Magomed Gasanov

Magomed Gasanov

Partner, Advocate, PhD in Law
Magomed Gasanov

Chambers Europe

He’s very communicative, very fast at replying, very hands-on and also quite creative.

Biography
Recent work
Publications and Insights
Rankings and awards

Magomed Gasanov is a Partner of Dispute Resolution, Restructuring and Insolvency Practices, and Head of White Collar Crime, Compliance and Investigations in ALRUD Law Firm.

The main expertise of Magomed is support of complex court cases which include representation of client’s interests in Russian state courts of all instances (arbitration courts and courts of general jurisdiction) and international arbitration tribunals in a wide range of economic disputes, including real estate, corporate disputes and bankruptcy proceedings.

Furthermore, Magomed actively participates in internal investigations and inspections of government bodies. He has extensive experience in advising clients on the issues of criminal law and representation of clients at all stages of criminal proceedings on economic crimes.

Magomed also has vast experience in advising clients on the issues of protection of real estates and anti-corruption compliance.

Magomed graduated from Lomonosov Moscow State University, faculty of law. He is PhD in Law (2011). Magomed joined ALRUD law firm in 2010.

Magomed is an advocate, a member of the Moscow City Bar Association, the International Bar Association (IBA) and American Bar Association (ABA).

Include advising:

One of the largest European railway operators

in the dispute on restoration of corporate control in the Russian subsidiary.

An industrial client (Germany)

in court proceedings at the ICAC in the dispute on recovering indebtedness from Russian leading mining and steel corporation, a counterparty to the sale-purchase agreement.

The worldwide leader in the distance-selling sphere

in the several interconnected disputes connected with protection of the lease title to the land plot for construction of the logistics complex.

The major relocation services company

on the issues of foreclosure on a charge. Received one of the first executive notes of the notary on foreclosure on a charge in Russia.

The interested persons (auction organizer, action winners)

on the case on disputing of the results of the biggest auction in Russia on selling of the lease title to the wood land plots in Moscow region.

Intereuropa d.d. (major logistics services company, Slovenia)

in a court hearing on invalidation of the land plot (39 ha) sale-purchase agreements.

The largest exhibition centre,

the territory of which is occupied by more than 300 private owners, in several tens of disputes relating to acquisition of rights to land plots being in the state ownership.

