ARBITRAL AWARD
ARBITRAL AWARD
(BAT 1204/18)
by the
BASKETBALL ARBITRAL TRIBUNAL (BAT)
Xx. Xxxxx Xxxxxxxx SC
in the arbitration proceedings between
Mr. Xxxxx Xxxxx
- Claimant 1 -
The Neustadt Group, LLC
0000 Xxxxxxxx Xxxx., Xxxxx 000, Xxxxxxxxx, XX 00000, XXX
- Claimant 2 -
both represented by Xx. Xxxxx Xxxxxxxx, The Neustadt Group, LLC
vs.
Trabzonspor Medical Park Basketbol Kulübü
Xxxxxx Xxx Yilmaz Tesisleri Xxxxx Xxxx
Xxxxxxxx Cad. Havalimani Alti, 61830 Trabzon, Turkey
- Respondent -
1. The Parties
1.1 The Claimants
1. Claimant 1, Mr. Xxxxx Xxxxx (“Player”) is an American professional basketball player. Claimant 2, The Neustadt Group, LLC (“Agency”) is an American sports representation agency.
1.2 The Respondent
2. Trabzonspor Medical Park Basketbol Kulübü (“Club”) is a professional basketball club in Trabzon, Turkey.
2. The Arbitrator
3. On 28 June 2018, Xxxx. Xxxxxxx X. XxXxxxx O.C., President of the Basketball Arbitral Tribunal (the "BAT"), appointed Xx. Xxxxx Xxxxxxxx SC, as arbitrator (hereinafter the “Arbitrator”) pursuant to Article 8.1 of the Rules of the Basketball Arbitral Tribunal (hereinafter the "BAT Rules"). None of the Parties has raised any objections to the appointment of the Arbitrator, his declaration of independence, or his conduct of the proceedings.
3. Facts and Proceedings
3.1 Summary of the Dispute
4. Player and Club entered into a contract on 19 July 2017 (“the Agreement”) for the playing season 2017-2018.
5. Player says that Club did not make a number of contracted-for payments:
a) the salary instalment of USD 40,000.00 due on 25 February 2018;
b) the salary instalment of USD 40,000.00 due on 25 March 2018;
c) the salary instalment of USD 20,000.00 due on 25 April 2018; and
d) the salary instalment of USD 20,000.00 due on 25 May 2018.
6. Xxxxxx says that Agency wrote to Club on 13 April 2018 noting that the salary instalment due on 25 February 2018 was more than thirty days overdue. Club was thereby notified that Player no longer intended to perform under the Agreement. Notwithstanding that notification, Club did not make any payments thereafter and the four instalments set out at para. 5 above remain unpaid.
7. Agency says that the fee it agreed with Club, namely USD 30,000.00, has not been paid notwithstanding the contractual obligation to do so (and an invoice furnished to Club in October 2017).
3.2 The Proceedings before the BAT
8. On 1 June 2018, Claimants filed a Request for Arbitration of that date in accordance with the BAT Rules.
9. The non-reimbursable handling fee in the amount of EUR 3,000.00 was paid in two parts: EUR 2,500.00 on 4 June 2018; and EUR 500.00 on 6 June 2018.
10. On 2 July 2018, the BAT informed the Parties that Xx. Xxxxx Xxxxxxxx, SC had been appointed as the Arbitrator in this matter. Further, the BAT fixed the advance on costs to be paid by the Parties as follows:
“ Claimant 1 (Mr. Xxxxx Xxxxx) EUR 4,500.00 Claimant 2 (The Neustadt Group) EUR 1,500.00
Respondent (Trabzonspor Medical Park BK) EUR 6,000.00”
11. The foregoing sums were paid as follows: 17 July 2018, EUR 1,500.00 by Agency; 2 August 2018 EUR 9,000.00, by Player; and, 8 August 2018, EUR 1,500.00 by Agency.
