Evgeniy Lutsenko

Successfully defending a major foreign bank in a dispute initiated by a Russian investor (the Claimant). The Claimant purchased structured notes issued by the Defendant’s company.
The Claimant insisted that the structured notes had been redeemed, but he had not received 100% of their face value and, therefore, applied to the court to recover the value of the notes from the Defendant and other companies in his group, including Russian bank, claiming that the latter was the Russian representative office of the Defendant.
We proved that the Russian bank is not connected with the disputed structured notes and that it is an independent legal entity, and the Claimant dropped the claims against the Russian bank.

Defending the business reputation of a client against whom negative statements were disseminated in online publications and videos. We proved to the court that the information disseminated offends the Client, discredits his business reputation and does not correspond to reality. The court agreed with our position and ordered the defendants to delete the disputed information, publish a rebuttal and pay substantial damages to the Client.

Defending of the bill of exchange issuer against collection of over US$5m. The Client issued a bill in the early 2000s. The bill holder deposited it in the Client’s office, from which it was subsequently stolen. A few years later, the claimant (the pseudo-bill holder) filed a claim for debt collection on the disputed bill of exchange. At the same time, a criminal case was being investigated into the theft of a bill of exchange, from the materials of which we learned that the claimant was involved in a chain of transactions to legalise ownership of the bill of exchange. Under the pressure of these circumstances, the claimant dropped the claim for debt collection in relation to the bill of exchange.

Developing a strategy to defend the Client against administrative liability for a negative environmental impact. The Federal Service for Supervision of Natural Resources of the Russian Federation (Rosprirodnadzor) issued a resolution to the Client, establishing that the Client had exceeded the standards for emissions of negative substances into the atmosphere. The Client sought protection because this case could become the basis for a claim to recover hundreds of millions of roubles worth of damages for environmental damage.
We developed a defence strategy for the Client based on the errors of Rosprirodnadzor detected by the team during sampling, which caused overestimated indicators, as well as procedural violations during the examination at the administrative verification stage.

Successfully defending a leading Russian engineering centre (the Client) in a dispute on the application of the receiver of one of the largest EPC contractors in the oil and gas industry (the contractor) challenging payments in favour of the Client’s subsidiary (the lessor).
The Client had a debt to the contractor of RUB 750m. Instead of paying the debt directly, the contractor instructed the Client to pay this amount to the lessor, to whom the contractor owed lease payments.
The receiver of the contractor considered that these payments are preferable under Article 61.3 of the Russian Bankruptcy Law, and also cause harm to the creditors.
We proved that leasing payments made by the Client cannot create a preference on the lessor’s side or cause harm to his creditors.
Having considered the receiver’s claim, the court refused to satisfy it.

Successfully defending a senior executive of a distribution company against being held subsidiarily liable. The trustee of the debtor demanded that the Client be held subsidiarily liable, because he was allegedly part of an informal debtor management body, determined the debtor’s long-term business strategy and transferred the debtor’s assets to companies controlled by the Client.
The dispute was complicated by a negative prejudice against the Client: the latter had the right to claim against the debtor but the court subordinated this claim, indicating affiliation between the debtor and the Client in the court act.
We managed to overcome the negative prejudice and prove that the debtor’s affiliation with the Client does not prove that the latter controlled the debtor, since these circumstances have different subjects of proof.
In addition, we were able to collect convincing evidence confirming that the Client did not participate in the debtor’s management bodies, did not determine its development strategy, and is not related to the companies to which the debtor transferred money. After considering all the arguments, the court refused to hold the Client subsidiarily liable.

Successfully challenging of the creditors’ claims worth over RUB 40m in total. Within bankruptcy proceedings, the Client was the defendant against the claim of a trustee to hold the Client subsidiarily liable.
We proved to the court that the claims of other creditors under the supply contracts submitted for inclusion in the register are fictitious. In support of the arguments, we pointed out that, in violation of the law, information about the supply contracts announced by creditors is missing from the timber transaction registration system.
We also convinced the court that the deliveries referred to by the creditors were impossible since the dimensions of the vehicles indicated in the travel documentation did not allow the delivery of raw materials in the declared amount. The court agreed with our arguments and refused to include the creditors’ claims.

Defending ING Bank in a dispute against one of the largest Russian banks on debt collection under the Derivatives Exchange Agreement (ISDA 1992). The Russian bank unilaterally refused to execute the agreement in connection with sanctions, appealed to the Russian court on the basis of Article 248.1 of the CPC RF, despite the arbitration clause (LCIA), and demanded payment in the form of a final balance on currency swaps. Moreover, the opponent insists that the dispute is tort and, therefore, should be considered at the place of harm, i.e., in Russia. We are proving that the opponent has no obstacles to access to justice in foreign arbitration and insist on the contractual nature of the dispute. In addition, we refute the correctness of the balance calculated by the opponent – according to our calculation, the balance was in favour of our Client.

Defending a large insurer in a case regarding recovery of billions of roubles securities debt from a bank.
The Client purchased securities issued by a foreign bank. After the maturity date, the bank refused to repay the debt on securities since the depository through which the repayment was to take place was under sanctions. On behalf of the Client, we applied to the issuer’s subsidiary with a claim for debt collection.

Advising the Client on the recovery of damages in connection with the contractor’s refusal to return equipment due to sanctions. The Client handed over the energy turbine to the contractor for repair. The contractor is located abroad refused to return the turbine to the Client.

Assistance with preparing Maxim Kulkov’s affidavit for an Irish court on judicial and arbitration proceedings in Russia concerning ownership of dozens of aircraft. The team helped Maxim Kulkov analyse the proceedings in Russia and predict possible actions by the Client’s procedural opponents, including those related to the recognition and enforcement of decisions of Russian courts and arbitrations abroad.