Category: Russia

Morgan Lewis has advised Baring Vostok Capital Partners on its acquisition of a 12% stake in 12 Storeez. 

Founded in 1994, private equity firm Baring Vostok is focused on investments in Russia and the Commonwealth of Independent States. According to its website, 12 Storeez was “born in 2014, with ten items, an account on social media, and a small showroom in Russia’s Yekaterinburg. Today, we have a passionate community of women who appreciate our designs, 30+ stores, and a team of just under 600 inspiring people that make and tell our story.”

The Morgan Lewis team consisted of Partners Artem Tamaev and Ksenia Andreeva and Associates Emil Shagiakhmetov and Alena Neskoromyuk.

The firm stated it can’t disclose the counterparty’s advisor.

Editor’s note: After this article was published, Bryan Cave Leighton Paisner informed CEE Legal Matters it had advised 12 Storeez and its founders on the deal. The firm’s team was led by Partner Anton Sitnikov and Associate Director Vera Gorbacheva and included Partner Evgeny Timofeev, Associate Director Anastasia Speranskaya, Counsels Anna Zelenskaya, Anton Nefedev, and Andrey Neminuschiy, Head of Employment Practice Nadezhda Ilyushina, Senior Associates Anastasia Kudryashova, Dmitri Antipin, Kseniya Shevchenko, Denis Khramkin, and Paul Culliford, Associate Ayta Aduchieva, Paralegals Gleb Aleksandrov and Anton Serebryakov, and Trainee Marina Galitskaya.

Pavel Sadovsky, Head of the IP/TMT practice in the Moscow office of Egorov Puginsky Afanasiev & Partners has been promoted to Partner.

According to EPAM, “for over 15 years, Pavel has advised pharmaceutical, oil and gas, trading, FMCG, and e-commerce companies, as well as software developers and vendors, and system integrators on intellectual property protection and a variety of related matters. As a certified patent attorney, he also represents clients before Rospatent.”

Sadovsky chaired the IP/TMT practice group at the Magisters law firm before it merged with EPAM in 2011. He had been with Magisters since 2006. 

Sadovsky has a law degree from the Higher School of Economics and a PhD in law from the Russian State Institute of Intellectual Property.

In the first half of 2021, we at VEGAS LEX completed a survey among 100+ foreign lawyers to reveal myths concerning dispute resolution in Russia. In most questions, the respondents were asked to choose “True” or “False” on the proposed statements.

The average score reflecting knowledge of Russian litigation specifics achieved by foreign practitioners is 44 out of 100, with a peak of 73 scores.

Find the detailed survey results and up-to-date factual and statistical data below.

Q1.   Holding court hearings via video conference is a rare situation. Technologies are not common in Russian courts. Is it True or False?

62%
of respondents clicked “True” and believe that the courts use video conferencing
(hereinafter – the VC) very rarely

The right answer is “FALSE”. As a matter of fact, the VC appeared in Russia pretty long ago – in 2002. It was first used in criminal proceedings, in order to secure the right to judicial protection for the accused from remote areas. Later, commercial courts started using the VC as well.

According to statistics of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, there are over 8,000 court premises and rooms today available for conducting remote hearings in Russia and abroad, which are equipped by VC devices. Courts carry out more than 1.5 thousand court sessions every day by VC throughout the country. Commercial courts conducted over 11.5 thousand of such hearings during the first half-year of 2020.

The coronavirus pandemic also boosted development of online technologies in legal proceedings. In addition to VC, commercial courts carried out online-sessions using web conferencing and messenger platforms. Case participants got an opportunity to enter the session from any premises and by using any device. Despite the fact that initially it was planned to use web conferencing only for hearings of urgent cases, this format was highly appreciated by participants and by courts. Therefore, it came into use in ordinary court proceedings as well. Ninety-nine commercial courts have already ensured the possibility of web conferencing.

The development of e-justice is one of primary objectives of the court system today. Parties have already had a chance to submit documents to commercial courts and courts of general jurisdiction in electronic form, and have gained online-access to case files. It is expected to complete the development of the ‘Online Justice’ automated system in the next five years. The service will automatically determine the jurisdiction over a dispute; it will enable payment of a state fee, filing of documents and online participation in a hearing.

