Category: Ukraine

  • Judicial Reform in Ukraine: Crafting Arbitration Friendly Regime

    International arbitration is often perceived as a preferred method for international dispute resolution, due to its time/cost efficiency as well as enforceability of awards. On the other hand, enforcement of an arbitration award can be rather challenging for the parties – especially if recognition and enforcement is sought in countries like Ukraine, because for a long time, the Ukrainian judiciary has been criticized for its inefficiency and overly bureaucratic approach. However, Ukraine is on its way to changing that.

    Between 2014-2018, for the sake of its fledgling democracy and the fulfilment of its obligations under the EU-Ukraine Association Agreement, Ukraine launched and implemented more reforms than it did in the previous 20 years. Judicial reform, among the most eagerly-awaited elements of this process, was designed not only to restore trust in the Ukrainian judiciary, but also to provide it with an efficient legal framework.

    On December 15, 2017, brand new procedural civil, commercial, and administrative codes came into force, and the same day the new Supreme Court began its operations. Along with introduction of unified rules for the three types of proceedings, the legislature provided for accelerated proceedings, introduced an e-court system (which provides for exchange/submission of documents between the parties and the courts and videoconferencing), and introduced a number of arbitration-related amendments. These amendments relate to arbitrability and the enforcement of arbitration agreements. 

    Traditionally Ukrainian law provided stricter rules regarding the arbitrability of disputes (public procurement and corporate disputes, for example, were not arbitrable). Now the situation has changed – corporate disputes can be referred to arbitration, provided there is an arbitration agreement concluded between the relevant legal entity and all its shareholders. In addition to that, disputes arising out of privatization contracts and public procurement agreements are now also arbitrable, as are civil law aspects of competition disputes. Moreover, both the Civil and Commercial Procedure Codes now provide an arbitration-friendly approach in relation to the enforcement of arbitration agreements, with potential defects in an arbitration agreement interpreted in favor of its validity and enforceability. 

    The timeline for the recognition and enforcement of arbitral awards as well as setting-aside proceedings has been limited significantly, at two months and one month, respectively. Previously such terms were left undefined by the Civil Procedure Code, which allowed dishonest debtors to drag the proceedings out significantly. 

    In furtherance of procedural efficiency, exclusive jurisdiction for the consideration of matters related to the recognition and enforcement of arbitral awards as well as the setting-aside of awards in Ukraine has been conferred on the competent appeal courts (which will serve as a court of first instance), with the Supreme Court of Ukraine authorized to consider the matters as an appeal instance. Undisputedly, such approach would make the recognition and enforcement procedure more efficient and predictable, by allowing for the unification of relevant case law. 

    As part of the procedural reform, a new mechanism for voluntary compliance with arbitral awards was introduced. Previously, due to strict currency control regulation it was impossible for a debtor to voluntarily comply with an arbitral award and pay to a non-resident creditor. Now, in cases of voluntary enforcement, debtor can file relevant application with the court, which will be considered within ten days. As a result of this fast-tracked and simplified procedure, a debtor can timely obtain a writ of execution and make payment to a non-resident creditor in foreign currency without any obstacles.  To date there have been several reported cases on this issue, which demonstrates that the parties will regularly resort to this useful mechanism in the future.

    Although the full results of these reforms in Ukraine are yet to be seen, these recent procedural improvements demonstrate that Ukraine is eager to follow global trends and become an arbitration-friendly jurisdiction, which ultimately would be appreciated by foreign investors and businesses seeking to arbitrate or enforce arbitral awards in Ukraine.

    By Oleh Beketov, Partner, and Aleksandr Lugovskyi, Partner, Eterna Law

    This Article was originally published in Issue 5.11 of the CEE Legal Matters Magazine. If you would like to receive a hard copy of the magazine, you can subscribe here.