12. Club did not file an Answer, and did not participate in this Arbitration.
13. On 9 August 2018, the Parties were invited to set out (by no later than 16 August 2018) how much of the applicable maximum contribution to costs should be awarded to them and why. The Parties were also invited to include a detailed account of their costs, including any supporting documentation in relation thereto. Finally, the Parties were also notified that the exchange of documentation was closed in accordance with Article
12.1 of the BAT Rules.
14. On 15 August 2018, Claimants submitted their statement of costs. Club did not submit any costs.
4. The Positions of the Parties
15. Xxxxxxxxx’ position is as sought in their claims for relief in the Request for Arbitration:
“1. Claimant Green requests to be immediately paid his February 25, 2018; March 25, 2018; April 25, 2018; and May 25, 2018, salary instalments totalling $120,000, net of Turkish taxes.
2. Pursuant to Article 4(A) of the Playing Agreement, Claimant Green requests to be paid late fees of $10,500, equal to $75 per day for every day over 20 days that his February 25th, March 25th, and April 25th salary installments are overdue (his February 25th salary instalment is 96 days overdue; his March 25th salary instalment is 68 days overdue; and his April 25th salary installment is 36 days overdue).
3. Claimant Green also requests to be paid $18,000 USD, net of Turkish taxes, in bonuses for Respondent’s 9 wins in the Turkish League prior to April 13th. These are due
pursuant to Article 4(B) of the Playing Agreement, which states that he is to receive
$2,000 USD, net of Turkish taxes, “[f]or each win, home or away” in the Turkish League. Exhibit F hereto is Respondent’s 2017-18 season schedule from xxxxxxxxxx.xxx, showing that Respondent won games in the Turkish League on October 21, 2017; November 11th, 2017; November 18th, 2017; January 6th, 2018; February 4th, 2018;
February 10th, 2018; March 3rd, 2018; March 17th, 2018; and March 31st, 2018.
4. Beginning from the date of filing this Request for Arbitration, Claimant Green requests that a reasonable rate of interest be assessed on all outstanding funds owing him by Respondent.
5. Claimant Green requests that the Club provide him certificates of Turkish taxes paid on his behalf for all monies that the Club paid him for the 2017-18 season (including any amounts pursuant to an Award herefrom), according to the last section of Article 4(C) of the Playing Agreement.
6. Claimant The Neustadt Group, LLC, requests to be immediately paid its $30,000 commission for the 2017-18 season, net of Turkish taxes.
7. Pursuant to paragraph 3 of the Commission Agreement, Claimant The Neustadt Group, LLC, requests to be paid late fees of $16,050, equal to $75 per day for every day over 15 days that its commission is overdue (as of the date of filing this Request for Arbitration, the full commission is 229 days overdue).
8. Beginning from the date of filing this Request for Arbitration, Claimant The Neustadt Group, LLC, requests that a reasonable rate of interest be assessed on all outstanding funds owing it by Respondent.
9. The Claimants request that Respondent should pay all of the costs of this arbitration, as later determined by the President of the BAT, including, but not limited to, the handling fee and the advance on BAT costs.
10. The Claimants request that Respondent should pay all of Claimants’ legal fees.”
16. Club did not participate in this Arbitration.
5. The Jurisdiction of the BAT
17. As a preliminary matter, the Arbitrator wishes to emphasize that, since Club did not participate in this arbitration, he will examine his jurisdiction ex officio on the basis of the record as it stands.
18. Pursuant to Article 2.1 of the BAT Rules, “[t]he seat of the BAT and of each arbitral
proceeding before the Arbitrator shall be Geneva, Switzerland”. Hence, this BAT arbitration is governed by Chapter 12 of the Swiss Act on Private International Law (PILA).
19. The jurisdiction of the BAT presupposes the arbitrability of the dispute and the existence of a valid arbitration agreement between the parties.
