Anastasiya Khalyavina

Defending Goldman Sachs in a number of disputes over the claims brought by a major bank and a Russian state corporation seeking recognition of the competence of Russian courts to hear the disputes (Article 248.1 of the Russian Commercial Procedure Code) arising out of the agreements on financial transactions and a cross-currency interest rate swap concluded between the parties. The claimants were sanctioned, the parties terminated the agreements on condition that the client would provide the termination amount to the claimants but, due to the prohibition on transactions with sanctioned parties, the client was unable to fulfil the obligations. Despite the arbitration clause, the opponents asked the Russian court to change the jurisdiction.

Defending Commerzbank, Landesbank Baden-Württemberg, Bayerische Landesbank (major German banks) in disputes against a Gazprom subsidiary relating to the refusal of clients to make payments to the opponent under bank guarantees due to sanctions restrictions. The claimant is currently attempting to recover funds from the clients through a Russian court despite the fact that the guarantees are subject to English law and contain an arbitration clause.

Defending Commerzbank in a dispute against a large Russian bank. The opponent commenced a dispute in connection with the freezing of his funds in accounts opened with the depository, whose funds were in turn frozen in a German bank due to European sanctions. The complexity of the dispute is based on the claim’s nature, i.e., the probability of qualification of the claim as of contractual or of tort nature.

Representing a foreign client in an anti-suit injunction dispute in a foreign arbitration in connection with the imposition of sanctions on a Russian counterparty. This dispute is one of the key disputes relating to the Russian Lugovoi Law.

Participation in preparing an expert report for the English court on the application of Articles 248.1–248.2 of the RF CPC in a dispute between a Russian company and its Canadian counterparty (the client). The dispute arose out of the client’s refusal to return the advance payment to the counterparty due to the counterparty’s violation of the payment schedule under the contract. The Russian company, justifying the lack of payments on schedule on the basis of sanctions, appealed to the Russian court (despite the LCIA arbitration clause in the contract) with a request for recognition of the exclusive competence to consider the dispute and recover unprocessed advances from the client. Thanks to the well-coordinated work of the team, the client obtained an anti-suit injunction in an extremely short time, thereby increasing the client’s chances of resolving the dispute in accordance with the terms of the contract and helping the client to avoid losses of US$25m.

Participation in 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.

Advising AerCap on Russian sanctions and insurance regulations in a litigation in an English court. The dispute arose between the client and insurance companies, which refused to treat the failure to return more than one hundred aircraft leased to Russian airlines due to Russian export restrictions as an insured event.

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.

Successfully defending a client in a series of proceedings challenging interim measures imposed by an Italian court.
The client is constructing a large gas processing plant. The client’s Italian subcontractors, in breach of contract, failed to extend their performance bank guarantees, so the client demanded the payments under the guarantees. The opponents applied to a Turin court, which, by way of interim measures, prohibited the banks from making payments in favour of the client. We achieved settlements of the disputes.