Nikolay Pokryshkin

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 Commerzbank, Landesbank Baden-Württemberg, Bayerische Landesbank (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.

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 J.P.Morgan subsidiary in a dispute against Sovcombank (a major Russian sanctioned bank). The client’s UK affiliate and the opponent entered into agreements under which the opponent was allegedly owed RUB 1.4bn. The funds were transferred to a blocked account. The agreements contain arbitration clauses and are governed by English law, but the claimant is seeking to recognise the exclusive jurisdiction of Russian courts as well as apply Russian law due to sanctions. The project is complicated by the fact that the claimant intends to recover the debt not only from the client’s UK affiliate, as a counterparty to the agreements, but also from a Russian bank that is part of the client’s conglomerate, however, has nothing to do with the agreements in question.

Defending Shell’s subsidiaries in a dispute with GPN-Salym Projects LLC (GPN, a subsidiary of Gazpromneft) over the reorganisation of a branch of foreign company Salym Petroleum Development N.V. (SPD) into the Russian company Salym Development LLC, which became possible as a result of Russia’s introduction of counter-sanctions measures against companies intending to leave the Russian market. The dispute has become a precedent on this issue in the Russian legal system. The project sets a general tendency and reflects a judicial approach aimed at forcing foreign investors to remain part of the Russian economy with restrictions on their corporate rights.

Advising a major foreign bank – a systemically important bank in Russia – in connection with the termination of an office building sale and purchase agreement worth over US$50m due to the developer failing to start construction on time and demanding that the client pay an additional amount of over 50% of the agreed price. The firm provided detailed advice on how to mitigate the risks associated with the termination, as well as the developer’s arguments re. sanctions, price increases and other force majeure circumstances.

Leading participation in the Metrostroy insolvency case. The project is critical, both for the continuation of the construction of the metro in St Petersburg and for the satisfaction of lenders’ claims by way of the return and sale of assets worth more than US$200m and the subsidiary liability of the debtor’s shareholders. The team ensured that the client’s claims of almost US$50m were included in Metrostroy’s register, despite the actions of opponents in three instances. In addition, the team prevented the inclusion of unjustified claims for US$45m in the register, which will contribute to a fair distribution of the insolvency estate.

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 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.

Representing Shell as one of the major creditors in the Mari Refinery insolvency case, as well as representing the client in separate disputes worth over US$70m concerning the challenging of transactions.

Representing Raiffeisenbank in the case of the bankruptcy of a debtor with a debt of over US$53m secured by the pledge of a Russian shopping centre. The project was successfully implemented, despite disputes on subordination, unauthorised construction, invalidity of collateral and a chain of restructuring transactions.

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.

Representing the interests O1 Properties Group companies in the insolvency case of a large office centre in Moscow. Following the results of a year of confrontation with TRUST Bank in a insolvency case and three parallel processes worth US$97m in total, we managed to achieve settlement of the dispute on the most favourable terms for the client.

Representing the interests of Sovfrakht and Koksokhimtrans in the insolvency case of the Antipinsky Oil Refinery with the lenders’ claims totalling US$5bn. The successful defence against challenging transactions in favour of clients required the establishment of a precedent for recognising forced payments late after filing for insolvency as committed in the ordinary course of business.

Representing oil traders in the insolvency case of Samaratransneft-Terminal with a register of claims of US$662m made it possible to achieve a peaceful settlement at the end of a year of disputes over the subordination of RUB 20bn in bond claims. We also secured the inclusion in the register of a US$12m claim based on a pdf copy of a guarantee under Swiss law, the issuance of which the debtor denied.

Representing PJSC MDM Bank, JSC Rost Bank, and LLC Politeks as lenders with claims totalling RUB 4.7bn in insolvency proceedings in the Commercial Court of the City of Moscow and the Commercial Court of St Petersburg and the Leningrad Region against 33 debtors incorporated into four separate electronic supplier company groups.
The case includes a whole range of measures for the out-of-court settlement of debt, parallel investigations under criminal cases against several debtors and measures to trace and attach the debtors’ assets.

Successfully defending Sovfrakht and its senior executives in courts of all instances, including the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, in three disputes on subsidiary liability for RUB 510m as participants and members of the board of directors of a subsidiary, recovering corporate losses and challenging the debtor’s transactions with a related person with the aim of repeating attempts to bring clients to subsidiary liability.