20. The Arbitrator finds that the dispute referred to him is of a financial nature and is thus arbitrable within the meaning of Article 177(1) PILA.1
21. The jurisdiction of the BAT over the claims is stated to result from the arbitration clause in the Agreement (article 5), which reads as follows:
“Any dispute arising from or related to the present contract shall be submitted to the Basketball Arbitral Tribunal (BAT) in Geneva, Switzerland and shall be resolved in accordance with the BAT Arbitration Rules by a single arbitrator appointed by the BAT President. The seat of the arbitration shall be Geneva, Switzerland. The arbitration shall be governed by Chapter 12 of the Swiss Act on Private International Law, irrespective of the parties' domicile. The language of the arbitration shall be English. The arbitrator shall decide the dispute ex aequo et xxxx.”
22. Article 10 of the Agreement references the payment of a commission (10% of Player’s net 2017-2018 season salary) by Club to Agency pursuant to a separate agreement, which, importantly, is deemed to be “hereby incorporated with this one”. That separate agreement (constituting exhibit D to the Request for Arbitration) itself contains a BAT arbitration clause in identical terms to the one recorded at para. 20 above.
23. The arbitration clause is in written form and thus fulfils the formal requirements of Article 178(1) PILA.
24. With respect to substantive validity, the Arbitrator considers that there is no indication
1 Decision of the Federal Tribunal 4P.230/2000 of 7 February 2001 reported in ASA Bulletin 2001, p. 523.
in the file that could cast doubt on the validity of the arbitration clauses under Swiss law (referred to by Article 178(2) PILA).
25. The language of the arbitration clause is quite clear, namely, the Parties have opted for BAT arbitration.
26. For the above reasons, the Arbitrator has jurisdiction to adjudicate the claims of Player and Agency.
6. Other Procedural Issues
27. Article 14.2 of the BAT Rules specifies that “the Arbitrator may […] proceed with the arbitration and deliver an award” if “the Respondent fails to submit an Answer.” The Arbitrator's authority to proceed with the arbitration in case of default by one of the parties is in accordance with Swiss arbitration law and the practice of the BAT.2 However, the Arbitrator must make every effort to allow the defaulting party to assert its rights.
28. This requirement is met in the present case. Club was informed of the initiation of the proceedings and of the appointment of the Arbitrator in accordance with the relevant rules. It was also given sufficient opportunity to respond to Claimants’ Request for Arbitration. Club, however, chose not to participate in this Arbitration.
2 See ex multis BAT 0001/07; BAT 0018/08; BAT 0093/09; BAT 0170/11.
7. Discussion
7.1 Applicable Law – ex aequo et xxxx
29. With respect to the law governing the merits of the dispute, Article 187(1) PILA provides that the arbitral tribunal must decide the case according to the rules of law chosen by the parties or, in the absence of a choice, according to the rules of law with which the case has the closest connection. Article 187(2) PILA adds that the parties may authorize the arbitrators to decide “en équité” instead of choosing the application of rules of law. Article 187(2) PILA is generally translated into English as follows:
“the parties may authorize the arbitral tribunal to decide ex aequo et xxxx”.
30. Under the heading "Applicable Law", Article 15.1 of the BAT Rules reads as follows:
“Unless the parties have agreed otherwise the Arbitrator shall decide the dispute ex aequo et xxxx, applying general considerations of justice and fairness without reference to any particular national or international law.”
31. As noted in paragraph 20 above, the arbitration clause in the Agreement expressly provides that the Arbitrator shall decide any dispute ex aequo et xxxx.
32. The concept of “équité” (or ex aequo et xxxx) used in Article 187(2) PILA originates from Article 31(3) of the Concordat intercantonal sur l’arbitrage3 (Concordat)4, under which Swiss courts have held that arbitration “en équité” is fundamentally different from arbitration “en droit”:
3 That is the Swiss statute that governed international and domestic arbitration before the enactment of the PILA (governing international arbitration) and, most recently, the Swiss Code of Civil Procedure (governing domestic arbitration).
