Category: Ukraine

  • Sergey Denisenko Promoted to Partner at Aequo

    Sergey Denisenko Promoted to Partner at Aequo

    Sergey Denisenko has been promoted to Partner at Aequo in Ukraine.

    Denisenko has 15 years of experience in antitrust and competition. According to Aequo, “the main aspects of [Denisenko’s] work include merger clearance and concerted actions, protection against unfair trade practices, and competition compliance.” According to the firm, he “regularly represents clients in abuse of dominance and concerted actions investigations conducted by the regulator.”

    “I’m really happy that my efforts in Aequo’s antitrust and competition practice development have been highly appreciated by the clients and partners of the firm, and my 15 years of career path resulted in desired and logical continuation,” stated Denisenko. “My partnership is the achievement of the entire team, and our hard and inspiring work, in which we are always one step ahead.“

    Sergey Denisenko joined Aequo at the firm’s founding in 2014. According to the firm, ”during that period, he consulted a number of leading international and local companies such as Apax Partners, Apollo Global Management, Arcelor Mittal, Berlin-Chemie AG, British American Tobacco (Ukraine), Danone, Dragon Capital, Google, Koninklijke Bunge BV, NCH Advisors Inc., Nippon Steel & Sumitomo Metal Corporation, Posco Daewoo, Sandoz, Tetra Laval and many more.” He has a Master’s degree in International Law from the Institute of International Relations at the Taras Shevchenko National University of Kyiv.

    “I’m delighted that Sergey’s longstanding professional and managerial successes resulted in his well-deserved promotion to partner,” commented Managing Partner Denis Lysenko. “I’m convinced that this strategic decision will lead to new perspectives for our antitrust practice in the context of client care perfection, further personal and professional team success and realization of new ambitious projects.”

  • Doubinsky & Osharova Successful for Toyota in Defending “Lexus” Trademark

    Doubinsky & Osharova Successful for Toyota in Defending “Lexus” Trademark

    Doubinsky & Osharova has successfully represented the interests of the Toyota Motor Corporation in defending the “Lexus” trademark in Ukraine.

    According to Doubinsky & Osharova, the dispute between Japan’s Toyota Motor Corporation and Turkey’s Mural Tekstil clothing manufacturer “was reduced to the question of the factual use of the Lexus trademark by the Turkish company during the last five years in Ukraine.”

    According to the firm, on January 22, 2020, Ukraine’s Northern Commercial Court of Appeal ruled that Mural Tekstil’s trademark registration of the Lexis mark should be canceled, allowing Toyota to register the “Lexus” trademark in Ukraine for products with symbols or logo of the brand that are often sold in official car dealerships.

    The Doubinsky & Osharova team was led by Partner Victoria Sopilnyak.

  • Redcliffe Partners Helps Obtain Merger Clearance for GE Capital’s Sale of PK AirFinance

    Redcliffe Partners Helps Obtain Merger Clearance for GE Capital’s Sale of PK AirFinance

    Redcliffe Partners has helped GE Capital, the financial services division of General Electric, obtain merger clearance from Ukraine’s competition authority in connection with the sale of the PK AirFinance aviation lending business to Apollo Global Management and Athene Holding Ltd.

    PK AirFinance is a provider and arranger of loans secured by commercial aircraft, aircraft engines, and helicopters. PK AirFinance serves airlines, aircraft traders, lessors, investors, financial institutions and manufacturers worldwide.

    As part of the transaction, Apollo acquired the PK AirFinance aircraft lending platform and Athene acquired PK AirFinance’s existing portfolio of loans.

    Redcliffe Partners’ team included Partner Anastasia Usova, Senior Associate Nataliya Kovalyova, and Associate Tetyana Smurova.

  • Kinstellar and Clyde & Co. Advise QTerminals on Successful Bid for Port Concession Project in Ukraine

    Kinstellar and Clyde & Co. Advise QTerminals on Successful Bid for Port Concession Project in Ukraine

    Kinstellar’s Kyiv office, in coordination with lead counsel Clyde & Co, has successfully represented Qatari port operator QTerminals in its successful tender for the port concession project involving the Black Sea Port of Olvia.

    The pilot port operating concession was prepared by Ukraine’s Ministry of Infrastructure with the assistance of the EBRD and the IFC and made available through what Kinstellar describes as “a transparent and competitive tender process.” 

    Under the terms of its bid, in addition to regular concession payments, QTerminals anticipates that it will invest up to USD 120 million in the modernization and development of the Port of Olvia. QTerminals will also contribute USD 3.4 million to the development of local infrastructure in the surrounding area. According to Kinstellar, “this makes the project the largest concession ever implemented in Ukraine.”

