversy or claim arising out of or in connection
with this Agreement, or the breach, termination or invalidity thereof, shall be settled by
arbitration in accordance with the Rules of the Arbitration Institute of the Stockholm
Chamber of Commerce. The arbitral tribunal shall be composed of three arbitrators. The
place of arbitration shall be Stockholm. The language to be used in the arbitral proceedings
shall be English.
Optional Forum
Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 15.1, the Purchaser shall have the right, in its so/e
discretion, to take any legal actions against the Se/ler in any other competent court in any
jurisdiction."
The Tribunal will deal with an objection to its jurisdiction in count 15 below.
For the purpose of solving the present dispute, the Tribunal will apply Swedish law.
3.
THE DISPUTE ÖVER EARN OUT YEAR II
According to the SPÄ the purchase price for the shares was divided into two parts. The first part of
the purchase price was agreed as a fixed amount, subject to adjustments pursuant to i.a. changes
in the Company's working capital as per closing on a EUR for EUR basis. The second part of the
purchase price was agreed to be based on the EBITDA över a period of three years for the
Company and its subsidiaries, ("the Additional Purchase Price"). Each twelve months following the
closing date l April 2005 is referred to as an Earn Out Year and according to the SPÄ an Additional
Purchase Price was to be calculated following each Earn Out Year.
On 10 May 2007, Claimant provided Respondent with a draft profit and loss account for the
Company and its subsidiaries for Earn Out Year II, i.e. l April 2006 - 30 March 2007, together with
a statement from Claimanfs accountant. According to Claimant, the EBITDA for Earn Out Year 2
was EUR 3,166,000 and the Additional Purchase Price EUR 1,228,140.
Upon receipt of the draft earn out accounts, Respondent informed Claimant that Respondent
disagreed with the proposed Additional Purchase Price for this year. Instead, Respondent proposed
an Additional Purchase Price amounting to the maximum agreed Additional Purchase Price, i.e. EUR
2,960,000. Respondent furthermore requested additional information, asked a number of questions
and requested access to information by others than Respondenfs accountant.
4.
THE ARBITRATION
According to the SPÄ, Section 8.7, any dispute regarding the Consolidated profit and loss accounts
for any one of the three twelve months periods following closing shall be finally settled by
M1862927/1/115630-008/ASR
2
arbitration, if the Parties cannot agree within thirty (30) calendar days following notice from
Respondent that Respondent disagrees with Claimanfs draft profit and loss account. This agreed
30 days period has elapsed.
On 12 September 2007 Claimant filed its Request for Arbitration with the Stockholm Chamber of
Commerce Arbitration Institute ("SCC"), and the Respondent filed its Answer to said Request on 10
October 2007.
The SCC Institute opened a filé with case number SCC (V115/2007), and an Arbitration Tribunal
consisting of Torgny Wetterberg, Christer Danielsson and Anders Ryssdal (chairman) was
appointed.
On 21 January 2008 Claimant filed its Statement of Ctaim. Respondent on 20 February 2008 filed
its Request for Production of Documents, to which Claimant filed its Answer on 26 February 2008.
On 26 February 2008 the Parties held a telephone conference with the chairman of the Tribunal,
where the chairman i.a. pointed to the main rules as regards document production, i.e. that the
evidentiary value of documents must be explained in order for the Tribunal to rule on a request for
production. New deadlines were fixed to set a timetable for the further proceedings.
Respondent filed its preliminary Statement of Defense and Counterclaim on 3 March 2008, and
Claimant commented on this pleading on 25 March 2008. Claimant on 4 April 2008 also provided
the Arbitration Tribunal with a list of documents provided to Respondent.
On 30 Apri! 2008, Claimant fiied its Second Statement in the dispute.
5.
THE DISPUTE ÖVER EARN OUT YEAR III
During the first quarter of 2008 the Parties also discussed issues relating to the Additional Purchase
Price for Earn Out Year III which would probably come to be in dispute between them, since the
procedure described above for Earn Out Year II to agree on the amount for the Additional Purchase
Price was ät this time being completed without agreement having been made. The Parties therefore
explored the possibility of consolidating the dispute for Earn Out Year II with the upcoming dispute
relating to Earn Out Year III, through an agreement to introduce new claims in Arbitration SCC
V(115/2007). The Arbitral Tribunal consented to such expansion of dispute SCC V(115/2007) for
obvious reasons of procedural economy.
On 26 June 2008 the Parties and the Chairman signed a protocol to expand the proceedings, and a
request for an extension of the award until 31 May 2009 was made with SCC. SCC was informed of
the protocol and granted said extension. The protocol had the following contents in its first two
paragraphs:
"The partias have entered into a Share Purchase Agreement 11 March 2005 and decided in
Clause 15.1 La. that "any dispute, controversy or claim araising out of or in connection with
this Agreement, or the breach, termination or invalidity thereof, shall be sett/ed by
arbitration in accordance with the Rules of the Arbitration Institute of the Stockholm
Chamber of Commerce".
The parties have referred a dispute över claims and counterclaims for Earn Out Year II of the
Share Purchase Agreement to arbitration, and this dispute is pending as SCC Arbitration V
(115/2007). Moreover, the parties are now aware that another dispute is arising between
them över claims and counterclaims for Earn Out Year III of the Share Purchase Agreement,
and they have decided to consolidate this upcoming dispute with the pending dispute
through the introduction of new claims and counterclaims related also to Earn Out Year III in
the pending SCC Arbitration V (115/2007). The Arbitral Tribunal has agreed to such
conso/idation."
A new set of deadlines was also fixed, but these have låter had to be adjusted.
6.
THE CONTINUATION OF THE ARBITRAL PROCEEDINGS
On 31 July 2008, Respondent, from now on represented by Messrs. J.P.R.C. Vos, and A.F.M.
Snijders, directors, filed a renewed Request for Information.
On 29 August 2008 Claimant filed its Comments to the 31 July request, where it restated its
objections to the earlier request. It provided Respondent with some information, but specifically
Ml 862927/1/115630-008/ASR
3
made reservations against having any obligation to provide this information. On 29 August 2008,
Claimant also submitted its Statement of Qaim for Earn Out Year III.
In a fax letter to the Tribunal of 13 October 2008, which reached the Tribunal on 29 October 2008,
Respondent observed that it would be unable to comment on Claimanfs two Statements of Claim
until the Arbitral Tribunal had reviewed the request for document production, to which the Tribunal
responded that it would review these requests, as well as set a new timetable.
On 27 October 2008 Respondent submitted some e-mai!s exchanged with various third parties and
Claimanfs counsel to the Tribunal.
On 10 November 2008, the Arbitral Tribunal made a Decision on document production, procedural
issues and timetable. Under the Decision Respondent on 8 December 2008 filed a request for
information. Claimant commented on this submission on 19 December 2008.
On 13 January 2009 Claimant submitted a request for further relief.
The Arbitral Tribunal made a new Decision on document production, procedural issues and
timetable 21 January 2009.
Claimant commented on this Decision in a fax 30 January 2009. Claimant provided a
supplementary restatement on 13 February 2009, to which Respondent made comments in an email on the same date 13 February 2009,
Respondent had further comments on the request for information 15 February 2009.
A hearing on the further request for document production was held in Stockholm on
2009. Ät the hearing in Stockholm, the parties reached a number of agreements on
exchange of documents and Claimant made further submissions on document production
2009 and 25 March 2009. The protocol from the 16 March hearing from Stockholm was
to the parties on 27 March 2009.
16 March
voluntary
20 March
circulated
The protocol was also sent to SCC with a request for extension of the time limit of the Award to 21
September 2009.This request was granted by SCC on 27 March 2009.
Claimant made a submission and a request for a decision on 14 April 2009.
Upon a call for additional advances by the SCC to the parties, because of the expansion of the
dlspute to cover Earn Out Year III, correspondence on this issue ensued in the following period up
till eariy July 2009, when the additional advance was finaliy settled with the SCC by both parties.
On 3 July 2009 the Tribunal circulated its Observations and Decisions on document production and
timetable, based on the 16 March hearing in Stockholm and subsequent voluntary exchange of
documents.
A number of e-mails were exchanged from 6 July 2009 till 21 September 2009 regarding document
production and requests for extensions.
On 31 August 2009 SCC was informed of dates for the final hearings in Stockholm 11-14 January
and 10-11 February 2010. The Tribunal also requested an extension of the tirne limit of the Award
to 31 March 2010, and this request was granted by SCC on 7 September 2009.
On 22 September 2009, Messrs. Johan Karlbom and Shervin Shikhan of the lawfirm Setterwalls
filed a submission as Respondenfs new counsel together with a power of attorney. The submission
contained a request for production of documents as well as comments on a number of procedural
issues. In addition, a request for a separate award under section 7.8 of the SPÄ was filed, claiming
that a tFärisTer~öTThe"shares in the'Company entitled Respondent to the maximum Additional Earn
ÖufPrice under this section of the SPÄ.
In an e-mail 23 September 2009, the Tribunal welcomed Respondent's counsel, and made clear
that deadlines earlier set had to be honoured. Claimant filed a new submission on l October 2009,
commenting on the request for document production, and also i.a. resisted a call for separate
award under the SPÄ Art. 7.8.
The Tribunal made a Decision on the request for document production on 12 October 2009, which
was circulated to the parties. In this Decision the timetable for the finalization for the proceedings
M1862927/1/115630-008/ASR
was also established, and Respondenfs request for a separate award under SPÄ Art. 7.8 was
denied.
In accordance with the established timetable, Respondent filed its Statement of Defence and
Counterclaim regarding Earn Out Year III on 15 September 2009.
On 15 October 2009 Claimant filed a submission making documents sought by Respondent
available.
The issue of document production was further commented on by Claimant in e-mails 19 and 20
October 2009.
On 21 October 2009 the Tribunal established the final timetable for the remaining proceedings.
On 23 October 2009 Claimant filed a memorial, requesting i.a. that Respondenfs request for
maximum Additional Earn Out Price with reference to Art. 7.9 of the SPÄ be rejected in a separate
award, since this issue had been finally settled with res judicata effect in the arbitration award for
Earn Out Year I dated 20 December 2007. Respondent protested against Claimanfs call for res
judicata dismissal in a letter l November 2009, while this caused further comments from Claimant
on 5 November 2009.
In accordance with the timetable, Claimant filed a second statement for Earn Out Year III on 11
December 2009, and Respondent filed its supplementary statement on 2 December 2009.
On 11 December 2009, counse! for both parties and the Chairman held a telephone conference to
prepare for the final stage of proceedings. In the telephone conversation, the parties were
encouraged to provide their final table of clairns, which the Claimant did on 16 December 2009,
and Respondent did on the same date. In this telephone conversation Claimant also amended its
call for dismissal of Respondenfs Art. 7.9 claim by requesting a decision to dismiss rather than a
separate award.
In a Procedural Order 18 December 2009, the Tribunal settled some outstanding issues where the
parties had failed to reach agreement.
On 21 December 2009, the Tribunal in a Decision honoured Claimanfs request for a dismissal of
the claim for maximum Additional Purchase Price with reference to Art. 7.9 of the SPÄ, as the claim
had been settled with res judicata effect in the Year I Arbitration award of 20 December 2007. This
claim was consequently barred from further treatment in the present arbitral proceedings.
The oral hearing on the presentation on evidence and Claimanfs opening statement took place in
Stockholm 11 - 15 January 2010. These proceedings were recorded, and recordings were
distributed to the parties and the arbitrators,
After the oral hearing, the parties were requested to update their table of claims, and this was
done by Respondent on an e-mail 22 January 2010 and by Claimant in an e-mail 26 January 2010.
Upon requests from the Tribunal, further clarifications were provided in follow-up e-maits.
Closing arguments took place in Stockholm on 10 and 11 February 2010.
On 11 March the Tribunal requested an extension of the time limit for the Award till 30 April 2010,
and this request was granted by the SCC on 17 March 2010.
The parties exchanged their submissions on costs and comments on this issue in the period up till
10 March 2010.
On 28 April 2010 SCC extended the time limit for the Award till 7 May 2010.
On 29 April 2010 SCC determined the costs of the arbitration.
7.
THE DISPUTES
Under its appointment by the SCC, and under the Parties' agreement to expand the dispute, the
Tribunal is empowered to rule on disputes related to Earn Out Years II and III.
The Requests for Arbitration över Earn Out Years II and III cover Claimanfs Claim as to how the
Additional Purchase Price should be fixed, i.e. in what amount, and its claim to recover
damages/penalty fees for Respondenfs alleged violation of non-solicitation and non-competition
M1862927/1/115630-008/ASR
5
clauses of the SPÄ and the release of funds in an Escrow Account. Finally, interest and costs are
clairned for such recoveries.
Respondent has filed its Counterclaim to seek the maximum Additional Purchase Price for Earn Out
Years II and III, with additional observations on the right to carry forward or backwards differences
to other Earn Out Years. Respondent also claims interest since the Closing Date l April 2005. In
addition, Respondent seeks to recover costs. Respondent also states that Claimanfs claims should
be rejected as being without merit.
THE PARTIES' SUBMISSIONS
8.
It follows from the history of the arbitral proceedings above that a number of memorials with
extensive legal and factual submissions näve been filed, In addition, the parties have presented
their case in oral hearings in January and February 2010. The Tribunal has carefully examined all
written and oral submissions, and makes a general reference to them here.
9.
CLAIMANTS CLAIMS
Ät the hearing in Stockholm 11 February 2010, counsel for Claimant confirmed that the table of
claims with legal grounds as presented in its e-mail 22 January 2010, is the final version. Claimant
has asserted the following claims:
1.
