Version du Règlement : 1988

Demandeurs : sociétés italienne et néerlandaise

Défendeurs : 4 personnes morales et 1 personne physique (Mexique)

Dans le cadre d'un projet de télécommunications dans un Etat d'Amérique Centrale, le défendeur n° 2 conclut avec la société Y un contrat d'achat d'actions. Conformément à ce contrat, la société Y devait céder au défendeur n° 2 49 % des actions de la société X. Ultérieurement, afin d'acquérir une participation dans la société X, le demandeur n° 1 conclut un contrat de souscription (« Subscription Agreement ») avec les défendeurs nos 1 et 2, aux termes duquel le demandeur n° 1 devait acquérir 25 % du capital augmenté du défendeur n° 2. Le défendeur n° 3 s'engagea à répondre solidairement des obligations du défendeur n° 1 au titre du contrat de souscription. Cet engagement fut par la suite assumé par le défendeur n° 5 en sa qualité d'actionnaire majoritaire du défendeur n° 3. La mise en cause du défendeur n° 4, une société contrôlée par les défendeurs nos 3 et 5, résultait d'une lettre d'accord entre les demandeurs et les autres défendeurs selon laquelle toute référence faite dans le contrat de souscription aux défendeurs nos 1 et 2 devait être réputée se référer aux défendeurs nos 3 et 5, intervenant solidairement, ainsi que toute entité au travers de laquelle les défendeurs nos 3 et 5 détenaient le défendeur n° 4. Le demandeur n° 1 et le défendeur n° 1 conclurent un pacte d'actionnaires (« Shareholders Agreement ») régissant leurs droits et obligations réciproques en tant qu'actionnaires du défendeur n° 2. La société Y demanda au juge étatique d'annuler l'acquisition par le défendeur n° 2 des actions de la société X, au motif du non-respect des obligations de paiement. Sa demande fut admise et un accord fut signé prévoyant le remboursement par la société Y au défendeur n° 2 de la somme payée au titre des actions de la société X, après déduction du prix de cession des actions de la société X conformément au contrat de souscription. Auparavant, les demandeurs avaient acquis une participation dans les actions de la société X, incluant, selon les défendeurs, la participation dans les actions de ladite société acquises par les demandeurs au travers de leur participation dans le défendeur n° 2. Les demandeurs se considéraient victimes d'une fraude, en raison du refus de paiement des défendeurs et des tractations engagées par eux visant à débloquer les actions de la société Y détenues en garantie du paiement à la société Y de leur prix d'achat. Les demandeurs déposèrent une demande d'arbitrage, conformément à la clause d'arbitrage figurant dans le contrat de souscription. Selon cette clause, le contrat était régi par les règles de fond de la loi mexicaine.

Demandes :

'According to the Terms of Reference, the Claims are as follows:

"Preliminary matter: Jurisdiction of the Arbitral Tribunal over the Parties to this arbitration

Claimants maintain that pursuant to the Subscription Agreement all the Defendants are subject to the jurisdiction of the Arbitral Tribunal. This is denied by Defendants 3, 4 and 5 on the ground that they are not bound by the Subscription Agreement. Furthermore, the Defendants contend that since the Claimants have not relied on the arbitration clause in the Shareholders Agreements and have not followed the procedure laid out therein for bringing claims arising out of it, the Arbitral Tribunal lacks jurisdiction to hear such claims against any of the Defendants.

Consequently, the Defendants request the Arbitral Tribunal to render an interim award denying jurisdiction over Defendants 3, 4 and 5 and over claims arising out of the Shareholders Agreement.

Claims on the merits

(1) Breach of Subscription Agreement and related agreements

Position of the Claimants

The Claimants maintain that as a result of the Defendants' fraudulent conduct and breaches of various representations and warranties, they have incurred damages and been deprived of the material benefits of the transaction with Defendant 2. Had they known the true facts, the Claimants would not have entered into this transaction.

Position of the Defendants

Notwithstanding the fact that the Defendants maintain that any action for civil fraud is prescribed under the relevant substantive Mexican law which expressly governs all the terms of the Subscription Agreement, the Defendants deny any allegations of actionable civil fraud as well as all other imputations made by the Claimants against them. Furthermore, the Defendants maintain that they have complied with all their obligations under the Subscription Agreement and ask the Arbitral Tribunal to dismiss all claims made against them.

