The Legal 500

The 2008 financial crisis peak had hardly faded away, when another breaking news was brought to the surface in CIS countries: a significant part of the funds advanced during the pre-crisis period by banks and other financial institutions to support various businesses and commercial initiatives, flew beyond national frontiers to be found in Panama, BVI, Seychelles, Jersey, Cyprus and other offshore and onshore jurisdictions in the pockets of numerous private persons, mostly CIS nationals. No surprise this fact led to a tsunami of disputes, one way or the other related to repayment of loans and funds advanced under other types of finance arrangements. Many of those disputes are still pending, thus, keeping finance arrangements among the top-litigated issues within CIS borders.

The 2008 financial crisis peak had hardly faded away, when another breaking news was brought to the surface in CIS countries: a significant part of the funds advanced during the pre-crisis period by banks and other financial institutions to support various businesses and commercial initiatives, flew beyond national frontiers to be found in Panama, BVI, Seychelles, Jersey, Cyprus and other offshore and onshore jurisdictions in the pockets of numerous private persons, mostly CIS nationals. No surprise this fact led to a tsunami of disputes, one way or the other related to repayment of loans and funds advanced under other types of finance arrangements. Many of those disputes are still pending, thus, keeping finance arrangements among the top-litigated issues within CIS borders.

Article V1(b) of the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards, better known as the New York Convention, provides that recognition and enforcement of a foreign arbitral award may be refused, at the request of the party against which it is invoked, only if that party furnishes proof to the competent authority where the recognition and enforcement is sought that it was not given proper notice of the appointment of the arbitrator or of the arbitration proceedings. However simple at first glance, the question of what constitutes 'proper notice' turns out to be less than clear in practice.

This guide provides the international practitioner and in-house counsel with a comprehensive worldwide legal analysis of the laws and regulations of real estate. This article appeared in the 2013 edition of The International Comparative Legal Guide to: Real Estate; published by Global Legal Group Ltd, London. www.iclg.co.uk )

6 February has marked lawyers’ calendars with an important message from the UK Supreme Court: English courts will not accept the jurisdiction over a dispute having the “centre of gravity” in another country. AstapovLawyers' Managing Partner Andrey Astapov and Associate Anna Kombikova comment on a recent CIS precedent.

The Presidium of the Ukrainian Chamber of Commerce and Industry (UCCI) recently amended Article 52 of the Rules of the International Commercial Arbitration Court (ICAC) at the UCCI. This article governs the procedure for forwarding an arbitral award to the parties to arbitration proceedings.

Eugene Blinov and Anna Kombikova of AstapovLawyers ILG commented on peculiarities of enforcement of arbitral awards against Ukrainian bankrupt companies. The lawyers noted the risks connected with such cases and suggested possible solutions.

On 6 November 2012, the Ukrainian Parliament adopted changes to the Law of Ukraine "On the Procedure of Carrying-Out Settlements in Foreign Currency", dated 23 September 2004, No. 185/94-BP, as amended, granting the National Bank of Ukraine ("NBU") a power to amend for a term of up to six months the term for cre-diting to the exporters' accounts of currency proceeds under export contracts. These changes to the law entered into force on 17 November 2012. The NBU was extremely fast to implement its new power, passing a Resolution dated 16 November 2012, No. 475 (which entered into force on 19 November 2012).

The mitigation of damages is a well-known principle in international legal practice. However, in Ukraine there is no widely applied court and arbitration practice on the issues relating to mitigation of damages, and aggrieved parties may be unclear as to what should and can be done.

The Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine at its meeting on August 29 resolved [1] to amend its Resolution "On approval of the Order for the use of funds allocated in the state budget for payments related to implementation of judgments of foreign jurisdictional authorities rendered upon consideration of matters against Ukraine" (the "Government Resolution").[2] Appropriate amendments were prepared by the Ministry of Justice (responsible for protecting the state's interests in foreign courts and arbitral tribunals) in order to improve mechanisms to protect the rights and interests of Ukraine in foreign judicial and arbitral proceedings.

On 1 June 2012 Goloseevskiy district court of Kyiv city rendered a decision whereby it recognized and enforced the Order of the High Court of Justice Queen Bench Division Commercial Court (Order). As a result, Ukrainian court allowed attachment of Debtor’s assets located in Ukraine.