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.

Recent work
Publications and Insights
Rankings and awards

Magomed Gasanov is a Partner in Dispute Resolution, International arbitration, Restructuring and Insolvency Practices, and Head of White Collar Crime, Compliance and Investigations at 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).

Includes advising and representing:

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.

Supreme Court Allows Bankruptcy of Foreign Companies with "Close Connection" to Russia
The Supreme Court has considered the Westwalk case and ruled that foreign companies can be legally recognized as bankrupt if there is a "close connection" with Russia. Bankruptcy of foreigners was first commenced in 2016, but for a long was applied only to individuals1. The Arbitrazh Court of the Chelyabinsk Region opened Pandora's box in 2022 with respect to a company from the island of Nevis, which was only formally registered there. This approach was actively adopted by other courts, and in 2023 we saw an increase in such cases2. The court's ruling in the Westwalk case summarised the practice of the lower courts and resolved important practical issues. Who can be declared bankrupt? Foreign companies that have a close connection with Russia in the following cases: {{(A)}} The management body, branch or representative office of the foreign company is located on Russian territory {{(B)}} The entity has permanent economic activities in Russia that are oriented towards Russian individuals, including owning property and concluding transactions in Russia {{(С)}} The centre of the main interests of the controlling entities is located on Russian territory What assets are covered by bankruptcy? {{(A)}} If the centre of the debtor's main interests is located in Russia, the foreigner may be subject to main proceedings with respect to all its assets abroad {{(B)}} If the centre of the debtor's main interests is located abroad, but there is a close connection with Russia, bankruptcy proceedings may only be initiated with respect to its Russian assets It is now safe to say that both Russian and foreign creditors can commence bankruptcy proceedings with respect to both offshore companies and legal entities that are registered and act abroad and have a close connection with Russia. For example, see Case No. А41-72478/2019, А28-8319/2016 and А40-248865/2016, among others. Courts have actively started bankruptcy proceedings against foreign companies, for example, Delvenisto Investments LTD (Case No. А40-5658/2023), Garant Bauinvestition GmbH (Case No. А40-9555/2023), Retail Chain Properties (Case No. А40-112325/2023), GEMONT ENDUSTRI (Case No. А65-23218/2023) and others.
14 February 2024
Reverse Piercing of the Corporate Veil – Russian Courts Tend To Shift Liability from Foreign Companies to Their Russian Subsidiaries
Dear Ladies and Gentlemen, We would like to update you on recent precedent-setting judgements by Russian courts in matters involving foreign businesses that decided to leave Russia. On 17 October 2023, the Arbitrazh court of Moscow city sustained the claim by Russian bank PJSC Sovkombank against Citibank N.A. (a US company) and its Russian subsidiary JSC KB Citibank concerning the joint recovery of US$24m in losses1. On 21 December 2023, an appeals court upheld the judgement. As follows from the judgement, in 2017, Sovkombank and Citibank N.A. concluded a general agreement that served as the basis for further transactions between the parties. Following several transactions and mutual offsetting, Citibank N.A. incurred debt to Sovkombank. Citibank N.A. acknowledged the debt and informed Sovkombank that the money would be credited to an account that had been blocked based on sanctions. In these circumstances, Sovkombank never received the money. Sovkombank, being governed by Russian anti-sanctions procedural rules2, filed a claim in Russian court stating that Citibank N.A. had failed to perform its obligation and also held Citibank’s Russian subsidiary liable as a co-defendant, citing the fact that it belongs to CITIBANK Group, even though the Russian subsidiary never had any agreements with Sovkombank. The Russian court acknowledged its jurisdiction despite the arbitration clause and refused to apply English law. After considering the case, the court ruled that Citibank N.A. had violated its obligation and abused its right since it had transferred money to a frozen account without trying to perform the obligation alternatively, i.e. it should be held liable for tort rather than for breach of contract. The court also ruled that Citibank N.A. and JSC KB Citibank should be held jointly liable as their joint actions caused damages to Sovkombank. The judgement states that both Citibank N.A. and JSC KB Citibank aimed to embezzle the money despite attempting to restructure relations with Sovkombank and ensure the performance of the obligation (e.g., to change the debtor from Citibank N.A. to the Russian subsidiary). The Russian court ruled that even though the only party to the contract was Citibank N.A. and that Citibank N.A. and JSC KB Citibank are different legal entities, they should be jointly liable since they constitute an economic group, which acts as a single enterprise. The same approach was taken in the recent cases of Russian Railways v. Siemens3 and another (confidential) сase based on a claim by a Russian bank against another foreign bank and its 100% Russian subsidiary. This shows that Russian courts not only acknowledge that complying with anti-Russian sanctions should be considered as an abuse of rights and violation of the Russian public order per se, but also tend to hold Russian subsidiaries liable for the debts of their parent companies even though they are not parties to the disputed relations. Case No. А40-167352/23 You can read more on this regulation in our previous newsletters here and here. Case No. А40-195006/22
