The Court of Appeal of Paris declared admissible on Tuesday February 17, the petition for review filed against the arbitration award was granted in July 2008 405 million to the businessman Bernard Tapie, as part of its dispute with Credit Lyonnais. In their decision, the judges therefore ordered the reopening of the debate and the withdrawal of the arbitration. They will vote in a second time, from 29 September on the merits of the decision of the arbitrators. That is to say, they will indicate later, if they believe in substance Mr Tapie was injured or not by Crédit Lyonnais
Read. Case Tapie- Credit Lyonnais twenty years of proceedings for nothing
The court, relying in particular on the revelations of the criminal investigation brought to light by Le Monde ? believes that the disputed intervention Estoup Pierre, one of the three arbitrators, fraud taints the whole process:
“ Considering that it is thus established that Mr. Estoup, contrary to the requirement of impartiality is the essence of the arbitration function, a, ensuring undivided stranglehold on arbitral procedure by submitting the dispute unambiguously and deliberately and systematically directing the reflection of the court in favor of the interests of the party he meant by encouraging collusion with the latter and his counsel had a decisive influence and fraud surprised by the decision of the arbitral tribunal; in this regard , the fact that the award has been made unanimously by three arbitrators is ineffective when it is established that one of them has circumvented the other two in a fraudulent purpose; for the same reason that some of the defendants were not involved in the fraud, has no payload when it affects the sentences in their very essence and achieved all their provisions; that the judicial review which the conditions are met should be therefore a llowed; it is appropriate to order the retraction of the arbitral award made on July 7, 2008 and that of the three sentences of 27 November 2008 which are the result and consequence; Whereas so that a new ruling in fact and in law, to require the parties to conclude on the bottom, as specified in the device of the present decision and remit the debate on this point, at a later hearing. “
When asked by Le Monde , the lawyer Thomas Clay, arbitration expert, believes that the judgment of the appellate court is ” The The most important decision of this sprawling folder. The Court therefore recognized as competent to examine fraud. The close and continuous links between one of the arbitrators, Estoup Pierre and Bernard Tapie, but especially with his lawyer, Maurice Lantourne have strongly influenced the Court who sees a fraud to arbitration. Although she has not been formally canceled, we can say that the sentence has now disappeared as it is being revised “.
Mr. Tapie he will have to repay the sums received as much? For Mr. Clay, “nothing prevents the CDR demand the immediate repayment of amounts affected after fraud to arbitration that the Court has just admitted” .
“arbitration Simulacrum”
The appeal had been filed June 27, 2013 by the Consortium of realization (CDR), a body responsible for managing the liabilities of Credit Lyonnais. It was based on Article 1491 of the Civil Procedure Code, which states that “the judicial review is only open for one of the following: if it turns out, after the judgment, that the decision was surprised by the fraud of the party in whose favor it was made; it was found on recognized or judicially declared coins from the judgment; it was found on certificates, testimonials or judicially declared false oaths from the judgment “.
But the criminal investigations launched by the investigating judges have clearly established that there was, in the words of judges, “arbitration sham” . Bernard Tapie as one of the referees, Pierre Estoup, were indicted for “organized fraud” . The current director of the IMF, Christine Lagarde, Minister of Economy, also continued to “negligence” for letting to arbitration and will not be opposed to it in time .
In fact, in a report – revealed in September 2014 The World – of the financial brigade dedicated to the close relationship between counsel for Mr. Tapie, M th Maurice Lantourne and Pierre Estoup, noted the police this: “Besides the fact that Mr. Estoup had concealed many diverse professional relationships linking it with M th Lantourne since 1989, he also had to deal with the Tapie case before 2007 and the official launch of the arbitration proceedings. These elements are likely to confirm a lack of independence of Pierre Estoup towards Bernard Tapie. “
” No consultation, no notice “
October 29, 2008, questioned by the lawyers of the CDR, the body responsible for setting the liabilities of Crédit Lyonnais, Mr Estoup assured being acted as arbitrator in three procedures, where M th Lantourne was also present. He also said he had issued “no consultation, no notice, nor received any note in the Tapie, Adidas record.”
For police officers, “these About will prove to be false, the investigation found that from 2000 “, former judge was aware of the Tapie-Crédit Lyonnais litigation. They thus observe that “Peter Estoup had provided M th Lantourne many other benefits” , not reported. They dénombrent fifteen in total: arbitration, conciliation, consultation … When questioned by the police on these fifteen cases and the fact that he failed to report, Mr. Estoup struggled to convince. “It’s not deliberate” , he noted once. Or: “I might have had to spend more time looking in my archives. “
Investigators traced the flow of money between Mr. Estoup, M th Lantourne and another lawyer who worked for Mr. Tapie, M th Francis Chouraqui. Over the period 1997-2006, details the financial police, “Peter Estoup was charged 808,987 euros of fees under M related files are and Lantourne Chouraqui. ( …) This represented 42.38% of the turnover of Pierre Estoup “ on the period
Read also:. Adidas Case: Bernard Tapie n ‘ was not injured, police said
The investigation thus established with certainty that Mr. Estoup appointed by the Tapie camp, was involved financially. Investigators do not fail to remember that in June 1998, Bernard Tapie had dedicated his book, Freely (Plon, 1998), Pierre Estoup with this note: “Your support has changed the course of my destiny. “ Other incriminating evidence, the financial police confirmed that ” essential parts of the case Tapie / Credit Lyonnais had been communicated to Mr. Estoup in September 2006 by M th Lantourne and that a meeting was held between the two men Sept. 8, 2006 “.
” victim of a fraud committed by a third party “
His two fellow referees, Pierre Mazeaud and M th Jean-Denis Bredin, assisted witnesses have not digested the revelations of the investigation. For M th Bredin “This is Mr. Estoup who wrote most of the draft award” . Mr. Mazeaud, he assured the police: “I feel the victim of a fraud committed by a third party. “
The Court of Appeal of Paris will have to decide in a second time on the bottom of the arbitration award. Clearly, whether Mr Tapie has been cheated by Crédit Lyonnais. But justice has, as also revealed Le Monde September 11, 2014, a second report. Written July 9, 2014, he contends that the 37 pages businessman was not entitled to claim compensation. His conclusion is clear: “The facts have been established by the investigations fail to give credit to the thesis of Mr Tapie and the referees conclusions. “
The police also claims to have established that before the arbitral tribunal, ” Mr Tapie and his counsel have filed certificates prove to be inaccurate or misleading ” . Mr Tapie had risen in our columns, on 12 September 2014, against these claims: “The intermediate synthesis of a police officer is really only the outright reversal of the fanciful thesis developed by Jean Peyrelevade [former head of Credit Lyonnais] and Credit Lyonnais since 1995 in an attempt to hide the faults of SDBO [Lyonnais subsidiary], he assured. This argument did not convince any of the courts and was swept by all courts that have held that I had been robbed by my bank. “
No comments:
Post a Comment