    The Kinstellar team advising QTerminals on Ukrainian aspects of the project was led by Counsel Oleg Matiusha and included Counsel Mykyta Nota, Senior Associates Oleh Andreikiv, Danylo Volkovetskyi, and Viktoriia Dobrynska, Associates Daryna Ushchapivska, Julia Palaida, and Yulia Eismont, and Junior Associates Oleksandr Plachynta and Valeriia Lepska.

  • Integrites Successful for Euronet Ukraine in Tax Dispute

    Integrites Successful for Euronet Ukraine in Tax Dispute

    Integrites has successfully protected the interests of Euronet Ukraine, the Ukrainian representative of the Euronet Worldwide group, in a UAH 64 million tax dispute with the Kyiv State Fiscal Service.

    Euronet Worldwide is a group of companies specializing in the production, installation, and maintenance of ATMs and payment terminals.

    According to Integrites, “resulting from a tax audit, the dispute arose in 2018 when the Kyiv tax authority overstated the amount of the corporate profit tax that allegedly had to be paid by [Euronet Ukraine] for intra-group transactions. When Integrites team challenged the audit’s results, the tax authority arranged another, unscheduled audit. The results of this audit were identical to those of the previous one. [Euronet Ukraine then] filed an administrative claim to the court to recognize the tax authority’s actions as illegal and cancel the tax assessment. In late 2019, a year after the proceedings have been initiated and six court hearings, Kyiv District Administrative Court canceled tax assessments worth UAH 64 million. In addition, the court ruled that [Euronet Ukraine] had not violated tax legislation and kept accounting and tax records accurately.“

    Integrites’ team included Partner Oleksandr Onishchenko and Senior Associate Serhii Rymar.

    Editor’s Note: In July 2020 Integrites reported that the Kyiv District Administrative Court’s decision had been upheld by Ukraine’s Sixth Administrative Court of Appeal, which “dismissed the appeal … [and], in addition … held that Euronet Ukraine should receive full reimbursement of more than UAH 200,000 spent on legal support in proceedings in the courts of both instances.“

  • Draft Law on Labour: Pros and Cons for Ukrainian Employers and Employees

    The draft Law on Labour no. 2708 (the Draft) filed by the Government of Ukraine to the Parliament in late 2019 caused a stir and debates among employees, trade unions, within the legal community, in press and social media.

    The declared aim of the Draft is to modernize the regulation of employment relations, as well as to adapt the national labour legislation to the EU requirements. Adopted in 1971, the current Labour Code of Ukraine has long ago gone against the realities of the market economy. So, despite the fact that the Draft needs improvement, its adoption could be a positive trend for Ukraine. 

    What is new

    The Draft suggests a number of novelties and changes to the existing regulation. One of such is the prohibition of any discrimination in the employment and related relations. Persons who believe that they have been discriminated or mobbed in the workplace, have the right to claim in court the restoration of the violated rights, compensation for material and non-pecuniary damage. In this case, it’s the employer who is responsible for proving the opposite. Moreover, the Draft provides for the non-discriminatory design of compensation systems, so that male and female employees get paid equally for similar work or work of an equal value. 

    The introduction of these novelties will have a positive effect. However, there is a risk of employee extremism or abuse of these rights by the employees. Moreover, the obligation to pay equal wage for similar work or work of an equal value restricts the employers’ rights.

    What else is there to know about the Draft for both employers and employees? 

    The Draft, in particular:

    • formalizes the elements leading to recognition of employment relations;

    • ensures a stronger role of an employment agreement in these relations;

    • introduces the possibility to suspend an employment agreement;

    • provides additional grounds for termination of employment relations;

    • introduces changes in regulation of working hours, leaves and freelancing;

    • reduces the influence of trade unions; 

    • clarifies the dispute resolution in employment relations and introduces mediation as an instrument.

    Employment agreement

    The Draft clearly aims to prevent the state from interfering into individual labour relations. The Draft abolishes an employment contract as a special type of employment agreements. 

    According to the Draft, there will be only the employment agreement, which can be concluded only in a written form (including electronic). Amendments to the agreement can also be made only in writing, by executing of either an additional agreement or a new version of the employment agreement. Sample forms of the employment agreement shall be approved by the Ministry of Social Policy of Ukraine. 

    The Draft provides for:

    – the list of mandatory conditions to be included in the employment agreement (e.g. rights and obligations of the parties, liability of the parties, terms of filing a termination notice, the amount of compensation in case of early termination initiated by the employer, etc.); and

    – the list of additional conditions, which are optional for inclusion by the parties (e.g. confidentiality, additional obligations for the employer with regard to improvement of working conditions, provision by the employer of social and household benefits, or social and cultural services, etc.). 

