Nataliya Dyganova

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 Procedure 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 Bank of New York Mellon in a dispute with a Russian bank which is subject to sanctions. The dispute is connected with a client’s transfer of US$7m from the opponent’s correspondent account to a special blocked account. Despite the fact that the dispute is under the jurisdiction of US courts, the claimant filed a claim in a Russian court under Article 248.1 of the RF CPC.

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. The Commercial Court of the Moscow Region reversed the lower courts’ judgments that had previously granted the claim against the client and remanded the case for a new trial.

Successfully defending a client in a dispute over the enforcement of a contract for the sale and purchase of land plots worth appr US$7m. The claim was brought by a counterparty with whom the client had failed to agree on the list of land plots to be transferred. The firm’s team succeeded in getting the interim measures against almost all the land plots demanded by the claimant lifted, as well as in convincing the court that the disputed contract was not concluded due to non-compliance with the requirements for individualisation of the subject matter of the contract.

Successfully defending the business reputation of Modum-Trans due to the fact that inaccurate, defamatory information was disseminated regarding alleged wrongdoing during the conduct of business by the client, its participants and management. To defend the client, we proved that the Telegram channel where the inaccurate information was published belongs to the defendant, a media outlet that had previously disseminated inaccurate information about the client.
Thanks to the team’s efforts, the disseminated information was recognised as inaccurate and defamatory, and was refuted and removed.

Preparing a legal opinion on the prospects for a dispute with a major Russian bank arising out of a futures transaction agreement (forward agreement). As a result of the bank’s actions, the client was unable to convert foreign currency into roubles at a favourable exchange rate and incurred more than US$18m in losses. Despite the lack of court practice on the issue, the team offered the client a number of options for defending its interests.

Advising AerCap 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.

Successful pre-trial settlement of a dispute between the client and its counterparty pursuant to the General Conditions concluded between the parties for the supply of foreign equipment for the construction of infrastructure facilities. The counterparty faced difficulties in making payments to the Russian branch due to sanctions and currency restrictions, which jeopardised the long-term cooperation of the parties. With the assistance of the firm, the parties agreed on a further payment procedure without initiating LCIA arbitration.

Conducted sanctions compliance for an IT company with respect to potential grounds for refusing the company’s secondary public offering (SPO). The project also analysed the client’s business processes before and after the imposition of restrictive measures and developed a risk mitigation roadmap for the purposes of successfully passing the Moscow Exchange Know Your Customer procedures.

Conducting sanctions compliance for a domestic company operating in the commercial air transport industry. As part of the compliance, more than 600 of the client’s counterparties were checked for their presence on US, EU and UK sanctions lists.

Defending an investment company before the Limassol District Court in relation to the claims brought against the client by its customers. The dispute arose out of the client’s inability to conduct securities transactions due to sanctions.
The team is defending the client against the claims by developing a comprehensive legal position on the issue of recognising sanctions as a force majeure circumstance and coordinating the Cypriot lawyers.

Representing a client in a dispute over the recognition and enforcement of an ICAC award before the Commercial Court of Belgrade (Serbia). The ICAC ruled in favour of the client recovering tens of millions of euros in unpaid advances and accrued interest. The defendant, a foreign contractor, refused to execute the award voluntarily and made unsuccessful attempts to have the ruling annulled by the Russian court. We defended the client by convincing the Russian court to uphold the ICAC award, and now we are in the process of having the arbitral award recognised and, simultaneously, having interim measures imposed on the debtor’s property in Serbia.

Successfully defending one of the richest Russian businessmen in a dispute initiated by a major state-owned bank to bring him to subsidiary liability. The bank wanted to recover more than RUB 3.5bn from the client in a development company insolvency case. The case was complex due to the bank having a debtor’s disclosure statement in which the client is named as a beneficiary. The bank also held the client responsible for a significant number of episodes that covered an extended period of time, which further complicated the client’s defence.

Successfully represented RBC for three years in seven separate disputes in the insolvency case of a former subsidiary (RBK Money payment system), including protection from subsidiary liability, challenging the sale of a business and payments (the total value of the disputes was in excess of US$63m).

After the firm’s team successfully defended RBC against subsidiary liability, opponents attempted to hold the debtor’s former directors liable in order to force them to provide information favourable to the opponents that could be used to revise the subsidiary liability dispute against RBC. In one of the disputes, we managed to prove that the client could not be held liable. Courts of all instances, including the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, agreed with our arguments.

Advising the client in relation to disputes over debt collection in the amount of more than US$20m from two Russian companies and their affiliates who provided a pledge.