  • Corporate Governance

    2018 has been an enjoyable year for those wanting the Ukrainian legislator to improve the country’s corporate legal framework. Since limited liability companies (LLCs) and joint stock companies (JSCs) are the most frequent forms of business in Ukraine, improvement in this direction appears to be especially important. On June 17, 2018, the Law on Limited and Additional Liability Companies (the “LLC Law”) came into force, completely replacing the outdated regulation of LLCs. Moving to JSCs, the legislator adopted a law that amended several legal acts regulating these companies and the stock market in general (the “JSC Law”). Below we will outline these major changes in the Corporate Governance in Ukraine.

    The LLC Law

    A simple yet notable change introduced by the LLC Law is the abolishment of the maximum number of participants in LLCs, which was previously capped at 100 persons. This creates an opportunity for many existing private JSCs (which are de facto closer to LLCs than to public companies) to be reorganized into LLCs and enjoy, among other things, softer disclosure requirements and simpler corporate governance structure, which became even more appealing after the amendments. The law also gives LLCs a chance to avoid charter revision for minor adjustments to their status or corporate structure. Further, the LLC Law elaborates on the decision-making process by introducing precise mechanisms for absentee and poll voting, and simplifies decision-making by a sole participant of a company.

    The LLC Law provides LLCs participants with the long-sought-after ability to customize their relations through a corporate (shareholders’) agreement, which should make the corporate governance of LLCs even more flexible. Participants can agree, in particular, on circumstances that could trigger the obligation to sell or purchase equity interests in LLCs through, for example, a lock-up period, a buy-out, a sell-out, a special manner for the exercise of voting rights, and so on. In addition, the law establishes the right to have a supervisory board in LLCs, which should bring Ukrainian Corporate Governance closer to common foreign practice in controlling executive bodies and regulating company activities. The LLC Law also introduces the concepts of substantial and interested party transactions, as well as the rules for their approval and execution. To further secure owner and company interests, the law establishes the responsibility of executive body and supervisory board members for losses borne by the company through their fault. 

    The JSC Law

    With the JSC Law the Ukrainian legislator introduced a completely new and more effective criterion to distinguish between public and private JSCs, based the determination on the actual public status of a company instead of the outdated and unjustified approach involving the number of its shareholders. Now all JSCs are divided into public or private depending on whether their shares undergo a public offering and/or are listed at a stock exchange. Trading in shares at a stock exchange is still permitted regardless of JSC type. 

    The JSC Law moves away from the unlimited competence of the shareholders’ meeting by granting its portion to that of a supervisory board. It also appears that the supervisory board is now more independent, as matters of its exclusive competence cannot no longer be resolved by the shareholders’ meeting. 

    To minimize the possible abuse of voting rights, the legislator has also introduced a quorum restriction, under which shares of a JSC owned by a legal entity controlled by that JSC are not considered for quorum determination and do not allow their owner to participate in voting. Among other positive innovations is the liberalization of the information disclosure procedures of the Ukrainian stock market. However, disclosure requirements in certain areas – for example, the banking sector – remain conventionally high.

    Summing up the overview, we should mention that even though the new laws are surely aimed at improving Ukraine’s corporate governance framework, they appear to be not entirely free of drawbacks. Nonetheless, we are sure that the overall outcome is improved safety and greater flexibility in the Ukrainian market. To fully enjoy these benefits, both JSCs and LLCs should bring their charters and by-laws in compliance with the updates within the timeframes specified in the two laws.

    By Vadym Samoilenko, Partner, and Oles Kvyat, Counsel, Asters

    This Article was originally published in Issue 5.11 of the CEE Legal Matters Magazine. If you would like to receive a hard copy of the magazine, you can subscribe here.

  • White Collar Crime

    Criminal law has been among the most rapidly growing practices in Ukraine over the past few years, a result of two factors: low economic activity and increased political and criminal pressure.