    At the request of the employee, information which confirms a special legal status of the employee (e.g. a person with a disability, a person affected by the Chornobyl disaster) can be added to the employment agreement too. 

    It is a constructive tendency to regulate the employment relations mainly in the employment agreement since it gives more flexibility to the parties. However, impossibility to conclude an agreement in a simplified form by fixing it in the employment order, the need to execute all amendments as bilateral agreements will require more paper work and efforts from the parties.

    Innovative types of employment agreements

    Compared to the current Labour Code, the Draft provides such innovative types of employment agreements as:

    short-term agreement concluded for up to 2 months. Either an employee or an employer may terminate it upon 3 calendar day notice. If the termination is initiated by the employer, the employee gets eligible for a compensation in the amount of wage unpaid due to the termination;

    seasonal agreement concluded for a certain period (season) which doesn’t exceed 8 consecutive months. The employee has a right to terminate it upon 5 calendar day notice;

    agreement with no fixed hours under which the employee works only upon receiving an assignment from the employer (on-call work). The number of agreements with no fixed hours for one employer may not exceed 1/10 of the total number of employment agreements. The minimum number of working hours for the employee is 8 during a calendar month. If the employee has worked less, they shall be paid for 8 working hours;

    apprenticeship agreement concluded for up to 6 months which might be an advantage for employees who want to combine work and studying at work;

    employment agreement with a domestic worker concluded for households (families).  

    Termination of employment from the new angle

    The Draft provides for the following grounds to terminate employment relations: 

    • expiration of the employment agreement; 

    • termination upon consent of the parties; 

    • termination upon the initiative of an employee; 

    • termination upon the initiative of an employer; 

    • reasons independent of the will of the parties;

    • the grounds provided for in the employment agreement.

    The grounds for the termination of employment by an employer will significantly change. In particular, they will include some new ones like the termination upon the notice of the employer, breach by the employee of conditions of the employment agreement more than twice during 180 calendar days, absence of the employee at work and lack of information about reasons of such absence during 10 working days in a row. 

    An important innovation is the right of an employer to terminate an agreement with an employee upon the employer’s notice without the need to provide the reasoning. The notice period is 15-90 calendar days, depending on the duration of employment. By mutual agreement of the parties or upon unilateral initiative of the employer, the notice period may be replaced by a monetary compensation. In the latter case the amount of the compensation should be doubled.

    Notably, an employment agreement may establish the notice period longer than standard 2 weeks in case of resignation of CEO and other officials.

    What is left out?

    The Draft aims to adequately regulate various types of employment and provide more flexibility to the parties. But why then is it widely criticized by trade unions and other employees’ organizations? 

    Possibly, because it does not mention trade unions at all. This means that employers will be free to make key decisions (including those related to the dismissal upon employer’s initiative) without a prior consent of the trade unions. Instead, the Draft refers to employees’ representatives as persons authorized to represent employees and protect their rights, however, ensures only their advisory role. Their activities should be regulated by a separate law which is yet to be developed. 

    The Draft puts aside the following existing provisions and guaranties of employees: 

    • guarantees for women (except for certain guarantees for pregnant women), thus reducing social security level for women with small children and children with disabilities;

    • provisions on work discipline and disciplinary liability;

    • definition and consequences of absence at work (‘truancy) for less than 10 days;

    • provisions on ensuring employment of dismissed employees;

    • cases for mandatory provision of additional paid vacation etc.

    It reduces the amount of a minimum guaranteed compensation for overtimes, work on holidays and days-off from a double rate to 20% of the rate, limits the period for which an employee may receive the compensation for unused vacation to the current year and preceding year only.

    The above reduction of employee’s guarantees and benefits understandably causes protests. 

    Besides, the Draft does not cover many issues regulated by other legislation or not regulated yet (e.g. conclusion of collective bargaining agreements, issues related to outstaffing and outsourcing) and often refers to acts which are yet to be developed. 

    Seeking for the balance of powers

    For a long time, the Labour Code of Ukraine has remained substantially unchanged, incorporating Soviet model of labour relations with its pro-employee approach and disregarding the needs of the market economy. There has been a call for a new law, which would even out the imbalance of power between employers and employees, legitimize modern types of employment and make the labour market more flexible. Giving to employers more discretion in hiring and firing staff, establishing compensations and benefits, work regimes and conditions on a contractual basis envisaged by the Draft should add more flexibility to the relations of the parties and, as a result, help reduce the shadow employment in Ukraine. 

    At the same time, the Draft has been blamed widely for making employees less socially secure that, eventually, may result in the increasing labour migration and unemployment. 

