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: [email protected] 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: [email protected] 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: [email protected]/ [email protected] 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
© Copyright 2024