Sergey Petrachkov

Sergey Petrachkov

Partner, Advocate, PhD in Law
Sergey Petrachkov

Chambers Europe

All his recommendations turned out well and we like how he arranges work with the client. He anticipates solutions and is also good in client relations.

Biography
Recent work
Publications and Insights
Rankings and awards

Sergey Petrachkov is the ALRUD Partner, heading Dispute Resolution and Restructuring/Insolvency Practices.

Sergey has a considerable experience in representing clients’ interests in business and corporate disputes in public courts. He also advises on issues relating to International Commercial Arbitration and represents clients’ interests in the course of arbitration proceedings.

Sergey takes part in matters involving restructuring and insolvency including complete legal support of insolvency proceedings and participation in separate projects relating to actions againt assets strippnig, challenging debtor’s transactions and bringing debtor’s controllers to subsidiary liability.

Sergey represented clients’ interests before the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation and the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation on numerous occasions. Throughout all his carrier he has been supporting major companies in different areas including automobile sector, banking and finance, IT, consumer products, and retail trade.

Sergey joined ALRUD in 2009. Sergey graduated from The National Research University Higher School of Economics, law department in 2008. Ph.D. in Law (2012). Sergey has been on secondment at Slaughter and May, the top ranked magic circle law firm in London, for 6 months (2015-2016).

Sergey is a member of the International Bar Association (IBA), American Bar Association (ABA), INSOL International and the Moscow Bar Association.

Include advising:

A major Russian iron and steel company

in the international commercial arbitration subject to the ICC rules with regard to a claim against the German metallurgical giant for the amount of EUR 150 mln.

A subsidiary company of SC “Rosatom”

in the course of a business dispute and subsequent engineering plant insolvency case. The amount of the client’s claims exceeded RUB 400 mln.

A major international auto manufacturer

on a dealer’s claim for damages in the amount of about RUB 15 bln in connection with termination of several dealer agreements.

Private client

in the course of a dispute over a brokerage servcies agreement amounting to more than USD 24 mln against a leading Russian investment bank Renaissance Capital.

A client

in the course of one of key business corporate disputes in Russia relating to Norilsk Nikel.

Automotive components manufacturer

in the course of a dispute with an affiliate company of Sollers Group in a case on recognition and enforcement in Russia of an arbitration award subject to LCIA rules, contesting a voluntary liquidatuion of a respondent (both cases reached the Presidium of the Supreme Arbitrazh Court of the Russian Federation), and then in the course of insolvency proceedings of the respondent.