Q2.   In certain cases, a court may issue a final judgement that lacks a reasoning part and consists of the ruling part only. Is it True or False?

69.2%
of interviewees answered “True” and think that a court may issue a “short” judgment

The right answer is “TRUE”. Generally, courts shall declare a ruling part of a judgment in a hearing, which ends the proceedings. After that, courts have from 5 to 10 days to draw up a written legal reasoning of the judgment.

However, there are several exceptions. The first one is related to a magistrate judge. The law expressly provides that a magistrate judge is entitled to pass a judgment without a reasoning part. The reasoned judgement is required only when the participants in a dispute or their representatives file an application accordingly.

The second exception involves cases examined by commercial courts and courts of general jurisdiction in a simplified manner. Judges prepare reasoned judgments only: (i) following statements submitted by parties to a disputes, (ii) in the event of filing an appeal, (iii) on their own initiative.

Q3.   It is a common situation that court hearings last 5 minutes, and the court’s final judgement takes 1-2 pages. Is it True or False?

53.8%
of respondents answered “False” and believe that this is a myth

This question has no simple answer – it depends on specifics of a certain case.

Actually, there are cases, which are heard no longer than five minutes, and the reasoning part of the decisions is given on 1-2 pages. This most often refers to low-complex cases. Duration of semi-complex and high-complex case hearings may vary from half an hour to several hours and it depends on number of participants in the case, quantity of procedural documents filed, number of witnesses/professionals/experts and stages of judicial proceedings.

Such limited time for hearings is associated with high workload of judges. For instance, workload of a judge in the Commercial Court of the City of Moscow in 2020 was 266 cases per month. By contrast, average workload of US judges is 29 cases a year (2-3 cases per month). Because of such a high caseload, there are obviously days when a judge has no possibility of hearing a case for more than five minutes. Sometimes, several hearings are scheduled for the same time or, without exaggeration, even a minute apart (e.g. at 09:00, 09:01, 09:02, 09:03, etc.).

Q4.   Russian courts tend to rely on court precedents in similar cases. Is it True or False?

62.6%
of respondents answered “False” and assume that this is a myth

The right answer is “TRUE”. Most likely, when answering the question the respondents took into consideration the fact that Russia belongs to the Romano-Germanic legal system, which does not generally treat court precedents as sources of law. Nevertheless, giving negative replies to a question that Russian courts do not consider decisions of other courts while hearing  a case, the respondents are mistaken.

The Russian judicial system comprises two courts, which legal viewpoints are mandatory for inferior courts:

• The Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation. When administering justice, courts should take into account resolutions of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation regarding interpretation of provisions of the Russian Constitution applicable in a certain case and recognition of laws and regulations listed in clauses a, b, c of part 2 and part 4 of Article 125 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation, which parties use as a basis for their claims or statements of defense, as compliant or non-compliant with the Constitution.
• The Supreme Court of the Russian Federation. Courts are obliged to consider resolutions of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation adopted based on Article 126 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation and containing explanations of issues that have arisen in judicial practice in application of rules of substantive law and procedural law, which are applicable to the case in question.

Opinions of lower courts (courts of appeal, courts of cassation) are not legally binding. However, in practice, courts quite often take into account legal positions taken by other courts in similar cases; they consider tendencies of application of particular rules of law by other courts. That is the reason why lawyers analyze judicial practice on certain issues and incorporate it intoprocedural documents – this increases chances of court’s application of a rule of law by analogy with other cases.

Q5.   Commercial litigation in Russian state courts is expensive. Is it True or False?

61.5%
of respondents clicked “False” and believe it to be a myth

The right answer is “FALSE”.

State fees for applying to courts are more than affordable for the public. For example, in the courts of general jurisdiction, the minimum fee is 150 RUB. For legal entities, the maximum court fee for filing a claim amounts to 200,000 RUB. Electronic document exchange with courts is free of charge.

Key expenses comprise those associated with engagement of qualified lawyers to represent parties to a dispute and experts in order to receive expert opinions on issues that require specific knowledge. For example, an average cost of court representation in a court of first instance in 2018 was about 400,000 RUB.

Q6.   Russian courts tend to deny applications for recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards and foreign judgments in Russia. Is it True or False?