    The main instrument used by the state to exert pressure on businesses is arranging demonstrative searches, which as a rule are conducted by a large number of law enforcement officers in the presence of armed special forces units. Because the officers hide their faces behind masks, such “unfriendly actions” by the state against businesses are called “Mask Shows.” 

    A number of laws have already been adopted to protect businesses from direct interference with their operations by law enforcement agencies, including the so-called “Mask Show STOP No. 1” and “Mask Show STOP No. 2” laws. Among other things, these protections include: a requirement that a video record be made of the decision to search a business and the conduct of the search itself; a requirement that a lawyer of the target be present during the search; a limitation on the right to seize original documents related to the conduct of the target’s business; amendments to the procedure for considering complaints; an increase in the investigator’s liability for damage caused by unlawful decisions; and the prevention of attempts to extend the period of preliminary investigation without sufficient cause.

    Significantly, most of the changes aimed at protecting against unlawful prosecution will be applied only to cases initiated after March 15, 2017.

    Ukrainian criminal defense attorneys face another common practice when crimes are investigated by multiple law enforcement agencies, which frequently come into conflict.

    At the end of 2018, the prosecutor’s office is to be deprived of its powers as an investigative agency, while retaining its functions of procedural support of investigators and support of charges in court. The newly created investigative agency, the State Bureau of Investigation, should operate instead on cases related to the actions of government officials and business and law enforcement officers.

    Meanwhile, legislative initiatives related to the establishment of the Bureau of Financial Investigations are also controversial. This agency will be authorized, among other things, to investigate all crimes related to businesses, including those related to taxes. Currently, conflicts between the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine, the Specialized Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office, and the Security Service of Ukraine are widely publicized. It is likely that conflicts may occur again even after the launch of the new law enforcement agencies (the State Bureau of Investigation and the Bureau of Financial Investigations), which have overlapping competences.

    From our perspective, we anticipate an increase in the number of cases related to the mandatory declaration of income by state officials, including, for example, charges related to incorrect declarations and the concealment of personal income or income of family members.

    Given these developments, the role of attorneys in protecting individuals from unlawful criminal prosecution is growing significantly. Unfortunately, the lodging of criminal cases against attorneys who are active in this field is increasingly common. Quite often the state tries to use legal aid attorneys to resolve their departmental issues – sometimes with success, as the free attorneys introduced into proceedings instead of retained attorneys can be illegally manipulated into acting against client interests, which makes it easier for law enforcement agencies to settle procedural issues of prosecuting a particular person.

    The infringements on the professional rights of attorneys has reached a critical point in Ukraine. As the Coordinator of the Initiative Group for Protection of Rights of Attorneys, I have initiated and published a report on the infringement of the rights of attorneys entitled “Defenseless Defenders.” Now we are actively disseminating this information among international human rights institutions and the legal community, to keep on fighting for our rights at the national level.

    We expect an increase in demand for our criminal practice next year. Therefore, the systemic and comprehensive protection of the interests of citizens, provided by a team of lawyers from a highly specialized criminal boutique law firm, for several defendants or in an extensive territory, will remain in great demand.

    By Olha Prosyanyuk, Managing Partner, Aver Lex

    This Article was originally published in Issue 5.11 of the CEE Legal Matters Magazine. If you would like to receive a hard copy of the magazine, you can subscribe here.

  • Recent Trends in the Energy Sector

    The main trend of 2017-2018 in Ukraine is the booming development of the renewable energy sector. The Ukrainian Government is also taking steps to increase domestic oil & gas production.

    Renewable Energy

    Ukraine has one of the highest feed-in tariffs (the Ukrainian name is “green” tariff) in Europe. The current “green” tariff is 0.15 EUR/kWh for solar and 0.10 EUR/kWh for wind. The “green” tariff is effective until 2030. The statutory scheduled reduction of the “green” tariff in 2020 has urged many developers to expedite the development and implementation of projects before 2020. As of Q3 2018, the installed capacity is 1,803 MW, which consists of 1,096 MW solar, 522 MW wind, 96 MW small hydro, and 85 MW biomass and biogas. By the end of 2018, installed capacity will exceed 2,000 MW. 