Claimant requests the Arbitral Tribunal to render an award establishing by a declaratory
relief that the Additional Purchase Price for Earn Out Year II shall be set to EUR 1,337,193.
2.
Claimant requests the Arbitral Tribunal to render an award establishing by declaratory relief
that the Additional Purchase price for Earn Out Year III shall be set to EUR 937,116.
3.
Claimant requests the Arbitral Tribunal to render an award ordering Respondent to pay to
Claimant EUR 1,050,000 (jointly with Mr. Frank Snijders).
4.
Claimant requests the Arbitrai Tribunal to render an award ordering Respondent to pay to
Claimant EUR 50,000 (jointly with Mr. Frank Snijders).
5.
Claimant requests the Arbitral Tribunal to render an award establishing by a declaratory
relief that an amount of EUR 143,781.09 plus interest until paid held in escrow pursuant to
Escrow Agreement No. l Schedule 12.3.1 to the SPÄ, shall be released to Claimant.
Claimant has also claimed reimbursement of the costs of the arbitration with interest.
10.
CLAIMANT'S LEGAL GROUNDS
The legal grounds for the claims are as follows:
For claim no. l - Earn Out Year II
The Additional Purchase Price is to be calculated in accordance with the principles agreed in Section
7 of the SPÄ. The EBITDA is to be calcuiated in accordance with the definition of "EBITDA", "Earn
Out Accounts", "Accounting Principles" and "GAAP", which provides as follows:
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
1.5
1.6
1.7
1.8
1.9
1.10
1.11
1.12
1.13
1
EBITDA according to FRANGO
Overaccrual for PWC costs 2005
Accrual for bonuses 2005
Accrual for vacation days 2006
Accrual for vacation days 2007
Invoice Perstorp Project Q
Accrual for receivable Wenemco
Dividend tax repayment
i AR Korlaar paid to SL-cornpany
Expenses MFM paid by Perstorp Holding BV
Adjustment for management
fee
Respondent
Adjustment for acid sales commissions
Adjusted EBITDA
M1862927/1/115630-008/ASR
from
EUR
EUR
EUR
EUR
EUR
EUR
EUR
EUR
EUR
EUR
3,156,000
-4,000
12,000
17,000
-9,000
35,000
-1,000
-3,000
-3,000
-6,000
EUR
-28,000
EUR
EUR
84,000
3,250,000
Actual EBITDA
Undisputed
Undisputed
Undisputed
Law and GAAP requirement
Undisputed
Loss
Extraordinary income
Loss
Costs for actual services
rendered ordinary course of
business
Extraordinary income/ costs
Undisputed
For claim no, 2- Earn Out Year III
The Additional Purchase Price is to be calculated in accordance with the principles agreed in Section
7 of the SPÄ. The EBITDA is to be calculated in accordance with the definition of "EBITDA", "Earn
Out Accounts", "Accounting Principles" and "GAAP", which provides as follows:
Comrnission to liquid acids
Lawyers' costs regardinq the MCA dispute
Shipment to Aiqeria
Adjustment of management fee Respondent
EUR
EUR
EUR
EUR
EUR
2,838,000
-84,000
539,000
-26,000
64,000
2.6
Adjustment for cut-off expenses
EUR
-42,000
2.7
Accrual for vacation days in Earn Out Year II
EUR
9,000
2.8
Adjusted EBITDA
EUR
3,298,000
2.1
2.2
2.3
2.4
2.5
j EBITDA according to FRANGO
Actual EBITDA
Undisputed
Undisputed
Undisputed
Reversal
made
for
accounting purposes oniy
Reven ues and costs affecting
Ql 2008
Reversal
made
for
accounting purposes only
Extraordinary income
For claim no, 3
Respondenfs breaches of the non-competition undertaking in Section 11.10.1 of the SPÄ based
upon 21 identified deliveries by Wenemco to Mr. Taigats companies in Russia and Belarus.
Wenemco is directly or indirectly controlled by Respondent and/or Mr. Snijders, Section 11.10.3 of
the SPÄ.
For claim no. 4
Respondenfs breach of the non-solicitation undertaking in Section 11.10.2 of the SPÄ based upon
the receipt/acceptance of services from as well as engagement of Mr. van den Berg in Wenemco.
Mr. van den Berg was a Key Employee of the Company. Wenemco is directly or indirectly controlled
by Respondent and/or Mr. Snijders, Section 11.10.3 of the SPÄ.
For claim no. 5
Supre Mals Loan not paid by debtor assigned to Respondent. Respondent responsibie. Section
12.3.2 of the SPÄ and Escrow Agreement No. 1. Obligation to release after 180 days.
11.
RESPONDENTS CLAIMS
On the other side, Respondenfs counsel ät the hearing in Stockholm 11 February 2010 confirmed
that its table of claims below as finaiized in an e-mail 26 January 2010 is the final table of claims:
1.
Establish by a declaratory relief that the EBITDA for Earn Out Year II shall be set to (a) EUR
5,168,709 alternatively (b) EUR 4,323,709.
2.
Establish by a declaratory relief that the EBITDA for Earn Out Year III shall be set to (a) EUR
6,872,773 alternatively (b) EUR 5,187,733
3.
Establish that the EBITDA for Earn Out Year II and/or III exceeds the applicable target result
for that year and that the difference may be carried backward or forward, as the case may
be, to Earn Out Year I and/or Earn Out Year II in accordance with Section 7.3 in the SPÄ
4.
Order Claimant to pay to Respondent the maximum Additional Purchase Price for Earn Out
Year II and III in the amount of EUR 2,960,000 for each year
5.
Order Claimant to pay to Respondent interest for the amount awarded ät an annual råte of 9
per cent from l April 2005, the date of Closing, on the amount of EUR 2,960,000
6.
Render a separate award establishing that the Arbitral Tribunal lacks jurisdiction to
adjudicate the claims put forward in this case, pending an award from the Dutch courts
regarding the issues of (a) dismissal of Respondent as a managing director in the Company
and (b) the termination of the MCA
7.
Dismiss all Claimanfs claims
8.
Order Claimant to compensate Respondent for its costs of Arbitration with interest thereon,
and as between the parties, alone to bear the compensation to the arbitrators and to the
M1862927/1/115630-008/ASR
SCC institute, increased by the interest in accordance with Sections 4 and 6 of the Swedish
Interest Act (Sw. Räntelagen (1975:635)) from the date of the award until full payment is
made.
In answer to a request for clarification by the Tribunal, Respondenfs counsel confirmed that should
claim no. 4 prevail on basis of breach of the SPÄ Art. 7.8 or SPÄ Art. 8, such a result would
overtake claims l till 3.
12.
RE5PONDENT'S LEGAL GROUNDS
12.1
EBITDA for Earn Out Year II alternative (a) EUR 5,168,709
•
Accrual for vacation days
GAAP has not been applied consistently with prior years. The Company nas not previously
applied these methods. There is no legal obligation to accrue for vacation days under Dutch
law. Moreover it is not a change of GAAP in the year under review.
•
Accrual for receivable Wenernco
The receivable on Wenemco is collectable and Claimant still owes money to Wenemco.
Furthermore Claimant has already accrued a reserve for bad debt in its books.
«
Dividend tax payment
The amount has not been paid to Respondent. Therefore it should be regarded as ordinary
income.
•
Accounts receivable Korlaar paid to Silver Lining Finance
Ciaimant still owes this amount to Respondent. This has been double-booked. Furthermore
Claimant has already accrued a reserve for bad debt in its books.
•
Expenses MFM paid by Holding
There is no contract between the Company and Leo Muis. The work done was on behalf of
Claimant and not to the benefit of the Company. There has been no added value.
»
Adjustment of fee from Silver Lining Finance
The company increases the fee payable to Respondent, whereas it has claimed that it should
not be paid to Respondent. The company has now accrued for an expense it will not pay to
Respondent.
•
Other operating income, claim of Stanven-France
The company agreed to pay EUR 50.000 under the condition that Stanven-France remained
preferred supplier for that company. There was no obligation to pay this amount and the
client did in fäet not stay with the Company in any event. The expense was not approved by
Silver Lining Finance SA in the boardmeeting, since it was already, without consent,
approved by the other members. The action is contrary to the business plan.
•
Stock valuation
GAAP has not been consistently applied and the valuation method has changed. No stock
count has taken place.
•
Commissions on pure acids feed märket
The figure is based on estimation as no substantial information has been provided by
Claimant. 7,5 percent is what was agreed upon between Frank Snijders and Paul Österberg.
The issue has not been discussed with the management.
•
Increase according to business plan
The extra costs incurred by Perstorp are far above the expenses as stated in the Business
plan when applying the minimum sales increases. There has thus been a breach of the
undertaking under the SPÄ and the Business Plan attached thereto.
M1862927/1/115630-008/ASR
8
•
Import duties
This amount is not a cost for the Company. Expenses should be borne by Supre Mais, which
received the VÄT refund. Furthermore the company has made an accrual for bad debts.
•
Accrual bonus for employees too high
The bonus scheme has not been approved by Respondent. 5 percent was applicable before
and no increase in this råte has been agreed upon. The computation of the amounts is not
according to GAAP. The action is not consistent with the Business Plan. The bonus plan has
not changed during 2006.
Management fee SLF 2005/2006 (EUR 12,000)
The accrued amounts not to be induded in EBITDA.
Management fee SLF 2005/2006 (EUR 64,000)
Accrued amounts not to be included in EBITDA, A reversal is to be made for Earn out year
III.
•
Exchange differences in equity
The amount is not included in EBITDA-computation and should be included according to
GAAP.
•
Negative stock valuation
Stock cannot be negative, thus the negative amount is to be disregarded. GAAP has not been
consistently applied.
•
The Talgat settlement
The settlement was entered into in August 2006 and is valid. The accrued amount should
thus affect the profit and loss as a net income. According to GAAP this should not be
regarded as extraordinary income but as ordinary (sales) income.
12.2
•
EBITDA for Earn Out Year II alternative (b) EUR 4,323,709
The calculation for this claim is as follows:
- Turnover for Earn Out Year II has been EUR 20 405 000
- Considering the loss of business for the Company the net turnover for Earn Out Year II
could be estimated to EUR 21 305 000
- With a marginal contribution of 30 percent the profit before fixed costs should for Earn Out
Year II amount to EUR 6 391 500 and for Earn out Year III EUR 8 143 500.
- According to the agreed Business plan the fixed costs for should amount to EUR 3 050 000.
- The result is an EBITDA for Earn Out Year II EUR 3 341 500 to which amount shall be
added EUR 767 209 (equivalent of reservation for possible claims regarding the Talgat
business). To these amounts commissions on pure acids and feed grade products shall be
added. These amounts for Earn Out Year II to EUR 215 000.
-If one takes these issues into account the EBITDA for Earn Out Year II should be EUR 4 323
709. Disregarding the evaluation of the separate adjustments already addressed the EBITDA
for the Earn Out Year II shall not be set below this amount.
•
The actions of Claimant/the company are in breach of the Business Plan and the SPÄ.
Claimant has not respected the undertaking in artide 10 of the Business plan to strive for the
Management Forecast, nor artide 2 of the Business Plan to keep fixed costs in line with
expected results.
•
12.3
»
This ciaim was elaborated upon in Respondent's submission 2 December 2009 (section 2)
and presented in the table of claims (the first sheet labelled "Summary").
EBITDA for Earn Out Year III alternative (a) EUR 6,872,773
Cut off expenses
M1862927/1/115630-008/ASR
There has been no audit of the figures. Additional expenses include investments which
should not be corrected and deducted from EBITDA.
•
Accrual for vacation days
See below under "Accrual for holidays/vacation days"
•
Extra margin due to löst business
The extra costs incurred by Perstorp are far above the expenses as stated in the Business
plan when applying the minimum sales increases. This is in breach of the undertakings under
the SPÄ.
•
Negative stock
Stock cannot be negative, thus the negative amount is to be disregarded. GAAP has not been
consistently applied.
•
Stock valuation
Stock cannot be negative according to GAAP. There has been no stock count.
•
Excessive bonus above 5%
The bonus scheme has not been approved by Respondent. 5 percent was applicable before
and no increase in this råte has been agreed upon. The computation of the amounts is not
according to GAAP. The actions is not consistent with the Business Plan.
•
Salaries too high Peijnenburg
Increase of salary of Mr. Peijnenburg has not been agreed ät Shareholders meeting. It is
thus approved. It is thus not approved.
•
Non payable accrual bonus of Mr. Roele and Mr. Beaujean
Claimant has stated that bonuses for Mr. Roele and Mr. Beaujean is not payable. The accrued
amounts should thus instead be added to the profit & loss. The services of Dick Roele have
not been to the benefit of the company.
•
Branding, Pyramid
The invoices reläte to a new branding. Expenses are made ät the end of the Earn Out Year
and are investment/prepaid expenses that have no contribution for Respondent. According to
GAAP these expenses should be taken into account in the following years as the company
benefits from these expenses.
•
Differences in equity, profit not booked via profit & loss
This is in regards to profit and loss and therefore the EBITDA computation does not include
this item.
•
Investment Polska
The income from Poland should be refunded to Respondent. Investment in Poland should not
affect EBITDA and the loss should therefore not be deducted.
•
Expenses Leo Muis
There is no contract between the Company and L. Muis. The work done was on behalf of the
Company's owner and to no benefit of the Company.
•
Valid settlement wlth Mr. Talgat
The settlement with Mr. Talgat was a valid settlement. This amount, which is accrued in
addition to the amount presented for in Earn Out Year II, snäll therefore be included in the
calculation.