4 P.A. Xxxxxx, Xxxxxx Kommentar, No. 289 ad Art. 187 PILA.
“When deciding ex aequo et xxxx, the Arbitrators pursue a conception of justice which is not inspired by the rules of law which are in force and which might even be contrary to those rules.”5
33. In substance, it is generally considered that the arbitrator deciding ex aequo et xxxx receives “a mandate to give a decision based exclusively on equity, without regard to legal rules. Instead of applying general and abstract rules, he/she must stick to the circumstances of the case.”6
34. This is confirmed by Article 15.1 of the BAT Rules in fine, according to which the Arbitrator applies “general considerations of justice and fairness without reference to any particular national or international law.”
35. In light of the foregoing considerations, the Arbitrator makes the findings below.
7.2 Findings
36. The doctrine of pacta sunt servanda (which is consistent with justice and equity – parties who make a bargain are expected to stick to that bargain) is the principle by which the Arbitrator will examine the merits of the claims.
37. First, the Arbitrator finds it readily established by Claimants that they are owed unambiguous contractual debts by Club, namely USD 120,000.00 due to Player, and USD 30,000.00 due to Agency.
38. This conclusion emerges clearly from article 4.A of the Agreement in respect of Player’s claim of USD 120,000.00 as the last four monthly salary payments are set out as payable on the following dates (together with agreed amounts): USD 40,000.00 due
5 JdT 1981 III, p. 93 (free translation).
6 Poudret/Xxxxxx, Comparative Law of International Arbitration, London 2007, No. 717. pp.625-626.
on 25 February 2018; USD 40,000.00 due on 25 March 2018; USD 20,000.00 due on
25 April 2018; and USD 20,000.00 due on 25 May 2018. Further, article 2 of the Agreement describes it as fully guaranteed for all salary payments. Finally, Player asserts in the Request for Arbitration that he was not paid these salary payments, and this has not been contradicted in any way by Club. Had Club indeed made such payments, presumably (in light of the potential consequences of a BAT award being rendered against it as is plainly recognised in article 2 of the Agreement) it would have reacted to this case and filed an Answer.
39. This conclusion as regards the claim of Agency for USD 30,000.00 for commission emerges clearly from article 10 of the Agreement. That article expressly provides that Agency will receive from Club a commission representing 10% of Player’s salary (which is stated at article 4.A to be USD 300,000.00). The figure of USD 30,000.00 is explicitly stated in the document attached to the Request for Arbitration as Exhibit D, namely, the agreement between Agency and Club. The due date is also agreed as being 15 October 2017. For the same reason as discussed just above regarding proof by Player of non-payment (namely, that it is reasonable to infer that had Club made the payment it would have taken the opportunity to say so in this case), and based on the record before him, the Arbitrator finds that Agency has not been paid the debt contractually due to it by Club.
40. Article 4.A of the Agreement provides as follows, in part:
“All monies paid to Player by Club are “net”: Club assumes all charges of any kind linked to such payments including all taxes. The salary is to be free and clear of all taxes of Club’s nation and locality. It is the responsibility of Club to pay all taxes and player is to receive the amounts listed below after withholding. Therefore, Club shall “gross up” the net salary below so that Player is paying such tax.”
41. Article 4.C of the Agreement provides as follows, in part:
“During the period of this Agreement, Club shall provide Player with the appropriate certificate of tax credit indicating that all required income tax due in Club’s nation, state or province and city on all Salary and bonus sums have been paid, and showing the amount of tax paid on the Player’s behalf by the Club.”
42. Thus, as noted in the prayers for relief sought by Player, the amounts due to him are explicitly agreed to be “net” and, also, he has a contractual entitlement to certificates showing the amount of tax paid in respect of his salary. The Arbitrator’s award below will, therefore, include the requirement of payments to be made “net” and also the obligation to provide Player with tax certificates.
43. In a similar vein, Club agreed to pay Agency the commission fee of USD 30,000.00 net. This express provision of a net payment will, therefore, be included in the Arbitrator’s award below.