The impact of the coronavirus (COVID-19) on performance of contractual obligations
The coronavirus (COVID-2019)1, which today affects more than 150 countries and territories around the world, has already had, and continues to have, a significant impact on the global economy. In such circumstances, Russian business inevitably faces, on the one hand, the need to comply with the epidemiological requirements and restrictions imposed by the Russian and foreign public authorities, and, on the other hand, with the problems of performance of its current obligations, including foreign trade contracts. In this information letter, we have aimed to touch upon the most relevant issues of the legal consequences of the coronavirus, for current and future Russian law contracts. 1. Excused from performance of the obligations, or from liability for the breach of the obligations, in connection with the coronavirus 1.1 Force majeure In accordance with paragraph 3 of article 401 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, force majeure is an extraordinary, and objectively unavoidable, circumstance under the current conditions, the occurrence of which excludes liability for the breach, or non-performance, of the obligations. To exclude liability of the debtor for non-performance of the obligations, it is necessary to prove that the inability to perform the respective obligations was caused by force majeure, that is, in this case, the coronavirus and/or restrictive measures taken in connection with its spread. Judicial practice considers epidemics and pandemics as force majeure2. The current legislation3 understands the term 'epidemic' as infectious diseases that pose a threat to others, that is, human infectious diseases characterized by severe acute disease, a high mortality rate and disability, together with the rapid spread of the disease among the population. The Government of the Russian Federation approved the list of such diseases4. The coronavirus (2019-nCoV) is included in this list5. It should be noted that, in connection with the spread of the coronavirus, individual regions of the Russian Federation introduced a high-alert regime and established a number of restrictions on entrepreneurial activity. On March 5th 2020, the Mayor of Moscow issued a Decree No. 12-UM “On the introduction of a high-alert regime” (hereinafter “Decree No. 12-UM”), which established special measures to prevent the spread of the coronavirus in Moscow. Decree No. 12-UM includes mandatory self-isolation at home for arrivals from the certain countries and a number of other restrictions. On March 14th 2020, Decree No. 12-UM was amended and the spread of the coronavirus (2019-nCoV) was recognized as an extraordinary and unavoidable circumstance, which led to the introduction of the high-alert regime, which, in turn, is a force majeure6. A similar provision is contained in Resolution of the Governor of the Moscow Region of March 12, 2020 No. 108-PG, which introduced the high-alert regime on the territory of the Moscow Region (amended by the Resolution of March 13, 2020 No. 115-PG). These normative acts do not qualify the spread of coronavirus itself as a force majeure, but the high-alert regime introduced by public authorities of the regions of the Russian Federation to prevent such spread. As of March 19th 2020, the high-alert regime was introduced throughout the Russian Federation7. At the federal level, neither this regime, nor the coronavirus, was recognized as a force majeure. Moreover, according to current case law, unlike a state of emergency, such regime determines only the activities of public authorities and is not sufficient in itself to be qualified as a force majeure8. At the same time, in an attempt to help businesses out of the crisis, federal authorities and non-governmental associations are adopting acts and explanations that allow parties to qualify the coronavirus as a force majeure, in certain circumstances. In particular, at the moment, the Ministry of Finance of the Russian Federation and the Federal Antimonopoly Service of the Russian Federation have issued clarifications on the recognition of the coronavirus as a force majeure in public procurement9 (the corresponding act is also being prepared at the level of the Government of the Russian Federation10), and the Chamber of Commerce and Industry of the Russian Federation is already issuing certificates of force majeure due to the coronavirus, in cases of disruption of export contracts. In addition, the Ministry of Finance of the Russian Federation requests not to prosecute residents who cannot ensure the timely repatriation of foreign exchange earnings, due to force majeure circumstances, including due to the measures taken by foreign governments to prevent the spread of the coronavirus11, and the Ministry of Economic Development of the Russian Federation has prepared a bill, according to which, the government will have the right to introduce a moratorium on initiating bankruptcy cases of organizations in an emergency of natural, or man-made, disasters, as well as significant changes in the rate of the ruble12. Nevertheless, the quarantine measures have not been fully introduced by the Russian public authorities, so, the question of inability to perform obligations in connection with the epidemic, or current, restrictions will be decided by the court, on a case-by-case basis. 1.2 Objective inability to perform obligations Force majeure excludes liability for breach of an obligation, but does not terminate it. Unlike force majeure, if there is an objective inability to perform an obligation, it terminates automatically (paragraph 1 of article 416 and article 417 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation). Inability to perform obligations should be caused by the circumstance that occurred after the obligation had arisen, for which neither of the parties is responsible13 (for example, an act of a public authority, or local government, that establishes epidemiological restrictions). Inability to perform obligations must be factual, objective and final (permanent)14. Accordingly, acts of public authorities and local government adopted to prevent the spread of the coronavirus, and obstructing the performance of the contracts, can be qualified by the courts as a basis for terminating the relevant obligations. 1.3 Material change of circumstances If, due to the spread of the coronavirus, the circumstances have changed so much that, if the parties could reasonably foresee it, they would not have concluded the contract at all, or would have concluded it on significantly different conditions, the court, at the request of the party to the contract, has the right to terminate, or amend, the terms of the contract, due to material change of circumstances (article 451 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation). To satisfy the claim for amendment, or termination, of the contract, the party must prove the existence of the conditions listed in paragraph 2 of Article 451 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, in particular, the insuperability of the changes and an imbalance between the property interests, in the case of the further performance of the contract, in its original form. Regarding the qualification of the epidemic as a material change in circumstances, judicial practice cannot rely on numerous cases15, but this should not be become an obstacle to the application of this concept to the current situation. 2. Contractual instruments to reduce the risk of non-performance of obligations The rapid spread of the coronavirus, and the significant amount of measures taken at the state level around the world, objectively compels market players to pay more attention to the content of contracts, to ensure the proper performance of obligations and the potential risk allocation associated with its non-performance. We can recommend considering use of the following contractual instruments, which help the parties to ensure legal certainty in case of unforeseen situations, during the performance of the contract. 2.1 Force majeure clause and a concept of material change of circumstances It should be borne in mind that paragraph 3 of article 401 and article 451 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation are dispositive law. This means that the parties have the right both to exclude the application of these articles to the concluded contract, and to regulate them additionally by their contract (for example, to provide deadlines for notification of the occurrence of force majeure events, or to agree on the procedure for the provision of evidence of the occurrence of a force majeure). However, it is important to understand that the absence of a clause on force majeure, or a material change of circumstances in the current contract, does not indicate the impossibility of their use in the current circumstances. 2.2 Indemnity (article 406.1 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation) The spread of the coronavirus leads to restrictions on air and rail traffic, trade restrictions and prohibitions, which involve significant extra costs and losses for one, or for each, side. Such losses may be, for example, losses caused by the inability to perform obligations, the submission of claims by third parties, or public authorities, etc. The parties are entitled to provide for a procedure for compensating such extra costs through the mechanism of indemnity16. Unlike the compensation of losses under the rules of articles 15 and 393 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, indemnity under the rules of article 406.1 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation applies if there is no breach of the obligations by the relevant party, and regardless of the causal relationship between the behavior of that party and the losses subject to compensation17. Both the indication in the contract of any specific amount of indemnity and the procedure for its calculation are acceptable. 2.3 Unilateral termination of contract In addition to indemnity, the parties are entitled to provide for the right to unilaterally terminate the obligation, which is also one of the ways to minimize the risks associated with the consequences of the coronavirus. In most cases, termination fees may apply. 2.4 Unilateral modification of contract If parties do not want to include the right to a unilateral refusal to continue with the contract, or the other party does not agree to enter into the contract on similar conditions, it is possible to provide for the right to unilaterally change specific terms of the contract (for example, event or delivery date change). Thus, there is currently a high level of uncertainty regarding operations under the existing contracts, performance of which may be questionable, or impossible. Companies need to closely monitor the development of the situation around the coronavirus, the laws adopted in connection with it and quickly respond to changing circumstances, including by amending the existing contracts that the parties intended to perform in other circumstances, or terminating them timely. It should be kept in mind that the actions of the parties, in any case, must comply with the principles of reasonableness and good faith. 1 On March 11, 2020, the World Health Organization announced that the spread of the new coronavirus (COVID-19) had reached the stage of a pandemic. 2 The decision of the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation of May 03, 2012 No. VAS-3352/12 in the case No. A40-25926 / 2011-13-230; The decision of the Arbitration Court of the Ural District of February 6, 2019 No. Ф09-8477 / 18 in the case No. А76-30210 / 2016; The decision of the Arbitration Court of the Far Eastern District of August 27, 2019 No. Ф03-3458 / 2019 in the case No. А04-9007 / 2018; The decision of the Arbitration Court of the Moscow District of April 01, 2016 No. F05-1154 / 2016 in the case No. A40-97911 / 15-121-785. 3 Paragraph 17 of article 1 of the Federal Law of March 30, 1999 No. 52-FZ “On the medical and epidemiological welfare of the population”. 4 Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation of December 1, 2004 No. 715 “On approval of the list of socially significant diseases and the list of diseases that pose a threat to others”. 5 Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation dated January 31, 2020 No. 66 “On Amending the List of Diseases that pose a threat to others”. 6 Paragraph 1.6 of the Decree of the Mayor of Moscow of March 14, 2020 No. 20-UM “On Amendments to the Decree of the Mayor of Moscow dated March 5, 2020 No. 12-UM”. 