# Verhandlungs-E-Mails – Opposing Counsel Correspondence

> **Aktenzeichen:** CLC-2024-HH-007  
> **Parteien:** RheinMain Sensors GmbH (vertreten durch RA Thomas Brandt, Brandt & Wessel, Hamburg) | Blue Harbor (UK) Ltd. / Blue Harbor Systems Inc. (vertreten durch Michael T. Johnson, Esq., und Amanda Clarke, Solicitor, Carver, Whitmore & Finch LLP)  
> **Zeitraum:** März – April 2024

---

## E-Mail 1 von 3 – Erster Entwurf-Kommentar Gegenseite an Brandt (25. März 2024)

---

> **Von:** Michael T. Johnson <m.johnson@cwf-law.com>  
> **An:** Thomas Brandt <t.brandt@brandt-wessel.de>  
> **Cc:** Amanda Clarke <a.clarke@cwf-law.com>; Lena Voss <l.voss@cwf-law.com>  
> **Datum:** 25. März 2024, 16:42 Uhr (GMT)  
> **Betreff:** Re: RheinMain/Blue Harbor – Supply & License Agreement (v1.0) – Initial Comments  
> **Aktenzeichen (CWF):** M-2024-0312-RMS

Dear Thomas,

Thank you for making time for our call on Thursday. As discussed, I am sharing our initial comments on the draft Supply and License Agreement (v1.0) circulated by your office on 14 March 2024. Amanda and I have reviewed the draft together with our client's in-house counsel in Wilmington, and I want to flag three substantive issues that we believe need resolution before we can proceed to a redline.

**1. Governing Law**

Our client maintains its position that New York law should govern the payment provisions (Clause 12), given that Blue Harbor Systems Inc.'s treasury operations are based in New York and all intercompany settlements run through accounts held at JPMorgan Chase, New York. We understand that RheinMain Sensors is uncomfortable with full New York law governance. As a compromise, we would propose the following: (i) Clause 12 (Governing Law) to provide English law for the main agreement; (ii) the Parent Guarantee to be governed by Delaware law as it relates to the corporate authority of Blue Harbor Systems Inc. We do not consider this to be an unusual arrangement for transactions of this size.

**2. Indemnification (Clause 14)**

We inserted our standard US indemnity package, which includes a broad hold-harmless provision in favour of all Blue Harbor affiliates. Our client requires this coverage in light of the offshore deployment environments for the RS-900X sensors – the risk of third-party personal injury claims in the North Sea or Gulf of Mexico context is real and cannot be left uncovered. The current draft limits the indemnity to „culpable breach" (schuldhafter Verstoß), which is not adequate from a US law perspective. Please confirm whether your client is willing to accept a strict liability indemnity for product defects (mirroring the US strict liability standard under the Restatement Third of Torts), in addition to the statutory regime under the Produkthaftungsgesetz.

**3. Consequential Damages Waiver (Clause 15)**

We note that your draft includes a carve-out for „wilful misconduct or gross negligence" from the consequential damages exclusion. Our client cannot accept this carve-out as drafted. Under New York law, consequential damages waivers are routinely enforced without such carve-outs, even in cases of gross negligence (absent intentional fraud). We appreciate that German law may impose restrictions on AGB-based exclusions, but given that we are proposing English law as the governing law, we believe a full consequential damages waiver is appropriate here.

We look forward to your response and propose a call for Wednesday, 3 April, 10:00 AM London time (11:00 AM Hamburg). Please confirm availability.

