Clarifications

1. According to the Moot Problem (page 3, para. 1) Lamidoria`s legal system is almost identical to the legal system of the Russian Federation. Does it mean that Lamidorian laws are the verbatim adoption of the Russian laws and therefore the Russian laws, legal precedents of the Russian courts and doctrine of Soviet and post-soviet scientists can be used in the Moot?

No, it does not. Lamidorian legal system is very much like the legal system of Russia in terms of codified civil legislation and civil procedure; however the system of laws is different. Therefore legal opinions of Soviet higher courts, Soviet legal doctrine and works of post-soviet scholars are not applicable to the Problem in question, and cannot be used as the sources of law or bases of argumentation.

2. What is the content of preliminary agreement between EML and LGM?

The preliminary agreement concluded between EML and LGM is similar to what we know as LoI (letter of intent). The parties have expressed their unambiguous intent to conclude an enforceable contract in the future. The text of the agreement has no “Obligations of the Parties” clause, but the date and the subject matter of the future contract were specified and agreed upon in the preliminary agreement.

3. Can the participants of the Moot change stated lines of the Claimant (in relation of the applicable law) and Respondent submitted to the High Court of Lamidoria? If we can, what is the limit of our deviation from the already presented arguments?

No, they cannot. Stated lines of the Claimant reflect the legal standing of the Claimant and are thus part of the Problem of the Moot. Participants are not allowed to change information or facts of the Problem.

4. What was the reason for the director's change in 2015?

Shareholders do not need to share their reasons with respect to directors’ dismissal as long as such actions are allowed by the bylaws of the company and executed in the manner prescribed therein. Their vote on directors’ dismissal was sui juris and carried out duly.

5. Please, clarify “Prayer for Relief” of the Statement of claim:

“3) The Respondent should be ordered to:

a. Fulfill a specific performance of the shareholders agreement; or

b. Pay penalty for the violation of the shareholder’s agreement; or

c. Pay damages caused as a result of violation of the shareholders agreement”.

What is legal interpretation of “or”? Could the Claimant choose the variant of order? Or is this competence of the Court?

It is the sole competence of the Court to render a decision and order the Respondent to perform certain actions.