What happened in 2015 in the world of Ukrainian corporate finance was a reflection of larger scale events in and around Ukraine. In this article, we will share our view of the key events in 2015 in the area of cor-porate finance, highlight the most important legislative and regulatory developments in finance and, based on our experience, make a few suggestions for creditors and debtors on how to navigate through 2016.
In the past few years Ukrainian clients have developed an appetite for solving their disputes abroad. Litigation and arbitration sagas involving Ukrainian parties or related to Ukrainian assets often spread across many jurisdictions. In many such sagas various interim reliefs were granted by courts and tribunals.
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.
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.