Nikita focuses on resolving corporate and commercial disputes in Russian state courts. This includes cases with a foreign element, as well as cases dealing with sanctions and countersanctions.
His expertise also covers representing clients in bankruptcy proceedings, particularly on issues related to subsidiary liability, recovery of damages, challenging transactions, and subordination of creditor claims.
Projects:
Sanctions
Insolvency
Defending a board member and the chief accountant of a bank from being held liable for subsidiary liability exceeding RUB7m. In this case, the bankruptcy trustee insisted that the bank’s insolvency resulted from issuing more than 70 loans to borrowers with an unsatisfactory balance sheet structure, while the highly liquid collateral – a portfolio of high value real estate properties – was terminated through a number of contested transactions.
The case’s objective was to completely prevent the client from being held liable for subsidiary responsibility. To achieve this, the team developed a strategy aimed at proving the absence of actual losses for the bank. Through a comprehensive analysis, they managed to gather and present evidence to the court that, at the time the loans were issued, the borrowers had a positive balance sheet structure, and all loans were initially secured by liquid assets. The subsequent loss of this collateral was solely the result of unlawful actions by third parties, not decisions made by the bank’s board members.
The systematic approach developed made it possible to identify the actual beneficiaries responsible for driving the bank into bankruptcy.
Defending the assets of a beneficiary of a major tyre distribution holding company in the Russian automotive tyre market from enforcement in a series of interrelated bankruptcy cases, as well as challenging already issued court rulings on subsidiary liability and transaction invalidation.
A Russian subsidiary of a foreign tyre manufacturer initiated bankruptcy proceedings against the client’s group. After successfully holding the controlling persons liable for subsidiary responsibility, the creditor moved to the next stage, i.e., attempting to locate and enforce against their personal assets through the mechanism of individual bankruptcy.
The team faced a complex challenge, further complicated by the expiration of procedural deadlines for appealing most of the court rulings issued in the bankruptcy cases.
As a result, the team not only managed to secure protection against the invalidation of several transactions, but also succeeded in reinstating the missed deadlines to review a portion of the court rulings.
Successfully defending a petroleum products supply transaction in a buyer’s bankruptcy case. The client, in accordance with the terms of the contract, delivered petroleum products not to the buyer itself, but to a third party designated by the buyer as the recipient. After the buyer’s bankruptcy proceedings were initiated, the bankruptcy trustee filed a claim to challenge the transaction, arguing that although the client had received payment of over RUB120m, it had never fulfilled its delivery obligations.
During the court proceedings, the team proved that the petroleum products had been properly delivered to the specified third party and that the client’s actions were lawful. As a result, the bankruptcy trustee’s claim was dismissed.
Successfully defending the interests of the chairman of a bank’s board of directors (in bankruptcy proceedings) in a dispute concerning the subordination of his claims and the recovery of over RUB400m paid to the bank. The bankruptcy trustee’s claim was based on an attempt to classify the funds deposited with the bank by controlling persons (including the client) as compensatory financing.
The team proved that the mere fact of depositing funds with the bank by individuals who were members of its management bodies does not constitute compensatory financing, provided that there are no other indicators of artificially maintaining liquidity to the detriment of creditors’ interests.
As a result, the court dismissed the claims in their entirety.
Domestic Litigation
Corporate and M&A
Sanctions
Successfully defending Societe Generale 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 fulfilment of obligations of a foreign issuer (the Defendant’s European subsidiary). The team proved in the first instance and appellate court that the Client had 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.
Insolvency
Defending a board member and the chief accountant of a bank from being held liable for subsidiary liability exceeding RUB7m. In this case, the bankruptcy trustee insisted that the bank’s insolvency resulted from issuing more than 70 loans to borrowers with an unsatisfactory balance sheet structure, while the highly liquid collateral – a portfolio of high value real estate properties – was terminated through a number of contested transactions.
The case’s objective was to completely prevent the client from being held liable for subsidiary responsibility. To achieve this, the team developed a strategy aimed at proving the absence of actual losses for the bank. Through a comprehensive analysis, they managed to gather and present evidence to the court that, at the time the loans were issued, the borrowers had a positive balance sheet structure, and all loans were initially secured by liquid assets. The subsequent loss of this collateral was solely the result of unlawful actions by third parties, not decisions made by the bank’s board members.
The systematic approach developed made it possible to identify the actual beneficiaries responsible for driving the bank into bankruptcy.
Defending the assets of a beneficiary of a major tyre distribution holding company in the Russian automotive tyre market from enforcement in a series of interrelated bankruptcy cases, as well as challenging already issued court rulings on subsidiary liability and transaction invalidation.
A Russian subsidiary of a foreign tyre manufacturer initiated bankruptcy proceedings against the client’s group. After successfully holding the controlling persons liable for subsidiary responsibility, the creditor moved to the next stage, i.e., attempting to locate and enforce against their personal assets through the mechanism of individual bankruptcy.
The team faced a complex challenge, further complicated by the expiration of procedural deadlines for appealing most of the court rulings issued in the bankruptcy cases.
As a result, the team not only managed to secure protection against the invalidation of several transactions, but also succeeded in reinstating the missed deadlines to review a portion of the court rulings.
Successfully defending a petroleum products supply transaction in a buyer’s bankruptcy case. The client, in accordance with the terms of the contract, delivered petroleum products not to the buyer itself, but to a third party designated by the buyer as the recipient. After the buyer’s bankruptcy proceedings were initiated, the bankruptcy trustee filed a claim to challenge the transaction, arguing that although the client had received payment of over RUB120m, it had never fulfilled its delivery obligations.
During the court proceedings, the team proved that the petroleum products had been properly delivered to the specified third party and that the client’s actions were lawful. As a result, the bankruptcy trustee’s claim was dismissed.
Successfully defending the interests of the chairman of a bank’s board of directors (in bankruptcy proceedings) in a dispute concerning the subordination of his claims and the recovery of over RUB400m paid to the bank. The bankruptcy trustee’s claim was based on an attempt to classify the funds deposited with the bank by controlling persons (including the client) as compensatory financing.
The team proved that the mere fact of depositing funds with the bank by individuals who were members of its management bodies does not constitute compensatory financing, provided that there are no other indicators of artificially maintaining liquidity to the detriment of creditors’ interests.
As a result, the court dismissed the claims in their entirety.
Domestic Litigation
Defending a contractor in a dispute concerning the recovery of unjust enrichment (unearned advance payment) and a penalty amounting to over RUB900m. The claim was based on the construction of a business class apartment complex in Moscow. During the project’s implementation, the client terminated the contract, citing alleged deficiencies in the quality of work and breaches of interim deadlines for work delivery.
A comprehensive strategy was developed in order to ensure and effective defence. It included not only advocating the position regarding the initial claim, but also filing counterclaims to recover over RUB700m in outstanding payments for work actually performed. These counterclaims effectively precluded the satisfaction of the opponent’s claims.
Corporate and M&A
Defending investments worth over RUB110m made by shareholders of a Skolkovo resident company in a corporate dispute concerning the challenge of a decision to increase the authorised capital. The conflict arose after the former spouse of the company’s founder challenged the decision to increase the authorised capital and admit new shareholders during divorce proceedings. The court ruling that was issued blocked the possibility of recovering substantial investments: the investors faced the risk of losing their funds, while the company’s promising product was at risk of being withdrawn from the market. As a result of implementing the project strategy, it became economically and procedurally more advantageous for the opponents to abandon further litigation and enter into negotiations. The work culminated in the approval of a settlement agreement, thanks to which the clients retained their status as shareholders and preserved all their invested funds.