Kind regards,  
**Michael T. Johnson**  
Partner, Carver, Whitmore & Finch LLP  
30 Rockefeller Plaza, 42nd Floor | New York, NY 10112  
T: +1 212 555 0190 | M: +1 917 555 0443  
*Admitted in New York and New Jersey*

---

### Deutsche Begleitnotiz (intern, Kanzlei Brandt & Wessel)

**Aktenvermerk Nr. 3** | AZ: CLC-2024-HH-007 | Datum: 25. März 2024

**Bearbeiter:** RA Thomas Brandt | **Adressat:** Akte / Dr. Anke Förster (RheinMain Sensors)

**Inhalt:** Gegenseite versucht in Punkt 1 den Einstieg in eine Rechtsspaltung (Englisches Recht + Delaware für Guarantee + implizit NY für Zahlungen). Das ist strategisch konsequent, aber für uns nicht hinnehmbar. Die Konzernhaftung (Guarantee) muss aus unserer Sicht nach deutschem Recht geprüft werden – ein Delaware-Board-Beschluss ersetzt nicht die Schriftform nach § 766 BGB.

In Punkt 2 versucht die Gegenseite, den deutschen Verschuldensgrundsatz (§ 276 BGB) durch US-Strict Liability zu ersetzen. Das ist bei deutschem Vertragsstatut nicht möglich; ProdHaftG gilt als zwingendes Recht ohnehin.

In Punkt 3: Der Ausschluss des consequential damages-Waivers bei gross negligence ist für uns verhandelbar, wenn paralleler Ausschluss bei vorsätzlichem Handeln ausdrücklich erhalten bleibt. Der Verweis auf New York Law greift nicht, wenn wir uns auf English Law als Statut einigen.

**Empfehlung:** Ablehnung der Rechtsspaltung; Akzeptanz von English Law als Kompromiss (anstatt deutschem Recht), wenn DIS-Schiedsort Hamburg erhalten bleibt. Strict Liability-Indemnity strikt ablehnen.

---

## E-Mail 2 von 3 – Antwort Brandt an Johnson (03. April 2024)

---

> **Von:** Thomas Brandt <t.brandt@brandt-wessel.de>  
> **An:** Michael T. Johnson <m.johnson@cwf-law.com>  
> **Cc:** Amanda Clarke <a.clarke@cwf-law.com>; Dr. Anke Förster <a.foerster@rheinmain-sensors.de>; Hendrik Wessel <h.wessel@brandt-wessel.de>  
> **Datum:** 03. April 2024, 11:15 Uhr (CEST)  
> **Betreff:** Re: RheinMain/Blue Harbor – Supply & License Agreement – Response to Initial Comments  
> **Aktenzeichen (BW):** CLC-2024-HH-007

Dear Michael, dear Amanda,

Thank you for your letter of 25 March and for the constructive call this morning. I write to set out RheinMain Sensors' formal position on the three issues you raised.

**1. Governing Law**

RheinMain Sensors cannot accept a split governing law arrangement involving New York law for any part of this Agreement. Our client has no legal infrastructure in the United States, and the prospect of litigating payment disputes under New York law before New York courts would be prohibitively costly. We are, however, instructed to offer the following compromise: **English law (the law of England and Wales) as the sole governing law** for the entire Agreement, including all payment provisions and the Parent Guarantee. This would address your client's concern about the enforceability of the Guarantee under a neutral legal system, while avoiding the cost and unpredictability of US litigation for our client.

We propose the following revised Clause 12.1: *„This Agreement and all non-contractual obligations arising out of or in connection with it shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the law of England and Wales, excluding the CISG."* We would further ask that Clause 12 be supplemented by a specific carve-out confirming that the mandatory provisions of the German Produkthaftungsgesetz shall remain applicable irrespective of the governing law, as required by Art. 28 of Regulation (EC) No 864/2007 (Rome II).

**2. Indemnification**

We reject the proposed strict liability indemnity in the terms suggested. Under German product liability law (Produkthaftungsgesetz), strict liability already applies by statute to product defects causing personal injury or property damage, and this regime cannot be modified or enhanced by contractual indemnification provisions. Any additional contractual indemnity running beyond the statutory regime would need to be individually negotiated and would need to be proportionate in scope.

Our counter-proposal is as follows: The indemnity in Clause 14 covers (i) third-party personal injury and property damage claims directly arising from a proven product defect within the meaning of Section 3 ProdHaftG; (ii) third-party intellectual property infringement claims arising from the RS-900X sensor design. It does not extend to claims arising from improper deployment, integration failure, or third-party software interaction, which are outside our client's sphere of control.