29 December 2023
ALRUD held the webinar “Internal Investigations: Personnel Liability and Best Practices”
On 14 December ALRUD held the ”Internal Investigations: Personnel Liability and Best Practices” webinar on the labour, civil, and criminal law issues in the course and in the wake of internal investigations. Magomed Gasanov, Partner, ALRUD Advocate, PhD in Law, and Anastasiya Petrova, ALRUD Of Counsel, explored the following topics: What is an internal investigation and why does the business need it? Common mistakes in conducting internal investigations Gathering necessary evidence Internal investigations issues related to personal data Personnel liability resulting from internal investigations
19 December 2023
Guide “The (non-)Myths of Management and Beneficiaries Responsibility”
Various types of management responsibility are not myths any longer, they have become a reality. We are glad to introduce our new guide devoted to current trends analysis – “The (non-)Myths of Management and Beneficiaries Responsibility”. We have prepared practical answers to the most frequently asked questions: “what one can be held liable for” and “what shall be done to avoid it”. We hope you find the material useful.
11 October 2023
Maxim Alekseyev and Magomed Gasanov prepare an article for IPBA
The Inter-Pacific Bar Association Journal ('IPBA') published an issue of «Cross-Border Fraud, Law and Investigations» focusing on cross-border cybercrime with examples from various countries. Maxim Alekseyev, Senior Partner of Tax Practice, and Magomed Gasanov, Partner of Dispute Resolution Practice, prepared the article «International Fraud in Current Russian Realities» on cyber-fraud in current realities with reference to Russia. The experts gave examples of cybercrime cases encountered by Russian companies, told about protective measures, as well as shared some rules and advice on how to avoid becoming a victim of a cybercrime.
01 June 2023
Potential liability for violation of Russian counter-sanction measures
Starting from February 2022, the President of Russia has adopted several decrees restricting conclusion and performance of transactions involving foreign entities and individuals. In most cases such transactions now require approval from a special governmental commission. Today the Russian Ministry of Finance published draft law No. 02/04/03-23/00136901 on making amend-ments to the Russian Code of administrative offences that introduce liability for breach of counter-sanctions measures aimed at ensuring of financial stability of the Russian Federation (hereinafter the “Draft law”). Please find below a brief overview of the Draft law. 1. Consequences of violation of the counter-sanction measures in accordance with the Draft law As follows from the Draft law, in case of non-compliance with the counter-sanctions measures (e.g. in case of conclusion of transactions in breach of the counter-sanctions), (1) citizens, (2) individuals car-rying out entrepreneurial activities without establishing a legal entity, and (3) legal entities will be fined in the amount from 20% to 40% of the transaction amount carried out in breach of the measures (failure to conclude transactions in breach of the counter-sanctions measures is proposed to be treated on the same basis as the transaction carried out in non-compliance with the measures). It is also proposed to extend similar liability to officials (including company officials), but to limit it to RUB 30,000. In cases when non-compliance with the counter-sanction measures does not have monetary value (e.g., making a gift), it is proposed to impose an administrative fine on individuals in the amount from RUB 4,000 to RUB 5,000, on officials - in the amount from RUB 40,000 to RUB 50 000, and on legal entities - in the amount from RUB 800,000 to RUB 1,000,000. 2. Persons and entities that cannot be brought to administrative liability in accordance with the Draft law The annotations to the Draft law specify that the administrative liability established by this article shall not apply to Russian residents which are credit institutions and entities engaged in insurance business. The Draft law also provides several exceptions when liability shall not apply. According to the text of the Draft law, if it is adopted, it becomes effective from 01 January 2024. We would like to draw your attention to the fact that this Draft law is a very early version. Between 22 March 2023 and 11 April 2023 it will be under public discussion, with several more stages of consideration ahead, so by the final stage of consideration the Draft law may change significantly. Please kindly let us know if you have any questions about this Draft law and its impact on your business.