44. Next, Player seeks payment of bonuses of USD 2,000.00, net, for each of the “9 wins in the Turkish League prior to April 13th”. Player refers to article 4.B of the Agreement which expressly provides for a bonus of USD 2,000.00, net, for each win, home or away. Thus, the contractual basis for such claim is established. As regards the factual basis for such claim, Player relies on a print-out of statistics from Xxxxxxxxxx.xxx in that regard. The Arbitrator, in reliance on the authenticity of this print-out, finds that Club won nine times in the Turkish League prior to Player withdrawing his services on 13 April 2018 due to non-payment. Thus, Player’s claim for a total of USD 18,000.00, net, in respect of unpaid bonuses is duly established.
45. The balance of the claims made by Claimants, apart from interest, surround late payment fees.
46. Player relies on article 4.A of the Agreement which expressly states that in the event that Club is twenty or more days late with a payment of salary or bonuses, a late fee of USD 75.00 per day will be assessed. As has already been established, Club did not make timely payment of the salary instalment of USD 40,000.00 to Player on 25 February 2018. Twenty days after 25 February 2018 is 17 March 2018. Starting, therefore, on 18 March 2018 (as the time window for payment by Club to avoid late fees is twenty days, not on the twentieth day) and running to the date of the Request
for Arbitration on 1 June 2018 results in 76 days. Multiplying 76 days by USD 75.00 gives a total figure of USD 5,700.00. Pausing for a moment prior to analysing that figure in light of prior BAT awards and practice concerning late fees, the Arbitrator notes that Player seeks a larger sum than USD 5,700.00 which effectively would have such a fee triggered after each late instalment; thus cumulatively there could be multiple and concurrent fees running at the one time. The Arbitrator does not see that such an outcome is borne out by the language of the Agreement. Rather, the language of the Agreement suggests more strongly that once the conditions for the late fee are triggered, then it would accumulate on a daily basis based only on the originating event. If parties wished to agree quite a significant penalty provision of multiple late fees running concurrently, then it would be up to them to agree explicit language in that regard (which itself would be subject to scrutiny in accordance with established BAT practice).
47. Returning to the figure of USD 5,700.00 as representing 76 days of late fees, this needs to be analysed by the Arbitrator in light of existing BAT awards and practice. In particular, BAT award 0756 which discussed penalty clauses thus:
“[…] contractual clauses which apply in the context of a breach, or termination for cause, such as penalties, or liquidated damages (this is not a closed list), are subject to careful scrutiny when ruling ex aequo et xxxx. In particular, such a clause which imposes a detriment on the contract-breaker out of all proportion to any legitimate interest of the innocent party, may be refused enforcement, or moderated in its application
48. As regards the specific case in hand Player’s overall claim for unpaid salary and bonuses totals USD 138,000.00 (USD 120,000.00 salary plus USD 18,000.00 bonuses). A figure of USD 5,700.00 for late fees represents just over 4% of that total amount, which, on any analysis could not impose a detriment on Club out of proportion to the legitimate interests of Player in being paid undoubtedly due sums of money. Thus, in application of established BAT principles concerning late payment fees, the Arbitrator awards USD 5,700.00 to Player.
49. Turning to the claim of Agency for late fees, it relies on the clear contractual provision in the contract between it and Club to the effect that in the event of fifteen days’ delay in timely payment of its commission, a late fee of USD 75.00 will be assessed. As is established already above, Agency was due its fee on 15 October 2017, thus, fifteen days thereafter brings one to 30 October 2017. Starting a late fee on 31 October 2017 and running to 1 June 2018 (being the date of the Request for Arbitration) results in 214 days, when multiplied by USD 75.00 gives USD 16,050.00.