•
Accrual for holidays/vacation days
M1862927/1/H5630-008/ASR
10
GAAP is not applied consistently with prtor years. The Company has not previously applied
these methods. Moreover it is not a change of GAAP in the year under review. There is no
legal requirement in Dutch law to accrue for vacationdays.
•
Adjustment fee Respondent
This item should be taken in to consideration in Earn Out Year II, Reversal 2006/2007
•
Commission pure acids from 5-7,5 percent
Certain commission should as agreed between Frank Snijders And Paul Österberg be 7,5
percent instead of 5 percent.
•
Commissions in relation to invoiced fees/unrevealed sales
The fees payable to the sales people näve increased significantly with no corresponding
advantage to the Company. If the commission to the salespeople increases, there should be
a corresponding increase for the Company.
•
Commissions to not disclosed entities
According to information from Claimant (inter alia statement of 15 October 2009) the
commissions were paid without any agreements and have reduced EBITDA. No services were
rendered to the benefit of the company to pay these expenses. The amounts are to be re
transferred.
12.4
EBITDA for Earn Out Year III alternative (b) EUR 5,187,733
•
The calculation for this claim is as follows:
- Turnover for Earn Out Year III has been EUR 22 645 000
- Considering the loss of business for the Company the net turnover for Earn Out Year III to
EUR 27 145 000
- With a marginal contribution of 30 percent the profit before fixed costs should for Earn Out
Year III EUR 8 143 500.
- According to the agreed Business plan the fixed costs for should amount to EUR 3 400 000.
- The result is an EBITDA for Earn Out Year III EUR 4 743 500. To this amounts commissions
on pure acids and feed grade products shall be added. These amounts for Earn Out Year III
to EUR 444 273.
-If one takes these issues into account the EBITDA for Earn Out Year III should be EUR
5 187 773. Disregarding the evaluation of the separate adjustments already addressed the
EBITDA for the Earn Out Year III shall not be set below this amount.
•
The actions of Claimant/the Company are in breach of the Business Plan and the SPÄ.
Claimant has not respected the undertaking in artide 10 of the Business plan to strive for the
Management Forecast, nor article 2 of the Business Plan to keep fixed costs in line with
expected results.
•
12.5
This claim was elaborated upon in Respondenfs submission 2 December 2009 (section 2)
and presented in the table of claims (the first sheet labelled "Summary").
Issue of carrying backward or forward the target result
If the EBITDA for Earn Out Year II and/or III exceeds the applicable target result for that year, the
difference shall be carried backward or forward, as the case may be, to Earn Out Year I and/or
Earn Out Year II in accordance with section 7.3 in the SPÄ.
12.6
Additional Purchase Price for Earn Out Year II and III
•
The claimed additional purchase price is to be calculated in relation to the EBITDA. The
claimed EBITDAs trigger the maximum Additional Purchase Price for both years.
•
The share transfer outside the group triggers the maximum Additional Purchase Price for
both years.
•
The non-compliance of Perstorp/the Company regarding access to books and records is a
breach of the SPÄ and triggers the maximum Additional Purchase Price for both years. No
M1862927/1/115630-008/ASR
11
audit has been performed. The year that the comparison regarding principles has been made
with, is the wrong year.
12.7
Interest for the amount awarded
The interest råte has been agreed upon in the SPÄ.
Respondent holds that this agreed interest is to be applied regardless of the grounds for the
caiculation of the Additional Purchase Price, i.e. even if the calculation is based on full earn out due
to share transfer triggering the maximum earn out, as the rational behind the agreed interest is to
compensate Respondent for not receiving the full purchase price "right away".
13.
THE PARTIES' COMMENTS ON CLAIMS FROM THE OTHER SIDE
13.1
Ciaimanfs comments
13.1.1 Ciaimanfs comments on issues of substance
Claimant has filed comments to the Respondenfs claims as follows.
Comment
Claim
a.
No share transfer to a "third party" as defined in Section
7.8 of the SPÄ (see sketches included in Trialmax
presentation). Provision not applicable in relation to a
change in ownership of the Perstorp group of companies.
Respondent aware of change in ownership since end
2005/beginning 2006 (see e. g. Exhibit C65 c-d).
b.
No notification of the claim within reasonable time (Sw.
allmän reklamationsskyldighet).
Respondent prevented
from putting forward this claim in the proceedings.
c.
Section 7.4 of the SPÄ re. interest not applicable. Interest
according to Swedish Interest Act as from the date when
the claim was put forward by Respondent in the
proceedings (22 September 2009).
No support for the claim in the SPÄ or in the Business Plan. No
restriction for the Company to terminate business relations. The
termination has been made with justifiable cause given
circumstances known ät that point in time. No disloyalty by
Claimant or mismanagement of the Company. No premature
termination. Nos business löst as the business with Mr, Talgafs
companies was taken över by Wenemco/Respondent and the
Company was due to registration in the name of Framelco
prevented from selling to Russia.
1
Change in ownership
2
Termination of the
contracts with Mr.
Talgafs companies
3
Limited access to the
books and records
No support for the claim in the SPÄ. Ciaimant has provided
Respondent access in accordance with the SPÄ (see e. g. Exhibit C
22, C 23, and C244-245). Respondent has not suffered any
damage due to the alleged breach. No casual link between alleged
breach and possible damage.
4
No audited accounts
No support for the claim in the SPÄ. No obligation according to
the SPÄ to provide audited draft Earn Out Accounts. Respondent
has not suffered any damage due to the alleged breach. No casual
link between alleged breach and possible damage.
5
Overaccrual PWC
Undisputed
6
Accrual for bonuses
Undisputed
7
Accrual for vacation
days 2006
Undisputed
8
Accrual for vacation
days 2007
Normal accountancy policy and GAAP requirement, take
precedence över previous accounting methods, resolved in Earn
M1862927/1/115630-008/ASR
12
Out Year I.
Invoice Project Q
Undisputed
10
Accrual for receivable
Wenemco
Loss, no open invoice in the Company's books and records.
11
Dividend tax payment
Extraordinary income according to SPÄ, not to effect the Earn Out
calculation.
12
AR Kolaar paid to SL
company
Loss, the basis for Respondenfs claim not understandable.
13
Expenses MFM paid
by Holding
Costs for actual services rendered, ordinary course of business,
the Company has been in need for Mr. Muis services, performed
on the basis of an oral agreement, resolved in Earn Out Year I.
14
Adjustment of fee
from Silver Lining
Finance
Reduced fees not agreed and not accepted by the Company.
Corresponding amount recorded as a liability to Respondent in the
Company's books and records, Extraordinary income/reduced
costs, not to effect the adjusted accordingly in Earn Out Year I-III
(Exhibit C 288). Result too high in Earn Out Year I (EUR 12') to
the benefit for Respondent and too low in Earn Out Year III (EUR
12'). No other timing effect. No booking to the detriment for
Respondent,
15
Commission pure
acids
Undisputed
16
Other operating
income, claim of
Stanven-France
Decision by the board based upon future prospects, not a
prerequisite that the Company would remain preferred supplier,
ordinary course of business.
17
Stock valuation
No change in accounting principles, the valuation of stock is
correct and in accordance with GAAP as previously applied. The
processing costs are included in the stock value. Respondenfs
calculation incorrect, processing costs change between different
products and över time.
18
Commissions on pure
acids feed märket
Unclear, see item 15 above. Underlying documentation has been
submitted and is invoked by Claimant as evidence in the
proceedings.
19
Increase according to
business plan
Speerstra
Estonia
Talgafs companies
Marginal Contribution
(raw material price)
Talgat settlement
Commissions
215'EUR - already
included?
Management forecast in the Business Plan not a binding
obligation. No obligation to reach certain fixed costs or a marginal
contribution of 30%. No obligation to cut costs.
Actual costs in the ordinary course of business apply.
Respondenfs calculation not understandable and has no support
in the SPÄ or in the Business Plan. The agreed Additional
Purchase Price and the agreed procedure for calculating the
Additional Purchase Price apply. No other valuation method
applicable.
No mismanagement. No contractual breach of the SPÄ or the
Business Plan. No breach of "good faith". No mishandling of the
business with Mr. Talgafs companies. No non competition
undertaking in the agreement regarding Paul Verboekefs services
and no release (see Exhibit C 234). No manipulation of prices ofr
inträ company sales. Margins not too low (see Exhibit C 237-241
and witness testimonies of Paul Österberg and Leo Muis).
Loss of business: Loss of business to Mr. Talgafs companies - see
item no. 2 above. Similar legal arguments pertain to the löst
business to Speerstra . No loss of business to Estonia and not
M1862927/1/115630-008/ASR
13
relevant for the calculation of the Additional Purchase Price.
Taloat settlement: Still a debt to unknown parties, not an income
to effect the EBITDA. If the debt should be dissolved,
extraordinary income according to SPÄ, not to be included in the
Earn Out calculation. In all material respects this would be an
income attributable to the years prior to Earn Out Year II and III
and should not affect the result in these years even if it was not
considered extraordinary. Resolved in Earn Out Year I.
Commissions on pure acids and feed qrade oroducts: Aqreed
commission included in draft Earn Out Accounts.
Excessive prices for ras material: Agreed prices for each delivery.
No breach of the price provisions in PrAc and FoAc Supply
Agreements.
20
Import duties
Loss, no prospect to receive any refund from Supre Mais.
21
Accrual
bonus
for
employees too high
No requirement that the bonus scheme should be approved by
Respondent, no significant increase, actual costs in the ordinary
course of business.
22
Management fee SLF
2005/2006
Too high costs in Earn Out Year I. No booking to the detriment for
Respondent - see item 14 above.
23
Management fee SLF
2005/2006
Adjustment made for book keeping purposes - see item 14
above.
24
Exchange differences
in equity
The adjustment of EUR 5,000 has been made in the consolidated
balance sheet and shoult not effect the consolidated profit and
loss accounts
25
Negative stock
valuation
The valuation of stock is correct and according to GAAP as
previously applied. No negative stock value. No effect on the draft
Earn Out Accounts.
26
Liquid acids
Undisputed
27
Lawyers cost
proceedings
28
Shipment Algeria
Undisputed
29
Cut of expenses
Revenues and costs affecting Ql 2008. Underlying documentation
provided. No specification of expenses constituting alleged
investments and no support of such allegation.
MCA-
Undisputed
Invoice to Lactina (para of Exhibit C 153} to be booked as an
income when the customer receives the goods according to
applicable delivery terms, i. e. after the end of Earn Out Year III.
Reference is made to the witness testimony of Leo Muis.
30
Accrual
days
of
vacation
31
Adjustment
of fee
from
Silver
Lining
Finance
Reversal made for accounting purposes only.
32
Extra margin due to
löst business
Speerstra
Talgat
Estonia
Hungary
See comments in item 19 above. No löst business to Hungary or
Brenntag/Paul Verboeket (see Exhibit C 240 and witness
testimony of Henri Peijnenburg/Edwin van Kol). All relevant
invoices pertaining to raw materia! saies prices have been
provided to Respondent.
M1862927/1/115630-008/ASR
Reversal made for accounting purposes only
14
Brenntag/P. Verboeket
Marginal Contribution
(raw material prices)
Talgat settlement
Commissions
444'EUR - already
included?
33
Stock valuation
See comments in item 17 above.
34
Negative stock
No stock count required according to the SPÄ, the valuation of
stock is correct and in accordance with GAAP, negative value only
appears in incornplete stocklist and not in the final stocklist and
nas not affected the Earn Out Accounts.
35
Excessive
above 5%
36
Salaries
too
Peijenburg
37
Non payable accrual
bonus of 2 employees
The amounts accrued for are payable for the Company.
38
Branding Pyramid
The expenses are in accordance with the Business Plan, normal
bookkeeping applied. Not to be booked as investments (witness
testimony of Leo Muis).
39
Differences in equity,
profit not booked via
profit & loss
The amount relating to the equity of Brazil has been manually
added to the Consolidated balance sheet accounts and should not
be inciuded in the EBITDA in the Earn Out Account. Only the profit
for Earn Out year III is included in the EBITDA for Earn Out Year
III.
40
Investment Polska
The loss from the Polish subsidiary was EUR 14,000. Neither this
amount nor any other costs relating to the Polish subsidiary have
been included in the Earn Out Accounts in accordance with the
SPÄ.
41
Expenses Leo Muis
See comments in item 13 above,
42
Vaiid settlement with
Mr. Talgat
Amount not included in the settlement with Mr. Talgat. See
comments in item 19 above re the settlement.
43
Accrual for holidays/
vacation days
See comments in item 8 above.
44
Adjustment fee SLF
(see
also
computation year 2)
Reversal to be made in Earn Out Year III.
45
Commission
pure
acids from 5 - 7.5%
The Company has received agreed commission, the commission is
included in the EBITDA.
46
Commissions
in
relation to invoiced
fees/unrevealed sales
Not understandable. Respondent has mixed up costs for sales
representatives in France (on the pay roll) with costs for
"external" sales representatives. Ordinary course of business.
47
Commissions
Not understandable. Commissions received as agreed and
included in EBITDA. Underlying documentation has been
submitted and is invoked by Claimant as evidence in the
proceedings.
48
Commissions to not
No negative impact on EBITDA.
bonus
high
M1862927/1/115630-008/ASR
See comments in item 21 above.
Salary increase due to Mr. Peijnenburg's promotion as General
Manager, märket salary, increase de facto approved by the
shareholders, Costs in ordinary course of business.
See item 31 above.
15
disclosed entities
13.1,2 Claimanfs objection because Respondent has presented its claims too late in violation of
SPÄ Art. 8.4 and 8.5
In its Revised Table of Claims and comments of 27 January 2010 Claimant objected to a number of
Respondent's claims as being presented too late under the agreed procedure of the SPÄ. It is
alleged that the following claims should be rejected for this reason:
"The claim for maximum Additional Purchase Price - not notified in due time in
relation to Earn Out Years II and III
1.
Change ofownership - item l
2.
Limited access to books and records - item 3
3.
No audited accounts - item 4
Earn Out Year II - not notified in the letter dated 17 July 2007 (Exhibit R 4)
4.
Stock valuation - item 17
5.
Increase according to business plan - item 19
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
The allegation that the management
calculation
Löst business to Speerstra; Estonia
Talgat settlement
6.
Import duties - item 20
7.
Accrual bonus for ernployees too high - item 21
8.
Management fee SLF 2005/2006 - items 22-23
9.
Exchange differences in equity - item 24
10.
Negative stock valuation - item 25
forecast is binding and underlying
Earn Out Year III - not notified in the two letters dated 2 June 2008, which were
received by Claimant on 2 and 4 June 2008 (Exhibits C 123 and C 124)
1.
Extra Margin due to löst business - item 32:
(i)
(ii)
The allegation that the management forecast is binding and underlying
calculation
Löst business to Speerstra; Talgat; Estonia; Hungary; Brenntag/P Verboeket
2.
Excessive bonus above 5% - item 35
3.
Salaries too high Peijnenburg - item 36
4.
Non payable accrual bonuses of 2 employees - item 37
5.
Difference in equity, profit and booked via profit & loss - item 39
6.
Investment Po/ska - item 40
7.
Valid settlement w/th Mr. Talgat - item 42
8.
Commissions on pure acids from 5 - 7.5% - item 45
9.
Commissions in relation to invoiced fees/unrevealed sales - item 46 (Respondenfs
reasoning in this respect is new)
10.
Commissions to not disclosed entities - item 48"
M1862927/1/115630-008/ASR
16
13.1.3
Claimanfs procedural objections
In e-mails 29 Danuary and 4 February Claimant states the view that a number of Respondenfs
claims have been introduced too late in these proceedings, and should therefore be disregarded by
the Tribunal.
The e-mail of 29 January 2010 states:
"Reference is made to Respondenfs summary of legal basis for claims etc. which was
submitted on 26 January 2010. Claimant has noted the following in this respect:
C/aim (i)
As for Respondenfs request for a declaratory relief for the EBITDA for Earn Out Year H,
Respondent has added EUR 250,000 in relation to the amount that was stated in
Respondenfs Table of Claims submitted on 16 December 2009. Thus, the claim has been
increased from EUR 4,918,709 to EUR 5,168,709. Claimant requests a clarification by
Respondent in this respect and holds that no modification of the claim shall be permitted.
Claim (vi)
Respondent has requested a separate award establishing that the Arbitral Tribunal lacks
jurisdiction to adjucticate the claims put forward in this case, pending an award from the
Dutch courts regarding the issues of (a) dismissal of Respondent as managing director in the
Company and (b) the termination of the MCA.
Given the Arbitral Tribunafs decision on 21 December 2009, when Respondenfs claims for
maximum Additional Purchase Price for Earn Out Year II and III on the basis of (a) the
Company's termination of the MCA and (b) the dismissal of Respondent as managing director
in the Company, were dismissed by the Arbitral Tribunal due to res judicata, Claimant has
assumed that the claim regarding lack of jurisdiction is not relevant any longer. Accordingly,
Claimant has not commented on this issue further in the proceedings. Claimant requests a
clarification by Respondent regarding the status of this claim and holds that this claim shall
not be permitted.
New legal bas/s for some claims etc.
In the summary, Respondent has again put forward new legal grounds for some of the earn
out issues in Earn Out Year II and III respectively in relation to what was stated in
Respondenfs Table of Claims. A list of such legal grounds are inserted below:
Earn Out Year II:
Stock valuation - the objection that no stock counts have taken place (this objection has
previously oniy been put forward in relation to Earn Out Year III)
Commissions on pure acids feed märket - the objection that a commission råte of 7,5 % has
been agreed (this objection has previously only been put forward in relation to Earn Out Year
III) and the objection that this issue not has been discussed with the management (new
objection).
Accrual bonus for employees to high - the objection that this action is not in consistency with
the Business Plan (new objection).
Earn Out Year
III:
Excessive bonus above 5 % - the objection that this action is not in consistency with the
Business Plan (new objection).
Claim for maximum additionat Purchase Price due to no audit of the Earn Out
Accounts:
The objection that the comparison made by the Auditors' regarding the Accountancy
Princip/es applied in the Company in Earn Out Year II and III, has been made in relation to
"the wrong year" (new objection).
M1862927/1/U5630-008/ASR
17
Respondent's strategy to put forward new legal grounds and objections in relation to its
daims is not acceptable and such legal grounds and objections should be disregarded by the
Arbitral Tribunal. The purpose with the Table of Claims and the subsequent summary was not
to allow the parties to put forward new daims or new legal grounds for its daims than what
has previously been stated in the parties' submissions. This a/so follows from the Chairman's
instructions in e-mail on 15 December 2009, where it is stated that the Table of daims
should be "final [and] exhaustive" and contain a reference for the legal basis for each claim."
The e-mail of 4 February 2010 states:
"Claimant has noted further additional legal grounds and/or circumstances in Respondent's
summary which ha ve not been put forward previously in the proceedings. This concerns the
following items:
Earn Out Year II
Accrual receivable Wenemco, Accounts receivable Korlaar paid to Silver Lining Finance SA
and Import duties
The allegation that the Company has made an accrual for bad debts.
Exchange differences in equity
The allegation that the amount should be induded accordinQ to GAAP,
The Talgat settlement
The allegation that this item, according to GAAP, should not be regarded as extraordinary
income but as ordinary (sales) income.
Earn Out Year III
Branding, Pyramid
The allegation that these expenses, according to GAAP, should be taken into account in the
following years as the company benefits from these expenses.
For reasons previously stated, Claimant ho/ds that Respondent is barred from
forward these new legal grounds and allegations."
13.2
Respondenfs comments
13.2.1
Respondenfs comments on issues of substance
putting
Respondent has filed comments to the Ciaimanfs claims as follows:
Firstly, Respondenfs table above on relevant EBITDA figures should be substituted for Ciaimanfs
proposais.
Ciaimanfs claims regarding earn out issues are to be dismissed in accordance with Respondenfs
view on how the EBITDA and the earn outs are to be calculated.
Ciaimanfs claims regarding non-competition and non-solicitation are to be dismissed because, as
elaborated by Respondent, no breaches of the non-competition and non-solicitation näve taken
place.
If a breach is deemed to näve taken place, only one breach is to be compensated. Moreover,
Claimant has already been compensated for any possible breaches.
13.2.2
Respondenfs comments on whether claims have been presented too late in violation of
SPÄ Art. 8.4 and 8.5
Respondent has generally protested against interpreting the procedural requirements of SPÄ Art.
8.4 and 8.5 as preventing new claims in subsequent arbitral proceedings.
M1862927/1/115630-008/ASR
18
13.2.3
Respondenfs comments on Claimanfs procedural objections
In an e-mail 4 February 2010 Respondent commented on Claimanfs procedural objections as
follows:
"l
•
Comments regarding Respondenfs "claim (i)"
The amount of € 250.000 is pertaining to commissions on pure acids feed märket for
Earn Out Year II, The item was mentioned in the table of daims without the amount.
This was pointed out in Respondenfs submission on 22 December 2009 along with the
amount mentioned (section 1.5). The item and the amount were also stated in Peter
Vos' letter (Exhibit R4, page 5) and referred to in Respondenfs submission on 3 March
2008. The item is thus not new and no modification has been made.
•
2.
Respondent maintains its claim pertaining to the issues of the termination of the MCA
and the dismissal as managing director.
•
3.
Respondent disputes Claimanfs claims pertaining to the release of Escrow account.
Perstorp Waspik has refused to transfer title to the loan to Supre Mais as well as
security attached to the loan as described in artide 12.3. Furthermore the amount is
incorrect (as described in R 11-56),
«
4.
•
»
•
Al/eged "new" legal grounds etc.
Respondent disputed the a/legation that Respondent has put forward new legal
grounds. Respondent also disputes that the information submitted in the table of
claims has had the significance that Claimant alleges. Already the fäet that the tribunal
ät the main hearing has asked for a summary of the legal basis for the claims show
that the comments In the table of claims in this regard were not meant to be
exhaustive. Respondent holds that none of Claimanfs objections in this regard - in the
event that the tribunal finds the objections relevant - should lead to a rejection of
Respondenfs objections and legal grounds. Nor should the fäet that Respondent has
not touched upon an item (for example as the case with the Supre Mais issue
commen.ted above) rnean that Respondent has accepted the claims by Claimant.
As to the comments regarding each of the items put forward in this regard by
Claimant, Respondent holds the following:
Stock valuation - both year II and III have been mentioned. See Respondenfs
submission on 2 December 2009, section 3.7 and specia/ly 3.7.3 where year II is
exp/icit/y mentioned.
Commissions on pure acids feed märket - Claimanfs objection that this has previously
only been put forward in relation to Earn Out Year III is not correct. The item is
mentioned under year II in the table of claims (line 26), but since Respondent has not
been able to calculate the amount, this amount has been set to 0. The objection that
this issue not has been discussed with the management is not new and has been put
forward during the hearings.
Accrual bonus for employees too high - the objection is not new and has been put
forward during the hearings. Moreover, issues pertaining to the Business plan were
mentioned in respondenfs submission of 2 December 2009 (section 2), where some
examples in this regard were touched upon, Nothing new has been stated, that has not
a/ready been mentioned in the proceedings.
Excessive bonus above 5 % (EOY III) - the objection is not new and has been put
forward during the hearings. Moreover, issues pertaining to the Business plan were
mentioned in respondenfs submission of 2 December 2009 (section 2), where some
examples in this regard were touched upon. Nothing new has been stated, that has not
already been mentioned in the proceedings,
The no-audit issue - the objection is not new and has been put forward during the
hearings. Nothing new has been stated, that has not already been mentioned in the
proceedings (and the wr/tten statements)."
M1862927/1/115630-008/ASR
19
14.
THE TRZBUNAL'S VIEWS AND DISCUSSIONS
After having set out the partias' numerical claims, main arguments and comments on issues of
substance and procedure, the Tribunal will now turn to its own discussions on each claim.
The Tribunal will for each claim state main fäets, as the Tribunal nas established these fäets based
on a full examination of the evidence as presented.
However, the statement of the parties' fäets and arguments is not exhaustive, but intentionally
restricted to what the Tribunal has found relevant to settle the claims in dispute.
15.
THE DISPUTE ÖVER THE TRIBUNAL'S JURISDICTION
Respondent has objected to the TribunaTs jurisdiction in its claim no 6, and requested the Tribunal
to render a separate award establishing that the Tribunal lacks jurisdiction to adjudicate the claims
put forward in this case, pending an award from Dutch courts regarding the issues of (a) disrnissal
of Respondent as managing director in the Company, and (b) the termination of the MCA.
Claimant has objected against this claim, and pointed to the fäet that this issue was settled by the
Tribunal in its Decision of 21 December 2009, where it held that the claims ät issue have been
resolved res judicata in the Earn Out Year I Arbitration, so that the Tribunal consequently decided
that these claims should be barred from further treatment in the present arbitration.
During the oral hearing, counsel for Respondent conceded that the claim ät issue was covered by
the TribunaTs decision 21 December 2009, but still confirmed that Respondent wished to have the
present claim examined in these arbitral proceedings, so that the claim could be covered by
possible invalidation or annulment proceedings as regards the award in the present case, before
Swedish courts under the Swedish Arbitration Act.
The Arbitral Tribunal affirms that these claims have already been settled res judicata in the Earn
Out Year I Arbitration, and that for this reason they cannot be treated further presently. The Earn
Out Year I Arbitration has bindingly deait with the effects of such termination and dismissal on the
parties' rights and obligations under the SPÄ, and the issue cannot now be revisited anew.
Consequently, Respondenfs claim that the Tribunal lacks jurisdiction, is dismissed.
16.
CLAIMANTS OBJECTIONS THAT SUBMISSIONS HAVE BEEN MADE TOO LATE
Claimant has asserted that Respondenfs Counterclaim, and objections to Claimant's claims, have
been made too late.
Count 13.1.2 above restates Claimanfs objections as regards alleged non-compliance wlth the SPÄ
Art. 8.4 and 8.5. The Tribunal will deal with this issue below. Count 13.1.3 sets out Claimanfs
procedural objections, to which the Tribunal presently turns.
As regards Respondenfs Claim no. 6 on the TribunaTs alieged lack of jurisdiction, reference is
made to count 15 above, where the Tribunal has found for the Claimant.
As regards the other objections made in count 13.1.3, the Tribunal has not found it necessary to
make a decision on whether Respondenfs submissions singled out by Claimant as being too late,
have been made on time, since the Tribunal has settled the claims affected by Claimanfs
procedural objections on other grounds.
17.
THE DISPUTE ÖVER THE DETERMINATION OF THE ADDITIONAL PURCHASE
PRICE
The maximum Additional Purchase Price for each of Earn Out Year II and III is EUR 2,960,000.
Under the SPÄ, there are 3 possibilities for Respondent to obtain the maximum Additional Purchase
Price - these are:
•
Firstly, that the turnover thresholds of Art. 7.1, which estabiishes a separate target EBITDA
for each of the Earn Out Years, are met, with additional provisions in that article on the right
to carry forward and backwards EBITDA to prior and låter years.