23 March 2023
Overview of Russian counter-sanctions measures
In light of the sanctions imposed, ALRUD experts have prepared an Overview of Russian Counter-Sanctions measures that have been taken in response to the actions of unfriendly countries since 24 February 2022. The overview focuses on: Russian counter-sanctions measures Liability Prospects for foreign business Recent trends in litigation and arbitration Assumptions and limitations The review is updated on an ongoing basis. Follow the link to learn more. Download file 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: Crisis Management, Economic sanctions and Compliance *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.
21 July 2022
ALRUD confirms leading positions in the IFLR1000’s 31st 2021/22 edition
On August 25, 2021, international ranking agency IFLR1000 published the results of EMEA rankings that represent IFLR1000's 31st 2021/22 edition. The rating evaluates law firms in different areas. ALRUD law firm is again top ranked for M&A, Banking, Restructuring and Insolvency, Project Finance, PPP, Capital Markets: Debt and Equity, Project development: Mining and Energy. Individual nominations in IFLR1000: Alexander Zharskiy, Partner and Head of the Corporate and M&A Practice, and Anton Dzhuplin, Partner of the Corporate and M&A, Banking and Finance practices are “Highly regarded” in the rating. Sergey Petrachkov, Partner and Head of the Dispute Resolution and Restructuring/Insolvency Practices, and Magomed Gasanov, Partner of Dispute Resolution, Restructuring and Insolvency Practices, and Head of White Collar Crime, Compliance and Investigations are nominated in the category “Rising star partner”. Artur Chernykhov, Associate of the Dispute Resolution and Restructuring and Insolvency Practices, and Ekaterina Mayorova (Rogacheva), Associate of the Banking & Finance Practice, are mentioned as “Rising star” in the rating. Congratulations to the ALRUD team! IFLR 1000 is one of the leading international legal publications. The publication's specialists annually conduct market research around the world, on the basis of which they make a rating of the best practicing lawyers and law firms.
25 August 2021
Webinar: 2020 Opportunities and Challenges: Legal Encyclopedia of Russian Life
On October 20th, ALRUD Law Firm held a webinar “2020 Opportunities and Challenges: Legal Encyclopedia of Russian Life”. During the webinar, ALRUD experts introduced the main trends of modern legal Russian life, by considering the legal consequences of the current crisis due to the pandemic, and discussing the key points, in legislation and in practice, relating to various fields of law and industry. In addition, the speakers presented typical problems and challenges of commercial contracts. Also, issues related to changes in work regimes and key aspects of HR digitalization were introduced. During the discussion, ALRUD experts described the current legal view on the data protection in relation to the pandemic and evaluated what to expect further on this issue. Speakers mentioned the trend towards greater control over business, both by the regulators and the public. At the same time, the range of impact of the pandemic, on changes in Russian legal proceedings, was detailed. In addition, new realities for leasing, construction and other transactions were identified. Among other things, ALRUD experts touched upon the legal aspect of taxation in Russia. In particular, the speakers specified new tax conditions for IT companies and described changes in some aspects in the Double Tax Treaties with Russia, which will come into force in 2021. All listeners of the webinar received answers to their questions from ALRUD experts: Magomed Hasanov, Partner of Dispute Resolution Practice and Vassily Rudomino, Partner of Antitrust Practice, contributed to the discussions during the webinar. Petrova Anastasia, Senior Consultant of Data Protection and Cybersecurity Practice, Egiazarova Margarita, Senior Consultant of Labor and Employment Practice, Akhundov Teymur, Senior Consultant of Corporate Practice, Boris Ostroukhov, Senior Consultant of Commercial Law Practice, and Stanislav Veselov, Senior Consultant of Real Estate Practice also shared their understanding the modern Russian legislation. Denis Becker, Consultant of Dispute Resolution Practice, and Sergey Artemiev, Consultant of Tax Practice, presented some legal changes in Russia, too. To apply for a video recording (in the English language), please click here.