57.7%
of respondents answered “True” and think that courts generally refuse to deny such applications

The right answer is “FALSE”. Statistics prepared by the Russian Arbitration Association show that only 36% of all the applications for issuing writs of execution to put into effect foreign arbitral awards were dismissed by courts. The most common reasons for the dismissal consist in non-compliance of the arbitral awards with public policy of the Russian Federation and procedural violations committed by courts ad hoc. 

According to courts, the most often-observed procedural violations include improper notification of a party, against which a decision to form the arbitral panel and to consider the arbitral dispute is issued, and non-compliance of the arbitral panel or procedure with an agreement between the parties or with the federal laws.

Q7.   A Judicial Assistant position is a prestigious and a well-paid job. Is it True or False?

52%
of respondents clicked “True” and believe that this position is prestigious and well-paid

The right answer is “FALSE”. In fact, monthly salary of a judicial assistant amounts to 5,160 RUB. With supplements and benefits, newcomers receive about 15,000 RUB. Clearly, what makes it attractive for newcomers to work as judicial assistants is an opportunity to gain experience and to raise to the bench in a couple of years, rather than the financial aspect.

Q8.   Russia has the system of specialized intellectual property courts. Is it True or False?

55%
of respondents answered “True” and believe that there are courts/jurisdictions for intellectual property rights in the Russian legal system

The right answer is “TRUE”.

Pursuant to the Law on Commercial Courts, an intellectual property court is a specialized commercial court that handles  cases associated with IP protection in Russia within its competence as a court of first instance and a court of cassation.

In the ICC report on specialized IP jurisdictions worldwide, it is underlined that among 24 countries surveyed, 19 have SIPJs: Belgium, Brazil, the United Kingdom, Germany, India, Spain, China, Mexico, Peru, Portugal, the Republic of Korea, Russia, the United States, Thailand, France, Chile, Switzerland, Sweden and Japan. In these countries, SIPJs may bear different names even if they are established to fulfil essentially the same function and achieve the same goals.

Meanwhile, Albania, Costa Rica, Guatemala, Honduras and Ireland do not have specialized IP jurisdictions/courts. However, respondents from the first four countries expressed the view that there is a need for, and interest in, establishing SIPJs. In Albania, for example, it was reported that the current system provides different courts with jurisdiction over IP disputes with unclear and sometimes overlapping subject matter as the basis for determining jurisdiction.

Q9.   Russian courts may not oblige the party to disclose the documents that are relevant to the issues in dispute to the other party. Is it True or False?

74%
of respondents answered “True” and think that this is the reality of the Russian legal system

In fact, the issue is quite controversial. There are two approaches of courts available.

Some courts grant a motion for disclosure and compel a party to provide disclosures and discoveries as requested by another party. Courts refer to provisions of the Commercial Procedural Code, according to which a court is obliged to assist parties in obtaining evidence, which the parties cannot receive independently, by themselves. Courts request evidence from a party in a dispute if such evidence is significant for dispute resolution. In addition, courts refer to Article 125(2) of the Commercial Procedural Code which directly entitles the claimant to compel discovery or disclosure of evidence by a defendant or a third party in the moment of filing a statement of claim.

Courts take into consideration that both the Commercial Procedural Code and the Civil Procedural Code contain rules that prescribe liability for non-submission of documents. The consequences of such non-submission may be as follows:

• Imposing a court fine. In the event of failure to submit the evidence requested by the court without reasonable excuse within established deadlines, a court fine is imposed on a party that refuses to provide the evidence. The amount of the fine may vary from 5,000 to 100,000 RUB.
• Charging total legal expenses or their part regardless of the results of the dispute to the account of the party who failed to submit documents without reasonable excuse. Courts may treat such behaviour of the party as abuse of rights.
• Establishing facts of the case based on explanations of one party only. If a party, which is obliged to prove its claims or objections, withholds some evidence available to it and does not provide it to the court, the court may substantiate its findings using explanations provided by another party.

At the same time, other courts deny a motion for disclosure stating that a court may only suggest a party to provide extra evidence but not to demand them. Submission of documents is a right rather than an obligation of a party in a lawsuit (Article 41 of the Commercial Procedural Code). Requesting documents from a party to a dispute contradicts the principle of adversarial proceedings and equality of arms in commercial litigation proceedings.

