FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W137017089> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W137017089 abstract "Dr. Ahmed Bahgat Fattouh (known in Egypt as Dr. Ahmed Bahgat) was one of the major and successful Egyptian entrepreneurs in the former President Moubrak era; he majorly owns and dominantly chairs many once prosperous industrial and real estate development Egyptian Companies. In 2004, the Companies of Dr. Ahmed Bahgat received further financial support from its creditor Egyptian Banks against a Sharing and Settlement Agreement, transferring its debts to temporary shares, along fixed revenues; this Agreement was amended in 2007 to include a system by which the Banks can safely exit the sharing, once a third party, or any of the partners, offers a price to buy real estate properties of Dr. Bahgat’s Companies, equal to the money owed to the Banks. On March 23, 2011, an Egyptian Company (Misr Real Estate Management Company) offered to buy certain real estate properties of Dr. Bahgat’s Companies in the amount of 3238 Million Egyptian Pounds (nearly half a Billion US dollars). The Banks considered Dr. Ahamed Bahgat in acceptance of the offer, since none of the partners offered otherwise, while Dr. Bahgat refused this claim and resorted, on June 13, 2011, on his behalf, children, and 18 Companies that he chairs, to the Cairo Regional Center for International Commercial Arbitration (CRCICA), activating the arbitration clause of the Sharing and Settlement Agreement, claiming invalidity of the offer, while the Banks held to the validity of the Sale and counter-claimed enforcement thereof. An unanimous award was however issued, on April 7, 2012, against the interests of Dr. Bahgat, accepting most of the counter-claims of the Banks. This award was challenged by separate four setting aside lawsuits, and which were all consolidated by the Cairo Court of Appeal, and dismissed by its decision of February 5, 2013 (7th Commercial Circuit, Challenges 35, 41, 44, 45 of Judicial Year 129; The Dr. Ahmed Bahgat Case), the subject-matter of this commentary. Main arguments against the award included: denial of empowering the Claimant lawyers to raise the arbitration claim, absence of the power of Dr. Bahgat to bound its Companies to resort to arbitration, invalidity of the Sharing and Settlement Agreement for leonine clauses, invalidity of the amendment to the Sharing and Settlement Agreement for duress, admission of undue payments, invalidity of the offer to buy the real estate properties, non-arbitrability of real estate properties in Egypt for violation of public policy, violation to the shareholders rights, lesion and bias of the arbitrators. The Cairo Court of Appeal dismissal relied on good faith doctrines, namely those of: the “Economic Unity of the Group of Companies”, “Ostensible Agency”, “Waiver of Rights”, and “Estoppel”; and absence violation to the public policy, concluding to the validity of the Sale. Though the commentary praises adoption of the “Estoppel” doctrine by the Appeal Court, and which the Court clearly referred to its transnational source; it criticizes the Court for the award being partially invalid, since the Arbitral Tribunal exceeded its power when it validated the Sale. The Sale clearly falls out of both the subjective and objective scopes of the CRCICA arbitration clause, and which only relates to the Banks and Bahgat’s Companies relations (i.e., the parties to the Share and Settlement Agreement), and not Bahgat’s Companies and the third party that may make valid offer (i.e., parties of the Sale). The commentary highlights that the Arbitral Tribunal should had stopped at the point of checking validity of the offer, and which should be treated as a matter of fact and not a legal act at that point. Though Cairo Court of Appeal expressly ruled that validating the Sale does not relate to in rem rights, the commentary concludes otherwise, and this would be of little importance since the Sale falls out of the scope of CRCICA arbitration clause, as stands the commentary. The commentary used the occasion to send call on Egyptian courts, in absence of clear statute, to reconsider established now case-law that excludes real estate properties from the objective scope of arbitration; this is in line with recent comparative case-law, namely that of the Russian Constitutional Court of May 26, 2011." @default.
• W137017089 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W137017089 creator A5048126672 @default.
• W137017089 date "2013-04-01" @default.
• W137017089 modified "2023-09-23" @default.
• W137017089 title "Good Faith in Arbitration: A Commentary on the Cairo Court of Appeal Decision of February 5, 2013 (7th Commercial Circuit, Challenges 35, 41, 44, 45 of Judicial Year 129; The Dr. Ahmed Bahgat Case)" @default.
• W137017089 hasPublicationYear "2013" @default.
• W137017089 type Work @default.
• W137017089 sameAs 137017089 @default.
• W137017089 citedByCount "0" @default.
• W137017089 crossrefType "posted-content" @default.
• W137017089 hasAuthorship W137017089A5048126672 @default.
• W137017089 hasConcept C10138342 @default.
• W137017089 hasConcept C120527767 @default.
• W137017089 hasConcept C144133560 @default.
• W137017089 hasConcept C145097563 @default.
• W137017089 hasConcept C159091798 @default.
• W137017089 hasConcept C160151201 @default.
• W137017089 hasConcept C17744445 @default.
• W137017089 hasConcept C195487862 @default.
• W137017089 hasConcept C199539241 @default.
• W137017089 hasConcept C2777063073 @default.
• W137017089 hasConcept C2778449503 @default.
• W137017089 hasConcept C2779777834 @default.
• W137017089 hasConcept C2780495726 @default.
• W137017089 hasConcept C82279013 @default.
• W137017089 hasConceptScore W137017089C10138342 @default.
• W137017089 hasConceptScore W137017089C120527767 @default.
• W137017089 hasConceptScore W137017089C144133560 @default.
• W137017089 hasConceptScore W137017089C145097563 @default.
• W137017089 hasConceptScore W137017089C159091798 @default.
• W137017089 hasConceptScore W137017089C160151201 @default.
• W137017089 hasConceptScore W137017089C17744445 @default.
• W137017089 hasConceptScore W137017089C195487862 @default.
• W137017089 hasConceptScore W137017089C199539241 @default.
• W137017089 hasConceptScore W137017089C2777063073 @default.
• W137017089 hasConceptScore W137017089C2778449503 @default.
• W137017089 hasConceptScore W137017089C2779777834 @default.
• W137017089 hasConceptScore W137017089C2780495726 @default.
• W137017089 hasConceptScore W137017089C82279013 @default.
• W137017089 hasLocation W1370170891 @default.
• W137017089 hasOpenAccess W137017089 @default.
• W137017089 hasPrimaryLocation W1370170891 @default.
• W137017089 hasRelatedWork W1561178204 @default.
• W137017089 hasRelatedWork W1862171324 @default.
• W137017089 hasRelatedWork W2136759775 @default.
• W137017089 hasRelatedWork W2197991140 @default.
• W137017089 hasRelatedWork W2258876153 @default.
• W137017089 hasRelatedWork W2290628642 @default.
• W137017089 hasRelatedWork W2317367246 @default.
• W137017089 hasRelatedWork W232523487 @default.
• W137017089 hasRelatedWork W2332975836 @default.
• W137017089 hasRelatedWork W237828064 @default.
• W137017089 hasRelatedWork W2416679122 @default.
• W137017089 hasRelatedWork W2785380906 @default.
• W137017089 hasRelatedWork W2915712354 @default.
• W137017089 hasRelatedWork W3123423917 @default.
• W137017089 hasRelatedWork W3126045941 @default.
• W137017089 hasRelatedWork W3194983202 @default.
• W137017089 hasRelatedWork W339194152 @default.
• W137017089 hasRelatedWork W343618056 @default.
• W137017089 hasRelatedWork W394798881 @default.
• W137017089 hasRelatedWork W54508211 @default.
• W137017089 isParatext "false" @default.
• W137017089 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W137017089 magId "137017089" @default.
• W137017089 workType "article" @default.