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.

Recent work
Publications and Insights
Rankings and awards

Sergey Petrachkov is an ALRUD Partner, heading the Dispute Resolution and Restructuring/Insolvency Practices, he is a Partner in the International Arbitration practice.

Sergey has a considerable experience in representing clients in complex business and corporate disputes before state courts. He also advises on issues relating to international commercial arbitration and represents clients in arbitration proceedings.

Sergey takes part in restructuring matters and insolvency proceedings, including advising and litigation in respect of dissipation of assets, claw- back actions and recovery of damages from management and shareholders of the debtor.

Sergey has represented clients before the Supreme Commercial Court and Supreme Court of the Russian Federation on numerous occasions.

Throughout his entire carrier, he has been supporting major companies in different areas including the automobile sector, banking and finance, IT, consumer products, and the retail trade.

Sergey joined ALRUD in 2009. Sergey graduated from The National Research University Higher School of Economics, Law Department in 2008, followed by earning his Ph.D. in Law (2012). In 2015-2016, Sergey was on secondment in London at the law firm Slaughter and May, a member of The Magic Circle.

Sergey is an advocate and member of the Moscow Bar Association. He is also a member of the International Bar Association (IBA) and American Bar Association (ABA).

Includes advising and representing:

The major retailer Auchan LLC

in the high-profile dispute on demolition of the shopping centre, which cost is about USD 320 million. This is one of the largest construction disputes in Russia. Its results may significantly affect the court and construction practice in Russia.

SSI Schäfer

the world's leading provider of products and systems for material handling products, in the large insurance dispute on recovery of multibillion losses caused by the crash of its warehouse. A complex strategy was developed and the dispute has been settled on mutually-agreed terms.

Sova Capital Limited

the FCA authorised and regulated broker, based in London, in a remarkable corporate dispute on recovery of USD 200 million of damages.

An international oil trader,

in a dispute against the Russian oil refinery, on recovery of indebtedness in the process of debtor reorganization.

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.

An international 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 liquidation 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.

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.

Sergey Petrachkov To Speak at London International Disputes Week
London International Disputes Week #LIDW24 will take place on 3-7 June. The event will be a focal point for legal experts from around the world to discuss progress made in dispute resolution over the past year, as well as expectations for trends in the coming year. As part of #LIDW24, experts from ALRUD, Enyo Law, One Essex Court and Teynier Pic will hold a session on 5 June on the topic: ****‘Clash of jurisdictions – era of sanctions, anti-suit and anti-anti-suit injunctions?’****, which focuses on changes in Russian procedural rules that provide for the additional judicial protection of Russian companies from foreign sanctions, and changes caused by trends. ALRUD will be represented by ****Sergey Petrachkov****, Partner of the Dispute Resolution and International Arbitration practices, who will address the following issues during his speech: Background to Article 248 and early and more recent (2023/2024) cases. Perspectives on the enforcement of Russian decisions in other jurisdictions. Piercing the corporate veil in terms of liability and enforcement in Russia. Approach of Russian courts to foreign ASI. More information about the event can be found on the ****organizer’s website****.
27 May 2024
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
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
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
Russian Chapter in the The Legal 500 Force Majeure Country Comparative Guide by ALRUD experts
Our firm's Partner Sergey Petrachkov, Senior Associates Dmitry Kuptsov and Ksenia Erokhina prepared the chapter about the situation in Russia for the The Legal 500 Force Majeure Country Comparative Guide. Each chapter of this guide provides information and analysis about the current issues affecting force majeure in a particular states and addresses topics such as legislation, commercial contracts, courts approaches, COVID-19 pandemic, obligations, requirements, contractual remedies, consumer contracts, insurance policy and state measures to support citizens and legal entities. Chapter about Russia of the Legal 500 Force Majeure Country Comparative Guide can be reached here.
06 July 2021
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
ALRUD strengthens its positions in the international ranking IFLR1000
ALRUD has once again taken high positions in M&A, Banking, Capital Markets, Restructuring and Insolvency, Project Finance and Project Development (Mining, Power, PPP/PFI) in the international ranking of law firms IFLR1000 of the International Financial Law Review. ALRUD has improved its results and moved up in Restructuring and Insolvency and Project Development: Mining. Partners Alexander Zharskiy (‘Highly Regarded’ in M&A, Banking, Restructuring and Insolvency), Anton Dzhuplin (‘Highly Regarded’ in M&A, Banking, Restructuring and Insolvency, Pharmaceuticals and Life Sciences, Social Infrastructure), as well as Associate Ekaterina Mayorova (Rogacheva) (‘Rising Star’ in Banking) are recommended in the individual rankings. The IFLR1000 is the guide to the world's leading financial and corporate law firms and lawyers. The IFLR1000 has been producing legal market intelligence since 1990 and remains the only international legal directory dedicated to ranking law firms and lawyers, on the basis of financial and corporate transactional work. For more information click here.
01 October 2020
Dispute Resolution practice Partners wrote an article for IBA
Sergey Petrachkov and Dmitry Kuptsov, Partners of the Dispute Resolution practice, wrote an article “Delayed-action bankruptcy in Russia” for The International Bar Association. ALRUD experts explored practical consequences of the moratorium on bankruptcy introduced in Russia in April 2020 as an emergency measure aimed at protecting businesses from Covid-19 pandemic impact. Authors considered several key issues related to legal aspects of the moratorium as applied both to the debtors and the creditors. You may view the article here.
28 September 2020
ALRUD Specialists prepared a chapter for The Legal 500 Force Majeure Country Comparative Guide
Our firm's Partner Sergey Petrachkov, Senior Associates Dmitry Kuptsov and Ksenia Erokhina prepared the chapter about Russia for the The Legal 500 Force Majeure Country Comparative Guide. Each chapter of this guide provides information about the current issues affecting force majeure in a particular country and addresses topics such as COVID-19, general principles, legislation and judicial treatment, practical issues, consumers, insurance, and future considerations. Russian chapter of the Legal 500 Force Majeure Country Comparative Guide can be reached here.
29 June 2020
Pravo-300, 2023 recommends Sergey Petrachkov for Antitrust law, Arbitrazh proceedings (сommercial disputes: High Market; corporate disputes), Bankruptcy (Litigation High Market).
Chambers Global, 2022 recommends Sergey Petrachkov for Dispute Resolution: High-End.
IFLR 1000, 2021-22 recommends Sergey Petrachkov for Restructuring and Insolvency.
Best Lawyers 2022 recommends Sergey Petrachkov for Arbitration and Mediation, Insolvency and Reorganization Law, Litigation.
Chambers Global, 2021 recommends Sergey Petrachkov for Dispute Resolution: High-End.
Chambers Europe, 2021 recommends Sergey Petrachkov for Dispute Resolution: High-End.
The Legal 500 Europe, Middle East&Africa 2021 recommends Sergey Petrachkov for Dispute Resolution: Litigation/Arbitration and meditation, Restructuring/Insolvency.
Best Lawyers 2021 recommends Sergey Petrachkov for Arbitration and Mediation, Insolvency and Reorganization Law and Litigation.
The Legal 500 Europe, Middle East&Africa 2020 recommends Sergey Petrachkov for Dispute Resolution: Litigation/Arbitration and meditation, Restructuring/Insolvency, White-collar crime and Competition.
Chambers Europe, 2019 recommends Sergey Petrachkov for Restructuring/Insolvency.
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.