Category: Ukraine

  • Foreign Litigants in Ukrainian Proceedings: Challenges and Opportunities

    Cross-border commercial disputes often raise a number of issues concerning the treatment of foreign litigants in domestic proceedings. A complete overhaul of Ukraine’s procedural rules back in 2017 included a number of specific rules for foreign litigants that they must consider, especially when they have no local presence or assets in Ukraine.

    Ukraine’s procedural law is generally favorable for foreign litigants. Except for certain specific circumstances, foreign parties enjoy the same procedural rights as domestic ones. Foreign parties are also explicitly allowed to pay the mandatory court fee from their foreign accounts in euros or US dollars. Apart from proof of payment of the court fee, the only thing required by a Ukrainian court to commence proceedings is a certificate confirming the proper incorporation of a foreign entity in its home country. As the courts do not accept foreign language documents, care should be taken to translate all evidence supporting a claim into Ukrainian beforehand.

    It is not unusual for the subject matter of a case brought to a Ukrainian court to be governed by foreign substantive law. In order to facilitate the application of foreign law provisions by Ukrainian courts, the parties are allowed and even encouraged to submit the reports of qualified expert witnesses. Such reports addressing relevant key aspects of foreign law are not binding on the court, although in practice the judges rely on them heavily.

    Starting from the early stages of proceedings, a foreign plaintiff may encounter certain procedural pitfalls. One of these could be the security for legal costs of the domestic respondent. Upon commencement of the proceedings, the court may order such security if the plaintiff has no local presence or assets in Ukraine. Although in practice courts rarely resort to such orders, if an order is made, the plaintiff normally has up to 15 days to deposit the appropriate amount in the court’s account. Notably, Ukrainian courts do not, at the moment, have deposit accounts in foreign currency. Foreign plaintiffs can, thus, find it technically impossible to comply with the order, even though non-compliance may result in the proceedings being terminated. In order to avoid this, we recommend that our clients open a UAH account with a Ukrainian bank and have some funds deposited there. Alternatively, the security ordered by the court may be paid by local counsel on his or her client’s behalf.

    Similar barriers can arise when a foreign party seeks interim measures. The court may ask the applicant to provide counter-security to cover the defendant’s anticipated damages if the claimant’s case fails. In absence of clear guidance on how to measure such damages, the courts routinely request counter-security equal to the value of funds or assets sought to be frozen. Such approach is not quite fair though, and we traditionally attempt to persuade the court to decrease counter-security to a reasonable amount or even reject the application for counter-security at all. There is, however, a category of cases where the procedural rules require the courts to demand counter-security from a foreign litigant with no local presence or assets in Ukraine. These are claims heard by general courts against individuals and applications for interim measures in support of foreign arbitration. When it is crucial to freeze the opposing party’s assets pending resolution of a dispute, a foreign plaintiff must be prepared to offer counter-security. Considering that foreign currency accounts for this security are still unavailable, it is advisable to prepare a guarantee letter from a party with confirmed financial standing (preferably a local entity) to satisfy the court’s request for counter-security.

    In light of possible obstacles which a foreign litigant may encounter in Ukrainian proceedings, thorough preparation of the case and pre-assessment of security issues is a critical key to success.

    By Vadim Medvedev, Partner, and Andriy Fortunenko, Senior Associate, Avellum

    This Article was originally published in Issue 6.8 of the CEE Legal Matters Magazine. If you would like to receive a hard copy of the magazine, you can subscribe here.

  • Entering the Ukrainian Market: Managing Compliance Pitfalls for OTT Providers

    More and more companies in the TMT sector are looking at Ukraine as a potential market, in the process putting aside the negative image formed during the first decades after the country declared its independence in 1991.

    Technology companies are less sensitive about certain deficiencies in the regulatory framework than companies in sectors focused on the exploitation of fixed assets (agriculture, mining and metals, etc.) and, thus are more flexible when it comes to entering a new market. 

    As approximately 26 million Ukrainians are active Internet users, the Ukrainian market is of particular interest for over-the-top media (OTT) providers who distribute various copyrightable content such as films, TV shows, and music directly to end-customers via the Internet.

    Regulated Activity Test. At the first stage, an OTT provider considering Ukraine should determine whether the services it intends to provide constitute a regulated activity and would thus subject the company to the jurisdiction of the country’s broadcasting regulator. Due to “catch-all” wording of legislation adopted back in the 2000s, the provision of OTT services may potentially qualify as an activity of program service providers which is subject to licensing.