50. Applying the principle set out at para. 46 above, the Arbitrator can see that the total of the late fee claim of Agency is more than 50% (53.5%) of the underlying principal claim of USD 30,000.00. The legitimate interest of Agency is to be paid its contracted-for commission in a prompt fashion as that is a key element of its business. Agency is in the business of assisting clubs and players to find one another, and being paid agreed fees for such services. It is not in the business of being paid daily fines, the latter being an adjunct to its day to day conduct of its affairs. If Agency is not paid in a timely fashion, it also has a legitimate interest in some form of compensation in order to encourage payment, which serves as the function of the widely-used contractual mechanism of late payment fees. The payer, Club, also must understand that there are monetary consequences for non-payment and such late fees can leave it in no doubt in that regard. However, the financial punishment must be concomitant with the underlying default, save where, perhaps, parties knowingly use the most unambiguous language in their agreements. As regards the case in hand, awarding more than half of the original commission fee in addition would, to the Arbitrator’s view, represent an imposition of a detriment on Club out of proportion to the legitimate interest of Agency in being paid for its services. This requires the issue of late payment fees for Agency being looked at afresh by the Arbitrator rather than simply picking a random lower figure.
As already noted above, Player withdrew his playing services on 13 April 2018 and this was notified by means of a letter from Agency to Club on that date. There is no
indication on the file of materials before the Arbitrator that Agency had challenged Club in respect of the non-payment of its fees prior to that date. While this is not an excuse on the part of Club, it is a factor which the Arbitrator considers he can take account of when assessing late payment fees. There are 49 days between 13 April 2018 and the date of the Request for Arbitration. Multiplying 49 days by USD 75.00 results in a figure of USD 3,675.00 which represents 12.25% of the underlying claim for unpaid commission. This, in the Arbitrator’s view, comports with the object and purpose of late payment fees and does not impose a detriment on Club out of all proportion to the legitimate interest of Agency in being paid. The figure of USD 3,675.00 is the amount which the Arbitrator orders to be paid to Agency in respect of late payment fees.
51. Turning to interest, Claimants seek a reasonable rate on all amounts due as and from the date of the Request for Arbitration. Interest at 5% per annum (which is the established rate awarded consistently in BAT awards) is appropriate, and this is awarded as and from 1 June 2018 until payment in full of the principal amounts claimed, namely, salary, bonuses, commission, but not on the late fees.
8. Costs
52. Article 17 of the BAT Rules provides that the final amount of the costs of the arbitration shall be determined by the BAT President and that the award shall determine which party shall bear the arbitration costs and in what proportion; and, as a general rule, shall grant the prevailing party a contribution towards its reasonable legal fees and expenses incurred in connection with the proceedings.
53. On 25 September 2018 – considering that pursuant to Article 17.2 of the BAT Rules “the BAT President shall determine the final amount of the costs of the arbitration which shall include the administrative and other costs of BAT and the fees and costs of the BAT President and the Arbitrator”, and that “the fees of the Arbitrator shall be calculated on the basis of time spent at a rate to be determined by the BAT President
from time to time”, taking into account all the circumstances of the case, including the time spent by the Arbitrator, the complexity of the case and the procedural questions raised – the BAT President determined the arbitration costs in the present matter to be EUR 9,800.00.
54. Considering that Claimants prevailed it is consistent with the provisions of the BAT Rules that the fees and costs of the arbitration, as well as their reasonable costs and expenses, be borne by the Club alone.
55. Claimants seek EUR 2,400.00 for attorney’s fees, and the non-reimbursable handling fee of EUR 3,000.00. The figure of EUR 2,400.00 for attorney’s fees is made up as follows:
(a) Legal Fees, Drafting of the Request for Arbitration and Assembly of Exhibits,
May, 2018. 300.00 euros per hour for 5.0 hours; and
(b) Correspondence with Clients Regarding Their and Respondent's Shares of the Advance on Costs, July and August, 2018. 300.00 euros per hour for 3.0 hours.
