Boralex litigation: our summary conclusions

In the dispute between us and Boralex, in line with its commitment to transparency, we are releasing today our Findings of Appeal.

In 2012, InnoVent entered into a development contract giving Boralex a purchase option for wind farms that InnoVent would develop, on condition Boralex provides the preliminary studies (which it did not).

This contract stated that an additional price would be paid according to a mathematical formula. According to twenty mathematicians of the highest level (including Normalians, Polytechnicians and two Fields Medals), the price formula was absurd and wrong because it resulted in a ratio in euros per megawatt rather than a price. For example, dividing kilometres by hours results in a ratio in km/h, that is, at a speed rather than a distance.

According to Boralex lawyers, the formula is not wrong (!) and the ratio in euros per megawatts should be read as an amount of euros. By the same logic, when EDF buys electricity at €0.079/kWh, suppliers should only receive €0.079 per year regardless of the number of kWh. Still according to this logic, when a lawyer charges €400 an hour, this hourly rate should not be multiplied by the number of hours to set the fees… As outlined by a Fields Medal about our case, this reading of the development contract betrays “the collapse of the educational level”.

Boralex deduced that we had violated the development contract arguing that the price formula was absurd (therefore impossible to implement) and at least the price had to be based on the megawatts of each farm.

How could InnoVent be condemned to pay €50,695,127 of damages because it understands the price formula as the best mathematicians in France and in the world (and asanyone with a sixth grade level in math)?

Boralex also claims that, by refusing to provide it with information about development, InnoVent would have prevented it from making the decision to buy them. Boralex has however assigned us in 2018 in forced realization of the sale!  How can it possibly be pretended that a buyer demanding the forced realization of a sale did not decide to buy the thing for sale?


Submit a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *