Ksenia Korchagina

Assistance in the preparation of an expert report under the Russian law in a dispute before the High Court of Justice arising out of a long-standing corporate conflict concerning the management of Norilsk Nickel.
The disagreements began when RUSAL (the Client) acquired a stake in Norilsk Nickel. The conflict was later settled through the execution of a 10-year shareholders’ agreement; however, shortly before the agreement expired, the Client brought a claim in the High Court of Justice against Mr Potanin and other defendants. The Client alleged that Mr Potanin had failed to properly perform his duties as managing partner of Norilsk Nickel, as a result of which the company lost a number of assets and its shareholders suffered losses, which the Client seeks to recover.
In order to substantiate its claims, the Client required Mr Potanin to disclose certain documents available to him in his capacity as the CEO of Norilsk Nickel. Maxim Kulkov was instructed to prove that Mr Potanin had the ability to provide such documents.
In 2026 the High Court of Justice, relying on Maxim Kulkov’s expert report, held that Mr Potanin was obliged to disclose the requested documents, while retaining the right to object at a later stage to the disclosure of specific documents where such disclosure would be contrary to Russian law.
“However, it does seem to me that Mr. Kulkov has the better of the argument,” the Court noted in its judgment when comparing the positions of Mr. Kulkov and the opposing party’s expert on this issue.

Defending an international financial depository in one of the largest disputes in global history arising from the freezing of sovereign assets. The dispute between a state financial megaregulator and a global infrastructure player represents a rare example of a case directly impacting the management of state reserves and the functioning of the international financial system under sanctions.

Successfully defending a French bank (the Client) in a dispute between a Russian bank (the Claimant) and a large Russian leasing company (the Defendant). The Defendant’s European subsidiary issued Eurobonds. The Client ordered the foreign depository to register the transfer of Eurobonds to the Claimant, but the depository did not execute it and blocked the transaction due to the fact that the Claimant was under sanctions.
The Claimant appealed to the court, requesting to be recognised as a creditor for the claims against the Defendant, who is the guarantor of the fulfillment of obligations of a foreign issuer (the Defendant’s European subsidiary). In the first instance court the team proved that the Client has properly fulfilled its obligations to transfer Eurobonds to the Claimant, and that the parties to the case had no grounds for making any claims against the Client.

Defending 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.

Assistance in the preparation of a memorandum for a major foreign energy company on enforcement against accounts receivable under the Russian law.
The team worked on determining the moment when a creditor acquires the debtor’s rights in respect of a claim under the Russian Law on Enforcement Proceedings, as well as whether the creditor may bring a direct claim against the underlying third-party debtor pursuant to Article 358.6 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation.