В соответствии с п. 8.1. Контракта в случае просрочки поставки товара против установленных в Контракте сроков, Поставщик уплачивает Покупателю пеню в размере 0,1% от стоимости товара за каждый день просрочки. Если просрочка превышает 20 дней начисление процентов (пени) прекращается и сверх начисленной пени Поставщик дополнительно уплачивает Покупателю штраф в размере 5% от стоимости не поставленного в срок товара.
Таким образом, по мнению Представителя Истца, общая сумма штрафных санкций по Контракту составила 306 460 (триста шесть тысяч четыреста шестьдесят) рублей, общая сумма долга Ответчика Истцу составляет 4 684 460 (четыре миллиона шестьсот восемьдесят четыре тысячи четыреста шестьдесят) рублей. В связи с этим Истец, руководствуясь п. 8.1 Контракта, ст.ст. 401, 402, 403 Гражданского кодекса Республики Казахстан, просит КМА вынести решение о расторжении Контракта и взыскании в пользу АО «К» денег в размере 4 684 460 (четыре миллиона шестьсот восемьдесят четыре тысячи четыреста шестьдесят) рублей.
Изучив все материалы арбитражного дела, заслушав пояснения Представителя Истца Б., оценив и сопоставив между собой известные фактические обстоятельства дела, Состав арбитража считает, что Исковое заявление подлежит частичному удовлетворению по следующим основаниям.
Согласно п. 4 Дополнительного соглашения №4 от 10 ноября 2008 г. к Контракту №М-70-04-2008 от 24.04.2008 г., заключенному между Истцом и Ответчиком, Контракт действует до 31 марта 2009 года, а в части взаиморасчетов - до полного исполнения сторонами своих обязательств по нему. Изучив содержание Контракта, Состав арбитража пришел к выводу, что Контракт содержит следующие обязательства сторон по взаиморасчету: 1) обязательства покупателя по оплате товара на условиях Контракта (п. 4.2.1 Контракта); 2) в случае отказа Покупателя от Контракта обязательства Поставщика по возврату полученной суммы в полном объеме в течение 10 (десяти) дней со дня получения уведомления о возврате уплаченных денежных сумм, с уплатой пени в размере 30% годовых от стоимости оплаченного Товара за все время пользования чужими деньгами (п. 8.3 Контракта в редакции п. 3 Дополнительного соглашения №4 от 10 ноября 2008 г. к Контракту).
Обязательства Покупателя по перечислению денежных средств в размере 100% от стоимости товара согласно выставленному Поставщиком счету на предварительную оплату были исполнены Истцом 29 мая 2008 года в полном объеме.
Согласно п. 3 Дополнительного соглашения №4 от 10 ноября 2008 г. к Контракту №М-70-04-2008 от 24.04.2008 г., заключенному между Истцом и Ответчиком, п. 8.3. Контракта был изменен и изложен в следующей редакции:
«8.3. В случае отсутствия поставки (или отгрузки) по вине Поставщика или грузоотправителя в сроки, указанные в п. 5.1., Покупатель вправе отказаться от контракта, при этом Поставщик обязуется сделать возврат полученной суммы в полном объеме в течение 10 (десяти) дней со дня получения уведомления о возврате уплаченных денежных сумм, с уплатой пени в размере 30% годовых от стоимости оплаченного Товара за все время пользования чужими деньгами».
Состав арбитража, изучив материалы дела, установил, что к моменту вынесения настоящего Решения срок действия Контракта истек. По точному смыслу ст.ст. 401, 402, 403 ГК принудительному расторжению подлежит только действующий договор. Арбитраж не может расторгнуть договор, обязательства сторон по которому прекращены к моменту вынесения Решения. На этом основании требование Истца о расторжении Контракта №М-70-04-2008 от 24.04.2008 г., заключенного между Истцом и Ответчиком, не подлежит удовлетворению, что не ограничивает Истца в праве привлечь Ответчика к ответственности за его нарушения, допущенные в течение срока действия Контракта.
Полученная Ответчиком в счет предоплаты за товар сумма является неосновательным приобретением (п. 2 ст. 953 ГК РК), которая подлежит возврату Истцу на основании п. 1 ст. 953 ГК РК.
