Agro-Holding v. Valars S.A.
Russian Federation Supreme Arbitrazh Court
No. 16894/08 (2009)

- Written by Whitney Waldenberg, JD
Facts
In 2007 OOO Agro-Holding (Agro-Holding), a Russian company, and Valars S.A. (Valars), a Swiss company, entered into a contract for the delivery of wheat. The parties exchanged a contract by fax, which recited that its terms were valid until the parties exchanged originals, which never happened. The faxed contract also contained an arbitration clause. A dispute arose between the parties about performance of the contract, and the matter was arbitrated before the Grain and Feed Trade Association (Gafta) in London. The arbitration panel awarded Valars $666,000 plus interest, costs, and expenses. Valars sought enforcement of the award against Agro-Holding in Russia. The lower court affirmed the arbitral award, and Agro-Holding appealed to the Russian Federation Supreme Arbitrazh Court. On appeal, Agro-Holding argued that the contract between the parties was never fully formed and that there was no enforceable arbitration cause. Agro-Holdings further argued that Valars did not submit any evidence that Agro-Holding was duly notified about the time and place of the arbitral proceedings pursuant to the 1965 Convention on the Service Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents in Civil or Commercial Matters.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning ()
What to do next…
Here's why 814,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.