The Supreme Court of the Russian Federation clarified the issues on the application of conflict rules by Russian courts
On 09 July 2019, the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation enacted the Resolution “On application of conflict rules by the courts of the Russian Federation” (hereinafter – the “Resolution”). In this Resolution, the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation (hereinafter – the “Supreme Court”) confirmed some approaches to interpretation of conflict rules elaborated in the court practice and the doctrine. Also, it established some new legal positions, which comply with current international approaches. The explanations, provided in the Resolution of the Supreme Court, concern the following main issues: The broad interpretation of the foreign element The Supreme Court held that the list of foreign elements, which included the foreign party and foreign subject matter of legal relations, pursuant to para. 1 article 1186 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation (hereinafter – the “Civil Code”), was not limited. In particular, actions and events, which took place outside of Russia and led to the creation, change or termination of legal relations, may be recognized as foreign elements as well. This interpretation aims to eliminate the lack of clarity in disputes between Russian parties, concerning acts effected abroad. In practice, the presence of the foreign element could be useful, e.g. in this case parties may agree that the contract shall be governed by non-Russian law. The definition of a close link between the legal relation and the law of the state According to the general rule, when the applicable law cannot be defined, the court shall apply the law of the state, with which the legal relation has the closest link. In this regard, the Supreme Court elaborated some criteria for establishing such a close link, which were: (1) the territorial link between elements of legal relations and the law (including place of residence / incorporation, location of the object of legal relations, place of fulfillment of obligations), and (2) the probability to effectuate common principles of civil law and separate legal institutions (e.g. the good faith principle) in the most effective way. The application of mandatory rules According to the current legislation, the courts must apply Russian compulsory rules, if such rules have a significant meaning for ensuring the rights and legal interests of parties, regardless the applicable law chosen by parties (mandatory rules overriding mandatory provisions). The Supreme Court clarified that only those rules, which aim to defend the public interest, related to the basis of economic, political or legal system of the state (e.g. the prohibition for foreign parties to acquire land plots in Russia, in some cases) shall be deemed as mandatory. In the Resolution, the Supreme Court established the volume of application of foreign mandatory rules. The Supreme Court stated that such rules could be applied only if their purpose and nature complied with the fundamental requirements of Russian legislation; did not interfere into the sovereignty, or security, of Russia and did not violate constitutional rights and freedoms of Russian individuals and legal entities. The law applicable to the grounds of invalidation of transactions According to the general rule, lex contractus applies to consequences of invalidation of transactions, regardless of grounds for such invalidation (para. 6 Sect. 1 Art. 1215 of the Civil Code). In this regard, the Supreme Court stated that different conflict rules applied to different grounds of invalidation of contracts (e.g. if validity of the con-tract was challenged due to the breach of its form, the court shall apply the law which applied to a form of transactions). However, if the contract is challenged due to the inconsistency between the will and expression of the will of parties, courts shall apply the law chosen by the parties. In a case when parties did not choose the law, the courts shall apply common conflict rules. The choice of the applicable law by parties The Supreme Court established the possibility to choose the rules of lex mercatoria (e.g. UNIDROIT Principles of international commercial contracts, Principles of European contract law, Principles, Definitions and Model Rules of European Private Law – Draft Common Frame of Reference and others) as applicable law (i.e. not only as subsidiary rules). Moreover, the Supreme Court confirmed the possibility of parties to choose a neutral law, i.e. a law, which did not relate to parties, nor subject matter, of the contract. The Supreme Court also confirmed the possibility of parties to apply a different law to different parts of contracts, if the application of the law did not entail either insuperable contradictions, or invalidation of the contract in full, or in part. Otherwise, the agreement on applicable law becomes unenforceable and courts shall establish the applicable law, according to general conflict rules. The possibility not to apply conflict rules The Supreme Court split conflict rules between mandatory, i.e. rules that shall be applied in any case, and optional, i.e. rules that may be not applied. In particular, the Supreme Court confirmed the possibility of not applying conflict rules defining the law applicable to the contract (paras. 1 – 8 article 1211 of the Civil Code), if the court recognized that the contract had the closest link with the law of another state. Further, the Supreme Court stated that it was possible to recognize that the buyer (not the seller) in the sale-purchase agreement was the party, which provided the characteristic performance, if this buyer undertook sufficient obligations (e.g. ensuring the advertisement of acquired goods). Simultaneously, the Supreme Court stated that it was not possible to avoid application of some conflict rules (e.g. the conflict rule determining the law applicable to immovable properties). The criteria of agreement on choice of the applicable law The Supreme Court determined the criteria of implied choice of law: (1) parties referred to the separate civil law rules in the agreement, (2) parties referred to the same law when grounding their claims (e.g. in procedural documents), (3) the choice of the applicable law was made in an agreement, which closely related to other agreements between the same parties. The Supreme Court also stated, that the choice of a seat of arbitration itself did not mean that parties chose the law of a seat of arbitration, as the law applicable to the contract. The possibility of parties to enter into alternative agreement on a choice of the applicable law The Supreme Court confirmed the possibility of parties to provide the condition that the choice of the applicable law should depend on the choice of the claimant, or to provide that the law of the claimant (or the defendant) shall apply (alternative (conditional) agreement on choice of the applicable law). The Supreme Court also stated that, in this case, the applicable law was fixed at the moment of bringing a first lawsuit and could not be changed later. Simultaneously, the Supreme Court clarified that such an alternative agreement could not depend on the will of only one party to the contract. The violation of this rule leads to the invalidation of the agreement on choice of the applicable law. In our opinion, the Resolution is important for court practice, as the Supreme Court established some new approaches to the understanding of private international law, that may be helpful for dispute resolution in Russian courts. We hope that the information provided herein will be useful for you. If you or any of your colleagues would like to receive our newsletters via e-mail, please fill in the 'Subscribe' form at the bottom of the page. Practices: Dispute Resolution Note: Please be aware that all information provided in this letter was taken from open sources. Neither ALRUD Law Firm, nor the author of this letter bear any liability for consequences of any decisions made in reliance upon this information.
1565298000000
Vienna International Arbitral Centre obtained the right to administer arbitration disputes in Russia
On 18 June 2019, the Council for Arbitration Development at the Ministry of Justice of the Russian Federation, authorized Vienna International Arbitral Centre («VIAC») to administer arbitration disputes with the seat (place of the arbitration) in Russia. According to Secretary General of VIAC, Dr. Alice Fremuth-Wolf, the arbitration institution receives approximately 60 – 70 claims per year, with 5 – 7 involving Russian parties. VIAC is included in the «white list» of Global Arbitration Review, recommended by International Bar Association. Parties from more than 50 countries around the world use the services of the Centre (more than 70% of these parties are from European countries). By 08 July 2019, the Ministry of Justice is expected to include VIAC in the list of foreign arbitration institutions, with the status of a permanently functioning arbitration institution («PFAI»). VIAC is the second foreign arbitration institution, after Hong Kong International Arbitration Centre. The latter obtained PFAI status in April 2019. It is important to note that, as VIAC does not have a separate subdivision in Russia, it is still precluded from administering domestic disputes and some categories of corporate disputes. We wish to remind you that, as a result of the arbitration reform awards of foreign arbitration institutions, that are not included in the above-mentioned list, are deemed to be rendered ad hoc, which implies certain restrictions in comparison to the awards of the PFAIs. The decision of the Council for Arbitration Development is an important step towards the development of arbitration in Russia and promotion of its attractiveness as an alternative mechanism of dispute resolution. We hope that the information provided herein will be useful for you. If you or any of your colleagues would like to receive our newsletters via e-mail, please fill in the 'Subscribe' form at the bottom of the page. Practices: Dispute Resolution, Corporate and M&A Note: Please be aware that all information provided in this letter was taken from open sources. Neither ALRUD Law Firm, nor the authors of this letter bear any liability for consequences of any decisions made in reliance upon this information.
1561064400000
Hong Kong International Arbitration Centre has obtained the right to administer arbitration disputes in Russia
On 04 April 2019, the Council for Arbitration Development at the Ministry of Justice of the Russian Federation authorized Hong Kong International Arbitration Centre (“HKIAC”) to administer arbitration disputes with the seat in Russia. By 25 April 2019, the Ministry of Justice is expected to include HKIAC into the list of foreign arbitration institutions with the status of a permanently functioning arbitration institution (“PFAI”). We remind our readers that as a result of the arbitration reform, awards of foreign arbitration institutions that are not included in the above mentioned list are deemed to be rendered ad hoc, which implies certain restrictions in contrast as compared to the awards of the PFAIs. The new status of HKIAC, as the only foreign insti-tution competent to arbitrate disputes seated in Russia, gives it several advantages. First, HKIAC is now authorized to arbitrate the following types of Russian corporate disputes: (A) disputes concerning the ownership of shares in the Russian companies, particularly disputes arising out of share purchase agreements; (B) disputes arising out of agreements between shareholders of the Russian companies concerning the management of that company, including disputes arising from corporate (shareholders’) agreements. We draw your attention to the fact that HKIAC does not have special rules for corporate disputes. Because of this and due to the conflicting Russian regulation, we may not exclude the risk that arbitration of the disputes mentioned in par. (B) by HKIAC may be problematic. Additionally, the lack of special rules for corporate disputes prevents HKIAC from arbitratingsomeother corporate disputes. The second advantage of the new status of HKIAC is that its awards from now on will be considered final, provided the text of the arbitration agreement expressly stipulates it. Moreover, PFAI status allows the parties to the arbitration to apply to a state court for assistance in evidence collection, as well as to limit the powers of the state court to intervene into the proceedings, particularly, on the issue of appointment and challenge of the arbitrators. It is important to note that, as HKIAC does not have a separate subdivision in Russia, it is still precluded from administering domestic disputes between Russian parties with the seat of arbitration in Russia. In addition, in accordance with Russian regulation, some corporate disputes remain non-arbitrable, particularly disputes regarding Russian strategic companies. The decision of the Council for Arbitration Devel-opment is an important step towards the devel-opment and promotion of arbitration in Russia as well as towards more efficient enforcement of the legalagreements entered in respect to the Russian companies. Amongst the abovementioned benefits, the approval of HKIAC’s requestmay encourage other foreign arbitration institutions to submit their requests for authorization to administrate disputes with the seat of arbitration in Russia. We hope that the information provided herein will be useful for you. If you or any of your colleagues would like to receive our newsletters via e-mail, please fill in the 'Subscribe' form at the bottom of the page. Practices: Dispute Resolution, Corporate and M&A Note: Please be aware that all information provided in this letter was taken from open sources. Neither ALRUD Law Firm, nor the author of this letter bear any liability for consequences of any decisions made in reliance upon this information.
1555016400000
1551042000000
The Legal 500 Europe, Middle East & Africa 2019 recommends Magomed Gasanov for Dispute Resolution and White-collar crime.
Best Lawyers 2020 recommends Magomed Gasanov for Litigation.
We use cookies to offer better performance of the website and fulfill some other purposes specified in the Privacy Policy. By way of ticking the box you provide your consent to use of cookies. Otherwise, we will only use technical cookies, which are necessary for proper functioning of the website.
Accept