На неосновательно полученную за счет другого лица сумму подлежит уплате неустойка (ст. 353 ГК РК). Пункт 8.3 Контракта предусмотрена неустойка в размере 30% годовых, что на момент вынесения решения составляет 2 054 661 (два миллиона пятьдесят четыре тысячи шестьсот шестьдесят один) рубль. Однако, поскольку Истец требует взыскания неустойки в размере 306 460 рублей (триста шесть тысяч четыреста шестьдесят рублей), взысканию подлежит сумма в размере 306 460 рублей (триста шесть тысяч четыреста шестьдесят) рублей.
На основании ст.ст. 353, 386, п. 2 ст. 953 Гражданского кодекса Республики Казахстан, руководствуясь ст. 28 Закона Республики Казахстан от 28 декабря 2004 года «О международном коммерческом арбитраже», ст.ст. 43 - 46 Арбитражного регламента КМА, Состав арбитража
РЕШИЛ:
1. Требование Истца о расторжении Контракта №М-70-04-2008 от 24.04.2008 г., заключенного между АО «К» и ООО «А», оставить без удовлетворения в связи с истечением срока его действия 31 марта 2009 года.
2. Взыскать с ООО «А» сумму в размере 4 378 000 (четыре миллиона триста семьдесят восемь тысяч) рублей, а также неустойку за пользование чужими деньгами в размере 306 460 (триста шесть тысяч четыреста шестьдесят) рублей.
3. Взыскать с ООО «А» в пользу АО «К» арбитражный сбор в размере 615 805 (шестьсот пятнадцать тысяч восемьсот пять) тенге, а также регистрационный сбор в размере 70 000 (семьдесят тысяч) тенге.
Решение Состава арбитража КМА подлежит добровольному исполнению немедленно с момента вынесения данного Решения.
Решение Состава арбитража КМА является окончательным и может быть обжаловано сторонами только на основании ст. 31 Закона Республики Казахстан от 28 декабря 2004 года «О международном коммерческом арбитраже» в компетентном суде в порядке, установленном гражданским процессуальным законодательством Республики Казахстан.
Содержание:
CASE No. 03/2009/АР
In the matter of arbitration between
F.
(Claimant)
v.
MR. K.
(Respondent)
AWARD
Date of the Award: June 3, 2010
Sole Arbitrator:
Ms. M.
Secretary:
Ms. M.
| Representing the Claimant: Mr. V. | Representing the Respondent: Respondent failed to participate in the arbitration |
Almaty, Kazakhstan
I. INTRODUCTION AND THE PARTIES
This is an award made by Ms. M. acting as a sole arbitrator («Tribunal») between F., a legal entity incorporated under the laws of Liechtenstein, with its registered address at: Am Buel 1, 9493 Mauren, Liechtenstein («Claimant») and Mr. K., a citizen of the German Federal Republic, with its permanent residence in the Republic of Kazakhstan at: 12 Miasskaya Street, Almaty, Kazakhstan («Respondent»).
On November 17, 2006, Claimant and Respondent entered into the Sale and Purchase Agreement («SPA») whereby the Respondent agreed to sell and the Claimant agreed to acquire 100 percent participation interest («Participation Interest») in a Kazakhstan company «C.» LLP, registered at: 35/23, corner of Kaldayakov Street and Tole Avenue, Almaty, Kazakhstan, registration No. 76187-1910-TOO (ИУ) dated February 9, 2007 («Company»), owned by the Respondent, for USD 698,000 (six hundred ninety eight thousand) («Purchase Price»).
The dispute arose out of Respondent’s alleged non-compliance with the SPA.
II. ARBITRATION AGREEMENT AND TRIBUNAL’S JURISDICTION
1. Pursuant to Article 5 of the SPA:
«5.1. This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with laws of the Republic of Kazakhstan.