    Content Standards. Since most OTT providers have their internal ratings guide, it is important to make sure that this document is compliant with the requirements of Ukrainian law. However, if the OTT provider is not qualified as a broadcasting company or film distributor, it has complete discretion to determine specific parameters of age rating pictograms and content descriptors/warnings. In addition, the OTT provider is not obliged to implement age gating technology to enforce those age ratings. Each OTT provider should also comply with requirements specific to the subject matter of the distributed content. Generally, the production and distribution of content which propagates war, fascism, or disrespect to national and religious sacred objects is prohibited.

    Considering the recent trend of using storylines from USSR history in films and TV shows, it is important to note that the production, distribution, and public use of communist symbols such as the USSR flag or other symbols of the Communist party is generally prohibited in Ukraine and violations of this prohibition may subject the provider to criminal liability.

    Monetizing Matters. Before adjusting its global monetizing structure to the rules of a new jurisdiction, companies usually look into regulations affecting, among other things, auto-renewal practices, information to be displayed during the purchase process, and limitations on automatic follow-up attempts to bill customers following failed initial attempts (i.e., billing retry periods). Under Ukrainian law auto-renewal may qualify either as a violation of a customer’s right to freely choose goods and services or as an aggressive business practice. As a result, the OTT provider may be subject to a fine and the contract may be deemed void.

    The list of information which must be displayed during the purchase process includes only the subject matter of the contract, its price, and the contract’s term (which may be either limited or unlimited). 

    In addition, a subscription confirmation email is mandatory and should include (1) the procedure for cancelling the subscription, (2) the name and address of the service provider, (3) the service provider’s procedure for accepting complaints, (4) warranty details or information about additional support services; and (5) the procedure for terminating a contract executed for an unlimited time.

    Ukrainian law does not set any limits on billing retry periods, which may be set by the rules of payment systems or payment service providers.

    Net Neutrality. Ukrainian law does not recognize the concept of “net neutrality.” However, in practice, OTT providers may come across intentional lowering of speed of Internet connections by Internet providers who also provide their own OTT services.

    Privacy. Under Ukrainian law, processing a customer’s personal data – including its collection and transfer to other parties – requires the consent of the customer. In addition, the processing of sensitive data such as customers’ geo-location, data relating to racial or ethnic origin, membership in political parties and trade unions requires notification to the Ukrainian Parliament Commissioner for Human Rights.

    Conclusion. The main challenge for technology companies in terms of compliance with the regulatory framework in the TMT sector is that it was not designed to regulate issues that arise during the use of modern IT products. The framework in Ukraine, unfortunately, is no exception..

    By Anton Polikarpov, Head of IP, and Dmytro Symbiryov, Associate, Avellum

    This Article was originally published in Issue 6.8 of the CEE Legal Matters Magazine. If you would like to receive a hard copy of the magazine, you can subscribe here.

  • Sayenko Kharenko Helps Obtain Ukrainian Merger Clearance for Wabtec Merger with GE Transportation

    Sayenko Kharenko Helps Obtain Ukrainian Merger Clearance for Wabtec Merger with GE Transportation

    Sayenko Kharenko’s antitrust team has helped obtain merger clearance by the Antimonopoly Committee of Ukraine for the Wabtech Corporation’s global acquisition of GE’s Transportation business.

    The USD 11.1 billion deal was completed on February 25, 2019.

    According to Sayenko Kharenko, the firm “managed to demonstrate to the AMC the absence of any competition concerns resulting from the deal for any Ukrainian markets and successfully limited the transaction to a Phase I review. This resulted in smooth merger control clearance of the transaction in Ukraine.”

    Sayenko Kharenko describes the Wabtec Corporation as “a leading global provider of equipment, systems and value-added services for transit and freight rail.” According to the firm, “through its subsidiaries, the company manufactures a range of products for locomotives, freight cars, and passenger transit vehicles. [The] Wabtec Corporation has roughly 18,000 employees and facilities located throughout the world.”

    Sayenko Kharenko describes GE Transportation as “a global technology leader and supplier of equipment, services and digital solutions to the rail, mining, marine, stationary power and drilling industries,” and reports that “the company employs approximately 9,000 employees worldwide.”

    “This transaction is good for GE shareholders, who gain equity in an organization at the forefront of rail innovation; for GE, as we work to reduce leverage and strengthen our balance sheet; and for Wabtec, which now has a stronger and more diversified business mix to serve its customers,” commented GE Chairman and CEO H. Lawrence Culp Jr. “The GE and Wabtec teams worked hard to complete this deal, and I am excited by the opportunities ahead for Wabtec.”