Q10.    What is the average amount of cases a judge of the State Commercial Court considers per month in your opinion?

The respondents answered as follows:

47% – up to 30 cases
33% – 30-50 cases
24% – 50-70 cases

Less than a third of respondents came to the right answer – 50-70 cases per month.

The reality is that the average workload of a judge directly depends on the court’s instance (a first instance court, a court of appeal, a court of cassation) and the location of the court. The statistics showing monthly caseload of judges in 2020 is as follows:

• Commercial Court of the City of Moscow – 266 cases per month
• Commercial Court of Moscow Region – 196 cases per month, the caseload has increased by 12.9% as compared to 2019
• Ninth Commercial Appellate Court – 106 disputes per month
• Tenth Commercial Appellate Court – 84 cases per month
• Commercial Court of Moscow District – 70 disputes a month
• West-Siberian District Commercial Court – 27 cases a month

According to annual judicial statistics of the Russian Supreme Court Justice Department, caseload is trending upwards. The year 2020 was an exception. Commercial courts considered 1.5 million disputes in 2020. which is much less than in 2019 – that year, there were 1.879 million disputes heard. Most likely, the reduction is caused by the pandemic and further decrease in economic activity of businesses.

In the meantime, the number of personal bankruptcy cases has largely increased and has hit 74,600 cases against 50,700 of those a year before. In contrast, the number of new corporate bankruptcy cases reduced – from 34,800 to 27,700. The reason for it was the moratorium on bankruptcy that the state imposed during the pandemic.

Certainly, the caseload of judges, which goes up and up year by year and which is not accompanied by increase in staffing causes lower quality of justice, results in a larger number of judgments upheld by superior courts. Unfortunately, lawmakers have not suggested an efficient solution to the problem yet.

By Anastasia Cheredova, Head of Special Projects, VEGAS LEX

International arbitration is a highly popular instrument of the dispute resolution, and, therefore, the actual recovery of debts is a matter of high importance. Meanwhile, creditors often face problems in the process of recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards in Russia. Statistics for 2020 shows that 87 of 244 claims submitted to Russian courts were dismissed (35.6%). This means that each third claimant cannot count on receiving the funds in reality.

One of the most popular but the least foreseeable reason for the refusal in recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards is a contradiction to public policy of the Russian Federation.

Pursuant to the Russian Supreme Commercial Court clarifications, public policy means fundamental law principles of the highest degree of mandatory nature, generality, special social and public importance. Breaching public policy may infringe on the sovereignty or safety of the state, affect interests of large social groups or violate constitutional rights and liberties of individuals and companies.

Public policy is a vague category. The key problem of Russian courts is an overbroad interpretation of the term of ‘public policy’ when it comes to particular cases.

In this current overview, we examine the most remarkable legal cases of 2019-2020 concerning public policy. This will help to evaluate the prospects of enforceability of arbitral awards beforehand, sometimes even at a stage of entering into contractual arrangements.

Based on the review of recent cases, we arrived at a conclusion that the real risks arise if the following signs are present:

1. Public element in the debtor’s corporate structure posing potential risks of budget funds recovery

When reviewing applications for recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards, courts frequently examine corporate structures of debtors. If a court finds that the ultimate beneficiary of the debtor is the Russian Federation, then it will most likely dismiss the application since it will consider that the execution of the award may cause damage to the state budget resulting from withdrawal of funds to the account of a foreign company.

For instance, there was a case, where a Ukrainian state-owned company applied for recognition and enforcement of an arbitral award of the International Commercial Arbitration Court at the Chamber of Commerce and Industry of Ukraine rendered due to breach of a contract for supply of products. The products were a component of rocket and space equipment designed for military use and required a license for their export. The debtor did not obtain the license. Neither did it provide the required goods and documents.

The commercial court refused to recognize and enforce the decision and pointed out two circumstances:

• the arbitrators had not examined the special supply procedure, the special terms and conditions of the contract and the fact that the performance of the debtor’s obligations was dependent on permits from the Russian Federation;
• the arbitrators did not take into account the special type of military products and the licensable procedure for their export.