5.2. In case of any disputes, differences, controversies or claims, arising out of or relating to this Agreement or the breach, termination or invalidity thereof («Dispute»), the Parties shall attempt to resolve all such Disputes, through good faith negotiations. Should the Parties fail to reach an acceptable resolution within ten (10) days of the commencement of such negotiations, either Party may refer such Disputes to KIA. The Parties shall be entitled to appoint one (1) arbitrator each, and two (2) arbitrators so appointed shall appoint the third (3rd) arbitrator who shall act as presiding arbitrator. The Party invoking arbitration shall appoint its arbitrator in its notice of arbitration. The other Party shall appoint its arbitrator and inform the other Party within thirty (30) days of the receipt of the notice of arbitration. In the event that such Party fails to appoint its arbitrator within the specified period, the arbitrator named in the notice for arbitration shall decide the dispute as the sole arbitrator. The Arbitration shall be conducted in Almaty, the Republic of Kazakhstan, in English. The award of the Arbitral Tribunal shall also be in English, and shall be final and binding on, and enforceable against, the Parties. The rules of arbitration of the London Court of International Arbitration shall be deemed to be applicable to any such arbitration, which rules are incorporated herein by reference. Each Party shall be responsible for its own costs and fees in relation to the arbitration.»
2. Thus, the SPA is governed by Kazakhstan laws. Pursuant to Article 1087 of the RK Civil Code, a reference to a governing law shall be deemed to constitute a reference to substantive law of such country, not its conflict of laws rules. Therefore, Kazakhstan substantive laws shall govern the SPA and the arbitration agreement. Having reviewed applicable substantive Kazakhstan law, the Tribunal concludes that the arbitration agreement is valid under Kazakhstan laws.
3. As seen from the arbitration agreement above, the arbitral situs shall be in Kazakhstan. Therefore, the arbitration shall be governed by the Law of the Republic of Kazakhstan «On International Commercial Arbitration» dated December 28, 2004 («Arbitration Law»). The arbitration agreement indicates that the arbitral procedure shall be in accordance with the Arbitration Rules of the London Court of International Arbitration («Arbitration Rules»).
4. Having reviewed the Statement of Claim, the amended Statement of Claim, and the arbitration agreement, in the Tribunal’s view, the claims raised in the Statement of Claim and the amended Statement of Claim arose out of the SPA. Therefore, the Tribunal has a power and jurisdiction to review the claims raised in the Statement of Claim and the amended Statement of Claim.
III. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
5. On April 27, 2009, the Claimant sent Notice on cancellation of the Agreement to the Respondent at the Respondent’s address indicated in the SPA being: 12, Miasskaya Street, Almaty, Kazakhstan. According to the postal organization, the letter with the request for negotiation did not reach the Respondent as the Respondent was not found at the address.
6. On November 16, 2009 the Claimant submitted a Notice of Arbitration to the Respondent. On November 18, 2009, the Notice of Arbitration reached the Respondent’s address indicated in the SPA, which is: 12, Miasskaya Street, Almaty, Kazakhstan.[1] According to the postal organization, the Respondent again could not be found at the address.
7. In the November 16, 2009 Notice of Arbitration the Claimant appointed Ms. M. as the first Arbitrator in the panel of arbitrators.
8. On November 16, 2009 KIA resolved to initiate arbitration proceedings with respect to the case No. 03/2009/AP. The Resolution was sent to the Claimant and Respondent.
9. As the Respondent failed to appoint his arbitrator within the timeframe established by the SPA, pursuant to the appointment procedure established by the SPA and the Arbitration Rules, on December 20, 2009, the Chairman of KIA resolved to appoint Ms. M., citizen of Kazakhstan, as a sole arbitrator sole arbitrator to resolve the dispute (the Ruling on Appointment of the Sole Arbitrator dated December 20, 2009).
10. On January 20, 2010, the Secretariat of KIA received the Claimant’s Statement of Claim. On the same date, the Secretariat submitted the Statement of Claim to the Respondent, at the Respondent’s address indicated in the SPA, for the Respondent to prepare the Response during 30 days upon receipt of the Statement of Claim, pursuant to Article 2 of Arbitration Rules. According to the postal organization, the Respondent could not be found at the Respondent’s address: 12, Miasskaya Street, Almaty, Kazakhstan.[2]
11. On March 1, 2010, having reviewed the Statement of Claim, the Tribunal ruled on its own jurisdiction pursuant to Article 23 of the Arbitration Rules and Article 15 of the Arbitration Law. As indicated, below, neither the Respondent nor the Claimant has raised a plea of the Tribunal’s lack of jurisdiction.
12. The Respondent was given proper notice of the arbitration pursuant to Article 4(2) of the Arbitration Rules and Article 24.1) of the Arbitration Law. Bearing in mind that the Respondent failed to respond to the Statement of Claim, the Tribunal, pursuant to Article 15(8) of the Arbitration Rules and Article 23 of the Arbitration Law, proceeded with the arbitration.
