- Latin America
- United Kingdom - Solicitors
- United Kingdom - The Bar
- United States
- What is the GC Powerlist?
- How to nominate in-house counsel
- Australia/New Zealand
- Asia Pacific
- Latin America
- Middle East
- United Kingdom
- United Kingdom - In-house Teams
- United Kingdom - Rising Stars
- United States
- How do the awards work?
- The Legal 500 United States Awards 2015 - In-house winners
- The Legal 500 United States Awards 2015 - Law firm winners
- The Legal 500 United States Awards 2014 - In-house winners
- The Legal 500 United States Awards 2014 - Law firm winners
- The Legal 500 United Kingdom Awards 2014
- Frequently asked questions
- Business thinking
- In-house management
- Career path
- Legal perspective
- Big picture
- In discussion
- Interrogating value
- GC interviews
- Doing it differently
- What I want from my GC
- From client to colleague: Github
- Welcome to lawyerland
- Learning how to be good from the 'bad' guys
- LinkedIn's legal department
- The dark side of the moon
- In-house got talent
- Law firm leaders
- Cyber in-security
- Legal Business commercial litigation summit
- Funding disputes
- GC Powerlist roundtable – Germany
- GC roundtable – talent management
- GC Powerlist roundtable – Brazil
- GC Powerlist roundtable –
- Corporate Counsel summit
- GC Powerlist roundtable –
- General Counsel: United States
- Financial litigation
- Legal Business 100
- Leveraged finance
- Legal Business Global 100
- 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
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.
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.
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  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"). 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.
Ukrainian district court allowed attachment of property located in Ukraine on the basis of UK procedOn 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.
On 5 July 2012, the Parliament of Ukraine adopted the Law Of Ukraine “On Amending Section XX “Transitional Provisions” of the Tax Code of Ukraine on Peculiarities of Taxation of Software Companies” (the “Law”). The Law came into force on 3 August 2012. The tax incentives introduced by the Law provide for a very favourable tax regime for companies operating in the IT industry and are likely to be widely used by national and international businesses. Below we provide the brief description of the incentives introduced by the Law.