7 A source: https://tass.ru/obschestvo/8027563 8 The decision of the Sixth Arbitration Court of Appeal of January 29, 2020 in the case No. A04-3320 / 2019. 9 The letter of the Ministry of Finance of the Russian Federation of March 03, 2020 No. 24-06-06 / 21324 “On the procurement of a sole supplier (contractor, executor) upon introducing a high alert”. https://fas.gov.ru/news/29575 10 A source: http://kommersant.ru/doc/428.3265 11 A source: here 12 A source: https://regulation.gov.ru/projects#npa=100548 13 Article 416 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation (part one) of November 30, 1994 No. 51-FZ (hereinafter - the 'Civil Code of the Russian Federation'). 14 The decision of the Judicial College on Economic Disputes of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation of January 30, 2017 in the case No. 305-ES16-14210, A40-85057 / 2015. 15 The decision of the Arbitration Court of the Central District of August 14, 2015 No. F10-2685 / 2015 in the case of No. A35-8264 / 2014. 16 Article 406.1 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation. 17 Paragraph 15 of Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation of March 24, 2016 No. 7 “On the application by courts of certain provisions of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation on liability for the breach of the obligations”. 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: Commercial, 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.
1585083600000
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
Russian arbitration law reform
On 27 December 2018, the Russian President signed an Amendment Law into the Russian Law on Arbitration. The Amendment Law represents a further step forward in arbitration reform, which Russia is going through, that started from 2015. Previously, the arbitration reform applied only to the four domestic arbitration institutions that were allowed to arbitrate disputes in Russia. Those institutions were the International Commercial Arbitration Court (ICAC), the Maritime Arbitration Commission (MAC) at the Russian Chamber of Commerce and Industry (both were exempted from the obligation to obtain a license), Russian Arbitration Center at the Institute of Modern Arbitration and Arbitration Center at the Russian Union of Industrialists and Entrepreneurs (RSPP). The Amendment Law is aimed to liberalize the legal framework of arbitration institutions and simplify the process of obtaining licenses by domestic arbitration institutions. Furthermore, the Law annuls the necessity of obtaining such licenses by foreign arbitration institutions, but rather vests, on the Ministry of Justice, an obligation to maintain the list of reputable foreign arbitration institutions. There is still a requirement to apply to the Ministry of Justice, in order to be included in the mentioned list and be able to administer domestic disputes, or foreign disputes, with a Russian seat of arbitration. However, cancellation of formal licensing of foreign arbitration institutions is a good sign. As of today, the Council for Development of Arbitration is considering the application of one of the most reputable foreign institutions of the Far East and the legal community is optimistic about it, as it may serve as a good example of entering into the Russian arbitration market. Those arbitration institutions, which do not have licenses, are prohibited from performing any activity relating to arbitration and administration of disputes. In addition, non-licensed institutions, as well as ad hoc arbitrations, are not allowed to advertise their services in any form, including advertising on the Internet. The mentioned amendments are aimed at further elimination of the Russian arbitration phenomenon called “pocket” arbitration. The Amendment Law also changed the approach, previously established for corporate disputes arising out of shareholder agreements. Previously, the arbitration law provided that such disputes could only be considered by permanent arbitration institutions, which adopted arbitration rules for corporate disputes. The Amendment Law cancelled this rule and allowed administration of such disputes, with the seat of arbitration in Russia, by permanent arbitration institutions, which do not have such rules. The Amendment Law further provides that it is sufficient to conclude an arbitration agreement between the parties of the shareholder agreement, clarifying the previous controversial wording of the Arbitration Law, which prescribed that all shareholders, as well as the company itself, shall be the party to arbitration agreement. The Amendment Law further grants the Council for Development of Arbitration, which initially was created to provide recommendations in licenses’ issuance, the powers to analyze the case law on arbitration. We note that the amendments have been introduced into Arbitration Law, but we hope that the corresponding amendments in procedural codes, relating to arbitration, will soon follow. The Amendment Law comes into force on 29 March 2019. 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.
1548968400000
Review of the Russian court practice regarding influence of the anti-Russian sanctions on contractual obligations
As you know, the first international economic sanctions against the Russian Federation were imposed in 2014, due to the situation in the Crimea. Since then, the EU and the USA have imposed a number of the anti-Russian sanctions, having a significant, consequent impact on the fulfillment of civil obligations in Russia. In light of the above, and due to the growing pressure of the anti-Russian sanctions, and the increasing number of the entities in respect of which new restrictions are being imposed, we present, for your attention, an overview of the legal positions of the Russian courts on the impact of the sanctions regime on the discharge of contractual obligations. Click here to learn more. 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.
1540414800000
Chambers Europe, 2019 recommends Sergey Petrachkov for Restructuring/Insolvency.
The Legal 500 Europe, Middle East & Africa 2019 recommends Sergey Petrachkov for Dispute Resolution, Restructuring/Insolvency и White-collar crime.
Best Lawyers 2020 recommends Sergey Petrachkov for Arbitration and Mediation.
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