13. On March 1, 2010, the Tribunal ruled to schedule an oral hearing on March 30, 2010 at the address of KIA, being: Office 113, 84/18/69 Auezov Street (corner of Mynbayev street), Almaty, Kazakhstan. The notice of the hearing was delivered to the Respondent, at its address indicated in the SPA, on March 3, 2010. Again, according to the postal organization, the Respondent could not be reached at its last known address, being 12, Miasskaya Street, Almaty, Kazakhstan.[3]
14. Having established that the Respondent was given proper and timely notice of the hearing, the Tribunal, on the basis of Article 15(8) of the Arbitration Rules and Article 23 of the Arbitration Law proceeded with the hearing.
15. During hearing of the case, on 30 March 2010, counsel for Claimant Mr. V., (acting on the basis of the power of attorney), orally motioned to amend the Statement of Claim. On 31 March 2010, counsel for Claimant filed a written motion to amend the Statement of Claim and provided the amended Statement of Claim (received by the Secretariat of KIA on 07 April 2010).
16. By the amended Statement of Claim, Claimant requested the Tribunal to (i) dissolve the SPA; (ii) collect the Purchase Price from Respondent in Claimant’s favor; and (iii) collect from Respondent and in claimant’s favor arbitration and registration fees reduced by 20 percent, being USD 17,222.
17. The Tribunal has reviewed the motion and on the basis of Article 22 of the Arbitration Rules and Article 18.5 of the Arbitration Law and resolved inter alia to (i) satisfy the Claimant’s motion dated 31 March 2010 to amend the Statement of Claim and (ii) schedule arbitral hearing of the case with respect to amended Statement of Claim dated 31 March 2010 on 30 April 2010 at 2 p.m. at the following address: Kazakhstan, Almaty, Bostandyksky district, 84/18/69 Auezova str., corner of Mynbaeva str., office 313 (KIA).
18. The notice of the hearing, the amended Statement of Claim, the Claimant’s motion to amend the Statement of Claim, and the Tribunal’s ruling were sent to Respondent’s address indicated in the SPA on April 15, 2010. The documents reached the Respondent’s address on April 16, 2010. Again, the Respondent could not be found on the address.
IV. CLAIMANT’S POSITION
19. According to the SPA, completion of the sale of the Participation Interest was conditioned upon a number of conditions precedent set out in Article 2.4 of the SPA.[4]
20. Pursuant to Article 2.4 of the SPA: «[t]he Closing shall occur only upon satisfaction of each of the following condition, or the waiver thereof in writing by the Party to whom such condition is intended to benefit... «. Further, in accordance with Article 2.4 of the SPA, the Respondent had to present to the Claimant certain documents which content can be summarized as follows: (i) documents necessary for state registration of the transfer of the Participation Interest from the Respondent to the Claimant; (ii) labor agreement entered into between the Company and the Respondent for the term of three years; (iii) credit line agreement entered into between the Company and Kazakhstan bank named «K.» JSC («Bank») or another bank, for the amount of USD 1,500,000 effective until December 31, 2009; (iv) agreements for pledge of certain assets, as set forth in Annex 1 of the SPA, in favor of the Bank or another bank, as applicable, to secure the Respondent’s performance under the credit line agreement, such pledge agreement being effective until maximum of January 30, 2010. Annex 1 refers to four pieces of real estate said to be owned by «E.» LLP, a Kazakhstan legal entity[5]; and (v) documents confirming that the Company has achieved certain financial criteria as set out in Annex 2 of the SPA, as discussed below.
