[ICJ] Arab Republic of Egypt v. Storhet Group

[Naio90]

@Connor

 

[Connor]

Karl Vikström, Senior Legal Advisor for Storhet Group, stands yet again upon instruction of the Chief Justice and after buttoning his suit blazer he clearly states "Thank you, your Honour."

"It appears the plaintiff cannot make their mind up - they dart between the contract being valid and it not being valid, they thrash through the terms being vague and concise and finally they stumble upon their own arguments to the point that their rebuttal is nothing more than a repeat of their opening statement with little to no rhyme or reason as to why we have ended up in this court. One thing is for certain, both parties agreed to the terms of the contract both verbally and written, and only upon this contract no longer working in the plaintiff's favour have they sought a court case - I think the colloquial phrase is 'throwing your teddy out the pram'? Business is sticky, it always has been and always will be, sometimes it bites you back and you realise an arrangement you made was not in your best interests and you have to shake it off. Your Honour, I suspect this court case surrounds the fact the water is very much still on the ducks back and no amount of shaking will remove it.

Allow me to address the points made across the aisle.

The contract was simple and my references to 'neglect' were in no way referencing any point of law but more so neglectful of their own business interests, securities and contingencies. I agree with the plaintiff in that this contract was simple and concise which was exactly what Storhet Group were looking for - what it did not supply however were the necessary clauses to ensure the business interests of the Egyptian government. Storhet Group has followed each and every written clause of this contract to the word however the plaintiff has not, which we have been willing to overlook to a degree... a contract works much like an electrical circuit, the current continues to move on the provision that each and every element is connected, a break in the circuit brings a stop to powering any elements further down the line.

My opposing counsel has outlined exactly what our verbal arrangements were, a 'gentleman's promise'. Your Honour, please correct me if I am wrong but is a 'promise' not the very definition of a binding agreement? The plaintiff has openly admitted to having understood and agreed to such verbal arrangement at the point of ratification of the written contract; they at no point rebutted verbal arrangements and in fact have now sat in your court and admitted that this was a promise. I'm not going to dwell on this point as I firmly believe it's overly covered in this court. The Egyptian authorities agreed to the verbal arrangements and their counsel now sits contradicting their earlier statement.

I am thoroughly intrigued by the statement of 'Storhet was "allowed" to see stock growth by simple ownership' as I have very clearly stated that this stock was never established in the Global Stock Market until November of 1995, two months after our deposit amount. The opposing counsel are selling to the court what is blatently an after-thought, as each and every one of their arguments should have been raised upon ratification and agreement to the contracts in place but instead the Egyptian authorities expected to deceive Storhet Group in order to make an easy profit for which they have fallen victim to their own arrangements. Should, as they state, our verbal arrangements terms have left the Egyptian authorities concerned for their legal liabilities and/or the benefits for their sale of stock would you not have expected them to raise these concerns prior to the stock being transferred? Again, they have contradicted their earlier comments, instead running rings around this court to baffle you into finding Storhet Group guilty.

Your Honour do not allow the plaintiff to baffle you into confusion with hindsight, their points are not points of contractual law much much rather points of regret.

Let us ponder upon the statement made in regards to intentional omission of our verbal arrangement. I agree with the opposing counsel in that in contractual law the provision of a new offer does indeed nullify previously negotiated upon arrangements in support of the newest 'offer' now, with this in mind let us follow the stages: (1) Storhet Group agree to the terms of the written contract, signing it, and providing a verbal arrangement (2) the plaintiff provides their 'goods', in this case stock based on the agreed terms. Your Honour, would you continue with the transaction if you disagreed with verbal arrangements made? No is the answer. The plaintiff not only understood the verbal arrangement, they accepted them in the very fact they continued with the transaction. Again, I am not going to dwell on a point they have continued to attempt to baffle the court with, it is clear cut and it is obvious that this verbal arrangement was very much in play no matter how simple it was. Further to this, Your Honour, the provision of this 'rejection' is in no way disclosed to the defence prior to this court case taking place and as such should be stricken from the record, not to mention that the un-exhibited evidence is not the Egyptian authorities rejecting the verbal arrangement upon completion of the deal but much rather rejecting the verbal arrangement once their financial accountability began to deteriorate.