•
Secondly, SPÄ Art. 7.8 regulates the effect of a change of control över the Company, and
allows for payment of the maximum Additional Purchase Price if such change occurs.
M1862927/1/115630-008/ASR
20
•
Thirdly, under SPÄ Art. 7.9 the maximum Additional Purchase Price may be paid out if the
consultancy agreement described in the MCA is terminated, or if the Respondent is dismissed
as managing director of the Company, in both cases provided certain conditions are met.
•
In addition, Respondent has claimed that payment of the maximum Additional Purchase Price
is an implicit sanction that flows from the contractual arrangement ät issue if Claimant
refuses to provide adequate access to books and records during the verification procedure
outlined in the SPÄ Art. 8. Respondent has claimed that material violations of Respondenfs
access to information, books and records about the Company have taken place in the
procedures to establish EBITDA for Earn Out Years II and III.
Respondent has claimed payment of maximum Additional Purchase Price under all four
alternatives, but the claim for violation of the SPÄ Art. 7.9 has been barred from further treatment
in the present arbitration by the Tribunal in its Decision 21 December 2007, based on the fäet that
this issue was resolved res judicata in the Year I arbitration award of 20 December 2007.
The fourth alternative, maximum Additional Purchase Price as a result of refusal to provide
adequate access during the verification procedure, has no basis in the SPÄ and shall be rejected
already for that reason.
As regards the relationship between the two remaining legal grounds, it has been confirmed by
Respondent that shouid the claims for a maximum Additional Purchase Price succeed under the
SPÄ Art. 7.8, the claim based on the Company reaching the turnover thresholds will be moot and
consumed by any successful result under SPÄ Art. 7.8. The Respondent has also confirmed that in
such case the right to carry backward or forward set out in SPÄ Art. 7,3 does not apply. The
Tribunal concurs with this finding. It follows explicitly from the text of Art. 7.8 that no carry
backward or forward is intended shouid the maximum Purchase Price be payable because of
transfer of control.
The basis for honouring a claim for the maximum Additional Purchase Price under Art. 7.8 is not
computation of EBITDA, but rather results from a specific event. It would be this event only that
forms the basis for a payment of the maximum Additional Purchase Price, and - if successful Respondent will in such case be honoured in the maximum amount agreed under the contract so
that there is no place for any EBITDA-computations.
Consequently, the Tribunal first turns to examine the claim for maximum Additional Purchase Price
based on the SPÄ Art. 7.8.
The provision in the SPÄ referred to by Respondent reads as follows:
"7.8
Shouid the Purchaser before the end of the Earn Out Year III sell the shares in the
Company to a third party, the remaining part of the Additional Purchase Price shall be
paid within thirty (30) calendar days after the ciosing of such a share transfer. In such
case, the Additional Purchase Price for the period from said ciosing to the end of the
Earn Out Year III shall be calcu/ated and the basis for such calculation shall be the
maximum amount, i. e. EUR 2,960,000 per full Earn Out Year. Such annual maximum
amount shall be proportionally adjusted on the basis of the number of months between
said ciosing and the next end of an Earn Out Year, The Additional Purchase Price for
the period prior thereto, shall be calculated proportionate in accordance with Sections
7.3-7.5. For the avoidance of doubt it is noted that in case of excess EBITDA for the
period up to said ciosing, carry back shall be applied as set out in Section 7.3. As
regards the period after said ciosing no carry back shall apply (the maximum
Additional Purchase Price being paid for such period).
The term "third party" in this Section 7.8 shall not include any company within the
group of companies to which the Purchaser belongs"
The changes of control referred to by Respondent to trigger the right under this provision to
receive the maximum amount for Earn Out Year II and III of EUR 2,960,000 per year are described
in items l and 2 below. The parties are in agreement that these share transfers have occurred.
1.
On 22 December 2005 Industrikapital sold its shares in Sydsvenska Kemi AB, with its direct
and indirect subsidiaries including Perstorp AB and the Company, to Perstorp Holding AB a newly incorporated company controlled by PAL
M1862927/1/U5630-008/ASR
21
2.
On 22 March 2006 Perstorp AB sold the Company to Perstorp Holding AB and the latter
company subsequently sold the Company to Perstorp Holding BV (a subsidiary in the new
corporate structure under Perstorp Holding AB).
Claimant maintains that the mentioned transfers do not trigger SPÄ Art. 7.8. Moreover, it is
Claimanfs position that Respondent has ät any råte been aware of the transfers for a long period
of tirne, and that no objection regarding the transfers has been made, nor has any notice of
complaint been made during the SPÄ Art. 8 verification procedures. Because of this, the claim
should be rejected. Respondent maintains that the Art. 7.8 transfer has taken place through the
two step procedure, and that its claim is timely.
The Arbitral Tribunal notes that the parties in the last paragraph of Art. 7.8 have used the word
"belongs" and not a phrase such as e.g. "belongs ät any time". Because of this, the Arbitral
Tribunal finds that the provision in concern provides that the right to maximum Additional Purchase
Price is triggered if the Company is sold outside the group of companies (up or down in the chain of
owners) that existed ät the time of the signing of the SPÄ.
The Claimant has stated that the purpose of Art, 7.8 is to enable Respondent to claim the
maximum Additional Purchase Price if the Company is sold outside the Perstorp group of companies
since in such situation the över all purpose with the earn out mechanism in the SPÄ would be
difficult if not impossible to apply as intended. In effect, this means that only if the bond is broken
between the Company and other Perstorp operations should a payment under Art. 7.8 take place,
because it would then be difficult to secure the extension of the Earn Out agreement to a new
owner.
Respondent has claimed that one purpose of Art. 7.8 was to assure that if the Company was sold,
Respondent could also claim its part of the full value then realized, in the form of the maximum
Additional Purchase Price. Respondent has pointed to the fäet that by selling the Perstorp group of
companies to PAI, the owner of Perstorp realized the full value of inter alia the Company.
In view of the fäet that the parties hold opposite views on the issue of the purpose of Art 7.8, the
Arbitral Tribunal finds reason to stay close to the text. As noted above, the words of the phrase in
the last paragraph, which defines "third party" as excluding any company within the group of
companies to which the purchaser "belongs", indicates that the determining fäet is the ownership
situation ät the time of signing of the SPÄ, which was 11 March 2005.
The Arbitral Tribunal finds that the transfer under item l in itself does not trigger full payment
under Art. 7.8. Ät that time the shares in the Company were not the subject of a sale. Together
with the transfer under item 2, however, when the shares in the Company were transferred, the
Company has come to be owned by a company outside of the group of companies that owned the
Perstorp group ät the time of the entering into of the SPÄ. Hence, the Arbitral Tribunal finds that
there is a change of control which under SPÄ Art. 7.8 triggers the right to maximum Additional
Purchase Price for Earn Out Years II and III.
As to Perstorps objection that Respondent has not complained about the changes of control in due
time, the Arbitral Tribunal finds that Claimant has proved that Respondent acquired knowledge of
the transfer under item l not låter than in December 2005. Regarding the transfer under item 2,
there is, however, no circumstances to evidence that Respondent was aware of this change before
the point in time when this fäet was presented in the proceedings before the Arbitral Tribunal.
Bearing in mind that the right to full Earn Out under the provision in concern was triggered by the
transfer under item 2 above, the Arbitral Tribunal finds that Respondent has not löst its right to
invoke Art. 7.8 in support of its claim for maximum Additional Purchase Price even if there existed
an obligation for Respondent to raise the issue.
The Arbitral Tribunal would like _tp_add, ho_wever, j:hat_under Art. J7.8, the Claimant is under a
contractual duty to itself identify the transfer triggering the payment of the maximum Additional
Purchase Price, and to make payment within 30 calendar days after the closing of the relevant
transfer, It is not Respondent's responsibility to identify the transfer or to make a claim. Claimant
did not make any payment under Art. 7.8 as a result of the transfer mentioned in item 2. In view
of the Arbitral TribunaTs finding that such transfer triggers payment of the maximum Additional
Purchase Price Claimant erred in law, for which Clairnant must itself bear the risk. There is sitnply
no room for general notification principles ("allmänn reklamationsskyldighet") to reduce Claimant's
obligations under Art. 7.8.
M1862927/1/115630-008/ASR
22
As regards Claimant's claim that the procedure agreed in SPÄ Art. 8.4 must mean that Respondent
has been too late in claiming the maximum Additional Purchase Price under Art. 8.7 ef count
13.1.2, the Arbitral Tribunal finds as follows:
The issue regulated by SPÄ Art. 8.4 is differences of opinion between the parties as regards the
proper calculation of the EBITDA. This provision is not, in the opinion of the Tribunal, applicable to
the issue of maximum Additional Purchase Price triggered by a change of control as provided for in
Art. 7.8.
It follows from the above that Respondent has the right to receive the maximum Additional
Purchase Price for Earn Out for Year II and III i.e. EUR 2,960,000 for each year.
Since the Tribunal has settled the dispute över the calculation of Additional Purchase Price for Earn
Out Years II and III under the SPÄ Artide 7.8, there is no reason for the Arbitral Tribunal to
address the issue of the proper calculation of the EBITDA for Earn Out Year II and Earn Out Year
III. Moreover, it is not necessary for the Tribunal to address the other objections made by Claimant
in count 13.1.2 above.
18.
THE DISPUTE ÖVER INTEREST ON THE ADDITIONAL PURCHASE PRICE
Respondent has claimed interest under Art. 7.4 second paragraph, which means that the interest
will be computed as if the maximum Additional Purchase Price fell due on the Closing Date. The
annual råte is 9% until payment. SPÄ Art. 7.4 second paragraph reads as follows:
"The Additional Purchase Price, if any, shall carry interest ät an annual råte of 9 (nine)
percent from the Closing Date until the day for the Purchaser's payment."
The Closing Date was l April 2005.
Claimant has claimed that no obligation to pay interest will in any case arise untii Respondent
claimed its rights under SPÄ Art. 7.8.
The Arbitral Tribunal does not agree with Claimanfs position. Art. 7.4 second paragraph refers to
all possible grounds for the payment of the maximum Purchase Price - through choice of the text
"if any" - and therefore the Arbitral Tribunal finds that the clear text of this paragraph must
prevail.
Consequently, Respondenfs claim for interest from the Closing Date is honoured in full also.
19.
THE DISPUTE ÖVER THE POSSIBLE VIOLATION OF THE NON-COMPETE CLAUSE
19.1
The SPÄ
Under the SPÄ Art. 11.10 Respondent undertook not to engage in competition with the Company
for a period of 5 years. SPÄ Art. 11.10 reads as follows:
"11.10
Non-Competition
11.10.1
Given the goodwill aspects of the transaction which has been considered in
determining the Purchase Price, from the Closing Date and for a period of five
(5) years thereafter, the Seller agrees not to - and procure that none of its
Affiliates including but not limited to Mr. Frank Snijders - engage or prepare to
engage directly or indirectly, as a principal or for its own account, or solely or
jointly with others, or as holder of any shares or business interest in any Person,
in any business or activity which competes with the Business of the Group
Companies as it exists on the Closing Date.
11.10.2
From the Signing Date and for a period of five (5) years after the Closing Date,
the Seller undertakes to - and procure that each of its Affiliates including but
not limited to Mr. Frank Snijders does so - refrain from employing, offering or
negotiating employment with or enticing away, or receiving or accepting the
performance of services by, any of the Key Emp/oyees, unless permitted in
writing by the Purchaser.
11.10.3
In case of any breach against the covenants in Sections 11.10.1 or 11.10.2 the
Seller shall, in addition to any other relief that may be availab/e to the
Purchaser, pay to the Purchaser an amount of EUR 50,000 for each breach for
M1862927/1/115630-008/ASR
23
such covenants, provided that this shall not limit or restrict any indemnification
of Losses exceeding such amount."
As the artide itself makes clear, the obligation not to compete also extends to Respondenfs
affiiiates, among whom only Mr. Frank Snijders is specifically mentioned in paragraph 11.10.1. The
definition of any Affiiiates is contained in Schedule II to the SPÄ, which reads as follows:
"Affiliate
of any Person means, from time to f/me, (i) any other Person directly or
indirectly controlled by or under common control of such first-mentioned Person
or (ii) any other legal Person(s) directly or indirectly controlling or joint/y
controlling such first-mentioned
Person (whereby "control" means the
possession, directly or indirectly, of the power to direct or influence the direction
of the management or polides of a Person, whether through ownership or
otherwise, and the term "controlling" shall ha ve a meaning correlative to the
foregoing), provided that, after the C/osing, no Group Company will be deemed
an Affiliate of the Seller. It is understood that "Affiliate" shall include but not be
limited to Mr. Frank Snijders and the Excluded Subsidiaries."
The reason for the specific reference to Mr. Frank Snijders is that both parties have regarded him
as the "front man" from the upstart of the Company's business and during its continuing business
activities. For this reason, he also personaliy signed a schedule to the Contract affirming his
obligation not to compete with the Company.
In consequence, the issue of violation of the non-compete clause turns on whether Respondent
Silver Lining Finance S.A., Mr. Frank Snijders or any other "Affiiiates" of Respondent has
"...engage[d] or prepare[d] to engage directly or indirectly, as a principal or for its own
account, or sole/y or jointly with others, or as holder of any shares or business interest in
any Person, in any business or activity which competes with the Business of the Group
Companies as it exists on the Closing Da te".
19.2
Ciaimanfs arguments
Claimant holds that Respondent through its own actions and relations with legal and natural
persons considered to be its "Affiiiates" has violated the ban against non-competition of the SPÄ
Art. 11.10.