    In September 2017 and January 2018, the National Energy and Utilities Regulatory Commission of Ukraine (the “Regulator”) revised the PPA to improve its bankability. Because the latest changes were not acceptable to the offtaker — SE “Energorynok” — all market participants signed the September 2017 version. The Regulator is working on the new model PPA, which should be adopted before 2019. The new PPA is required by Electricity Market Law No. 2019-VIII, designed to launch the new electricity market model on July 1, 2019.

    In September 2018, the Parliament adopted changes which significantly simplified the development and construction of wind projects. In addition, in 2017-2018 the Parliament introduced some new procedures in relation to the environmental impact assessment which influences the project development process.

    Since late 2017, there have been discussions about introducing renewable energy auctions, which should help to secure a sustainable regime for renewable energy projects in Ukraine. In June 2018, Bill No. 8449 and seven alternative bills were registered in the Parliament. In summer 2018, the Parliament held a number of public consultations with major stakeholders and market participants aiming to improve the Bill. In accordance with the Bill, the auction regime should be introduced in July 2019 with first auctions to be conducted in 2020. Bill No. 8449 provides for a transition period for projects under development to make sure they will continue to enjoy the “green” tariff.

    Electricity Market Reform

    On March 14, 2018, the Regulator adopted several regulations necessary for the efficient operation of Ukraine’s new electricity market, which will start on July 1, 2019. This marks another significant milestone in implementing Electricity Market Law No. 2019-VIII, dated April 13, 2017, and involves the enactment of the following secondary legislation: Market Rules; Day-ahead and Intraday Market Rules; Transmission System Code; Distribution System Code; and Retail Market Rules. The Regulator adopted new Licensing Rules for various activities under the new electricity market model. 

    Gas Market

    Since the end of 2017, Ukraine has not taken significant steps to finish the unbundling of its GTS Operator. 

    The introduction of daily balancing, originally planned for August 1, 2018, was rescheduled for December 2018. 

    Oil & Gas Production

    On March 1, 2018, the Ukrainian Parliament adopted a law that improves the procedure for allocating land for the purposes of exploration, construction, and maintenance of pipeline transport facilities, and which facilitates other licensing procedures for the oil and gas industry. Subsequently, on April 25, 2018 the Ukrainian Government adopted Resolution No.333, which improves the procedure for conducting auctions for the sale of subsoil use permits/licences and improves the regulation on the subsoil use permits. After these changes, new auctions for subsoil use were scheduled for autumn 2018. Moreover, the State Service for Geology and Mineral Resources of Ukraine announced pilot electronic auctions for the sale of subsoil licences.

    On March 28, 2018, the State Service for Geology and Mineral Resources of Ukraine completed the digitization of and the arrangement of access to geological maps of Ukraine at a scale of 1:200,000.

    In October 2018, UkrGasVydobuvannya, a Ukrainian state-owned oil & gas production company, announced a pilot project focused on the launching of Production Enhancement Contracts.

    By Yaroslav Petrov, Partner, Asters

    This Article was originally published in Issue 5.11 of the CEE Legal Matters Magazine. If you would like to receive a hard copy of the magazine, you can subscribe here.

  • Guest Editorial: Ukrainian Legal Market Heads for Happier Time

    While happiness is increasingly considered the proper measure of social progress, Ukraine occupies only 138th position among 156 nations included in the multi-index World Happiness Report 2018. The country has fought for its happiness since becoming independent in 1991 following the collapse of the Soviet Union. As part of this patient and hopeful nation, I continue to believe that happiness is coming soon, exactly as I did in that already-distant 1991, when there was almost no private business and almost no legal market in Ukraine.