As I previously stated, Your Honour, Storhet Group made two of three payments in September and November, excluding the October payment as the stock never appeared on the Global Stock Market to allow for growth. The Arab Republic of Egypt restricted payments to a three-month period without the option for an increase in value or time frame, meaning further payments by Storhet Group would not have been protected by law. They traded with a foreign stranger, for stock worth billions, without any form of legal consultation prior to the drafting and ratification of a contract.

Exhibit SG/04 that the opposing counsel refers to in no way states that the acceptance of the November 1995 instalment accepts or settles the disputed October 1995 payment... infact the correspondence within SG/04 very clearly states that this remains disputed thus by definition unresolved. Your Honour, this point is utter rubbish and should be disregarded on the basis that it serves no foundation in this case.

I like the opposing counsels timeline of events and I will echo a more accurate portrayal.
(1) Arab Republic of Egypt publicly advertises the sale of stocks, to the value of billions
(2) Storhet Group negotiates for the purchase of the stocks
(3) Arab Republic of Egypt rejects terms of negotiation on the basis of financial value and provides a contract of three provisions
(4) Storhet Group agrees to the written terms and provides a verbal arrangement in addition
(5) Arab Republic of Egypt authorises the release of stock to Storhet Group thus agreeing to all aforementioned contracts (verbal and written)
(6) Storhet Group makes the September 1995 payment to the value of $2,500,000,000.00
(7) Arab Republic of Egypt fails to ensure stock was transferred to Storhet Group on the Global Stock Market and thus failing to allow for any growth
(8) Storhet Group withholds October 1995 payment on the basis terms of both the written and verbal contracts were not met
(9) Stock is transferred and listed on the Global Stock Market by November 1995
(10) Storhet Group makes the November 1995 payment to the value of $2,500,000,000.00 and disputes the October 1995 payment
(11) Arab Republic of Egypt rejects the November 1995 payment
(12) Written and verbal contractual arrangements fail to provide adequate legal protection for payments made in excess of $2,500,000,000.00 or outside October/November 1995.

Your Honour, we have for-filled every legal requirement of Storhet Group. It is with regret that the Arab Republic of Egypt are attempting to disguise very valid points of this case as incorrect, unlawful or even irrelevant. Do not allow yourselves to be confused.

The sale of stock within the Global Stock Market in particular is a very lucrative business but equally relies heavily on the reputation and relationship of the buyer, in this case Storhet Group. I am frankly amazed that the opposing counsel could even begin to infer that as a result of our business being taken to court for contractual law violations that this would not in turn deter future business deals with corporations which will be naturally reluctant to trade with an organisation accused of dirty trade in the past. Already, since the establishment of this court case, we have been proactively pursuing investments with two major European organisations who have not only failed to negotiate any terms with Storhet Group at this stage but they have been intensively reluctant to even speak to our representatives. This will undeniably see a decline in the growth of our business profits and future investments. The Arab Republic of Egypt failed to adequately protect themselves in their business deal and as punishment, they have dragged our organisation to court an an attempt to disregard their shortfalls and pursue financial losses by court order. That is not how business works.

Where were their legal representatives upon drafting the contract?

Your Honour, you are hearing a disc on repeat with the opposing counsel whom have evidently bounced between terms of the contract existing, then no longer existing... then existing again. If the plaintiff does not know what they're pursuing then how on Earth can your bench legally and appropriately be expected to come to a guilty determination? My friends across the aisle are circling around the only points they can possible grasp to in order to confuse you into finding Storhet Group in the wrong but as I have repeated time and time again - this is not a violation of the law, much rather absolutely undeniable regret by the Arab Republic of Egypt for signing off on a business transaction that has seen losses at their end.

