Alexandr Yakovlev

Successfully defending an Irish company – SGBT Finance – within the Société Générale group against a claim by a Russian financial company. The claimant sought to hold our client jointly liable, alongside the contractual debtor, Société Générale S.A., for a debt under structured notes. It alleged that the client had committed a tort by abusing the corporate structure of the Société Générale group in order to comply with anti-Russia sanctions.
Our team defeated the claim against SGBT Finance in full. We proved that the client could not be held liable in tort. It had not abused the group's corporate structure, nor taken any concerted action with the contractual debtor, and was not liable for the obligations of another group company. We further established that affiliation could not give rise to joint liability.
We persuaded the court to extend the approach of the Russian Supreme Court – on releasing Russian affiliates from joint liability – to foreign affiliates. This is a novel development in Russian court practice.

Advising one of the world’s largest aircraft lessors on Russian sanctions and insurance law issues in connection with proceedings before the High Court of England and Wales. The dispute arose after insurers refused to accept that the inability to recover more than 100 aircraft leased to Russian airlines, following the introduction of Russian export restrictions, constituted an insured event. In 2025, the High Court upheld the client’s entitlement to approximately US$1 billion in insurance proceeds.

Representing the client in a dispute in ICC arbitration over the client’s claim against its counterparty, one of the world’s largest manufacturers of wind turbines. The client won tenders for the production of “green” electricity and started the construction of wind farms. The wind turbines were to be produced, supplied and maintained by the opponent. However, due to the sanctions, the respondent terminated its contracts with the client, that resulted in substantial losses for the client. Thanks to the efforts of the team, the parties settled the dispute on terms which were favourable for the client.

Developing a defence strategy for a one of Russia’s largest distributors of telecommunications equipment. Due to the imposition of sanctions on the import of high-tech equipment into Russia, the client’s Taiwanese counterparty could not supply the equipment directly to the client. To overcome the problem, the client entered into an agreement with a Turkish intermediary who was to purchase the equipment in Taiwan and resell it to the client. The client made an advance payment of US$1.6m, but the intermediary had problems making payments to the manufacturer because of export restrictions imposed by Turkish law.

Defending a major French financial conglomerate in a dispute with one of the largest dairy plants in Russia, which arose due to the client’s refusal to pay for bank guarantees due to EU sanctions. The plant appealed to the Russian court with a demand to recover about EUR 5m from the client. Moreover, the Russian court took interim measures against the client, and the claimant seized the client’s assets worth almost RUB 1bn (including property not specified by the court in the ruling on interim measures).

Preparing a legal opinion on the particularities of the implementation of the British Virgin Islands sanctions regime in relation to companies that are indirectly controlled by a person on the UK sanctions lists for the purpose of re-domiciliation of a company from the BVI to Belize.

Assistance with preparing an expert report on Russian law issues in proceedings before the High Court of England and Wales between UC Rusal and Vladimir Potanin arising from a corporate conflict over the governance of Norilsk Nickel. The dispute concerned allegations that Mr Potanin, as managing partner, failed to fulfil his duties, resulting in asset losses recoverable by UC Rusal. A key issue was Mr Potanin’s argument that he had no access to corporate documents, citing Russian law restrictions on disclosure of confidential information to foreign courts. The expert successfully persuaded the High Court that a company executive has access to all company documents, and Russian law does not prohibit a CEO from using company documents in personal litigation. The High Court ruled in favour of the client, ordering Mr Potanin to disclose the requested documents.

Successfully defending the client against "raider takeover" allegations in the High Court of England and Wales. The claimants alleged that the client’s appeal to Russian law enforcement authorities formed part of a scheme to unlawfully deprive them of shares valued at US$800m. KK&P prepared extensive memoranda on tort law, focusing on the client’s legitimate exercise of the right to report a crime. We demonstrated that (i) appealing to law enforcement is a lawful action absent proof of malicious intent; (ii) the claimants failed to establish a causal link between the client’s complaint and the alleged seizure; and (iii) the claimants improperly sought to relitigate final Russian court rulings in breach of res judicata. The High Court rejected the claimants’ demands in full.

Assistance with preparing an expert report on Russian law issues for LCIA proceedings in relation to a dispute concerning the recovery of US$1.3bn of debt under a loan agreement. The case was complicated by the respondent’s extraordinary argument that the Board of Directors of the client’s parent company lacked authority to approve commencement of the arbitration proceedings. Thanks to the expert report and persuasive testimony of Maxim Kulkov, the Tribunal issued a preliminary ruling in favour of the client and did not terminate the proceedings.

Assistance with preparing an expert report for an LCIA arbitration arising out of a credit line agreement. The report covers complex issues of invalidity of foreclosure of an LLC share by leaving it with the pledgee; fiduciary duties of the pledgee towards the company whose shares are pledged to it and unjust enrichment allegedly arising on its side; interpretation of an arbitration clause and applicable law clause in a situation where a pledge agreement and a financing agreement contain diametrically opposed clauses.

Representing a client in a dispute concerning the restoration of full corporate control over TSM LLC, which had been lost as a result of a series of unlawful transactions whereby a former member of TSM transferred a 35% interest in the company to affiliated parties.
The client instructed us to bring the corporate conflict, which had begun in 2019 and effectively paralysed TSM’s operations, to a definitive conclusion. The former member and its affiliates had repeatedly entered into void transactions involving interests in TSM, adopted invalid corporate resolutions – including resolutions to increase TSM’s charter capital, change its registered office and appoint a new CEO – and attempted to expel the client from the company.
We developed a comprehensive strategy for resolving the conflict and commenced proceedings seeking to invalidate the multi-stage chain of transactions involving the 35% interest in TSM, as well as all corporate resolutions adopted by the illegitimate members, including the resolution appointing a nominee CEO. We represented the client throughout the proceedings before courts at all three instances and successfully secured the invalidation of all transactions and corporate resolutions challenged in the proceedings.

Preparing a legal opinion on the client’s (a medical clinic) defence strategy in two separate disputes regarding invalidation of debtor-client transactions on special bankruptcy and general civil grounds. The project is complicated by the fact that the invalidation of transactions would entail the withdrawal of the client’s main asset for the continuation of medical activities.

Preparing a pre-bankruptcy asset protection strategy to minimise the risks of the company’s key assets being sold to third parties. The development of the strategy was complicated by the presence of a corporate conflict in the company, where each of the company’s shareholders wanted to keep key assets for themselves.