    Back in 1991, the best legal brains were all in academia teaching and analyzing law for law degrees and manuscripts. Then came the years of wild capitalism, unfair privatization, fantastic enrichments, barters, raider attacks, and the first foreign investments and joint ventures. These developments required new laws and new law practices. It all came quickly – through governmental assistance, study programs, NGOs, and international law firms such as US-based Baker & McKenzie, Altheimer & Gray (which eventually merged with Chadbourne & Parke), and Squire, Sanders & Dempsey, which injected their professional style and workaholic mentality into early Ukrainian legal practitioners. Many Ukrainian legal start-ups supported continued self-education, practical training with internships, and LL.M degrees from top US and European law schools. Fluency in English and a strong knowledge of Western and Ukrainian law provided unprecedented opportunities. There was almost no competition, and fees were aligned with Western standards. Happiness seemed to be very close.  

    With these exciting expectations in 1999 I returned to Ukraine from my 8-year experience-gathering stay in the United States. However, I discovered that reality turned out to be harder than I expected. Competition started to pick up quickly with new international firms such as DLA Piper, CMS Cameron McKenna, Clifford Chance, and Salans (now Dentons), and a large number of Ukrainian firms spinning off from international strongholds or established from scratch by young entrepreneurs. Maturing local firms soon became strong competitors for their international “coaches,” which nonetheless continued to dominate the market both in numbers and reputation. 

    Challenges also came from the economy, which faced one crisis after another. The ever-changing governments were neither helpful nor skillful, and instead were consistently corrupt. Frustrated internationals (including Clifford Chance, Chadbourne & Parke, Schoenherr, Gide Loyrette Nouel, Noerr, and Beiten Burkhardt) started to close their Ukrainian offices and abandon the legal market. Local firms had no choice but to hold on and engage in crisis work. 

    The critical point dividing Ukraine’s destiny into “before” and “after” was the inevitable Revolution of Dignity, which saw the people taking the streets to force a change in the political regime and direct Ukraine’s course to the EU. What happened next is an unprecedented identity-forming period, with military interference in one part of the country’s territory and illegal annexation on another, accompanied by the launch of painful and difficult economic, political and judicial reforms and anti-corruption efforts. 

    Ukraine’s legal industry continues to adjust to a difficult political and economic environment today. Many practitioners have volunteered to join the government and legislature in various positions to help implement reform, and market insiders are predicting a continuous outflow of practitioners from the legal business to the judiciary. A so-called “attorneys’ monopoly” is expected to be introduced into the legal market, in which only attorneys are allowed to represent clients in court. Thus, the bar will grow, and the role of the attorneys’ community apparently will become stronger.

    Among the pulsing issues for the legal profession remain insufficient legal education and practical training. The Legal Practice publishing house has recently launched its sensational Legal High School, with practicing lawyers teaching classes on corporate, tax, and litigation, backed-up by web-cast. The purpose is noble – to make sure the next generation of Ukrainian lawyers is up to date on the country’s legal doctrine.

    The consolidation of the legal market is another clear trend, as several law firms have merged recently, including, notably, ours, which has become the largest domestic law firm in the country, with a headcount exceeding 240 employees and plans to expand internationally. 

    Of course, legal practitioners continue to deal with their own problems, including increasing competition, the never-ending necessity to focus on new practices, and deflation of legal fees. Traditional practices such as M&A and real estate are giving way to areas like dispute resolution, corporate and financial restructuring, and debt recovery. Some industries, such as IT, infrastructure, and energy (especially renewables), continue to heat up, and many law firms have announced a readiness to expand in these directions.

    Next year, 2019, is a year of Presidential and Parliamentarian elections in Ukraine. Looking back to history and understanding all the challenges currently facing the country and the legal profession, I still believe Ukraine deserves to be a happy nation. Just let it happen soon.

    By Armen Khachaturyan, Senior Partner, Asters

    This Article was originally published in Issue 5.11 of the CEE Legal Matters Magazine. If you would like to receive a hard copy of the magazine, you can subscribe here.