Thank you.​

 

[Odinson]

Chief Justice Olhouser looked to the Japanese attorneys. "Are there any witnesses which you would like to call and question at this time?"
@Suvorov

 

[Suvorov]

"Your honor, as our primary witnesses have become unavailable the plaintiff rests its case and asks opposing counsel to review the legal concepts of arguing in the alternative - one of the most basic principles of legal rhetoric. This is because regardless of whether a second contract even theoretically existed, opposing counsel's position is wholly unreasonable, is attempting to set a horrific precedent for both international business with its primary argument and for this legitimacy of this court with its counterclaim, and fails on several principles. While we of course strongly disagree with opposing counsel's creative re-telling of the series of events and outcomes, we believe our allotted time for argument is over. We ask this court to simply think about the most reasonable interpretation and outcome for this case. The plaintiff asks this court to find the defendant in breach and rests it case."

 

[Odinson]

The Chief Justice nodded at the Japanese, making note of the request they had made. He then looked over to the Swedes, "And does the Defense wish to call any witnesses to testify?"
@Connor

 

[Connor]

"Your honour, noting the points the opposing counsel have chosen to dispute, our witnesses would serve no evidential value at this stage and would not be proportionate to serve summons for this reason. We would like the bench to retain the witness list should proceedings progress to an stage in which they may be required in the future."

@Odinson

 

[Odinson]

"So the Defense is not going to call any witnesses either," he said, noting the long-winded answer of the Swedes.
"It's now time for the other justices and I to ask any questions we may have about this case... Do either of you have any questions?" the Chief Justice asked to his American and Dutch colleagues.
@Dutchy
@John

 

[Odinson]

"Seeing as there are no questions, I would now ask that the Plaintiff begin with their closing statements, if they have any, and then we will move to the defense," Olhouser said.
@Suvorov
@Connor

 

[Suvorov]

"Your honors, I will be brief for I feel this is a simple case with a clear solution.

To begin: It... does... not... matter... if... there... was... a "growth"... clause. Period.

Even if you believe there was some hidden clause attached to this contract, under any interpretation: Storhet still willfully and maliciously breached this contract.

Storhet is attempting to play gymnastics with clear, unambiguous terms and facts to dance around one simple fact: They don't want to pay for what they received. End of story.

Contracts are not surgical implements, they are not ingredients to a spell. Contracts are a physical manifestation of an agreement reached between two parties. What was the agreement reached here? Egypt transfers ownership of stocks to Storhet and Storhet would pay for them incrementally. That's it. There is nothing uncertain to debate here. Courts must ensure that the bargain struck is the bargain executed, not whether a certain incantation was perfectly recited.

Storhet has attempted to make what are quite frankly fanciful claims: "Our payments wouldn't have been protected" if they paid for them outside of October or November? What does that mean? Nothing. It's misdirection again to distract from the fact that they owed money, didn't want to pay it, and are trying to invent "reasons" why they suddenly can't pay. Your honors, if Storhet had simply paid for the stocks they received after November, nothing would have happened to their payments. Nothing. There would be nothing to protect or defend. They would have simply sent their payments - late I would add - and Egypt would have received it. That is it. If a tenant pays their rent two days after their rent is due, what danger is the payment in? None. The landlord is slightly annoyed but the relationship continues and all obligations are met.

Storhet is asking where Egypt's legal representation was at the creation of the contract. I would ask Storhet the same. Storhet agreed to these unambiguous terms. No one forced them to. No one had a gun to their head. The terms they accepted - in writing - signed by both parties state that Storhet is to make these payments. If they were truly worried about "protecting" their payments or adding terms, they shouldn't have signed the contract as it was. But they did. And they are bound to it.

I will address each point in a sentence or so.

First, simple ownership of stocks provides for an owner to realize growth. Storhet accuses Egypt of having a poorly constructed contract, despite it being blatantly clear and despite that Storhet signed it. Yet Storhet wishes to insert this incredibly powerful contract provision, not written in the contract, that is immensely unclear and almost impossible to enforce. "Allow for stock growth" is simply foolish, unenforceable, and vague by the best light it can be placed in. Your honors, put yourself in Egypt's shoes. How would you fulfill that term?

Second, Storhet did and has seen immense growth in those stocks since their purchase. Thereby fulfilling the contract term if your honors believe that is made it into the contract.

