AES-3C Maritza East 1 EOOD v Alstom Power Systems GmbH

AES-3C Maritza East 1 EOOD v Alstom Power Systems GmbH

The First Demand was invalid as it claimed sums not yet due and was unsupported by required notices or claims against Alstom, thus not compliant with Clause 4(f) of the Bond. The Second Demand was valid, supported by appropriate documentation, and compliant with the Bond. There was no evidence of fraud. Judgment for the Second Demand was granted but enforcement stayed pending the lifting of French court injunctions.

Parties
Claimant: AES-3C Maritza East 1 EOOD; First Defendant: Crédit Agricole Corporate and Investment Bank (previously known as Calyon Corporate and Investment Bank); Second Defendant: Alstom Power Systems GmbH
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
31 January 2011
Procedural Posture
Civil (commercial/banking) / Summary Judgment Application
Outcome
Summary judgment granted for the Second Demand; summary judgment refused for the First Demand; enforcement of judgment stayed pending lifting of French injunctions.
Legal Topics
On Demand Bonds, Summary Judgment, Performance Guarantees, Jurisdiction, Fraud Exception in Bonds
Banking and Finance Law Commercial Law Contract Law On Demand Bonds Summary Judgment Performance Guarantees Jurisdiction Fraud Exception in Bonds

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

AES-3C Maritza East 1 EOOD

Claimant

Crédit Agricole Corporate and Investment Bank (previously known as Calyon Corporate and Investment Bank)

First Defendant

Alstom Power Systems GmbH

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil (commercial/banking) / Summary Judgment Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the First Demand under the Performance Bond was valid and compliant with the bond's terms
  2. 2 Whether the Second Demand was valid and enforceable
  3. 3 Whether a fraudulent demand was made

Ratio Decidendi

The First Demand was invalid as it claimed sums not yet due and was unsupported by required notices or claims against Alstom, thus not compliant with Clause 4(f) of the Bond. The Second Demand was valid, supported by appropriate documentation, and compliant with the Bond. There was no evidence of fraud. Judgment for the Second Demand was granted but enforcement stayed pending the lifting of French court injunctions.

Court Disposition

Summary judgment granted for the Second Demand; summary judgment refused for the First Demand; enforcement of judgment stayed pending lifting of French injunctions.

Orders

  • Summary judgment in favour of AES for €96,604,166.83 against Calyon, not to be enforced while French court injunctions prevent payment.
  • Application for summary judgment on the First Demand dismissed.