  • Inside Insight: Interview with Ivan Kravtsov, Senior Legal Director of Carlsberg Ukraine

    Ivan Kravtsov is the Senior Legal Director of Carlsberg, Ukraine. He started his career as a lawyer at Russian Energy Company JSC in October 2003, and in 2005 he moved to Procter & Gamble. In 2009 he was named the Head of Legal of Shell Retail Ukraine, and seven years he moved to Carlsberg.

    CEELM: To start with, what was your first contact with the legal profession? What made you choose this path?

    Ivan: I cannot say it was my childhood dream to become a lawyer. However, I think my choice of future profession crystallized when I was a teen. My father, who was and still is my role model, recommended that I consider the legal profession. Finally, yet importantly, I found our school classes on Law Basics very engaging and exciting – more than other subjects. All of that pushed me to choose the career of the lawyer, which I think was the right choice.

    CEELM: You started your career in 2003 as an in-house counsel for an energy company. How has the legal profession changed since then in Ukraine?

    Ivan: Both local and global developments caused recent changes to the legal profession in Ukraine. The external prerequisite of the big change is the associated membership of Ukraine in the EU. This means that local legislation is actively moving towards harmonization with that of the EU, along with introduction of respective legal institutes, tools, and requirements in the legal profession.

    As with any other profession in Ukraine, probably, the job of a lawyer still retains rudiments of the Soviet background, including tons of paper work and the prevalence of form over substance, and so on. However, things are changing. New institutions like the Anticorruption Court, attorneys’ monopoly, transparency of property registers, and public finances call for a different set of legal competencies. The method of providing legal services has changed over recent years. Local subsidiaries of multinationals have absorbed key trends and practices from their Western headquarters, business processes have upgraded and developed, and business itself has become more cross-bordered and technologically advanced.

    Now a best-in-class legal department is viewed as a business unit integrating “old school” legal support (such as handling contracts, litigation, provision of legal perspective/advice, and corporate governance) along with newer responsibilities involving ethics, compliance, and risk estimation and mitigation. The shift from a “solve-my-problem” approach to a proactive forecasting of issues and preventing risks seems to be a common trend. For sure, this has required expanding professional competencies for lawyers. Traditional competencies such as drafting, negotiating, and litigating, as well as mediation skills, are now often supplemented by in-depth business knowledge, project management, basic finance, sales, marketing, communications, and relevant industry specifics. Knowledge of the legal process in isolation is no longer mainstream, and lawyers are expected to integrate with their clients and be involved members of the business teams. This requires additional education and coaching, of course – but the return on investment in this case is enormous. 

    Another trend worth noting is the increased globalization of business, which has increased the need for in-house lawyers to manage cross-border M&As, financial transactions, and compliance across multiple jurisdictions. 

    Finally, yet importantly, there is the rapid digitalization of business and industry. As the amount of data has increased, and business processes have speeded up, legal functions need to seek software systems and solutions such as contract management systems, data search, online document storage, automatic document assembly and sharing, and legal project management and matter management software.

    CEELM: What are the biggest challenges that you face as in-house counsel for Carlsberg? How do you deal with them? 

    Ivan: I would point to the maintenance of competition compliance, as it is always in the focus of both group and local regulators. Besides compliance, which is part of a global trend for even more integrity and transparency of business, I would say personal data protection and the constant support of commercial functions like Sales and Marketing are also important tasks for me. All of this is accompanied by expectations regarding the constant decrease of external legal advice and spending. 

    I manage legal issues with a few simple principles: know your company and its red lines, use common sense, follow the money, constantly develop your team, know the business perfectly, keep your eyes open and head cold, avoid legalese, and use normal human language when communicating with colleagues.

    CEELM: What types of legal work do you tend to cover in-house and what do you externalize?