    The Sayenko Kharenko team included Senior Associate Julia Kuyda and Associate Igor Pomaz, both working under the supervision of Partner Vladimir Sayenko.  

  • Oleh Beketov Appointed Senior Partner at Eterna Law

    Oleh Beketov Appointed Senior Partner at Eterna Law

    Oleh Beketov, Head of International Litigation at Eterna Law in Ukraine, has been appointed Senior Partner at the firm.

    According to Eterna Law, Beketov, who joined the firm in 2009, “has over 15 years of substantial experience in doing both pre-litigation and litigation stages in matters of debt collection. He specializes in international commercial arbitration and litigation, commercial and civil litigation, white-collar crimes and corporate law.” In addition, the firm reports, Beketov “has substantial experience in resolving corporate and post-M&A disputes before LCIA and ICC arbitral tribunals.”

  • CMS, Orrick, and Everlegal Advise on EBRD Green Logistics Loan to Louis Dreyfus

    CMS, Orrick, and Everlegal Advise on EBRD Green Logistics Loan to Louis Dreyfus

    CMS has advised EBRD on its issue of a USD 35 million loan to the Louis Dreyfus Company, a global agricultural trader, to help it establish its own railcar logistics business in Ukraine. Everlegal provided Ukrainian law assistance to lead legal counsel Orrick in advising the Louis Dreyfus Company on the deal.

    The funds from the loan will be used to acquire up to 1,000 grain-hopper railcars, which will allow grain-handling logistics while reducing truck transport and lowering annual carbon dioxide emissions by 8,510 tonnes. According to Everlegal, this will enable the Louis Dreyfus Company to “diversify its means of transporting grains from the country’s agricultural areas to its ports.”

    CMS Warsaw Partner Mark Segall, who led his firm’s team on the deal, reported that “the investment will add significant capacity to facilitate grain-handling logistics and will undoubtedly boost Ukraine’s already considerable reputation as an agricultural leader in European markets.”

    The CMS team was led by Warsaw Partner Mark Segall and included Partner Eduard Scheenstra and Attorney-at-Law Jenny Noordermeer in Amsterdam, Senior Associates Monika Kowara in Warsaw and Vyacheslav Ovechkin in Kyiv, and Lawyer Ivan Pshyk in Kyiv.

    The Everlegal team was co-led by Partners Andriy Olenyuk and Yevheniy Deyneko, assisted by Senior Associates Yuliya Kylchynska and Mykhailo Gurin, Associate Adriana Kryveshko, and Junior Associate Olha Horodniuk

    Editor’s Note: After this article was published, Orrick informed CEE Legal Matters that its team consisted of Geneva-based Partners James Hargrove and Herve Touraine and Paris-based Partner Emmanuel Ringeval.

  • Sayenko Kharenko Advises EBRD on Financing to Ukreximbank for Green Investments in Ukraine

    Sayenko Kharenko Advises EBRD on Financing to Ukreximbank for Green Investments in Ukraine

    Sayenko Kharenko has advised the EBRD on its provision of a four-year syndicated loan to JSC “The State Export-Import Bank of Ukraine” to support renewable energy and energy efficiency investments in Ukrainian projects that are compliant.

    Up to EUR 40 million will be provided by the EBRD, with up to EUR 40 million provided by foreign participants. 

    Sayenko Kharenko’s team was led by Counsel Igor Lozenko and included Associate Vira Pankiv and Junior Associate Oleksandra Maksymenko.

  • Doubinsky & Osharova Successful for Lukoil in Ukrainian Trademark Dispute

    Doubinsky & Osharova Successful for Lukoil in Ukrainian Trademark Dispute

    Doubinsky & Osharova has successfully represented Lukoil in Ukraine in a trademark dispute against Luxoil, a Russian manufacturer of automobile oils.

    In 2018, Lukoil filed a lawsuit against Luxoil, claiming that the latter’s trademark in the automobile oils segment was confusingly similar to its own. On October 17, 2019, Ukraine’s Northern Commercial Court of Appeal upheld the decision of the court of first instance in Lukoi’s favor, holding that Luxoil’s trademark was invalid.

    The Doubinsky and Osharova team consisted of Managing Partner Michael Doubinsky, Partner Victoria Sopilnyak, and Lawyer Anastasia Kazankina.

