- 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 Teams
- United Kingdom - Rising Stars
- United States
- United States - Rising Stars
- United States Teams
- Client Intelligence Report
- Response to Brexit
- Bridging the Gulf
- Litigation and regulatory challenges in financial services
- AI and the law tools of tomorrow
- Scottish GCs
- North West clients
- Pan-Europe bribery crackdown
- Arbitration backing Africa's investment boom
- Gaining access to North Africa
- Anti-corruption in Asia
- Business thinking
- In-house management
- Career path
- Legal perspective
- Big picture
- In discussion
- Interrogating value
- GC interviews
- Our great leader: unravelling the process of choosing the right candidate for the top job
- The promised land? Big data and
the in-house lawyer
- Law: a risky business?
- Playing to your strengths: building diversity of thought into business
US Special Edition Downloadable PDF
- Dissenting perspectives
- Developments in Panama
- The international arbitration summit
- The Global 100 debate - Chasing Alpha
- Cyber security
- North Africa - through the gate
- North West Clients
- Scottish GCs
- The Global London debate
- 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
Search News and Articles
Legal Developments and updates from the leading lawyers in each jurisdiction. To contribute, send an email request to
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.