    Ivan: We try to keep in-house as much as possible. This is a part of the group’s legal strategy. This is related to compliance matters, competition law, data protection, contract work, on-going marketing, and sales support work. However, we hire lawyers from law firms to assist us in complex court cases, M&A deals, or simply when we need a second opinion (for example, in IP matters).

    CEELM: What personal achievements at Carlsberg are you proudest of?

    Ivan: I would mention two. Primarily I would consider people development. I am proud of seeing that my team is recognized as best performers by commercial functions. Second, I am really proud when my team creates new approaches and tools to serve internal client and business needs which can be picked up by the group afterwards.

    CEELM: Without naming names, can you identify one specific experience with external counsel that was particularly disappointing? 

    Ivan: I was lucky not to have disappointing experience with externals. I guess this is due to the fact that we have mutual expectations. Hypothetically, I would be deeply disappointed with an outside counsel who is promising too much but not fulfilling commitments, and just training their young lawyers at the client’s expense.

    CEELM: Do you have someone you consider a mentor in your legal career? Who was it, and what did you learn from that person?

    Ivan: Yes, I do, and this is my first boss at a multinational company. He taught me not to give up, not to be afraid to say “no,” and to always keep calm and do what I need to do. 

    CEELM: If you could go back in time and pick any other career, what would it be – and why?

    Ivan: I don’t think this is my case. I am professionally satisfied and happy with my piece of cake. I think the legal profession can open doors to other areas: whether it be politics or public services and activities 

    This Article was originally published in Issue 5.11 of the CEE Legal Matters Magazine. If you would like to receive a hard copy of the magazine, you can subscribe here.

  • Ilyashev & Partners Advises IATA on Launch of EasyPay in Ukraine

    Ilyashev & Partners Advises IATA on Launch of EasyPay in Ukraine

    Ilyashev & Partners has been appointed Ukrainian legal advisor on regulatory issues concerning introduction by the International Air Transport Association of the EasyPay payment system.

    The International Air Transport Association EasyPay is a new payment method that will be globally available to all IATA-accredited travel agents for the issuance of tickets. According to Ilyashev & Partners, “IATA EasyPay provides travel agents with an additional low or no cost payment option when purchasing air tickets for their clients in addition to the existing cash and credit card streams.”

    IATA is a global trade association for airlines headquartered in Canada. The association represents some 290 airlines, or 82% of total air traffic. IATA supports various areas of aviation activity and helps formulate industry policy on critical aviation issues.

    The Ilyashev & Partners team was led by Senior Partner Roman Marchenko.

  • Medvedev Promoted to Partner at Avellum

    Medvedev Promoted to Partner at Avellum

    Vadim Medvedev has been promoted to Partner at Avellum in Ukraine.

    Medvedev, who leads the firm’s tax practice, has been with Avellum since July 2012. In 2016 he was promoted to Senior Associate and made Counsel in 2017. Previously, he worked for almost two years for the Ulysses law firm. Earlier experience includes working for the DCH project and Rybin and Partners.

    Amongst his recent projects, Medvedev advised on Ukraine’s USD 2 billion Eurobond issuance as reported by CEE Legal Matters on November 19, 2018, Metinvest’s Eurobond issuance as reported by CEE Legal Matters on May 14, 2018, MHP’s Eurobond issuance as reported by CEE Legal Matters on April 27, 2018, and a USD 250 million loan to Energoatom as reported by CEE Legal Matters on March 2, 2018.

    Mykola Stetsenko, Avellum’s Co-Managing Partner, commented: “With great pleasure we welcome Vadim Medvedev to his new role as a Partner at Avellum. This promotion is very well deserved, since Vadim has played a key role in growing our tax practice during his time at the firm.”

    Medvedev added: “Having been part of Avellum for over six years, I am excited about the new milestone in my career. I am proud to become a member of Avellum’s partnership and highly appreciate the firm’s seamless support and continuous contribution to my development.”