Despite the fact that the courts did not explain in what manner the fulfillment of the award contradicted public policy, it follows from court ruling that the contradiction consisted in:

• the structure of the corporate governance of the debtor and the claimant: the ultimate beneficiary of the debtor was the Russian Federation (30%) represented by the Federal Agency for State Property Management (Rosimushchestvo), and of the claimant — Ukraine represented by the State Space Agency of Ukraine. Therefore, the fulfilment of the award had an indirect impact on budget funds;
• the type of the documentation. The documentation is referred to a list of types of products, free sales of which are prohibited and are regulated by the Resolution of the Russian Government. Enforcement of an arbitral award is associated with observation of compulsory rules of Russian legislation pertaining to national security.

In another case, an English company was seeking recognition and enforcement of the LCIA award pertaining to which debts under a share purchase agreement were levied on Russian joint-stock company Rosshelf.

A Russian court refused to recognize and enforce the award. The court considered that the defendant was a shareholder of a number of enterprises being members of a state corporation group of companies, thus, the enforcement proceedings might have resulted in levying the execution on the shares and participation interest of such companies. The enforcement of the ruling might cause harm to the budget of the Russian Federation because of withdrawal of funds to the accounts of foreign entities, for which reason the general principles of law (principles of good faith and prohibition on abuse of right) could be violated.

2. Threat to the principle of legality

The principle of legality of a judicial act, which includes, in broad sense, legality, relevance, proper substantiation and finality of a judicial act, constitutes a fundamental principle of Russian law, since only such a judicial act establishes legal certainty of matters in controversy and determines mutual rights and obligations of the parties involved.

The principle of legality is broadly construed by state courts. The most common cases of its violation include:

• Absence of legal certainty in relationship of the parties

In one case, a German company (the seller) and a Russian company (the buyer) entered into a contract for manufacturing and supply of sawmill equipment. Russian law governed the contract.

According to the contract, the seller’s duty to supply the goods arises only after the buyer has made three advance payments. The buyer failed to make the third advance payment, and the seller filed a claim with the Court of Arbitration of the Hamburg Chamber of Commerce for recovery of the advance payment and interest. The court satisfied the claims in full.

However, the Russian commercial court refused to recognize and enforce the award since it violated the principle of legality. The court believes that the principle of legality, in broad sense, includes the finality of a judicial act and legal certainty in relationship of the parties pertaining to the matter of controversy. The award does not comply with this principle, because it does not solve de facto the conflict of the parties.

Originally, the seller claimed for a part of the third advance payment only, and the court satisfied this very claim. Hence, there was a situation where the seller, without receiving a full amount of the third advance payment, still had no counter-duty to supply the goods, and the parties still experienced confusion and uncertainty. Therefore, the arbitral award breaches the principle of legality and cannot be enforced in Russia.

• Violation of pari passu principle in foreign bankruptcy proceeding

The principle of equal treatment of unsecured creditors is a fundamental principle of Russian insolvency legislation. Enforcement of an award should not result in preferential satisfaction of claims of one of the creditors.

In a recent case, a Swiss bank (the creditor) provided a loan to a Swiss company (the debtor). Two Russian companies, the debtors’ subsidiaries, were the guarantors under the loan agreement. Since the debtor has not fulfilled his obligations, the creditor filed a claim with the LCIA claiming the debt jointly from Russian entities. Meanwhile, the Swiss court started bankruptcy proceedings against the debtor. The LCIA satisfied a claim, and the creditor applied to the Russian commercial court for recognition and enforcement of the arbitral award.

The application was denied due to a breach of the pari passu principle – when the creditor filed it with the Russian court, the bankruptcy proceedings had already been initiated against the debtor under the Swiss law. The Swiss court introduced a moratorium on debt collection, and any significant payments from guarantors required the debtor’s consent. In the bankruptcy process, the debtor would not give such consent, since it would violate the fundamental principle of equal treatment of creditors.

The Russian court pointed out that the protection of the third party interests that are guarded by law, including the cases involving insolvent debtors, is a vital function of justice and, therefore, an element of public policy of the state. The enforcement of the award will entail forced preferential satisfaction of the claims of one of the creditors, which is unacceptable. Superior courts supported the position.

