Nikita Sattarov

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.

Successfully defending Kurskagroterminal – a Russian agricultural enterprise – in a dispute initiated by a Polish manufacturer of agricultural equipment. The claimant applied to the Russian court to recover more than RUB 200m from the client under equipment supply contracts, ignoring the arbitration clause providing for consideration of disputes in the LCIA. We succeeded in leaving the opponent’s claim without consideration, proving to the court that the application of the provisions of Article 248.1 of the CPC RF is permissible only in the interests of Russian or related entities, and the arbitration clause is valid and enforceable.

Defending Oskol Electrometallurgical Plant in a dispute over compensation for losses of over RUB 7bn caused to the customer as a result of a malfunction in an uninterruptible power supply. The client applied to the insurance company for compensation, but the insurer refuses to pay compensation, alleging that the client’s losses arose due to a terrorist attack in a neighbouring region (at the Kursk Nuclear Power Plant).

Defending Sibanthracite Group companies in disputes related to improper fulfilment of obligations by a contractor. The contractor developed and supplied the client with unique coal sorting equipment for Russia, and also had to build a hydraulic sorting complex and a mobile modular installation. However, the supplied equipment turned out to be of poor quality, and construction deadlines and technologies were violated, as a result of which the client suffered losses, and the contractor is insisting payment be made.

Defending a supplier of chemicals for oil production in a dispute with a subsidiary of Russia’s largest oil producing company on the recovery of RUB 60m for the supply of low-quality chemicals. The case was complicated by the need to choose a correct method for the quality test of the chemical. The team is also performing a reconciliation of residues, for which existing methods were compared. The composition of the chemical and the process of its use in the field were analysed in order to prove its actual consumption by the customer in large volumes and subsequent confirmation of proper quality by the customer’s implied-in-fact actions.
Furthermore, to confirm the proper quality of the chemicals under the customer’s implied-in-fact actions, a reconciliation of chemical residues of more than 500 tonnes was organised at the field.

Defending one of Russia’s largest freight railway operators from foreclosure in a Georgian court.
The client’s property was seized in Georgia under a claim for recovery of contractual debt. The team coordinated the work of foreign consultants on Georgian law, and also carried out, a set of measures to release property from arrest, including challenging interim measures.

Defending a member of a bank’s management board against subsidiary liability of RUB 1.2bn and against the challenging of transactions.
After the revocation of the bank’s licence, a claim on bringing the client to subsidiary liability was filed. The claim was connected with allegedly bringing the bank to bankruptcy and committing malicious actions through the approval of tortious transactions. The team needed not only to prove the absence of harm in the approved transactions and signs of bankruptcy at the time of their approval, but also the lack of control over the formation of the terms of the transactions approved by the client.
At the same time, using the doctrine of dispositive transactions, the team promoted the return of property to the bankruptcy assets in order to protect the client against potential arguments about damages caused by approved transactions.

Defending the individual and legal entity against subsidiary liability in the amount of more than RUB 700m through complex support of bankruptcy proceeding. In the bankruptcy case, security transactions with the debtor’s counterparty were challenged, after which was filed an action for bringing the individual and the legal entity to subsidiary liability. In addition to defending the transaction in higher instances and proving the absence of grounds for subsidiary liability, we found that more than 90% of creditors were included in the register of the debtor’s claims on the basis of void transactions. Considering that the client’s protection includes also the consolidation of independent creditors against creditors in void transactions and the clearing of the debtor’s register of claims of creditors illegally located there by an extraordinary appeal procedure.

Drafting legal opinions on the litigation prospects of a commercial dispute with a foreign element and the legal regime of state secrets for one of Russia’s leading aircraft engine repair company. The opinions included an assessment of the litigation prospects of a dispute related to the transfer of aircraft engines for repair to an “unfriendly” jurisdiction, as well as an assessment of the legal consequences of working with information constituting a state secret and recommendations on legal support for such work.

Defending the director of the company involved in the construction of the Luzhniki Stadium, Moscow Metro stations and other major government projects, against subsidiary liability. The client was held liable to subsidiary liability for RUB 4.7bn for making allegedly tortious actions. Moreover, the amount of subsidiary liability has already been determined in relation to the client and writs of execution have been issued. We managed to cancel the judgement on client’s subsidiary liability in the Court of Appeal and convince the court that there are no grounds for such liability. However, the Circuit court sent the dispute for a second round of consideration to identify the damages caused by client’s allegedly tort actions for which one may be held liable. In the second round of consideration, we once again proved the integrity and reasonableness of the client’s actions, completely freeing him from any liability.

Legal support in the bankruptcy of a major metallurgical enterprise in the Sverdlovsk region (the register of creditors' claims totaling more than RUB 14bn), which included a financial analysis of the debtor’s activities, interaction with creditors and government agencies, identification of irregular transactions of the debtor and challenges thereof, bringing controlling persons to subsidiary liability, inventory and sale of property.
During the proceedings, it was revealed that the previous manager sold the debtor’s property under direct contracts to controlled persons at significantly reduced prices. The manager did not transfer contracts with counterparties and continued to sell the property along the chain of transactions to independent buyers. We successfully challenged transactions and returned part of the property to the bankruptcy assets, and also recovered losses from the previous manager.

Legal support in the bankruptcy of a food supplier from the EU affected by sanctions (the register of creditors' claims totaling more than RUB 1.2bn) which included financial analysis of the debtor’s activities, interaction with creditors and government agencies, identification of irregular transactions of the debtor and challenges thereof, bringing controlling persons to subsidiary liability, inventory and sale of property.
During the proceedings, the decision of the Federal Tax Service on additional income tax, and a transaction for the compulsory recovery of funds from the debtor’s account by the Federal Tax Service of Russia were successfully challenged.