     

  • Sayenko Kharenko Advise Henkell & Co. on Squeeze-Out of Minority Shareholders of PrJSC Kyivsky Zavod Shampanskikh Vyn “Stolychniy”

    Sayenko Kharenko Advise Henkell & Co. on Squeeze-Out of Minority Shareholders of PrJSC Kyivsky Zavod Shampanskikh Vyn “Stolychniy”

    Sayenko Kharenko has acted as legal counsel to Henkell & Co. Sektkellerei GmbH concerning the squeeze-out of minority shareholders from PrJSC Kyivsky Zavod Shampanskikh Vyn “Stolychniy.”

    Sayenko Kharenko describes Henkell as “a renowned market leader in numerous countries for wine, sparkling wine, Prosecco, and many other spirits products. In Germany, Henkell leads the premium sparkling wine market. Torley Sektkellerei Kft. in Hungary, Bohemia Sekt s.r.o. in the Czech Republic, and Hubert J.E. s.r.o. in Slovakia are three strong, market-leading Eastern European sparkling wine producers that likewise belong to the Henkell Group.”

    In 2007, according to Sayenko Kharenko, Henkell entered the Ukrainian market by acquiring a controlling stake in PrJSC Kyivsky Zavod Shampanskikh Vyn “Stolychniy” (the “Wine Factory”) that, the firm reports, “among other trademarks, produces one of the most well-known sparkling wines under the brand name ‘Sovetskoe Shampanskoe’ (recently renamed ‘Sovetovskoe Shampanskoe’). Currently, the Wine Factory is a top-four Ukrainian producer of sparkling wine in Ukraine with an approximately 10% market share and a long tradition in the sparkling wine market.”

    “The introduction of squeeze-out procedure into the national legal framework in 2017 offered the dominant controlling shareholders of Ukrainian joint stock companies an opportunity to concentrate 100% of all issued shares, subject to market compensation payable to minority shareholders,” the firm reports. “Henkell exercised its legitimate right as a dominant controlling shareholder by launching a squeeze-out procedure at the Wine Factory.” The project, guided by Sayenko Kharenko, “included preparing a detailed legal step plan for acquisition of shares from minority shareholders with subsequent preparation of the public irrevocable demand for submission to the Wine Factory, the National Securities and Stock Market Commission, and the National Depositary of Ukraine, as well as drafting and submitting all the necessary supporting documents.

    Sayenko Kharenko`s project team was led by Counsel Sergiy Kazmirchuk, supported by Associates Mykola Lykhoglyad and Ilhar Hakhramanov, all working under the general supervision of Partner Vladimir Sayenko.

  • Nazarenko Joins Sayenko Kharenko Partnership

    Nazarenko Joins Sayenko Kharenko Partnership

    Maksym Nazarenko has been promoted to Partner within Sayenko Kharenko’s Antitrust & Competition practice.

    Nazarenko first joined Sayenko Kharenko in May 2008 and was promoted to Counsel in December 2015. He has worked on Dutch Nutreco International’s establishment of a joint venture in Ukraine as reported by CEE Legal Matters on January 31, 2014, the Anheuser-Busch InBev/SABMiller Merger clearance in Ukraine as reported on November 23, 2016, the merger clearance in Ukraine for Boehringer Ingelheim’s asset swap transaction with Sanofi as reported on December 7, 2016, the Black Sea Port joint venture as reported on January 12, 2018, and on the combination of the Russian and Ukrainian businesses and assets of AB InBev and Anadolu Efes Biracilik ve Malt Sanayii AS and the creation of a joint venture as reported on April 13, 2018.

    “During the decade that Maksym has been part of the team, commented Partner Vladimir Sayenko, “he has demonstrated great passion and dedication to the profession. He has excellent leadership skills and the ability to teach and develop the team, contributing significantly to the firm’s progress. I am pleased to have witnessed Maksym growing inside the firm and am happy to announce his promotion to partnership.”