21. Pursuant to Annex 2 of the SPA, the Company had to achieve the following financial criteria: (i) the Company employs not less than 101 individuals; (ii) the Company owns assets necessary to operate its business, except real estate, worth 17,439,609.80 in local Kazakhstan currency - Tenge («KZT»); (iii) the Company maintains at least 352 corporate clients and relevant agreements with them; (iv) the Company possesses equipment necessary for selling tickets and maintains ticket sale agreements with the following air carriers: Austrian Airlines, Aeroflot, Air Astana, Asiana, Alitalia, British Airways, Cathay Pacific, China Southern, Cubana de Aviacion, Delta Airlines, Emirates, Imair, Indian Airlines, KLM, Kokchetav Avia, Lufthansa, Myanmar Airlines, Orenburg, Scat, Semey Air, Swiss International, Transaero, Tulpar Air Service, Turkish Airlines, Uzbekistan Airlines.; (v) the Company is a member of the following organizations: IATA (International Air Transport Association), ASTA (American Society of Travel Agents), WATA (World Association of Travel Agents), BCD Travel, ASFA (Association of special fares agents), NTA (National Tour Association), KTA (Kazakh Tourism Association); (vi) the Company maintains a credit line of USD 1,500,000 in the Bank or other bank, such credit line being secured by assets set out in Annex 1 of the SPA. The pledge agreement shall be effective until December 31, 2009; (vii) the Company’s annual turnover is not less than USD 25,000,000 and net profit thereof after tax is not less than USD 500,000; and (viii) the Company maintains fully equipped branches (sales offices) in the cities of Karaganda, Aksai, Astana, Atyrau, Dushanbe, Shymkent, Aktobe, and Ust-Kamenogorsk.
22. At the time of entering into the SPA, the Respondent was the Managing Director (Chief Executive) of the Company. As per Article 2.4.1 (ii) of the SPA the Respondent had to present the Claimant with «labor agreement concluded between [the Company] and the Seller for the term of 3 years...». Thus, both the Respondent and the Claimant intended that the Respondent would continue to work for the Company. The Respondent remained the Managing Director of the Company from May 16, 2006[6] until August 24, 2007, when the Claimant, as a sole shareholder of the Company, decided to replace the Managing Director.[7]
23. The Claimant maintains that the documents presented by the Respondent to the Claimant, prior to singing of the SPA and thereafter, were false and misleading. According to the Claimant, the Respondent’s fraud was discovered by the new Managing Director who replaced the Respondent on August 24, 2007.
24. According to the Claimant, the Respondent failed to cause the Company to satisfy certain conditions precedent of the SPA. Namely, as the Claimant alleges, the Company failed to satisfy conditions precedent referred to in items (iii) and (v) of Article 2.4.1 of the SPA. In respect of Article 2.4.1 (v) of the PSA, which makes reference to Annex 2, the Claimant argues that the Company failed to satisfy items (i) - (iv), (vi), and (vii) of Annex 2 of the SPA.
25. According to the Claimant, as of January 01, 2007, the Company was in the following state: (i) the Company employed 91 individuals; (ii) the value of assets held by the Company on its balance sheet to operate its business equaled KZT 1,007,641.60; (iii) the Company had 196 clients; (iv) the Company had ticket sales agreements with the following organizations: AEROFLOT, Austrian Airlines, British Airways, EMIRATES, IMAIR, Indian airlines, Lufthansa German, Airlines, SCAT, TRANSAERO, Turkish Airlines, UM AIR, YASSAUI-SONIA LLP (KLM); the Company did not maintain a credit line but by assumption of debt from «JV Central Asian Tourist Corporation «CAT» LLP owed KZT 110,000,000; and (v) the Company’s annual turnover in 2006 equaled KZT 950,063,739.51 which was USD 7,480,816.84 (according to exchange rate established by the National Bank of Kazakhstan on December 31, 2006). The net profit of the Company in 2006 after tax equaled KZT 2,872,931.98 or USD 22,621.51 (according to exchange rate established by the National Bank of Kazakhstan on December 31, 2006).
26. The Claimant supplemented the Statement of Claim inter alia with the following document evidence and demonstrated original copies thereof to the Tribunal during the hearing conducted on March 30, 2010:
(i) Payroll register (or the «paysheet» as the Claimant calls it) of the Company as of January 2007;
(ii) The Company’s depreciation accrual sheet as of January 2007;
(iii) Copies of service agreements with clients of the Company and a turnover balance sheet existing as of 31 December 2006;
(iv) Copies of 13 service agreements with the following air carriers: AEROFLOT, Austrian Airlines, British Airways, EMIRATES, IMAIR, Indian airlines, Lufthansa German, Airlines, SCAT, TRANSAERO, Turkish Airlines, UM AIR, YASSAUI-SONIA LLP (KLM);
(v) Debt Transfer Agreement No. PD-16-2007 dated March 13, 2007 between the Bank, «JV Central Asian Tourist Corporation «CAT», and the Company;
(vi) The Company’s financial statement and profit-loss statement as of December 31, 2006;
27. According to the initial Statement of Claim, the Claimant requested the Tribunal to (i) invalidate the SPA; (ii) collect the Purchase Price in Claimant’s favor from Respondent; and (iii) collect in Claimant’s favor from Respondent arbitration and registration fees being USD 17,222. During the hearing on March 30, 2010, the Claimant orally and on April 7, 2010, in writing introduced amendments to the Statement of Claim. As noted in the procedural background above, the Tribunal on April 12, 2010, satisfied the Claimant’s motion and allowed the Claimant to submit the amended Statement of Claim.