Claimant has throughout these proceedings brought forward a number of circumstances to support
this submission, and the Tribunal finds it unnecessary to restate them in full below. Reference is
rather made to the submissions themselves. However, some of the statements made by Claimant
in this regard will be highlighted nere.
Reference is first made to the Statement of Claim 21 January 2008, which said in item 76:
"Claimant holds that both Framelco and Wenemco are affiliated companies of Respondent
and that they de facto are controlled by Mr Snijders (and his family members). The foilowing
supports that this is the case:
Fra melco/Ma r/mpex
- Mr Snijders negotiated the contents of the two TPAs. He was, together with Mr Johan Vos,
active in Framelco's business and took the important business decisions.
- In Section 9.16.1 of the SPÄ, Framelco is indirectly stated to be related to Respondent and
Mr Snijders. (The reason for excluding an explicit reference to Framelco as an "Affiliate",
within the meaning of the SPÄ, was to Ciaimanfs understanding only tax related.)
- Mrs Snijders-Freriks
signed the two TPAs.
was the managing director of Framelco until November 2006 and
- The majority owner of Framelco is Marimpex.
- Marimpex is controlled by a trust company who looks after the interest of Mr Snijders'
related family members. In an undated information memorandum on the Company, prepared
by Respondent and submitted to Claimant in 2004, captioned "A short history in Franklin",
Mrs Kokanutranon and her family are stated to be the ultimate shareholder of Respondent.
M1862927/1/115630-008/ASR
24
- Marimpex is the second managing director of Framelco.
- In December 2004, Mr Snijders, through Marimpex, offered shares in Framelco to some of
the Company's employees as part of a bonus-scheme.
- Mr Snijders owns the real estate where Framelco used to operate and where Wenemco now
operates.
- Mr Christian Johan Snijders, Mr Snijders' father, is a director of Marimpex.
- Mrs Kokanutranon is the second (delegated) director of Marimpex and former romantic
partner of Mr Snijders. Mrs Kokanutranon and Mr Snijders näve two children together.
- Mr Bernd Snijders, son of Mr Snijders, is the general manager in Framelco.
- Framelco in July 2007 changed its name to Marilease.
Wenemco
- Mr Johan l/os was a director of Wenemco and held all shares in Wenemco through his
holding company, VVR Idaco Investments B, V. until 7 February 2007.
- Mr van den Berg is the current director of Wenemco.
- The shares in Wenemco are now formally owned by Graphicom, which is linked to the
group of companies and individuals in Luxembourg who are a/so assisting Respondent.
- Wenemco is situated ät the same address as Framelco/Mari/ease.
- Wenemco has pledged all its current and future assets to Mr Bernd Snijders, a son of Mr
Snijders' as col/ateral for funds provided by the latter.
- Wenemco has offidally registered the trade name Framelco.
In addition Mr Snijders' solicitation activities in relation to Mr van den Berg, as previously
described, shou/d be taken into account. Claimant a/so refers to the tribunafs reasoning in
the Year I Award, In summary, the tribunal has found that both Framelco and Wenemco are
affiliated with Respondent."
As a summary, it is further alleged in para 86:
"Based upon the fäets presented [above in the memorial] Claimant holds that Respondent
and Mr Snijders have directly or indirectly been engaged in competing activities in breach of
the non-compete undertaking of the SPÄ. Such activities have been carried out by the use of
Framelco, Wenemco, and Marimpex, which de facto have been under Respondenfs control."
Further down in the Statement of Claim (Item 132), Claimant notes that Wenemco on a number of
occasions have manufactured products forTalgat. It is then added:
"The activities [presumably as regards Wenemco's manufactures and sales] have been
orchestrated by use of Mr. Snijder 's real property, Framelco, Wenemco and Marimpex and
with the assistance of Mr. van den Berg."
It is further stated in the same submission item 133:
"[Silver Lining] and Mr. Snijders are in de facto control of Framelco, Wenemco and
Marimpex. Thus, they [Silver Lining and Frank Snijders] have ät least indirectly been
engaged in business which competes with the business of the Company".
Claimant returns to the topic of non-compete and the relationship between the parties in a further
submission of 30 April 2008, where item 270 i.a, reads:
"... [Silver Lining] and /or Mr. Snijders are in breach of the non~competition undertaking of
the SPÄ through their indirect control of Wenemco,"
It then is added:
M1862927/1/115630-008/ASR
25
"In this respect "controt" means that [Silver Lining] and/or Mr, Snijders ät least indirectly
have had the power to influence the direction of the management of,"
Further it is listed decisions in Wenemco and Marimpex which have been influenced by Silver Lining
and/or Frank Snijders. The conclusion reads as follows:
"Soth Wenemco, Framelco and Marimpex are thus Affiliates to [Silver Lining] and Mr.
Snijders in the meaning set out in section 11.10.1 of the SPÄ."
It is further added in item 306:
"... Claimant holds that Marimpex, its subsidiary Framelco and Wenemco are affiliated
companies of [Silver Lining] and that they de facto are controlled by Mr. Snijders (and family
members)."
As can be seen, Claimant have made clear that Wenemco, Framelco and Marimpex should all be
considered "Affiliates" of Silver Lining, so that, in the final analysis, the activities of Wenemco are
reached by the non-compete clause. The general tenor of the argument is that Silver Lining,
together with Mr. Frank Snijders, in addition to not competing themselves, had an obligation to
procure that none of these companies were involved in activities that could be considered as
competing with the Company. This obligation was breached, so that penalties under the noncompete clause have fallen due.
Claimant has brought to the attention of the Tribunal that a number of deliveries have been
detected, which constitute breaches of the non-compete clause. The basic logic behind these
deliveries is as follows: Upon the cessation of the business arrangement between the Company and
Mr. Talgat, Mr. Talgat has used Wenemco to cover his needs. The shipments by Wenemco to Mr.
Talgat's companies in Russia and Belarus therefore constitute violations of the non-compete
clause.
The first detection of .this business took place in February 2007, and nine instances of deliveries
have been covered in the Year I Arbitration. The present arbitration seeks damages for another 21
deliveries taking place from 10 July 2007 onwards, some of them going to Mr Talgat's Russian
company, others to his Belarussian company.
In consequence, Claimant claims penalty payment of EUR 50,000 x 21 illegal deliveries, i.e. EUR
1,050.000.
19.3
Respondenfs arguments
In its Statement of Defence and Counterclaim for Earn Out Year III
Respondent summarizes its position as follows:
of 15 October 2009,
1.
There has not been any breach of the non-competition undertaking. The prerequisites
of Section 11.10 in the SPÄ are not met.
2.
Respondent contests that the sub-lease of Mr. Snijders' real estate by Framelco to
Wenemco constitutes a breach of the non-competition undertaking, Mr. Frank Snijders
does not directly or indirectly control Framelco, nor Wenemco. Moreover, the sub-lease
does not fall under the wording of the SPÄ in this case, The business of the Company
is not within real estate.
3.
There has not been any infringement or usage of Claimanfs know-how and
specification, Framelco, Marimpex and Wenemco are three independent companies.
The companies are not affiliated to the Respondent and the activities carried out by
the companies cannot be attributed to or considered as being actions of any of the
Respondent. As Respondent understands Framelco has not been engaged in production
and sale of products to Agroetika and Tekhvet Belarus and Wenemco has not used
recipes and specifications supplied by the Company.
4.
Should the Arbitral Tribunal find that Respondent is in breach of the undertaking, this
breach cannot under any circumstances constitute more than in total three breaches.
It involves transfer of know-how to Wenemco, which is contested. It involves lease or
rather sublease of property, which is not performed by Respondent and which is not
competing business, and it involves lease of machinery by Marimpex to Wenemco,
which Respondent is not responsible for and which is not a competing business,
M1862927/1/115630-008/ASR
26
5.
19.4
It is the
onwards,
violations
from July
Should however the Arbitral Tribunal find that any of these actions is a violatlon of the
non-competition undertaking it is each one violation but solely one violation. These
violations Claimant has already been awarded punitive damages for.
The views of the Tribunal
situation from commencement of the Second Earn Out Year, i.e. from l April 2006
which falls under the present arbitration. The shipments by Wenemco reported as
date from February 2007 onwards, and the shipments for which penalty is sought date
2007 onwards. This means that the alleged incidents all fall under the Tribunals purview.
The Tribunal holds it duly established that the Company's business ties with Mr. Talgat were
severed in the late fall of 2006, and that Mr. Talgat from early 2007 took his required supplies from
the former Framelco site, now operated by Wenemco, to his companies. It remains to establish,
however, whether there existed ties between Wenemco's business activities as a rnanufacturer and
supplier of said products and Respondent and its affiliates, which brings the SPA's non-compete
clause into play.
Before turning to examine possible links and violations of the non-compete clause, the Tribunal
wishes to clarify its position vis-a-vis the burden of proof. Any party alleging that a breach of a
non-compete clause has taken place, must be required to present evidence that is sufficiently
precise and persuasive to enable a tribunal or a court to establish the required fäets.
In the present set of conflicts, the evaluation of the evidence on possible breaches of noncompetition provisions has also been the subject of two previous arbitrations - the Earn Out Year I
Arbitration and the MCA Arbitration, and the two tribunals came to different conclusions on this
issue. When the issue is presented again in this arbitration, this Tribunal must consider carefully
and independently if sufficient evidence of breach of the non-competition clause has been
presented.
In this context, the Tribunal also wishes to emphasize that intense competition, and changing
ownership to competing enterprises and their production machinery, are key features of any
märket economy. If a firm goes bankrupt, or runs into financial difficulties, its own business
operations may cease, but its production equipment will be taken över by others.
Before turning to the alleged breaches, it is necessary to revisit two sets of factual issues that have
a significant bearing on the points in dispute.
Firstly, Framelco was tied to the Company through toll production agreements, and these
agreements lasted throughout the fall of 2006. However, Framelco's business ties with the
Company were severed, it ceased its business operations, and transferred its business activities to
Wenemco in early 2007. The site on which Framelco had operated (which was owned by Frank
Snijders personally) was sublet to Wenemco.
This again means that Framelco's business operations until the toll production agreements were
severed can certainly not be considered as violating the non-compete clause. Right up till the end
of 2006 Framelco's production was covered by its agreements with the Company, and the
Company handled the sales of the products made ät Framelco's site. It was only from the time of
rupture of this contractual relationship, that Framelco can be considered as possibly in competition
with the Company.
Ät the cessation of Framelco's own business activities in January 2007, Marimpex leased Framelco's
production equipment to Wenemco, which took över the production activities ät the plant site. The
physical manufacturing activities taking place ät the plant site, were apparently largely unaffected,
but Wenemco was the new owner, Based on Claimanfs presentation of its claim it is Wenemco's
actions as a producer of competing materials from eariy 2007 onwards, which must be the starting
point for the Tribunafs evaluation under the non-cornpete provision. The Tribunal returns to this
analysis below, after having placed the second jigsaw in the puzzie:
The personality, competence and activities of Mr. Jan van den Berg have been discussed in detail in
the course of these proceedings. Clearly, both Claimant and Respondent envisaged Mr. van den
Berg to stay in his job as managing director of the Company ät the time of the conclusion of the
SPÄ. However, Mr. van den Berg is not a party to any of the agreements between Respondent and
Ciaimant, or between Respondent and the Company. His rights and obligations were those of an
employee, and were governed by his contract of employment with the Company, as well as Dutch
labour law.
M1862927/1/115630-008/ASR
27
In September 2006, Mr. van den Berg because of irreconcilable differences with the senior
management/Board of the Company choose to turn in his resignation as its managing director. No
party to these proceedings has disputed his right to do so, or his freedom to seek new
employment. However, when ne shortly thereafter joined Framelco as managing director,
representatives of the Company reacted against this development, and this incident caused the
Tribunal in the Earn Out Year I Arbitration to award damages in the amount of EUR 50,000 to
Claimant, because the hiring of Mr. van den Berg ät Framelco was attributed in part to Mr.
Snijders, and considered as a breach of the non-solicitation clause of the SPÄ Art. 11.10.2. This
issue has been finally solved res judicata by the Tribunal of the Earn Out Year I Arbitration and is
cited here only as background.
For present purposes the situation may be described as follows in early 2007: Framelco had ceased
its business operations and the toll production agreements with the Company were effectively
terminated. Moreover, Framelco had transferred its business activities, Marimpex had leased its
business equipment, and Mr. Snijders had not protested against Framelco's sub-lease of his
property for the site to Wenemco, which had commenced competing industrial business activities
with the Company ät the former Framelco site and with the former Framelco's business equipment.
Mr. Jan van den Berg was now Wenemco's general manager.
This change in its operations meant that Framelco went frorn being an active producer to a passive
company. On the other hand, the commencement of Wenemco's activities meant that this company
went from being an intermediary invoicing company between Mr. Talgafs companies and the
Company, to become a manufacturer of products competing with those of the Company. Whether
this violates the non-compete clause of the SPÄ is the decisive legal issue, now to be examined.
One connection causing a violation of the non compete clause could be the Respondenfs or its
Affiliates' possible ownership influence över Wenemco.
As regards the ownership to Wenemco in early 2007, it is asserted by Claimant that the real owner
of Wenemco is not Graphicom in trust for Mr. Talgat, as alleged by Respondent, but Mr. Johan Vos.
It is alleged that it is Mr. Vos who is the real beneficiary of the Graphicom ownership of Wenemco,
The Tribunal notes that Mr. Vos for a period owned Wenemco before the transfer to Graphicom, but
it remains to be established that he was the real owner, Mr. Johan Vos has testified on his
professional activities, and explained that he appears in a consultative role for the Kukanotranon
family, whose ownership interests include Respondent. Moreover, his practice as a tax adviser and
accountant leads him to provide services such as establishment of companies for his clients.