• Dispute between a major shareholder and a controlled entity

In one of the cases, the court established that the creditor claiming for a recognition and enforcement of the LCIA award in Russian bankruptcy proceedings was the debtor’s major shareholder. The court treated this kind of relationship as intercompany relationship. In such cases, where a controlling entity fully determines the actions of a controlled entity, specifically, by means of binding instructions, enforcement of a foreign arbitral award contradicts the sense and the objectives of the legal process and justice. All the settlements between such entities should be conducted by means of corporate decisions and not through legal action.

Summing it up, the court ruled that the recognition and enforcement of the LCIA award was in breach of both general legal principles (the principle of legality, good faith and prohibition of abuse of rights) and special principles of law, including the provisions of corporate disputes, and, therefore, it contradicted public policy of Russia.

3. Disproportional liability applied against the debtor

The Russian Supreme Commercial Court outlined the general approach – recognition and enforcement of foreign awards prescribing for recovery of liquidated damages contradict public policy, in particular, if the following conditions are met:

• the amount of the damages is so abnormally high that it is many times exceeds the amount which the parties could reasonably foresee while signing the contract;
• while approving the amount of the damages, there were obvious signs of abuse of freedom of contract (by using weak negotiation capacity of the debtor, violation of public interests and third party interests, etc.).

If the court states that the parties have agreed on the amount of damages as equal participants in the deal, and the amount of damages corresponds to the effect of relevant breach, the seriousness of the breach of contractual obligations and the time of their non-fulfillment, then the court will satisfy the claim for recognition and enforcement of the foreign arbitral award.

As such, the court shall refuse in recognition and enforcement of the arbitral award only in exceptional cases.

In a recent case a Latvian company (the seller) and a Russian company (the buyer) entered into a master agreement for cooperation in manufacturing, promoting and selling a medical product. The Latvian side violated the provision on exclusivity of selling the product in Russia. As a result, the Chamber of Commerce and Industry of the Russian Federation (the ICAC at the RF CCI) imposed a EUR 2.5 mln fine and arbitration fees on the Latvian company under legal action taken by the Russian company. The size of the fine was 131 times as high as the losses incurred.

Overturning the arbitral award, the court found that the tribunal recovered an extremely high amount of fine in contravention of the fundamental principle of Russian law – the principle of proportionality of civil liability which, in general, cannot be aimed at creditor’s enrichment and serves to compensate the creditor for its potential losses and restore the rights that have been infringed.

The award does not comply with the principle of legal certainty and does not establish the balance of rights of conflicting parties, and the fulfillment of the award would entail violation of fundamental principles of Russian law.

In conclusion, it should be noted that the key problem of Russian courts consists in not only extended interpretation of the public policy clause but also general unpredictable nature of approaches to its application. Court practice shows that Russian courts quite often refer to violation of public policy while they do not reveal its content in terms of each specific case. This varying practice prevents from enforcement of foreign arbitral awards, reduces the efficiency of justice and interest to Russian jurisdiction in general. 

By Anastasia Cheredova, Head of Special Projects, and Daria Ovchinnikova, Associate of Special Projects group, VEGAS LEX

Dentons has advised Prosveshcheniye, a Russian educational integrator, on an equity transaction with Sber, VEB.RF, and RDIF, as a result of which each shareholder will hold a 25% stake in JSC Prosveshcheniye. 

According to Dentons, 100% of the company’s shares “were valued for the purposes of the deal at approximately RUB 108 billion. Today Prosveshcheniye is the largest brand on the educational literature market in Russia. The company operates in all regions of Russia and in 190 countries worldwide, with annual print runs of over 130 million copies. Prosveshcheniye also provides direct support to educators and school students. The company’s digital platforms count 30 million unique users per month.”

Dentons’ team included Partner Konstantin Kroll, Counsel Valeria Ponomareva, Senior Associate Oleg Khlestov, and Associate Arina Karsonova.

Dentons did not reply to our inquiry on the matter.

Timur Khasanov-Batirov, former Head of Compliance for Russia & CIS at the Stada Group, has returned to private practice by joining Eterna Law as Partner and Head of the firm’s Compliance Practice.

According to the firm, Khasanov-Batirov’s areas of expertise include the development of anti-fraud & anti-bribery compliance programs, framing effective corporate governance models, along with deploying sanctions compliance for both multinational corporations and national champions.