V. RELIEF REQUESTED
28. According to the amended Statement of Claim, the Claimant requests the Tribunal: (i) to dissolve the SPA; (ii) to collect from the Respondent Claimant’s favor USD 698,000; and (iii) to collect from the Respondent in the Claimant’s favor the arbitration fee of USD 17,222.
VI. TRIBUNAL’S ANALYSIS
29. The SPA defines «Closing» as «... transfer and registration in the justice authorities of [the Participation Interest] and other consideration after satisfaction of the conditions precedent set forth in Clause 2.4.» Thus, the state registration shall follow satisfaction of the conditions precedent.
30. The same conclusion follows from Article 2.4 of the SPA which reads as follows: «[t]he Closing [i.e. registration and transfer of the Participation Interest] shall occur only upon satisfaction of each of the [conditions precedent described in Article 2.4.1. of the SPA], or the waiver thereof in writing by the Party to whom such condition is intended to benefit... « As seen from the evidence presented and written statements made by the Claimant, the Claimant has not submitted any written waivers of any of the conditions precedent. Therefore, all of the conditions set forth in Article 2.4.1 of the SPA were to be satisfied by Closing.
31. Pursuant to Article 2.5 of the SPA: «In the event that the Closing does not occur within thirty calendar days after execution of this Agreement, the Seller shall return the Buyer the full amount of the Advance Payment....» Thus, that the Closing shall occur within one month following signing of the SPA i.e. December 17, 2009 and by the same date, all of the conditions precedent had to be satisfied.
32. As it follows from recitals D, E, F, and G of the SPA, the Respondent «undertook to ensure» that conditions as described above shall be satisfied prior to the Closing. Thus, it appears that the Respondent and Claimant have intended that the Respondent was obligated to cause the Company to satisfy conditions precedent referred to in Article 2.4.1 of the SPA before the Closing.
33. Pursuant to Article 2.3 of the SPA the Purchase Price had to be paid one calendar month following the Closing, i.e. one month later than November 17, 2006. According to a written statement signed and submitted by the Respondent to Kazakhstan licensed Notary Public, Ms. R., on January 24, 2007:
«... [the] Seller in accordance with the [SPA]... ha[s] received the sum of [the Purchase Price] in full, and [the Seller] raise[s] no objection for the public notary to hand over to the [Buyer] all documents essential for the procedure of re-registration in the authorized bodies of the Republic of Kazakhstan. [The Seller] will not have any claims in the future.»
The payment of Purchase Price is also confirmed by payment statements issued by Hypo Investment Bank (Liechtenstein) AG on 11 January 2007 and UBS AG on 19 January 2007. Thus, the Respondent received the Purchase Price prior to transfer of documents needed for state registration of the transfer of the Participation Interest and registration thereof. Although this contradicts to the SPA, which requires payment of the Purchase Price one month following inter alia transfer of the documents and state registration of the transfer of the Participation Interest.
34. At any rate, from the evidence presented by the Claimant the Tribunal concludes that the Respondent received the Purchase Price on or before January 24, 2007.
35. The Claimant had paid the Purchase Price prior to the date the conditions precedent underlying the SPA and preceding Closing were satisfied. The Claimant explains that because the Respondent acted as the Managing Director of the Company until August 24, 2007, the Respondent falsely represented to the Claimant that the Company had satisfied all of the conditions precedent underlying the SPA. The Claimant maintains that the documents presented by the Respondent to the Claimant, prior to signing of the SPA and thereafter, were false and misleading. According to the Claimant, the Respondent’s fraud was discovered by new Managing Director replacing the Respondent starting from August 24, 2007.