56. A figure of EUR 2,400.00 is, in principle, reasonable, even modest, for attorney’s fees when representing clients in an international arbitration, albeit one which no opposition was mounted and the debts owed were undisputed, and undisputable. However, one factor does require consideration, namely that external counsel was not utilised by Xxxxxxxxx and the dispute was handled entirely by in-house counsel. If a company or organisation decides to have an in-house counsel, that is its commercial decision. Therefore, such a company or organisation considers that the usual tasks associated with legal services are sufficiently regular as to warrant having in-house lawyers. Such tasks can range from the drafting of contracts to their enforcement via BAT arbitration (in the context of professional basketball contracts). Thus, the sort of work associated
with this case which was undertaken by Agency’s in-house counsel is likely to be part and parcel of the work which he was doing in any event. That is not to say that Club can get the full benefit of that internal arrangement on the part of Agency and avoid having to pay some compensation for legal fees. It is reasonable to infer that had Club paid its debts to Claimants, then Agency’s in-house counsel would have been doing other things apart from pursuing this matter. It is, therefore, also reasonable to require Club to compensate Claimants for the time of in-house counsel devoted to the case. This requires a balance to be struck between the time taken up on the case and the fact that this was part of in-house counsel’s usual work. In that regard, the Arbitrator considers that a figure of EUR 1,000.00 represents such a balance, to which will be added EUR 3,000.00 in respect of the expense of the non-reimbursable handling fee.
57. Taking into account the factors required by Article 17.3 of the BAT Rules, the maximum amount prescribed under Article 17.4 of the BAT Rules, and the specific circumstances of this case, the Arbitrator holds that EUR 4,000.00 represents a fair and equitable contribution by Club to Claimants’ legal costs and expenses, including the non- reimbursable handling fee.
58. The Arbitrator decides that in application of Article 17.3 of the BAT Rules:
(i) BAT shall reimburse EUR 2,200.00 to Claimants, being the difference between the costs advanced by them and the arbitration costs fixed by the BAT President;
(ii) Club shall pay EUR 9,800.00 to Claimants, being the difference between the costs advanced by them and the amount they are going to receive in reimbursement from the BAT; and
(iii) Club shall pay EUR 4,000.00 to Claimants, representing a contribution by it to their legal fees and expenses.
9. AWARD
For the reasons set forth above, the Arbitrator decides as follows:
1. Trabzonspor Medical Park Basketbol Kulübü shall pay Mr. Xxxxx Xxxxx USD 120,000.00 net of Turkish taxes as outstanding salary and USD 18,000.00 net of Turkish taxes as outstanding bonuses, together with interest at 5% per annum on USD 138,000.00 from 1 June 2018 until payment in full.
2. Trabzonspor Medical Park Basketbol Kulübü shall pay Mr. Xxxxx Xxxxx USD 5,700.00 as late payment fees.
3. Trabzonspor Medical Park Basketbol Kulübü shall pay The Neustadt Group, LLC USD 30,000.00 net of Turkish taxes as outstanding commission together with interest at 5% per annum from 1 June 2018 until payment in full.
4. Trabzonspor Medical Park Basketbol Kulübü shall pay The Neustadt Group, LLC USD 3,675.00 as late payment fees.
5. Trabzonspor Medical Park Basketbol Kulübü is ordered to provide Mr. Xxxxx Xxxxx certificates of Turkish taxes paid on his behalf for all monies that the Trabzonspor Medical Park Basketbol Kulübü paid him for the 2017-18 season (including the salary and bonus amounts ordered to be paid at para. 1 above).
6. Trabzonspor Medical Park Basketbol Kulübü shall pay Mr. Xxxxx Xxxxx and The Neustadt Group, LLC EUR 9,800.00 as reimbursement for their arbitration costs.
7. Trabzonspor Medical Park Basketbol Kulübü shall pay Mr. Xxxxx Xxxxx and The Neustadt Group, LLC EUR 4,000.00 as a contribution to their legal fees and expenses.
8. Any other or further-reaching requests for relief are dismissed.
Geneva, seat of the arbitration 10 October 2018.
Xxxxx Xxxxxxxx (Arbitrator)