- What is the Corporate Counsel 100?
- How to nominate in-house counsel
- Australia/New Zealand
- Asia Pacific
- Latin America
- Middle East
- UK Regional Powerlist
- United Kingdom
- United Kingdom - Rising Stars
- United States
- United States - Rising Stars
- How do the awards work?
- The Legal 500 United Kingdom Awards 2014
- The Legal 500 United States Awards - In-house winners
- The Legal 500 United States Awards - Law firm winners
- The Legal 500 Latin America Awards (coming soon)
- Microsite The Legal 500 Germany Awards (coming soon)
- Frequently asked questions
- Editor's Letter
- Inside GC: Executive Summary
- In-house survey 2014
- A dangerous game of bluff
- From client to colleague
- Harvard thinking
- How to be Chief Executive of your own career
- Rules of engagement
- The 5-minute financial analysis
- The third way
- The world's greatest management thinker: Clayton Christensen
- What I wish I'd known: moving in-house
- What's your IP strategy?
- Corporate Counsel 100 Brazil roundtable
- Mexico City: Corporate Counsel 100 discussion
- The Legal 500 Corporate Counsel Summit
- Corporate Counsel 100 United States roundtable
- General Counsel: United States
- Intellectual property: debate
- Risk management
- Private equity
- Data security
- Leadership and management
- Intellectual property
World Trademark Review recommends Lavrynovych & Partners for IP challenges in Ukraine
Reputable guidebook World Trademark Review 1000 2013 recommends Firm’s Corporate and M&A practice, led by Partner Iryna Marushko - as an up-and-coming team, enjoying a sterling reputation on IP market.
According to the guidebook, Lavrynovych & Partners "has worked intensively to build up an IP practice" and "outshines many on complex trademark litigation - a particular focus - though is also adept in the transactional arena". The dynamic team is recommended for its pragmatism and responsiveness, as well as for its fresh thinking on IP matters and a tailored client service.
The WTR 1000 is a reputable guide to trademark legal services, which remains the only standalone global annual publication to recommend individual practitioners and their firms exclusively in the area of trademarks, and identifies the leading players in over 60 key jurisdictions.
Search News and Articles
By Nazar Chernyavsky
AstapovLawyers Partner Eugene Blinov & the firm's Associate Roman Protsyshyn share their recent arbitration practice regarding applicable law in contractual disputes.
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.