However he has flatly refused that he owns Wenemco directly or indirectly and it seems to be a far
leap from his activities as they have been duly established through convincing evidence, to an
assumption that he is the secret owner and operator of a production plant supplying Mr. Talgafs
customers. Credible evidence to the latter has not been presented. Claimant, inter alia, reiies on
information that Mr. Vos (through a company owned by him) was the owner of Wenemco for a
period commencing in the summer of 2006 and ending in February 2007, but this has been
explained by Mr. Vos as a Consulting task, The Tribunal has not seen convincing evidence that this
is not the case.
Against this backdrop the Tribunal concludes that from early 2007 onwards, Wenemco was not
owned by Mr. Vos, but by Mr. Talgat and/or Graphicom and its owner Rica Mamdy. Mr. Vos' earlier
ownership (through one of his companies) was, in the opinion of the Tribunal, merely the result of
him offering professional services and not of relevance when establishing whether a violation of the
non compete clause has occurred.
The question remains whether Wenemco's actions as a manufacturer of competing products in any
other way can be attributed to Respondent Silver Linlng Finance SA, Mr. Frank Snijders or any of
Respondenfs other Affiliates ät the time of the alleged violations, i.e. the 21 competing shipping
deliveries, from February 2007 onwards.
The first issue is whether Wenemco itself is an Affiliate of Respondent under the SPÄ schedule II. If
so, there has clearly been a breach of the non-competition clause, because Respondent has not
only undertaken itself to abstain, but also to prevent its Affiliates, from competing with the
Company.
The Tribunal has already concluded that no convincing evidence has been introduced in these
proceedings that from early 2007 Wenemco was owned by any other party than Mr. Talgat and/or
Graphicom/Mrs. Mamdy. Granted that the ownership structure to Wenemco is such , it is härd to
see how Respondent, a financial company owned by the Kokanutranon family, could influence the
M1862927/1/115630-008/ASR
28
operations of Wenemco in such a way as to lead to a finding that Wenemco is an Affiliate and
Respondent therefore in breach of the non-compete clause .
It is firmly established that Wenemco is run by a competent professional, Mr. Jan van den Berg,
with thorough industrial and commercial experience. It does not appear dependent on any
resources from Respondent and/or Mr. Snijders to undertake its business. That Mr. van den Berg is
in possession of thorough product and business expertise in Wenemco's field of operations has
been proven beyond doubt. The Tribunal does not find it established as a matter of evidence that
Respondent or any of its Affiliates have transferred recipes or know how to Wenemco or Mr. Jan
van den Berg in order to aid Wenemco in its business activities.
In sum, the Tribunal concludes that Wenemco itself is not an Affiliate of Respondent. Claimant has
observed that neither Mr. Talgat nor Mrs. Mamdy have testified in these proceedings. However, the
Tribunal has heard Mr. van den Berg and other witnesses, and also bases its findings i.a. on the
changes in Wenemco's and Framelco's business operations about which there is limited
disagreement.
The Tribunal then turns to consider other possible Affiliates of Respondent.
The Tribunal first examines Framelco. Two issues arise, whether Framelco was an "Affiliate" of
Respondent from early 2007 onwards, and, if so, whether Framelco has breached the noncompetition clause by engaging in competing activities.
As regards the first issue, the Tribunal notes that whether Framelco should be considered an
Affiliate and listed specifically as such in the SPÄ and related contractual instruments, was a topic
of discussion between the parties quite early, In the initial SPÄ drafts Framelco was listed as an
Affiliate, but its name was låter taken out. Moreover, the Tribunal has been informed that before
the signing of the SPÄ Claimant did not wish to own more than one site in Holland, partly due to
the environmental concerns attributable to ownership of industrial sites so that it was not of
interest to Claimant to acquire Framelco. For this reason, toll production agreements were instead
entered into with Framelco as an independent company. The Tribunal, having considered also the
explanation put forward by Claimant for not naming Framelco as an Affiliate in the SPÄ, infers that
if the parties intended Framelco to be considered as an Affiliate ät the conclusion of the SPÄ, with
the important adjunctive obligations attributed to actions from Affiliates, they would have done so.
The Tribunal thus concludes that Framelco ät the time of conclusion of the SPÄ was not an Affiliate
of Respondent even if Mr. Frank Snijders historically had been an important front man for both
companies, and also remained so for some time.
The next issue, however, is whether Framelco should be considered an Affiliate of Respondent after
the cessation of its cooperation with the Company, i.e. from early 2007. This is not so in the
opinion of the Tribunal.
Whether Framelco was an Affiliate of Respondent, depends on whether Respondent was in a control
or influence relationship with Framelco as required by the Affiliate definition. The Tribunal has not
found persuasive evidence to this effect. Accordingly, Framelco's activities cannot be attributed to
Respondent for the purpose of establishing breach under the non-compete clause.
Neither does the Tribunal find that Marimpex, being the owner of Framelco, was an Affiliate of
Respondent.
In view hereof, it is not necessary to rule on the issue whether anything done by Framelco or
Marimpex would qualify as competing activities within the meaning of the non compete clause.
It finally remains to examine whether Mr. Frank Snijders, who is defined as an Affiliate of
Respondent per the terms of the SPÄ, was involved in the competing activities of Wenemco.
Obviously, there is undisputable evidence that Mr. Snijders participated in the hiring of Mr. van den
Berg as managing director of Framelco in September 2006. Mr. Snijders was aiso undoubtedly
actively invoived in Framelco's operations ät that time.
However, ät the time of the alleged breaches which took place from early 2007 onwards, Framelco
had ceased its industrial activities, and become a passive company. Wenemco, on the other hand,
was run by Mr. van den Berg with Mr. Talgat as the owner. Mr. Frank Snijders himself had leased
the site property to Frameico, and Framelco had sub-leased this property to Wenemco. His
ownership and iease of the Raamsdonksveer site property was no secret, and Framelco's
M1862927/1/115630-008/ASR
29
subsequent sublease of this property to Wenemco cannot, in the opinion of the Tribunal, qualify as
a breach of the non-compete clause by Mr. Snijders.
Consequently, from early 2007, there is not credible evidence that Mr. Frank Snijders was engaged
in or had any control över Wenemco's operations. For this reason, the Tribunal concludes that even
if Mr. Frank Snijders is clearly an Affiliate of Respondent, he was not engaged in the competing
activities ät Wenemco ät the time of the alleged breaches.
Upon its findings that neither Wenemco nor Framelco nor Marimpex were affiliates of Respondent,
and that Frank Snijders was not involved in competing industrial activities with the Company from
January 2007 onwards, the Tribunal must conclude that the Wenemco consignments to Russia and
Belarus detected by Claimant from February 2007 onwards, and presented as evidence of
breaches, do not qualify as non-compete violations under the SPÄ.
Moreover, the Tribunal concludes that none of Ciaimanfs other argument brought forward in these
proceedings, and referred in part under count 19.2 above, does establish that Respondent or any
Affiliate of Respondent has been engaged in competing activities with the Company.
Accordingly, no breach of the competition clause of the SPÄ ät 11.10.1 has been established.
20.
DISPUTE ÖVER THE NON-SOLICITATION CLAUSE
20.1
The non-soiicitation clause
The SPÄ Art. 11.10.2 reads as follows:
"From the Signing Date and for a period of five (5) years after the Closing Date, the Seller
undertakes to - and procure that each of its Affiliates induding but not limited to Mr. Frank
Snijders does so - refrain from employing, offering or negotiating employment with or
enticing away, or receiving or accepting the performance of services by, any of the Key
Employees, un/ess permitted in writing by the Purchaser."
Claimant alleges that this provision has been breached by Respondent, not only in Earn Out Year I,
but also in the subsequent Earn Out Years II and III.
The Tribunal arbitrating the dispute över Earn Out Year I honoured Ciaimanfs claim for breach of
the non-solicitation clause, and Claimant alleges that further breaches conforming to a pattern of
circumvention of the non-solicitation clause took place in the subsequent Earn Out Years.
20.2
Ciaimanfs arguments
In Ciaimanfs Second Statement of 30 April 2008, the breaches of non-solicitation clause have been
described as foliows:
"It is not contested by Respondent that Mr. van den Berg currently acts as a general
manager for Wenemco. Considering the close relationship between Respondent and
Wenemco as provided for in the Statement of Claim as well as in Section 3,3 of this
statement, Claimant holds that the engagement of Mr. van den Berg in Wenemco and the
use of his services are in breach of the non-solicitation undertaking of Section 11.10.2 of the
SPÄ. This undertaking indudes also the Affiliates to Respondent (induding but not limited to
Mr. Snijders) as defined in Schedule 2 to the SPÄ. Claimant holds that Wenemco is directly
or indirectly controlled by Respondent and Mr. Snijders in the meaning of this definition
(whereby "control" inter alia means the power to direct or influence the direction of the
management).
As has been stated, Wenemco was until 7 February 2007 controlled and owned by Mr. Vos
and his company, VVR Idaco Investment B.V. Mr. Vos was ät the same time managing
director of Respondent together with Mr. Snijders and Nationwide Management SA. The
latter company Is also a director in Graphicom, which today is the formål owner of Wenemco.
Respondent holds that these connections between Respondent and Wenemco are sufficient in
order to constitute a breach of the non-solicitation undertaking of Section 11.10.2 of the
SPÄ. In this respect it should also be noted that it was Mr. Snijders who enticed Mr. van den
Berg away from the Company as has further been described in Section 3.3.2.1 above. The
engagement of Mr. van den Berg in Wenemco is an addit/onal breach of Section 11.10.2 (in
addition to the breach already ruled on by the Arbitral Tribunal in the Year I Award).
M1862927/1/115630-008/ASR
30
The claimed contractual penatty fee is in accordance with Section 11.10.3 of the SPÄ.
Respondent is jointly and severally Ilable to pay the contractual penalty fee accounted for
above with Mr. Snijders, who, in a specific acknowledgement attached to the SPÄ, has
personally undertaken to comply with Section 11.10.2 and 11.10.3 of the SPÄ"
In a further memorial dated 13 February 2009, additional circumstances and fäets were highlighted
as follows:
"In addition to Jan van den Berg's engagement in Wenemco, which Claimant has described in
its Statement of Claim, Paragraphs 60-74 and Second Statement, Paragraphs 244-248, Mr.
van den Berg has also been acting as a consultant to Respondent. Mr. van den Berg's
involvement as a consultant for Silver Lining follows from the minutes of the shareholder's
meeting in the Company on 27 November 2006. Moreover, this is further confirmed by the
fäet that Jan van den Berg is involved, on Respondenfs account, in matters relating to the
establ/shment of the Earn Out [SOMEJHING IS MISSING] for Earn Out Year II."
During the oral hearing, Claimant referred to the Arbitration Award for Earn Out Year I, and
presented a transcript, and also as evidence of fresh transgression Minutes from a shareholder's
meeting on 27 November 2006, where Mr, van den Berg acted as advisor to Silver Lining Finance
SA, During the oral hearing it was also emphasized that Mr. 3an van den Berg must have
participated in the preparation of this case.
20.3
Respondenfs arguments
Respondent rejects the claim and generally refers to the fäet that Mr. Jan van den Berg is a free
agent, not under any form of instruction or otherwise subordinated to Respondent.
Further, it is alleged i,a. in the Statement of Defence and Counterclaim 30 March 2008, that the
arbitration for Earn Out Year I should not be considered as indicative for the non-solicitation
evaluation in the present dispute.
Ät any råte the participation of Mr. Jan van den Berg in a shareholder's meeting 27 November 2006
is not to be considered a violation of the non-solicitation clause.
20.4
The views of the Tribunal
The Tribunal notes that the arbitration panel for Earn Out Year I has ruled on possible
transgressions of the non-soliciation clause up till the expiry of that Earn Out Year, which was 30
March 2006. Claimant was awarded EUR 50,000 as a contractual penalty fee, because the Earn Out
Year I-arbitration Tribunal found the employment of Mr. Jan van den Berg in Framelco and the
Involvement of Mr. Frank Snijders in this process, to breach said provision.
The Tribunal first takes issue with the allegations that Mr. van den Berg has assisted Respondent
directly.
As circumstances allegedly proving breach have been brought forward the representation ät the
shareholder's meeting 27 November 2006 and assistance in arbitral proceedings.
In the Tribuna!'s view, the seeking of assistance ät the shareholder's meeting, where Respondent
participated as shareholder, of Mr, Jan van den Berg cannot be said to be caught by the text
"employing, offering or negotiating employment with or enticing way or receiving or accepting the
performance of services by, any of the key employees".
It is true that Mr. Jan van den Berg was originaliy a "key employee", but ät the time of this
shareholders' meeting, he was no longer with the Company. He had left his position there, and was
in the employ of Mr. Talgat ät Wenemco. The transgression attributable to Mr. Snijders' actions to
hire Mr. van den Berg has been settled in the Earn Out Year I arbitration Award.
The text of the SPÄ art. 11.10.2 cannot be construed to mean that any further contact between
Respondent and Mr. Jan van den Berg will be censured as new breaches. In addition, the
appearance ät a general meeting as advisor can hardly be seen as qualifying as a violation of art.
11.10.2. Ät this meeting, Mr. van den Berg was one of four advisors to Silver Lining, and the
Tribunal has not been provided with any details as regards possible services to conclude that he did
in fäet contribute in a way that would call for the contractual requirernents of Art. 11.10.2 to be
met.