Khasanov-Batirov began his career at the Pragma Corporation in 2001. He moved to Baker McKenzie in 2004, where he stayed for 19 months. He then joined the Carlsberg Group in Kazakhstan as Executive Officer, a role he occupied for two years. Khasanov-Batirov moved to DTEK Energy in Ukraine in 2008, where he spent the following six and a half years. From 2013 to 2015, Khasanov-Batirov was Co-Chairman of the Compliance Club at the American Chamber of Commerce in Ukraine. He spent the following five years in Moscow as Compliance Officer for Russia, CIS, and Romania at Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories. He also spent six months as Head of Compliance for Russia & CIS at the Stada Group, between July and December 2020 (as reported by CEE Legal Matters on August 19, 2020).

Recently, Khasanov-Batirov also provided insight into the compliance aspects of Stada Group’s business during the Covid-19 pandemic (as reported by CEE Legal Matters on October 6, 2020).

Originally reported by CEE In-House Matters.

CMS Russia has advised the VTB Group on its acquisition of a 25.1% stake of the iCITY business center from a subsidiary belonging to Russian businessman Alexey Bogachev.

Financial details of the transaction were not disclosed.

According to CMS, the construction of the class-A business center will be jointly conducted by the MR Group and the VTB Group as a new stakeholder. The business center will be located near Moscow and will consist of 230,000 square meters. Furthermore, according to the firm, the center will feature a combination of intelligent engineering systems, complete automation, and energy-efficient solutions.

CMS Russia’s team consisted of Partners Artashes Oganov and Maxim Boulba, Senior Associate Elena Andrianova, and Associates Timur Sadvakasov, Natalia Gegechkory, Anastasia Dukhina, and Ophelia Amirova.

The Moscow office of Clifford Chance has advised AO Raiffeisenbank, Sberbank, Bank Saint-Petersburg, and Credit Bank of Moscow on their provision of a RUB 15 billion five-year loan to the Ural Mining & Metallurgical Company.

According to Clifford Chance, AO Raiffeisenbank also acted as the documentation and facility agent on the deal.

UMMC is a Russian producer of copper, zinc, coal, and precious metals.

Clifford Chance’s team included Partner Vladimir Barbolin, Senior Associate Arina Skrebkova, and Associate Veronika Orlova.

EPAM has announced it is launching a new Natural Resources practice, to be headed by returning Partner Mikhail Kazantsev, the former Rosgeologia Deputy Director General and Head of Legal (as reported by CEE In-House Matters on June 25, 2021).

Prior to joining Rosgeologia in 2016, Kazantsev spent 10 years working at EPAM, and was Partner for the last six of those. The firm further informed that he was involved in drafting the Russian legislation on controlled foreign companies (CFC) and capital amnesty. According to EPAM, at Rosgeologia, Russia’s largest geological holding, Mikhail lead a team comprising 100+ lawyers and coordinated projects aimed at improving resource recovery efficiency in the Russian Federation.

Kazantsev graduated from the St. Petersburg State University Law School. In 2013, he received his Master’s degree from Columbia University (USA) and, in 2018, he received an MBA from Gubkin Oil and Gas University.

CMS has advised PJSC Uralkali on its debut USD 1.25 billion sustainability-linked pre-export finance facility arranged by a consortium of banks, with ING Bank acting as lead sustainability coordinator. Dentons reportedly advised the lenders.

The banking consortium included Commerzbank Credit Agricole Corporate & Investment Bank, ING Bank, Societe Generale, Intesa Sanpaolo, the Russian Regional Development Bank, Natixis, and Sberbank.

According to CMS, “PJSC Uralkali is the first among CEE producers of mineral fertilizers to attract sustainability-linked financing of such a significant amount. As of now, it is also the largest sustainability-linked syndicated loan raised in Russia and CIS. Key performance indicators that feature in the financing cover ecological issues as well as the safety operations of the company.“

CMS’s team included Partner Ana Radnev, Counsel Elena Tchoubykina, and Associate Aleksander Zhuravkov.

Editor’s note: After this article was published, CEE Legal Matters received confirmation that Dentons advised ING Bank, the lead sustainability coordinator, facility coordinator, and documentation agent. Dentons’ team was led by London-based Partner Logan Wright and included Moscow-based Counsels Filipp Petyukov and Dennis Montgomery and Associates Olga Alyabyeva and Mikhail Fedorov.