    Editor’s Note: After this article was published, Dubinsky & Osharova informed CEE Legal Matters that on February 6, 2020, Ukraine’s Court of Cassation had upheld the decision of Ukraine’s Northern Commercial Court of Appeal and, in a final judgment, “invalidated the certificate of Ukraine No. 189846 for the Luxoil trademark (combined) on the grounds of its confusing similarity to the trademarks of Lukoil Oil Company.”.

  • Ilyashev & Partners Opens Office in Odessa

    Ilyashev & Partners Opens Office in Odessa

    Ilyashev & Partners has opened a new office in Odessa, a port city on the Black Sea in southern Ukraine. The new office will be headed by attorney Sergey Nedelko.

    According to Ilyashev & Partners, the new office will specialize on issues related to sea carriage, international trade, and cargo handling in ports.

    “Opening an office in Odessa not only gives us an opportunity to provide professional services directly to our current clients in the south of Ukraine,” commented lyashev & Partners Managing Partner Mikhail Ilyashev, “but also strengthens a number of key practices of our firm, including maritime law.” According to Ilyashev, the office in Odessa will become an “entry point” for local companies that require legal services in other regions of Ukraine, as well as in Russia and Estonia.

    Nedelko has ten years of experience in maritime and transport law. Throughout his career, Nedelko has advised ship-owners, protection and indemnity insurance clubs, crewing, stevedoring, and forwarding companies, ports and terminals, and marine agents, defending their interests in litigation and international arbitration.

    “The Odessa region is the largest trading hub of Ukraine,” Nedelko commented. “The region is rapidly growing and attracting investments which ensures a strong and consistent demand for legal services. Having a permanent office in Odessa is an added benefit for the firm’s clientele, allowing the firm to provide legal support of their business in the region quickly and effectively.”

    Prior to joining Ilyashev & Partners, Nedelko spent nine years at the ANK Law Firm (under various formulations). He received his LL.M. degree in Civil and Commercial Law from the Odesa National Law Academy in 2010.

  • Vasil Kisil & Partners Advises Odasco on Acquisition of Solar Plant in Cherkasy Region of Ukraine

    Vasil Kisil & Partners Advises Odasco on Acquisition of Solar Plant in Cherkasy Region of Ukraine

    Vasil Kisil & Partners has advised Odasco on the acquisition of a 4.9-megawatt solar plant in the Cherkasy region of Ukraine from unidentified private sellers.

    Odasco is headquartered in Dubai and maintains a presence in UAE, Qatar, Oman, Kuwait, Jordan, and now Ukraine. It deals in construction, electrical works, extra-low voltage works, renewable energy & smart city solutions, telecommunication infrastructure, and industrial automation.

    The Vasil Kisil & Partners team included Partner Alexander Borodkin and Associates Ivanna Rodionova and Tetiana Revutska. 

  • Avellum and Sayenko Kharenko Advise on MHP’s USD 350 Million Eurobond Issue

    Avellum and Sayenko Kharenko Advise on MHP’s USD 350 Million Eurobond Issue

    Avellum has acted as Ukrainian legal counsel to MHP Lux S.A. on its USD 350 million offering of 6.250% notes due 2029. Sayenko Kharenko and Latham & Watkins advised joint lead managers and joint book-runners ING Bank N.V., London Branch, and J.P. Morgan Securities.

    The transaction was structured as an offering of the notes guaranteed on a senior basis by MHP SE — an agro-industrial company in Ukraine and one of the largest poultry producers in Southeast Europe — and certain of its Ukrainian and Cypriot subsidiaries. 

    The Avellum team was led by Senior Partner Glib Bondar and included Partner Vadim Medvedev and Associates Anastasiya Voronova, Oleg Krainskyi, Orest Franchuk, Anna Kalabska, Mariana Veremchuk, Anton Zaderyholova, and Yelyzaveta Kravtsova.

    The Sayenko Kharenko team was led by Counsel Igor Lozenko and included Associates Denis Nakonechnyi, Daryna Sydorenko, Oles Trachuk, and Yurii Dmytrenko, and Junior Associates Oleksandra Maksymenko, Sofiia-Mariia Kuzminska, and Vladyslava Mitsai.

    In 2017 Avellum advised MHP on USD 750 million and USD 500 million notes issuances, with Sayenko Kharenko again advising the banks (as reported by CEE Legal Matters on June 7, 2017) and in 2018 Avellum advised the company on issuance of USD 550 million notes (as reported by CEE Legal Matters on April 27, 2018).