Third, Egypt immediately transferred stock ownership. The fact that the World Bank failed to publicize that information is not Egypt's fault. Egypt cannot be held liable for the negligence of the World Bank. To take a page out of Storhet's book: the contract never said the transaction had to be posted to the World Bank. Only that the stocks be transferred. Where was their attorney to advise them that the confirmation of the transaction (something only Storhet needs) should be a term contingent to the final payments. No confirmatory clause was present in the contract. Storhet withheld payments in breach of a clear contract and is now attempting to use another non-contractual term to justify their breach. Egypt had to transfer, Storhet had to pay. Nothing else. No confirmation required.

Fourth, Storhet had legal ownership of the stocks the moment the contract was signed and the first payment made. Even if the World Bank did not post the transaction, Storhet still had contractual ownership of the stocks and could freely sell those contractual rights. That they failed to realize their ownership began at that moment is their failure, not the failure of Egypt.

Fifth, Egypt rightfully rejected to November payment because that payment was portrayed to them as a final payment. If Egypt accepted that payment, Egypt would have accepted a modification of the contract and lost their right to the full contract value.

Sixth and finally, I want to address this counter-claim by Storhet with some detail. Storhet's attorneys have failed to realize the detriment that their position will bring to the functionality of this court and wholly mis-characterized our position. We understand that by bringing a lawsuit a company will suffer some reputational damage. The question must be though, not whether the defendant suffered reputational harm from the suit, but rather was the suit brought with the intention of causing such harm. Only then is a defendant entitled to recover under such a claim.

For a court to function, the court must be a place where legitimate disputes may be resolved as amicably as possible to facilitate the continued operations of this world. Parties must feel free to be able to bring legitimate disputes to this court, even if they ultimately lose in the end. Only by this knowledge can this legitimacy of the court be acknowledged, and thereby used, by international players. Storhet's position is effectively that whenever a claim is brought by one party against another, the defending party is automatically entitled to the reputational damage flowing form the suit. But this is simply not how courts work. Damages for harm to reputation based on a lawsuit would only be legitimate if the underlying lawsuit was frivolous to begin with. In a non-frivolous lawsuit, any reputation harm that flows would be largely rectified by the ultimate decision of the court. If the defendant is found liable, the reputation damage was justified. If the defendant is found not-liable, their reputation will largely be restored as being exonerated before a tribunal.

I ask to be permitted a rebuttal period often allowed plaintiffs to respond to Defense's closing in the same manner that defense may respond to ours.

Thank you your honors. I ask you to come to the most reasonable conclusion here: Parties are obligated to pay for the things they agree to pay for. Protect reason in international commerce."

@Odinson @John @Dutchy @Connor

 

[Odinson]

"Thank you, counselor," Olhouser said to the Japanese attorney. "These closing statements are not the place to have rebuttals or bring up new evidence - they are to making closing statements over the entire case which you should have laid out on your side, and the Defense should have laid out on their side. At some point, this has to end, and we have almost reached that point," Olhouser said as he then looked over to the Swedes. "The Defense will now either rest their case, or giving closing statements."
@Connor

 

[Connor]

Karl Vikström, Senior Legal Advisor for Storhet Group, stands to make his final statement.

"Thank you Your Honour.

Manipulation, confusion and contradiction. That's all you have been lead through with the opposing counsel throughout this trial. That is fact. The opposing counsel cannot decide as to whether or not the contracts between Storhet Group in both their written form and verbal were legally binding; instead, they appear to have adopted the conclusion that they're not obliged to meet their own requirements as detailed and sit here today demanding money from us, the consumer. Frankly I condemn the fact that the opposing counsel are willing to stand opposite you and lie about how Storhet Group were thinking... Your Honour does the wilful transaction of five billion dollars sound like we were unwilling to pay? No.

Storhet Group have shown throughout this trial that the organisation intended to pay the full amount, followed the written contract regulating the transaction of monies to the word. One payment was disputed, this is not unusual, and we have shown in our exhibited evidence that we raised this appropriately with the Egyptian Authorities who, instead of attempting to resolve the dispute with rational and appropriate action, instead decided they would play a petty game, rejecting the third and final payment from Storhet Group. Your Honour, the plaintiff has wilfully developed this case of their own volition with a multitude of different methods; they failed to follow the obligations of their contract, they failed to appropriate manage a payment dispute and they rejected the final payment as required. This is not a problem with Storhet Group, this is the problem with the financial management of the Egyptian Authorities.

