Diana Arkhipova

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.

Advising a major global leasing company 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.

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 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 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).

Participation in preparing expert reports for the High Court of England in ABFA Commodities v Petraco dispute. Our client – Petraco Oil Company SA (one of the oldest independent oil trading companies in Europe) – filed a claim for damages caused by unlawful interim measures for petroleum products that were never delivered to it. The opponent filed a counterclaim for recovery of damages, insisting that our client had “intercepted” previous oil deliveries from the Antipinsky Oil Refinery, which were allegedly intended for the opponent, and also demanded recognition of its ownership of the petroleum products subject to the interim measures.
Maxim Kulkov’s reports included analysis of highly controversial issues of Russian law, such as interference in another’s contractual relations expressed in the form of a double sale of a generic thing. Guided by Maxim’s expert reports and oral testimony given during two days of cross-examination, the court preferred his conclusions to those of the opponent’s expert.

Participation in preparing an expert report for the High Court of England in a dispute related to a conflict over a strategic enterprise producing special steel. The former owners of the plant appealed to the English court claiming that a raider seizure was carried out against their asset, and demanding compensation for damages. The team and the expert are faced with the task of evaluating the asset seizure scheme referred to by opponents and assessing the prospects for recovering losses from the client.

Representing Shell as one of the major creditors in the Mari Refinery insolvency case, as well as representing the client in separate disputes worth over US$70m concerning the challenging of transactions.