M1862927/1/115630-008/ASR
31
Moreover, the Tribunal does not find that a possible participation by Mr, van den Berg in the
preparation of the present case qualifies as a breach either. Mr. Jan van den Berg has been
considered an important witness by both sides, and it is paramount for the preparation of the case,
that witnesses may be alerted in advance in order to seek their testimony. Without the
presentation of witnesses, the TribunaTs opportunities to seek illumination of the points in dispute
would be severely hampered. Moreover, counsel for Claimant has been given the opportunity to
cross-examine Mr. van den Berg during the proceedings, and has also partaken of the opportunity
to do so.
Second, Claimant seems to imply that Respondent is liable for not preventing Mr. van den Berg
from being employed by Wenemco.
However, the Tribunal has in count 19.4 above found that Respondent lacks influence över
Wenemco, and that Wenemco is not an Affiliate of Respondent. Consequentiy, this allegation must
fail also.
In sum, the Tribunal does not find that the non-solicitation ban in the SPÄ art. 11.10.2 has been
breached.
21.
DISPUTE ÖVER RELEASE OF ESCROW ACCOUNT
In a separate submission dated 13 January 2009, Claimant sought to obtain release of an amount
deposited in an Escrow account .
The SPASection 12.3.2 has the following text:
"As between the Partias, the Seller shall bear the financial risk for the loan ät nominal va/ue
of EUR two hundred thousand (200,000) granted in favour of Supre Mals Pruductos
Bioqumicos Ltda, as set forth in Schedule 12.3.2, (the "Loan" respectively "Supre Mais"),
being an asset induded in the Financial Statements. Therefore, the Parties have agreed that
an amount corresponding to the Loan, induding any accrued interest thereon, (the "Loan
Escrow Amount") as ät the Closing Date shall be tränsferred to and deposited in the Escrow
Account, subject to the terms of the Escrow Agreement No. 1. The Loan shall be released to
the Seller in instalments following the actual payment of the Loan instalments by Supre Mais.
In the event that any of the Loan instalments due for payment (induding interest) are not
collected within one hundred eighty (180) calendar days following the due date, the
Purchaser may ät its sole option, in whole or in part, assign or cause to be assigned to the
Seller all rights, claims and actions under the Loan. In such case an amount corresponding to
the inistalment of the Loan Escrow Amount shall be paid from the Escrow Account back to
the Purchaser and constitute a reduction of the Basic Purchase Price."
21.1
Claimanfs arguments
Claimant asserts that the issue of Respondents liability for the loan not being paid by Supre Mais
in full and the release of the corresponding amount of the Loan Escrow Amount to Claimant, is
covered by the Arbitration Agreement of the SPÄ.
Claimant requests the Arbitral Tribunal to render an award establishing by declaratory relief that an
amount currently held in Escrow, pursuant to Escrow Agreement no. l, schedule 12.3.1 to the SPÄ
shall be released to Claimant. Ät the time of the final claims, the amount in dispute has been
stated as EUR 143,781.09 plus interest until paid.
The reasons offered in support of said request for declaratory relief, is that Claimant has notified
Respondent in writing in accordance with SPÄ Section 12.3.2 and Art. 4.1 (v) of Escrow Agreement
no. l that said amount has been outstanding for more than 180 days following the due date and
that the company assigns to Respondent all rights, claims and actions under the loan. As
evidentiary support Claimant has presented the Arbitral Tribunal with the Notice of Assignment.
Moreover, Claimant has also provided such notice to the Escrow agent under Escrow Agreement
no. l for release of the corresponding amount out of the Loan Escrow Amount. However,
Respondent has objected to release of such amount, and has also obtained a new attachment on
the funds.
As an additional procedural observation, Claimant notes that the arguments presented by
Respondent in dispute of the present claim for declaratory relief, have been presented too late in
the proceedings.
M1862927/1/115630-008/ASR
32
21.2
Respondenfs arguments
Respondent has disputed the claim for release, and in an e-mail 4 February 2010 in response to
the TribunaTs request for clartfication asserted that Perstorp Waspik has refused to transfer title to
the loan to Supre Mais as well as attachments as described in SPÄ Artide 12.3. Furthermore, it has
been alleged that the amount is incorrect.
21.3
The TribunaTs views
The Tribunal notes that Respondent has reacted to this Claim very late, and that Respondenfs
arguments appear sornewhat unclear to the Tribunal.
It is clear that the SPÄ provision 12.3.2 grants Claimant a right, in the event that loan instalments
due for payment under this loan, are not collected within 180 calendar days following the due date,
to, ät its sole discretion, in whole or in part, assign or cause to be assigned to Respondent all
rights, claims and actions under the loan. In such case an amount corresponding to an instalment
of the Loan Escrow shall be made from the Escrow Amount back to the Claimant and constitute a
reduction of the basic purchase price.
In the TribunaTs view, the key word of Clause 12.3.2 is that the Claimant is entitled to said Escrow
Amount, in the event that it "assign[s] or cause[s] to be assigned" to the seller all rights, claims
and actions under the Loan.
In the Notice of Assignment, Perstorp expressly states that "all rights, claims and actions under the
Loan" have been assigned to Respondent.
In effect, this means that Claimant has no longer any right to the Loan, and that all rights and
entitlements under the Loan now rests with Respondent. Since there is little more Claimant could
do and since these actions are in conformity with the requirements of the SPÄ Article 12.3.2,
Claimanfs claim for declaratory judgement on its entitlement to have the arnount in Escrow
Account released, is granted.
22.
COSTS
It falls under the Tribunai's jurisdiction to determine the settlement of the parties' claims for
disbursements and costs.
Respondent has with limited exceptions been successful in the dispute över the Claim as well as
the Counterclaim. The Counterclaim has consumed part of the claim - i.e. as regards the
settlement of the Maximum Additional Purchase Price. Moreover, Respondent has been successful
as regards the claims for damages because of violation of the non-compete clause, and the nonsolicitation clause, of the SPÄ Article 11.
The claims for which Respondent has not been successful are in the matter of the TribunaTs
jurisdiction, and in the claim for release of the amount in the Escrow Account.
With this outcome, Claimant must bear the main financial burden of the arbitration, i.e. be ordered
to pay Respondenfs costs as well as the fees to the Arbitral Tribunal and the SCC. However,
Claimant has claimed that part of its own costs should be covered by Respondent even if
Respondent should succeed on the merits. The reason is that Respondent because of negligence in
its conduct of the Iltigation unreasonably has increased Claimanfs costs. The Tribunal agrees in
part with Claimant, ef. the TribunaTs comments on Respondenfs own work below, and finds that
Respondent must pay Claimanfs costs in the amount of SEK 300,000.
In addition the Tribunal has made the following assessment of Respondenfs cost table after having
reviewed Claimanfs objections.
In legal fees to Setterwalls Advokatbyrå SEK 1,900,000 is claimed. This fee is honored. Also a fee
of EUR 157,720 for legal services provided by Advocatentkantoor Van Mierlo has been ciaimed. Mr.
Geerts played some role in part of the proceedings, but this fee must be reduced by 75% and is
honoured in the amount of EUR 39,430,
In addition, a fee for services by the Hamilton Law Firm in the amount of EUR 60,772 is claimed.
However, the Tribunal does not see from the participation of this firm in the present proceedings,
that such an amount can justified. The financial burden for switching law firm should not be placed
only on Claimant. In sum, the fee relating to the Hamilton Law Firm will be honored with 25% of
the amount stated, which is EUR 15,193.
M1862927/1/115630-008/ASR
33
Finally as regards legal fees, legal services provided by Houthoff Buruma are claimed in the amount
of EUR 27,800. The Tribunal does not find that this cost has been adequately explained, and must
be disregarded. In sum, legal fees are awarded in the amount of SEK 1,900,000 and EUR 54,623.
As regards disbursements, travel and hotel expenses for Setterwalls Advokatbyrå the costs are
accepted in the amount claimed, i.e. SEK 8,100. However, travel and hotel expenses claimed in
addition thereto, in the total amount of EUR 50,000, have not been detailed, and this figure is
clearly too high. Considering the number and length of the oral proceedings, travel and hotel
expenses for persons other than Setterwalls Advokatbyrå will be honored in the amount of EUR
20,000. The disbursement to Account Adviesgroep is honored as stated in the amount of EUR
25,000. The same goes for translation services in the amount of EUR 16,780. The final two
disbursements to De Roos & Pen Advocaten and Wingman Business Valuators have not been
explained, and must be disregarded. In sum, disbursement is honored in the amount of SEK 8,100
and in the amount of EUR 61,780.
As regards experts and witnesses, prof. C.D. Shaap's fee has been claimed in the amount of EUR
76,460. While it is obvious that Mr. Shaap has played a role in the proceedings, his testimony
lasted for a very brief time, and his report has not been an important part of the present
proceedings. The Tribunal concludes that only half of his fee - i.e. EUR 38,230 - may be claimed.
The payment for Mr. Jan van den Berg's contribution is honored in full in the amount of EUR 6,820.
In sum, expenses for expert witnesses will then be honored in the amount of EUR 45,040.
As regards work performed by Respondent, which is claimed in the amount of EUR 170,430, the
Tribunal is of the opinion that this figure is too high. The Tribunal specifically notes that the
requests for document production from Respondent to Claimant, consumed a great deal of
attention in these proceedings, and were insufficiently prepared and unjustified based on the
format of the dispute. Moreover, the Tribunal has noted that not much use has been made of these
documents throughout the present proceedings.
In sum, the fee for work performed by
Respondent should be reduced by 2/3, and will be honored in the amount of EUR 56,810.
Ät the outset, the Tribunal's review of the cost table provides the following total figures SEK
1,908,100 and EUR 218,253. Since the Respondent as stated above has not been successful on all
claims, and since in particular the treatment of Respondenfs refusal to accept the Arbitral
Tribunal's jurisdiction has taken time, a further total reduction of 10% must be effected. In sum
this reduction provides the figures SEK 1,717,290 and EUR 196,427.70.
For these reasons, the Tribunal renders the following:
A W ARD:
1.
Silver Lining Finance S A's claim for a separate award establishing that the Arbitral
Tribunal lacks jurisdiction to adjudicate the claims put forward in this case,
pending an award from the Dutch courts regarding the issues of (a) dismissal of
Respondent as Managing Director of the Company and (b) the termination of the
MCA, is dismissed.
2.
Perstorp AB is ordered to pay to Silver Lining Finance SA the Maximum Additional
Purchase Price for Earn Out Years II and III in the amount of (EUR 2,960,000 x 2=)
EUR 5,920,000 w it h the addition of an annual råte of 9% interest from l April
2005.
3.
In the dispute över the Escrow Account listed in Escrow Agreement no. l Schedule
12.3.1 to the SPÄ, the Tribunal grants Perstorp A B ' s request for declaratory relief
to the effect that an amount of EUR 143,789.09 plus interest until paid held in the
Escrow Account pursuant to said Escrow Agreement shall be released to Perstorp
AB.
4.
Perstorp AB's claim that the Tribunal render an award ordering Silver Lining
Finance SA to pay Perstorp AB EUR 1,050,000 for breach of the non competition
provision in the SPÄ Art. 11.10.1 and 11.10.3, ef. the definition of Affiliate in
Schedule II to the SPÄ, is dismissed with prejudice.
M1862927/1/115630-008/ASR
34
5.
Perstorp A B ' s claim that the Arbitral Tribunal renders an award ordering Silver
Lining Finance SA to pay to Perstorp EUR 50,000 for breach of the non solicitation
clause of the SPÄ Art. 11.10.2 is dismissed with prejudice.
6.
All other claims set forth in this Arbitration are dismissed with prejudice.
7.
Perstorp AB is ordered to pay to Silver Lining Finance SA EUR 196,427.70 and SEK
1,717,290 for legal fees and costs with interest in accordance with Sections 4 and 6
of the Swedish Interest Act from the day of the Award until payment is made.
8.
Silver Lining Finance SA is ordered to pay to Perstorp AB SEK 300,000 for legal fees
and costs with interest in accordance with Sections 4 and 6 of the Swedish Interest
Act from the day of the Award until payment is made.
9.
Perstorp AB and Silver Lining Finance SA are jointly and severally liable to pay the
arbitration costs. The arbitration costs näve been determined as follows:
The fee of Dr. Anders Ryssdal, chairman, amounts to EUR 80,216 and the costs
amount to SEK 21,590, NOK 18,820 and EUR 1,350.
The fee of Mr. Torgny Wetterberg amounts to EUR 48,130 with the addition of VÄT
of EUR 12,033, i.e. in all EUR 60,163.
The fee of Mr. Christer Danielsson amounts to EUR 48,130 with the addition of VÄT
of EUR 12,033, i.e. in all EUR 60,163.
The administrative fee of SCC amounts to EUR 20,427 with the addition of VÄT of
EUR 5,107, i.e. in all EUR 25,534.
As between the parties the arbitration cost shall be borne by Perstorp AB. The
arbitration cost will be drawn from the advances paid to the SCC. Perstorp AB is
ordered to compensate Silver Finance SA for what Silver Lining Finance SA nas paid
as advance in costs.
The Arbitral Award is issued in eight originals, two for each party, one for the Stockholm Chamber
of Commerce, and one for each of the arbitrators.
Under the Swedish Arbitration Act § 41 the parties to this arbitral proceedings, having led up to an
award with the determination of the arbitration fees, may within 30 days from the day that the
party was made aware of the contents of the Award, filé a complaint with the Stockholm County
Court ("Stockholms Tingsrätt") against the fees awarded.
Place of Arbitration: Stockholm
4 May 2010
Chrfster Danielsson
M1862927/1/115630-008/ASR
35