(2) Loss of profits

Position of the Claimants

The Claimants allege that as a further consequence of the Defendants' conduct, the Claimants failed to receive, through Defendant 2, payments based on dividends declared by [corporation X] which were seized because of the failure of Defendant 1 to comply with the payment obligations it assumed from Defendant 2.

Position of the Defendants

The Defendants reject this claim as they maintain that they have complied with all their obligations under the Subscription Agreement."'

Mesures sollicitées :

'According to the Terms of Reference, the relief requested is as follows:

"Claimants

Interim relief

1. To protect their interest in the proceeds to be returned to Defendant 2 as a result of the . . . courts' decisions, the Claimants seek interim relief in the form of orders or awards in conformity with the U.N. Convention for the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards by the arbitrators:

(a) requiring that those of the Defendants that have ownership, custody, possession or control of, or any other rights with respect to, shares of Defendant 2 subject those shares to sequestration and/or place those shares in an escrow or similar account or safekeeping arrangement under the control of the arbitrators or otherwise, said shares to be held as security for an award of damages to the Claimants and to be made available pursuant to orders or an award by the arbitrators;

(b) requiring that those of the Defendants that have beneficial ownership with respect to any other assets take the necessary steps to subject those assets to sequestration and/or to place those assets in an escrow or similar account or safekeeping arrangement under the control of the arbitrators, said assets to be held as security for an award of damages to the Claimants and to be made available pursuant to orders or an award by the arbitrators or otherwise;

(c) requiring that any portion of the consideration paid to [corporation Y] in exchange for the [corporation X] shares that is to be refunded to any of the Defendants as a result of decisions in the . . . lawsuit be placed and held in an escrow or similar account or safekeeping arrangement under the control of the arbitrators or otherwise, to be held there as security for an award of damages to the Claimants;

(d) requiring that any proceeds that are to be returned to Defendant 2 as a result of the judgment in the . . . lawsuit be placed and held in an escrow or similar account or safekeeping arrangement pending the issuance of a final award by the Arbitral Tribunal.

The total value of the shares and other assets to be the subject of the actions to be taken pursuant to paragraphs (a), (b), (c) and (d) above should be a minimum of US$ . . .

2. That in the event that any of the Defendants should fail to comply fully with an order or award issued by the arbitrators or otherwise, a sanction will be imposed against such Defendant or Defendants in the form of a monetary penalty of US$ 1 million for each full day during which each such Defendant shall fail to comply with such order or award.

Final award on the merits

The Claimants request an award from the Arbitral Tribunal as follows:

1. Rescission of the transactions pursuant to which the investments described herein were made, including repayment with interest . . . and costs, of all of the amounts paid by Claimant(s) . . ., plus lost profits against the surrender by Claimant 2 of its interest in the shares of Defendant 2.

2. In addition, the Claimants request that the award provide for payment to them by the Defendants of all of the costs of both the . . . lawsuit and this proceeding and any other proceeding to obtain precautionary measures over the assets of the Defendants, including, but not limited to the legal fees and related costs incurred by them, the arbitrators' fees and ICC costs in this proceeding and the costs, including but not limited to legal fees, of enforcing the award in Mexico and elsewhere.

Defendants

Jurisdiction

The Defendants request that the Arbitral Tribunal render an interim award:

a. denying jurisdiction of the Arbitral Tribunal over Defendants 3, 4 and 5;

b. dismissing any claim by the Claimants that arises out of the Shareholders Agreement;

c. declaring that the Claimants' claim for civil fraud, and relief sought thereunder, are prescribed according to substantive Mexican law; and

d. rejecting Claimants' request for interim relief.

Final award on the merits

The Defendants request the Arbitral Tribunal to render a final award:

a. dismissing all of the Claimants' claims over which the Arbitral Tribunal decides that it has jurisdiction; and

b. ordering that all the costs of the arbitration, including ICC administrative expenses and the arbitrators' and attorneys' fees, be borne entirely by the Claimants."'

Points à déterminer :

'According to the Terms of Reference, the issues to be determined are as follows:

"I. Preliminary Issues

(1) Are Claimants entitled to the interim relief requested?

II. Jurisdiction of the Arbitral Tribunal

(2) Has the Arbitral Tribunal jurisdiction over Defendants 3, 4 and 5 . . . pursuant to the Subscription Agreement and all amendments thereto relied upon by the Claimants?

(3) Have the Claimants relied on the arbitration clause in the Shareholders Agreement and were they required to do so? To the extent that they relied on it or were required to do so, have they followed the procedure set out in this agreement? If not, does this fact deprive the Arbitral Tribunal of jurisdiction over claims arising out of this agreement?