The opposing counsel is fixated on the "growth" of the stock. Why? because their case holds no other substance. The growth is irrelevant. Storhet Group did not receive the stock at all, openly violating both the written and verbal contract. That cannot be disputed.

I'll repeat my earlier address to the court to simplify this for the courts appeasement, with emphasis on where the problem lies...

I like the opposing counsels timeline of events and I will echo a more accurate portrayal.
(1) Arab Republic of Egypt publicly advertises the sale of stocks, to the value of billions
(2) Storhet Group negotiates for the purchase of the stocks
(3) Arab Republic of Egypt rejects terms of negotiation on the basis of financial value and provides a contract of three provisions
(4) Storhet Group agrees to the written terms and provides a verbal arrangement in addition
(5) Arab Republic of Egypt authorises the release of stock to Storhet Group thus agreeing to all aforementioned contracts (verbal and written)
(6) Storhet Group makes the September 1995 payment to the value of $2,500,000,000.00
(7) Arab Republic of Egypt fails to ensure stock was transferred to Storhet Group on the Global Stock Market and thus failing to allow for any growth
(8) Storhet Group withholds October 1995 payment on the basis terms of both the written and verbal contracts were not met
(9) Stock is transferred and listed on the Global Stock Market by November 1995
(10) Storhet Group makes the November 1995 payment to the value of $2,500,000,000.00 and disputes the October 1995 payment
(11) Arab Republic of Egypt rejects the November 1995 payment
(12) Written and verbal contractual arrangements fail to provide adequate legal protection for payments made in excess of $2,500,000,000.00 or outside October/November 1995.

To reiterate, we have for-filled every legal requirement of Storhet Group. It is with regret that the Arab Republic of Egypt are attempting to disguise very valid points of this case as incorrect, unlawful or even irrelevant. You cannot ignore clauses of your own contract, reject payments paid by your consumer and then summon them to an international court for infringement of such contract; that is simply absurd.

I will keep this closing statement short, Your Honour as I have no doubt I have adequately explained that Storhet Group is not at fault here; the opposing counsel pluck a new argument out of thin air every time they are given the opportunity to speak which implies to me that they simply have not prepared for this case, do not have sufficient facts to argue this case and are running out of options when we are able to provide a reasonable rationale for each and every action of our organisation. The Egyptian Authorities need to seek their compensation from the Global Stock Market for their financial losses as a result of their administrative errors, not Storhet Group.

Thank you."​

@Odinson

 

[Odinson]

"Thank you, counselor. With that, we will now adjourn to allow the justices and myself to deliberate. Please clear the court room," he said, before smashing his gavel on the wooden bench before him. Everyone would be cleared out of the room except the justices. It was now time to decide the fate of the case, as well as any kind of punishment. The deliberation of justices would not begin until they were alone in the private chamber.
@Dutchy
@John
@Connor
@Suvorov

 

[Naio90]

The egyptian representative would take his things and leave the room to elave the judges alone for their deliberation. He would be very optimistic regarding the outcome.

 

[Odinson]

The judges gathered back in the chamber, with only the court reporter along with them. The justices from the United States and The Netherlands voted guilty, and as tradition dictates, the Chief Justice remained neutral since there wasn't a tie. Both sides were invited back into the chamber. Once everyone was seated, Justice Olhouser banged his gavel and began speaking.

"The defense has been found guilty and is therefor ordered to pay back the money owed to Egypt, as well as their legal fees up to $200-million," he said, before banging his gavel. With that, the case was concluded.
Naio90
Suvorov
Connor
Dutchy
John

 

[Connor]

The legal representative issues formal notice to the International Court of Justice to appeal this sentencing is like with the Charter of the Court to ensure monies ordered are not withdrawn from the relevant accounts at this stage.

Odinson