    Of course, the Draft requires significant improvement and elaboration. Its adoption in 2020 is very likely, particularly because it has been initiated by the Government which is now the strongest player on the Ukrainian political arena. Hopefully, by the moment of adoption all imperfections of the Draft are given considerable thought by MPs and the relevant Parliamentary committee. That will result in making the new Law on Labour a functional tool to balance the needs of both employers and their staff.

    By Inna Kostrytska, Senior Associate, and Yuliya Bleshmudt, Associate, Integrites

  • Eterna Law Advises Spacebit on Moon Landing Project

    Eterna Law Advises Spacebit on Moon Landing Project

    Eterna Law has advised British company Spacebit in its attempt to perform the first British landing on the moon.

    Spacebit is British privately-held company that develops space robotics technology for lunar and planetary missions that was founded in 2014 by Ukrainian Pavlo Tanasyuk. The first launch of its lunar rover, called the Asagumo, is expected to take place in July of next year.

    According to Eterna Law, the firm provided legal advice on Spacebit’s interaction with contractors and investors, particularly focusing on the protection of intellectual property rights, the analysis of the counter-parties’ economic adequacy, and the balancing of the parties’ interests concerning objects worth up to USD 40 million.

    Eterna Law’s team includes Parnter Denys Kytsenko and Senior Associate Roman Antoniv.

  • Ilyashev & Partners Providing Pro Bono Assistance to Ukrainian Red Cross

    Ilyashev & Partners Providing Pro Bono Assistance to Ukrainian Red Cross

    Ilyashev & Partners is providing pro bono advice to the Ukrainian Red Cross Society on the day-to-day business activities of its organizations at the national and local levels.

    According to the firm, “for over 100 years in a row, one of the most important priorities of the Ukrainian Red Cross Society has been to assist the state in providing comprehensive assistance and support to the most vulnerable groups of the population. The society runs various programs and numerous charitable projects aimed to ensure such assistance. Unlike other charitable organizations, the Ukrainian Red Cross Society has a special humanitarian mandate, humanitarian initiative as a member of the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement, and operates under the Law of Ukraine On Ukrainian Red Cross Society and the Law of Ukraine On the Symbols of the Red Cross, the Red Crescent and the Red Crystal in Ukraine.”

    “We consider the provision of pro bono legal services to the Ukrainian Red Cross Society as an extremely serious professional and social responsibility,” said Managing Partner Mikhail Ilyashev, who leads the firm’s team. “We are excited about the opportunity to be of service to the Red Cross Society in its mission, which is difficult to overestimate.”

  • Baker McKenzie Advises Biopharma on Sale of Pharmaceutical Business to Stada

    Baker McKenzie Advises Biopharma on Sale of Pharmaceutical Business to Stada

    Baker McKenzie has advised the shareholders of Biopharma, a Ukrainian manufacturer of pharmaceuticals and healthcare products, on the carve-out of its non-plasma business and its sale to Stada AG, a global manufacturer of pharmaceuticals and consumer healthcare products. Arzinger reportedly advised Stada on the deal.

    Baker McKenzie’s team was co-led by Kyiv Partners Viacheslav Yakymchuk and Olha Demianiuk and included Kyiv-based Partner Oksana Simonova, Senior Associate Olha Mikheieva, Associates Andrii Finogin, Olha Sviatenka, and Khrystyna Penyk, as well as London-based Senior Corporate Associate Robert Gray.

  • Sayenko Kharenko, Latham & Watkins, Avellum, and White & Case Advise on Ukrainian Eurobond Issuance

    Sayenko Kharenko, Latham & Watkins, Avellum, and White & Case Advise on Ukrainian Eurobond Issuance

    Sayenko Kharenko and Latham & Watkins have advised BNP Paribas, JP Morgan, and Raiffeisen Bank International as the joint lead managers of Ukraine’s EUR 1.25 billion Eurobond issuance. Avellum and White & Case advised Ukraine’s Ministry of Finance on the issuance.

    The notes have a ten-year tenor and bear a coupon of 4.375% per annum, which is the lowest pricing for Ukraine’s euro-denominated debt. 

    This deal followed the EUR1,000,000,000 6.75% issuance Ukraine made in July 2019, which was the country’s first Euro offering in over a decade (as reported by CEE Legal Matters on July 3, 2019).

    The Sayenko Kharenko team was led by Partner Igor Lozenko and included Associates Oles Trachuk and Yurii Dmytrenko and junior associates Oleksandra Maksymenko and Oleksandr Motin.

    The Latham & Watkins team included Partners David Stewart and Lene Malthasen, Associate Harry Armstrong, and Trainee Rob Parent.

    Avellum’s team was led by Senior Partner Glib Bondar and included Associates Oleg Krainskyi, Mykola Falko, Mariana Veremchuk, Andriy Kornuta, and Vladyslav Heivandov.