III. Merits

(4) In the present case is civil fraud, if proved, prescribed by Mexican law?

(5) If not, has actionable civil fraud through false and misleading misrepresentations, omissions and actions been perpetrated upon the Claimants in order to induce Claimants to enter into the transaction and transfer . . . for the payment of Defendant 2 shares and thus acquire an indirect interest in [corporation X] according to Mexican law?

(6) Have the Defendants breached the Subscription Agreement, the Shareholders Agreement, or other undertakings found in various letters, certificates and other documents related to the transaction according to Mexican law?

(7) If fraud upon the Claimants and/or breaches of the agreement, representations, warranties, covenants, and conditions arising from the transaction are established, are Defendants liable whether as primary wrongdoers or as a result of their contractual assumption of liability, guarantees and indemnities according to Mexican law?

(8) On the merits, are Claimants entitled to the final relief claimed partially or in totality according to Mexican law?

(9) If sums of money are awarded to the Claimants should they bear interest and if so, at what rate and from what date according to Mexican law?

(10) Which of the parties shall bear the costs of this arbitration including the arbitrators' fees, the ICC administrative expenses and the arbitrators' expenses, or in which proportion shall they be borne by the parties?

(11) Which of the parties shall bear the costs of attorneys' fees, and other related legal costs, or in which proportion shall they be borne by the parties?"'

Une première audience eut lieu aboutissant à une ordonnance de mesures provisoires et conservatoires et une sentence intérimaire relative aux points 2, 3 et 4.

Ordonnance relative à des mesures provisoires et conservatoires :

'With respect to Issue No. I, on . . ., the Arbitral Tribunal issued an Order for Interim and Conservatory Measures, directing inter alia that:

"(1) any funds that have been paid or transferred or are to be paid or transferred to any one or more of the Defendants and/or to any other entities directly or indirectly controlled by Defendant 5, pursuant to the Payment Acknowledgement Agreement and Release, or to any other agreement related thereto and/or (ii) any other assets relating directly or indirectly to the dispute which is the object of this Arbitration or traceable to transactions related directly or indirectly to this dispute be placed and held in an escrow or similar account or safekeeping arrangement in a Canadian bank under the joint control of the Claimants and the Defendants, pending the issuance of an award in this Arbitration."

The Order further directed that the Defendants deposit all shares of the capital stock of Defendant 2 that are within the possession, custody or control of any one or more of them in an escrow or similar account or safekeeping arrangement in a Canadian bank under the joint control of the Claimants and the Defendants, pending the issuance of an award in this Arbitration.

Counsel for the Defendants objected to this order on jurisdictional, procedural and substantive grounds. Specifically, the Defendants filed an "Opposition and Objection to Interim and Conservatory Measures" . . . detailing their objections and seeking revocation of the measures. The Tribunal considered these objections and the request for revocation, and, by letter of . . . communicated its determination that the order was proper in all respects and would be maintained. The Defendants have subsequently taken no steps to comply.'

Dans la sentence intérimaire, le tribunal arbitral se déclara compétent à l'égard des défendeurs nos 1, 2, 3 et 5 et réserva à un stade ultérieur de la procédure son jugement sur sa compétence à l'égard du défendeur n° 4, tout en ordonnant à ce dernier de se comporter entre temps comme partie à la procédure. Il jugea en outre qu'il pouvait prendre en compte le pacte d'actionnaires dans la mesure où celui-ci avait une incidence sur le contrat de souscription. En ce qui concerne la question de la prescription, il décida que le droit commercial, et non le droit civil, s'appliquait et que, selon le droit commercial, le délai de recours n'était pas expiré.

Dans sa sentence finale, le tribunal arbitral se déclara en premier lieu compétent à l'égard du défendeur n° 4. Il jugea en outre qu'il n'y avait pas lieu d'estimer, en supposant que les défendeurs avaient commis une fraude, que cette fraude avait incité les demandeurs à conclure le contrat de souscription. En ce qui concerne le point 6, il constata plusieurs manquements au contrat de souscription de la part des défendeurs, qui étaient tous solidairement redevables du montant total dû au titre de ces manquements. Une indemnisation fut accordée aux demandeurs, auxquels il fut ordonné d'abandonner au défendeur n° 1 leur participation dans les actions du défendeur n° 2. Enfin, les défendeurs furent condamnés à payer des intérêts au taux de 6 % sur les sommes dues, conformément au droit mexicain, et de supporter l'intégralité des frais de l'arbitrage.