ARTICLE
15 January 2025

Contractual Interpretation: ESIMplified

AO
A&O Shearman

Contributor

A&O Shearman was formed in 2024 via the merger of two historic firms, Allen & Overy and Shearman & Sterling. With nearly 4,000 lawyers globally, we are equally fluent in English law, U.S. law and the laws of the world’s most dynamic markets. This combination creates a new kind of law firm, one built to achieve unparalleled outcomes for our clients on their most complex, multijurisdictional matters – everywhere in the world. A firm that advises at the forefront of the forces changing the current of global business and that is unrivalled in its global strength. Our clients benefit from the collective experience of teams who work with many of the world’s most influential companies and institutions, and have a history of precedent-setting innovations. Together our lawyers advise more than a third of NYSE-listed businesses, a fifth of the NASDAQ and a notable proportion of the London Stock Exchange, the Euronext, Euronext Paris and the Tokyo and Hong Kong Stock Exchanges.
In Kigen v NOR Capital, the High Court ruled that no Success Fee was payable. It applied established principles of contractual interpretation, determining that the clause did not mandate a fee since no external investors were secured, and the funding came from Kigen's parent company, SoftBank...
United Kingdom Corporate/Commercial Law

In Kigen v NOR Capital, the High Court was asked to interpret a clause to determine whether a "Success Fee" was payable by one party to the other. In a useful illustration of how to apply the established principles of contractual interpretation, the court found no Success Fee was payable.

Background - financing for SIMs

The parties entered into an agreement for NOR Capital to assist Kigen, a leader in the eSIM market, in obtaining a capital investment. NOR Capital did not find any "external" investors. Ultimately, Kigen obtained additional funding from its parent, SoftBank Group. No breach of contract was alleged. The dispute arose over whether a Success Fee was due from Kigen to NOR Capital under a particular clause in the agreement.

The clause required Kigen to pay NOR Capital a Success Fee if a "Capital Raising Transaction" was completed within a certain period. In calculating the Success Fee, the clause indicated that there was "[n]o charge for funding provided by ... Softbank Group Corp" but subsequently stated that "[t]here will be a minimum Success Fee of GBP 500,000 regardless of the source of the funding".

High Court applies established principles

The court recalled the familiar principles of interpretation and accepted that the clause was capable of being read in two ways. Carrying out the iterative process of interpretation, the Court first considered the language of the clause by itself, then the clause within the wider agreement, and finally the factual background and commercial implications of the rival interpretations.

At the first stage, the court marginally favoured Kigen's interpretation, noting the prominence of the words "no charge" in the description of the fee calculation, compared with the location of the sentence dealing with the minimum Success Fee. The court, however, stated that it was neither necessary nor appropriate to reach a conclusion based on the clause alone.

Considering the wider agreement, the court held that its terms contemplated NOR Capital being engaged to find and "secure" external investors. This was also consistent with the factual background. For Kigen to pay a Success Fee in these circumstances would therefore make little commercial sense.

The court found that the minimum Success Fee was intended to apply only where a Success Fee was already payable. The words "regardless of the source of the funding" simply dealt with situations where funding had come from both internal and external investors.

With this judgment, the High Court provides a neat illustration of the application of established principles of interpretation.

Judgment: Kigen v NOR Capital

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

Mondaq uses cookies on this website. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies as set out in our Privacy Policy.

Learn More