The attached draft consultancy agreement was similar in structure to the Advisory Agreement ultimately entered into, quoted in § 70 below, but (a) it referred to RMK as the “ Consultant ” (rather than
The attached draft consultancy agreement was similar in structure to the Advisory Agreement ultimately entered into, quoted in § 70 below, but (a) it referred to RMK as the “Consultant” (rather than the “Adviser”), (b) it did not contain subparagraph 1.1(v) of the final version, so the list of ‘main services’ was as follows:-
Develop an Acquisition Model for the project in cooperation with the Company;
Attend all meetings related to the Project by phone or in person, if so requested by the Company;
Keep the Company informed and the model updated to the extent relevant with any information to which it becomes privy in relation to Gener8 Maritime Inc., the Company, the Project or possible competition;
If so requested by the Company, approach specifically named individuals to explain the Project model and to advise Euronav of the outcome of such meetings
The above list is not exhaustive and subject to change as agreed upon in writing by both Parties.
- Heading
- INTRODUCTION
- OVERVIEW OF PARTIES AND CLAIMS
- WITNESSES OF FACT
- EXPERT EVIDENCE
- FACTUAL NARRATIVE
- The attached draft consultancy agreement was similar in structure to the Advisory Agreement ultimately entered into, quoted in § 70 below, but (a) it referred to RMK as the “ Consultant ” (rather than
- The draft provided for total potential fees of US$ 500,000 structured as follows
- APPLICABLE PRINCIPLES
- ANALYSIS
- QUANTUM
- Conclusions
![CL-2022-000522 - [2025] EWHC 2739 (Comm)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_WAai98v.png)