**3. Consequential Damages**

We note your client's position on the gross negligence carve-out. After further reflection, RheinMain Sensors is prepared to accept the following formulation, which we believe is consistent with both English law and the mandatory requirements of German law:

> *„Neither Party shall be liable to the other Party for any indirect, consequential or incidental loss or damage (including loss of profit, loss of revenue, loss of anticipated savings or loss of data) arising out of or in connection with this Agreement, whether arising in contract, tort (including negligence) or otherwise. This exclusion shall not apply in the event of (i) fraud or wilful concealment; (ii) death or personal injury caused by a Party's negligence; or (iii) any mandatory statutory liability that cannot lawfully be excluded."*

This formulation tracks the standard English law carve-outs (fraud, personal injury) while omitting the gross negligence carve-out your client objects to, and includes a saving clause for mandatory statutory liability. We believe this is a fair middle ground.

We propose to circulate a marked-up redline of the Agreement by Friday 12 April. Please confirm that this timetable is acceptable on your end. We remain available for a further call this week if needed.

Yours sincerely,  
**Thomas Brandt**  
Rechtsanwalt / Attorney-at-Law, LL.M. (London)  
Kanzlei Brandt & Wessel Rechtsanwälte PartGmbB  
Neuer Wall 88 | 20354 Hamburg  
T: +49 40 555 0220 | F: +49 40 555 0229  
*Zugelassen beim Landgericht Hamburg und allen übergeordneten Gerichten*

---

### Deutsche Begleitnotiz (intern, Kanzlei Brandt & Wessel)

**Aktenvermerk Nr. 4** | AZ: CLC-2024-HH-007 | Datum: 03. April 2024

**Bearbeiter:** RA Thomas Brandt | **Adressat:** Dr. Anke Förster (RheinMain Sensors GmbH)

**Inhalt:** In unserer heutigen Antwort haben wir English Law als Kompromissposition angeboten, DIS Hamburg aber nicht preisgegeben (folgt in E-Mail 3). Die Formulierung des consequential damages-Ausschlusses ist jetzt auf englischem Recht aufgebaut und lässt den deutschen Pflichtrahmen (ProdHaftG, Körperschäden) explizit offen. Wichtig für Sie: Der Ausschluss gilt nur für mittelbare Schäden – Ihr entgangener Gewinn bei nachgewiesener Schlechtlieferung bleibt als direkter Schaden angreifbar (insoweit kein Ausschluss!).

**Nächste Schritte:** Redline bis 12. April; parallel erstes Konzept der Parent Guarantee als Deed (Amanda Clarke prüft Deed-Form für englisches Recht). Termin London 22. April bestätigen.

---

## E-Mail 3 von 3 – Einigung auf Schiedsklausel (12. April 2024)

---

> **Von:** Amanda Clarke <a.clarke@cwf-law.com>  
> **An:** Thomas Brandt <t.brandt@brandt-wessel.de>  
> **Cc:** Michael T. Johnson <m.johnson@cwf-law.com>; Lena Voss <l.voss@cwf-law.com>; Hendrik Wessel <h.wessel@brandt-wessel.de>  
> **Datum:** 12. April 2024, 14:33 Uhr (BST)  
> **Betreff:** Re: RheinMain/Blue Harbor – Dispute Resolution Clause – Agreed Draft  
> **Aktenzeichen (CWF):** M-2024-0312-RMS

Dear Thomas,

I write separately on the Dispute Resolution clause, which Michael asked me to handle given my experience with multi-jurisdictional arbitration. I am pleased to confirm that, following the call on 10 April, our client has agreed in principle to **DIS arbitration in Hamburg** as the primary dispute resolution mechanism, subject to the following drafting points which I hope we can agree without further negotiation.