Representing a client in the insolvency proceedings of Murmansk Shipping Company (MSCO), one of the primary shipping companies operating in Arctic Russia and Northern Europe, in two disputes: (i) on contesting a compensation agreement (initiated by MSCO’s insolvency trustee) and (ii) on contesting a securities pledge agreement (initiated by VTB) concluded between MSCO and the client. Both disputes (appr. US$15m in total) were won by the firm.

Successfully defending law firms in disputes over the challenging of transactions under legal services contracts on the basis of unequal counter-provision to the debtor. The team presented an impressive amount of evidence of the fact of rendering services and their equivalence, including three specialist opinions. As a result, the court dismissed the receiver’s claims in full.

Providing UniCredit Bank with a complex legal and commercial expert opinion regarding the debtor’s finance and assets, on the date of the payment execution of more than US$4.2m in favour of the client, to defend against the receiver’s claim challenging the payment allegedly executed when the debtor was insolvent. The opinion prepared by the firm became the client’s main evidence in court to prove that payments made by the debtor to him could not be declared void. The court considered this evidence and ruled in favour of our client. As a result, the client avoided a loss of US$4.2m.

Preparing a comprehensive legal opinion for a Russian oil refinery on a potential challenge to a bid by way of which the client acquired property. As a result of our work on the project, we analysed the risks of challenging the bid with practical proposals aimed at preserving the acquired asset in the ownership of the buyer.

Participating in over 30 court cases in connection with the illegal dissipation of assets worth US$6bn controlled by Mukhtar Ablyazov.

Representing clients (former members and directors of the company) in a major corporate conflict in order to restore lost control over the company and protect against the recovery of corporate losses under 12 parallel cases on the expulsion of participants from the company, challenging corporate decisions, transactions on the disposal of shares and assets, recovery of losses and subsidiary liability.

Developing a defence strategy for a major international bank in four legal proceedings initiated by Moscow City Hall demanding demolition of a business centre complex located on a land plot owned by the city and securing loans extended by our client to borrowers in the amount of US$120m. In three of the four cases, the defendant (borrower) and the client successfully used the defence proposed by the firm's team, achieving a rejection of the claim.

Representing a former shareholder of one of the leading research and production enterprises in the Chuvash Region in a dispute over a claim for the recovery of over RUB 600m of the actual value of the share in the authorised capital of the company.

Representing Brunswick Rail, one of the leading companies in the Russian freight railcars operating leasing market, in an ICAC arbitration regarding the recovery of US$2.5m arising out of an agreement for the lease of 225 railcars. The said amount included lease payments for use of the railcars, penalties and fines for unilateral termination, and damages. The case was complicated by the fact that the client wished to recover a significant penalty, while the Russian arbitral tribunal’s approach in such a case is to reduce a penalty if it is disproportionately high when compared to the principal debt. The case was settled on the agreed terms.
We also represented Brunswick Rail in three ICAC arbitrations in connection with the recovery of lease payments, penalties and lost profits arising out of agreements for the lease of 1,500 railcars amounting to RUB 320m and US$2.5m. We are currently advising and representing the client in connection with the matter of inclusion in the register of lenders’ claims.
In addition, we represented Brunswick Rail at the ICAC in a dispute regarding the recovery of RUB 750m and US$10m from a railcar lessee and guarantor arising out of a lease agreement, comprising penalties for termination of the lease agreement due to the lessee’s fault, and interest and fines under the lease agreement and suretyship agreement.

Advising a global leader in the production of industrial gases on strengthening its position in a dispute with an opponent who refused to provide technical specifications for the connection to energy resources required for the client’s construction of an air separation plant. Thanks to the firm’s efforts, the client was able to avoid EUR 1.2m in damages.

Representing a client before the SCC (Arbitration Institute of the Stockholm Chamber of Commerce) in a dispute over the termination of a premium hotel management agreement. The successful recovery of lost profits over the next 40 years of contract execution was especially valuable for the client in the context of parallel bankruptcy cases in Russia.

Representing a French oil and gas company in an ad hoc UNCITRAL arbitration of a dispute with Russian regions related to the recovery of damages and loss of profit under a production sharing agreement.

Representing an Italian supplier in an ICC arbitration of a dispute arising out of a contract for the supply of equipment to a Russian brickworks.