23 October 2020
Russian bankruptcy moratorium extended until January, 2021
This is to inform you that the Resolution of the Government of the Russian Federation dated October 01, 2020 No. 1587, has extended the moratorium on bankruptcy of companies, at the request of their credi-tors, until January 07, 2021. In this regard, we would like to draw your attention to the key provisions related to the moratorium regime and its extension. 1. Moratorium – the first results. It is too early to summarize the preliminary results of the first 6 months of the moratorium. Nevertheless, there is already a number of obvious difficulties in the application of moratorium regulation. First, we would like to mention the formality of the codes of Russian National Classifier of Types of Economic Activity (‘OKVED’) as the sole criterion for applying the moratorium to certain legal entities. The actual main activity of the company could be indicated among the additional activities, or not indicated at all. However, the courts take a purely formal approach and refuse to apply the moratorium, if the main OKVED code is not included in the list. In addition, despite the utmost clarity of the law setting forth the rule that applications, accepted by the court at the time the moratorium was introduced, are subject to further consideration in trial, difficulties do arise in practice. In particular, arbitrazh courts often defended the debtors, whose bankruptcy was initiated by its creditors long before the pandemic and adoption of governmental measures to mitigate its consequences. 2. Who is subject to the moratorium extension? After the moratorium extension, a number of the debtors’ categories were excluded from the list: bankruptcy immunity under the creditors’ applications will remain in force only for legal entities and individual entrepreneurs, which operate in one of the areas most affected by the pandemic, as determined by the Government of the Russian Federation. Mainly, these are the industries of retail trade and the provision of services to the population, services in the sphere of culture, leisure and sports, as well as transport activities. To check whether a company, with a certain OKVED code, is included in the list of affected industries, it is enough to type in the TIN / OGRN of the company on the website of the Federal Tax Service of Russia. Therefore, the moratorium regulation will not apply to strategic and systemically-important enterprises. At the same time, in case of initiation of a bankruptcy case for such debtors, the periods of 'depth' (prior to the bankruptcy initiation period, when the transaction is concluded), for challenging transac-tions on special bankruptcy grounds, are extended for the period of the moratorium. According to statistics from the Federal Tax Service of Russia, the moratorium will affect more than 517,000 companies and 1.6 million individual entrepreneurs. 3. What are the consequences of the moratorium extension? We wrote in detail about the consequences of the moratorium introduction in the framework here. The main consequence is the impossibility for creditors to initiate the bankruptcy procedure of the person under moratorium, as well as to enforce debt recovery from him, in any way. Meanwhile, the debtor itself, subject to the moratorium regulation, is still entitled to declare itself bankrupt. In turn, a number of restrictions apply to the companies under moratorium, in particular, the prohibition of any payments under corporate rights (including dividend payments) and the redemption, or acquisition, of outstanding shares by the debtor, as well as the conclusion of set-offs, in violation of the priority provided by the Bankruptcy Law. 4. Is it possible for the company to waive the moratorium? An entity, subject to the moratorium regulation, retains the opportunity to withdraw from the moratorium regime by publishing the relevant information on the website of the Unified Federal Register of Significant Information on Facts of Operation of Subjects of Economic Activities (‘Fedresurs’). Please kindly note that a previously-published withdrawal from moratorium regime is no longer valid, since the date of the moratorium extension. For this reason, the notice on withdrawal shall be republished. According to the Fedresurs, at the end of August 2020, there were about 750 companies notifying their withdrawal (out of 3.5 million under the moratorium regime). 5. What opportunities does the moratorium offer for companies? In addition to the obvious advantage of protection against creditors' claims, one of the main amendments of Art. 9.1 of the Bankruptcy Law is the possibility for a debtor, under the moratorium regime, to obtain a judicial installment of debts (sudebnaya rassrochka). In fact, a judicial installment plan is a prototype of a rehabilitation procedure (i.e., aimed at restoring solvency), which has common features with a settlement agreement: the debtor secures the opportunity to pay off its debts, retains property, and its management stays empowered. The key difference (and at the same time, the advantage) of the judicial installment plan, from the settlement agreement, is that its enforcement does not require the creditors’ consent, but only the court's granting of the application. 6. What is a judicial installment plan? The judicial installment plan provides, for the debtor, the opportunity to pay off its creditors according to its obligations that are due at the time the installment plan is introduced, or will “mature” within a year after its introduction, in equal monthly installments. The default installment period constitutes 1 year, but could be increased to 2 years, and for strategic enterprises - to 3 years, if the debtor's revenue has decreased by more than 50%. Still, in this case the debtor is obliged to provide security in the form of a bank guarantee, or other collateral to unsecured creditors. Based on this, we tend to consider that, in practice, it will be difficult to obtain an installment plan for more than a year. 7. How to obtain a court installment plan? A debtor, under the moratorium regime, has the right to file, within a bankruptcy case, an application on a judicial installment plan, subject to the following conditions: {{A)}} The debtor's income has fallen by more than 20%, compared to the income for the same period of the previous calendar year. Since the Bankruptcy Law does not specify what is meant by a 'similar period', in practice it is advisable to define such periods by analogy with the periods of payment of income tax. {{B)}} Initiation by the debtor of the bankruptcy proceeding during the moratorium period, provided that, prior to the introduction of the moratorium, no one filed an application for the debtor’s bankruptcy. {{C)}} The introduction of the supervision procedure (initial bankruptcy procedure) and holding of the first meeting of the debtor's creditors, at which no decision was made to approve agreement. In this regard, in practice, obtaining an installment plan is possible only after 5-6 months from the date of the introduction of the observation proceedings, against the debtor. {{D)}} The debtor must pay off debts to citizens for damage to life, or health, and for the payment of severance pay and remuneration of employees. Considering the similarity of the legal regulation of court installments and the settlement agreement in bankruptcy, we assume that the subsequent court practice will highly likely elaborate additional criteria necessary for the application of this procedure. For example, (a) the economic feasibility of the rehabilitation plan or (b) the absence of a deterioration in the creditors’ position, in comparison with the situation if the debtor was in bankruptcy proceedings. 8. What rights do creditors have during the installment plan period? Creditors, whose claims amount to more than 10% of the total amount of the register of creditors' claims, have the right of access to information about the debtor's property and obligations, as well as the right to receive a quarterly report on the execution of the court installment plan. In case of non-fulfillment of the terms of the court installment plan, creditors have the right to submit an application for the cancellation of the installment plan and the resumption of bankruptcy proceedings. 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. Практика: Dispute Resolution Practice, Restructuring and Insolvency Practice 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.
09 October 2020
Best Lawyers 2022 recommends Magomed Gasanov for Arbitration and Mediation, Litigation.
IFLR 1000, 2021-22 recommends Magomed Gasanov for Restructuring and Insolvency.
The Legal 500 Europe, Middle East & Africa 2021 recommends Magomed Gasanov for Dispute Resolution: Litigation/ Arbitration and meditation and White-collar crime.
Best Lawyers 2021 recommends Magomed Gasanov for Arbitration and Mediation, Litigation.
The Legal 500 Europe, Middle East & Africa 2020 recommends Magomed Gasanov for Dispute Resolution: Litigation/ Arbitration and meditation, Restructuring and insolvency and White-collar crime.
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.