36. On the basis of the documents enclosed to the Statement of Claim, original copies whereof were demonstrated to the Tribunal during the hearing conducted on March 30, 2010, the Tribunal has established the following:
(i) According to payroll register (or the «paysheet» as the Claimant calls it) of the Company as of 01 January 2007, the number of the Company’s employees is 91. The Tribunal notes that this number falls short of the SPA, which requires that the Company employ 101 individuals as of the date of the SPA;
(ii) The Company’s depreciation accrual sheet as of 01 January 2007 demonstrates that the Company owned certain assets needed to carry out its business. The total value of such assets was worth KZT 1,007,641.60. The Tribunal notes that the value of such assets, as submitted by the Claimant’s document evidence, is considerably smaller than that required by the SPA as of the date thereof - KZT 17,439,609.80. Thus, the value of assets owned by the Company as of January 2007 is almost 17 times less than that required by the SPA;
(iii) The agreements with clients of the Company indicate that as of 01 January 2007 the Company maintained 196 clients. This number falls considerably short of the number of 352 clients as required of the Company and the Respondent by the SPA;
(iv) According to the available documents, the Company had 13 service agreements with the following air carriers: AEROFLOT, Austrian Airlines, British Airways, EMIRATES, IMAIR, Indian airlines, Lufthansa German, Airlines, SCAT, TRANSAERO, Turkish Airlines, UM AIR, YASSAUI-SONIA LLP (KLM). No service agreements with any other air carrier were presented and the Claimant maintains that there were no such service agreements. Thus, it appears that the Company fell short of satisfying the SPA, which requires that the Company maintain 25 service agreements with air carriers;
(v) According to the Debt Transfer Agreement No. PD-16-2007 dated March 13, 2007 («Debt Transfer Agreement») signed between the Bank, acting as the Creditor, «JV Central Asian Tourist Corporation «CAT», acting as the Debtor, and the Company, acting as the Successor. According to the Claimant, «JV Central Asian Tourist Corporation «CAT» LLP was the Respondent’s legal entity.[8] The Debt Transfer Agreement was signed by the Respondent on behalf of both the «JV Central Asian Tourist Corporation «CAT» LLP and the Company. According to the Debt Transfer Agreement, the Successor assumes the Debtor’s obligations to repay a loan of KZT 78,100,000 owed under the Loan Agreement No. FCA-16-2005 dated May 20, 2005. The Successor also assumes the Debtor’s obligations underlying the same loan agreement which may arise prior to or on April 30, 2007 for the total amount of KZT 110,000,000. Thus, according to the documents, after the date of the SPA and until he resigned, the Respondent caused the Company to assume an indebtedness of KZT 110,000,000;
(vi) As follows from the Company’s financial statement and profit-loss statement as of December 31, 2006, the Company’s turnover in 2006 equaled KZT 950,063,739.51 (USD 6,335,870); the Company’s net profit after tax in 2006 equaled KZT 2,872,931.98 (USD 19,159). It follows that both the Company’s turnover and the net profit after tax fell considerably short of the SPA.
37. Thus, according to the documents, on the date of the SPA the Company failed to satisfy and the Respondent accordingly failed to cause the Company to satisfy the following provisions of the SPA: Article 2.4.1 (iii); items (i) - (iv), (vii) of Annex 2 of the SPA.
38. Pursuant to Article 4.1 of the SPA:
«If the Buyer becomes aware of any information about [the Company] and/or [the Participation Interest] which was not disclosed to the Buyer prior to the execution hereof and which may have a material adverse effect on the Buyer, or any of the representations or warranties as set forth herein proves to be untrue or incorrect or any covenant does not occur, then the Seller shall be obligated to reimburse the Buyer for any damages (including, but not limited to, back payment of the Purchase Price) that are a result of the undisclosed information or breach of any representation or warranty or failure to fulfill any covenant, that has been made by the party hereto, as well as to additionally pay penalty in amount of 50% of Purchase Price. Buyer shall also be entitled to unilaterally refuse to perform this Agreement or cancel (terminate early) this Agreement and to demand from the Seller to pay back the Purchase Price or it’s paid part, and to demand compensation of all damages.... «
