Dmitry represents Russian and foreign clients in complex commercial disputes in Russian state courts, as well as in domestic arbitration and international commercial arbitration, including consequent recognition and enforcement of arbitral awards. Dmitry is recommended by domestic legal directory Pravo-300 in International Arbitration category (Band 1).

Dmitry’s specialisation also covers various corporate law issues, including liability of company’s management bodies, disputes arising from SPA / SHA, as well as subsidiary liability of controlling persons under bankruptcy law.

“… the highest level of immersion in the case. We had a sense of reliability, trust and support after our first meeting with Nikolay [Pokryshkin] and Dmitry [Ilin]. During the entire period of the work, we were aware of both the high qualification of the lawyers and their outstanding personal qualities: politeness, decency, and friendliness”Evgeny and Anzhelika Kazazaevy (Teploenergogaz), 2021

Dmitry has extensive experience in assisting in preparation of the expert reports for foreign state courts and arbitral institutions on numerous issues of Russian law, including tort liability.

Some examples of Dmitry’s projects are provided below.


Participation in preparing of an expert opinion for the High Court of England and Wales in PJSC Tatneft v Bogolyubov & Ors on over a hundred issues of Russian law, including the possibility of bringing a tort claim against a company’s controlling persons in response to the company’s non-performance of contractual obligations bypassing the ‘competition of claims’…

Representing a claimant in a dispute involving two oilfield services companies – NewTech Services against Halliburton – in arbitration under ICAC Rules. The client claimed compensation for restoring the hermetic seal of an ultradeep oil well after defective cementing works by the defendant.
Representing a client in a dispute with one of the richest Russian businessmen according to Forbes, in connection with the illegal deprivation of the share of our client in a large Russian bank. The dispute is complex, providing for representation in Cyprus, Bermuda, Russia and the UK.
Defending Sibanthracite Logistic in 6 interconnected lawsuits in the Moscow Commercial Court against claims of Novotrans Group for recovery of fines totalling about US$9m for excessive idle time of railcars and excessive presence of railcars on the territory of foreign countries (Lithuania, Latvia, Finland, Belarus).
Representing a contractor participating in the construction of a nuclear power plant in an international commercial arbitration at the ICC on a subcontractor’s claim for compensation for the stand-by of dredging equipment.
Representing a client in a dispute on bringing him to vicarious liability initiated by the debtor’s receiver, who stated that our client had not filed for the bankruptcy of the debtor in a timely manner and that he is therefore obliged to pay off the creditor’s claims. Through the firm’s efforts, the client avoided recovery of US$4m, which is a significant amount for a senior executive.
Representing Ukraine in the case of Tatneft’s application for recognition and enforcement of an investment arbitral award worth approximately US$150 million (the first case to be heard in Russia on the recognition and enforcement of decisions of an international investment arbitration against a foreign state).
Participation in preparing an expert opinion in the LCIA arbitration regarding a long-term corporate dispute between the owners of one of the largest coal deposits in Russia over the issue of violation of parity in business management.
Assisting Maxim Kulkov in the preparation of several expert reports in a dispute involving Oleg Deripaska, ex-chairman of Vnesheconombank Viktor Chernukhin and his former common-law wife Lolita Danilina arising out of a joint venture agreement in relation to the valuable Trekhgornaya Manufaktura site in central Moscow.
Recovering losses in the amount of more than US$3.8 million from the former general director of Krasnobor poultry farms for the excess loss of poultry over a number of years as a result of the director’s unfair and unreasonable actions.