Arbitral Digest

Matter

[G] [U] and [H] [U] v [W] [U] (ICC Case 26973/SP/ETT; Paris Court of Appeal RG 24/07017)

Case no.
26973/SP/ETT
  1. 1 March 2024Arbitration

    1 March 2024Arbitration

    Partial ICC Arbitral Award dated 1 March 2024

    International Court of Arbitration of the International Chamber of Commerce

    Decision summary
    The tribunal declared itself competent and the claims admissible, held that the 31 December 2009 Agreement granted [W] [U] 24% of the shares in [U] Home LLC, found [G] [U] and [H] [U] in breach of clauses 2.2 and 2.3, and ordered them to cooperate with the transfer under a EUR 10,000 per day penalty. It rejected an interim damages claim and reserved damages and costs for later phases.

    Supporting details

    6 participants
    [W] [U]
    [G] [U]
    [H] [U]
    International Court of Arbitration of the International Chamber of Commerce
    Arbitrator
    [L] [V]
    Arbitrator
    [T] [F]
    Arbitrator
    [C] [D]

    7 months and 2 days later · 216 days

  2. 3 October 2024France

    3 October 2024France

    Order of the First President of the Paris Court of Appeal dated 3 October 2024

    First President of the Paris Court of Appeal

    Decision summary
    The First President of the Paris Court of Appeal rejected [G] [U] and [H] [U]'s application for a stay of enforcement of the partial ICC arbitral award.

    Supporting details

    3 participants
    [G] [U]
    [H] [U]
    [W] [U]
    First President of the Paris Court of Appeal

    1 year, 3 months and 10 days later · 467 days

  3. 13 January 2026France

    13 January 2026France

    Judgment of the Paris Court of Appeal, International Commercial Chamber, Division 5 Chamber 16, in RG 24/07017 dated 13 January 2026

    Paris Court of Appeal, International Commercial Chamber, Division 5 Chamber 16

    Case no.
    RG 24/07017
    Decision summary
    The Paris Court of Appeal rejected [G] [U] and [H] [U]'s application to annul the partial ICC arbitral award of 1 March 2024. It held that the tribunal had acted within its mission, respected the adversarial principle, and had jurisdiction; the rejection conferred exequatur on the award. [G] [U] and [H] [U] were ordered jointly and severally to pay the costs and EUR 50,000 to [W] [U] under Article 700 of the French Code of Civil Procedure.

    Supporting details

    7 authorities · 14 participants
    [G] [U]
    Representative
    Philippe PINSOLLE (For: [G] [U] · [H] [U])
    Representative
    Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP (For: [G] [U] · [H] [U])
    [H] [U]
    Representative
    Philippe PINSOLLE (For: [G] [U] · [H] [U])
    Representative
    Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP (For: [G] [U] · [H] [U])
    [W] [U]
    Representative
    Matthieu BOCCON GIBOD (For: [W] [U])
    Representative
    Georges SIOUFI (For: [W] [U])
    Representative
    Ziad BEYLOUNI (For: [W] [U])
    Representative
    Marie GIRARDET (For: [W] [U])
    Representative
    AARPI inter barreau Paris Marseille SRDB (For: [W] [U])
    Paris Court of Appeal, International Commercial Chamber, Division 5 Chamber 16
    Other
    Institutional administrator
    Najma EL FARISSI

    Authorities cited

    7
    • French Code of Civil Procedure (Article 1520)
      statute
    • French Code of Civil Procedure (Article 1527)
      statute
    • French Code of Civil Procedure (Article 700)
      statute
    • French Code of Civil Procedure (Article 699)
      statute
    • French Code of Civil Procedure (Article 455)
      statute
    • French Code of Civil Procedure (Article 804)
      statute
    • French Code of Civil Procedure (Article 450)
      statute

Matter record

Report a correction

[G] [U] and [H] [U] v [W] [U] (ICC Case 26973/SP/ETT; Paris Court of Appeal RG 24/07017) · Matter