**Agreed Elements:**
- Institution: Deutsche Institution für Schiedsgerichtsbarkeit e.V. (DIS), DIS-SchO 2021
- Seat of Arbitration: Hamburg, Federal Republic of Germany
- Number of Arbitrators: Three (3); each Party nominates one, presiding arbitrator appointed by the DIS
- Language: English
- Governing law of arbitration agreement: German law (§§ 1025 et seq. ZPO)
- Interim relief: Reserved to Hamburg courts (Landgericht Hamburg) pending constitution of the tribunal

**Open Point – LCIA Emergency Arbitrator:**

Our client had requested the LCIA emergency arbitrator mechanism as a fallback for urgent injunctive relief, given that constituting a three-person DIS tribunal can take four to six weeks. We note that the DIS-SchO 2021 provides for an Emergency Arbitrator (§ 25 DIS-SchO 2021) and would accept DIS's own emergency mechanism as an alternative to the LCIA, provided we include language confirming that the parties expressly waive the right to seek interim relief from courts other than Hamburg in non-emergency situations.

**Proposed Clause 13 (Agreed Text):**

> *„13.1 In the event of any dispute arising out of or in connection with this Agreement (including any question regarding its existence, validity or termination), the Parties shall first attempt to resolve such dispute through good faith negotiations at senior management level for a period of thirty (30) days following written notice by either Party.*
>
> *13.2 If no settlement is reached pursuant to Clause 13.1, the dispute shall be finally settled by arbitration under the Rules of the German Arbitration Institute (Deutsche Institution für Schiedsgerichtsbarkeit e.V., DIS) pursuant to the DIS Arbitration Rules 2021, as amended from time to time. The arbitral tribunal shall consist of three arbitrators, each Party nominating one arbitrator and the DIS appointing the presiding arbitrator. The seat of arbitration shall be Hamburg, Federal Republic of Germany. The language of the arbitral proceedings shall be English. The law governing this arbitration agreement shall be German law.*
>
> *13.3 The Parties expressly waive the right to seek interim or conservatory relief from any court other than the Landgericht Hamburg, save in genuine emergency situations where constitution of the emergency arbitrator pursuant to § 25 DIS-SchO 2021 would not provide adequate and timely relief."*

I believe this wording addresses both parties' concerns. Can you please confirm by close of business Monday, 15 April, that the above is acceptable to RheinMain Sensors, so that we can incorporate it into the consolidated redline before the London meeting on 22 April?

Best regards,  
**Amanda Clarke**  
Solicitor (England and Wales)  
Carver, Whitmore & Finch LLP – London Office  
30 St Mary Axe | London EC3A 8EP  
T: +44 20 7946 0122 | M: +44 7700 900 571

---

### Deutsche Begleitnotiz (intern, Kanzlei Brandt & Wessel)

**Aktenvermerk Nr. 5** | AZ: CLC-2024-HH-007 | Datum: 12. April 2024

**Bearbeiter:** RA Thomas Brandt | **Adressat:** Dr. Anke Förster (RheinMain Sensors GmbH); Akte

**Inhalt:** Sehr positiver Fortschritt. Die Gegenseite akzeptiert jetzt DIS Hamburg als primäre Schiedsinstitution. Die vorgeschlagene Klausel in E-Mail 3 entspricht weitgehend unserer ursprünglichen Position. Der einzige offene Punkt ist der LCIA-Notfallschiedsrichter, den wir durch den DIS-Notfallschiedsrichter (§ 25 DIS-SchO 2021) ersetzen können – das ist unser Heimvorteil.

Der Vorbehalt des Landgerichts Hamburg für einstweiligen Rechtsschutz ist optimal für uns.

**Empfehlung:** Schiedsklausel so akzeptieren. Für London-Termin noch offene Punkte: (a) Parent Guarantee (Deed-Form?), (b) Governing Law English Law finalisieren, (c) Haftungsdeckel EUR-Werte bestätigen.

**Zu tun:** Bestätigung bis Montag 15. April, 17:00 Uhr; Redline von Kanzlei CWF bis Mittwoch 17. April; interne Freigabe durch Dr. Förster bis 19. April.

---

*Korrespondenz fiktiv. Keine echten Personen oder Unternehmen. Keine Rechtsberatung. Stand: April 2024.*