VII. DISPOSITIVE PART OF THE AWARD
For the reasons set out above, the sole arbitrator hereby renders the following
AWARD
1. The Claimant’s requests are satisfied.
2. The Agreement for Sale and Purchase of the 100 % participation interest in the Charter Capital of «C.» LLP dated November 17, 2006 between F.and Mr. K. is hereby terminated;
3. The sole arbitrator orders Mr. K.
3.1. to pay in favour of F. the amount of 698,000 (six hundred ninety eight thousand) US dollars representing the Purchase Price of the 100% participation interest in the Charter Capital of the «C.» LLP;
3.2. to compensate F. for the arbitration feeof the KIA in the amount of 17,222 US dollars in favour of F.
2010 год
Содержание:
признание недействительным протокола
решение на согласованных условиях
18 мая 2010 г. г. Алматы
КМА (Третейский суд) в составе:
Председателя состава Третейского суда - К., назначенной Определением о назначении председательствующим состава от 3 марта 2010 года на основании решения третейских судей об ее избрании,
Третейского судьи - В., назначенного Определением о назначении третейским судьей от 23 февраля 2010 года на основании ходатайства Ответчика ТОО «С»,
Третейского судьи - Н., назначенного Определением о назначении третейским судьей от 20 января 2010 года на основании ходатайства Истца АО «С»,
при участии секретаря Арбитража М.,
Представителя Истца, юриста П., действующего на основании доверенностей от 28 декабря 2009 года №07-25-82 и от 14 мая 2010 года №07-25-125;
Представителей Ответчика Генерального директора ТОО «С» С., действующего на основании Устава, Х., действующего на основании доверенности от 20 февраля 2010 года, без номера,
рассмотрев в помещении КМА (Третейского суда) по адресу: г. Алматы, ул. А., 84/18/69, в заседаниях состава Третейского суда от 12 апреля, 17 и 18 мая 2010 года дело №01/200/ТР по иску АО «С» к ТОО «С» о признании недействительным протокола Операционного комитета от 19 декабря 2008 года в части утверждения даты безубыточности и взыскания задолженности в размере 140 000 000 тенге,
УСТАНОВИЛ:
АО «С» (далее - Истец) обратилось в КМА (Третейский суд) с иском к ТОО «С» (далее - Ответчик) о признании недействительным протокола Операционного комитета от 19 декабря 2008 года в части утверждения даты безубыточности и взыскания задолженности в размере 140 000 000 тенге.
Свои требования Истец мотивировал тем, что в соответствии с подп. 6 п. 2.2, заключенного с Ответчиком Соглашения о совместной деятельности по реализации инвестиционного проекта «Р» (далее - Соглашение) Ответчик обязан был производить ежемесячные авансовые платежи в размере 10 млн. тенге до наступления Даты безубыточности Гидрометаллургического комплекса, но не выполнил своих обязательств, в связи с чем его задолженность перед Истцом составила 140 000 000 тенге. Считает Дату безубыточности неправильно, Протокол Операционного комитета от 19 декабря 2009 года, в котором она указана наступившей 28 ноября 2008 года недействительным, ввиду того, что член Операционного комитета Е. не мог участвовать в заседании данного комитета, поскольку находился в тот день в командировке.
Ответчик представил отзыв на исковое заявление, в котором указал, что исковые требования являются необоснованными, и просил в их удовлетворении отказать полностью.
В заседании Третейского суда от 12 апреля 2010 года стороны подтвердили свои требования и возражения.
Однако в ходе третейского разбирательства стороны решили урегулировать спор на взаимоприемлемых условиях.
17 мая 2010 года стороны представили составу Третейского суда Соглашение о дружественном урегулировании существующих разногласий и завершении арбитражного разбирательства, а 18 мая 2010 года - Мировое соглашение, являющееся его неотъемлемой частью, в котором они просят утвердить (зафиксировать) данное соглашение и прекратить третейское разбирательство на согласованных ими условиях.
Как видно из пунктов 19.1 и 19.2 Соглашения о совместной деятельности по реализации инновационного проекта «Р» от 6 сентября 2007, года стороны договорились принимать разумные меры для урегулирования разногласий или споров, возникающих в связи с данным Соглашением, дружественным путем в рамках переговоров и только в случае не достижения согласия передавать споры для окончательного разрешения в КМА (Третейский суд).