Ekaterina Belashova

Defending ATAC (Auchan Group) in a dispute over a property owner’s claim against a client as an allegedly dishonest tenant seeking compensation for use of the premises for the entire rental period. We have proved that charging exorbitant inspection standards can disrupt the rental market. Anyone in the market would have to conduct a full investigation to see if the owner of the leased item has any problems that could lead to a future challenge to its title to the item. Having lost in the first and second rounds of the case in the courts of the first and appeal instances, we nevertheless twice proved the inconsistency of the claimant’s arguments in the court of cassation, which returned the case for a new round. After six court hearings and almost a year of consideration of the case in the third round in the first instance, the Commercial Court of the City of Moscow refused to satisfy the opponent’s claim in full.

Representing a Chinese supplier in the ICAC at the Chamber of Commerce and Industry of the Russian Federation in a dispute against a Russian counterparty arising out of a distribution agreement. Due to the opponent’s breach of the exclusive supplier clause, the client cancelled the contract and filed a claim with an arbitration court in China to recover the debt from the opponent for the supplied goods. In response, the opponent filed a claim against the client with the ICAC to declare the cancellation of the contract unlawful, to recover damages for allegedly low-quality goods and overpaid funds, and to issue a fine for violation of the exclusive purchaser clause. The matter of termination/suspension of proceedings before the ICAC is particularly complicated due to the existence of parallel arbitration proceedings in the PRC, which started earlier than the dispute in Russia.

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.