News

Each year, many law firms seek to participate in the ranking to benchmark their capabilities and competencies. In addition to the growing number of participants—this year, 573 firms made the list—new categories are also introduced. This year s ranking, comprising 53 categories, was expanded to include a new category Land Law, and four new special categories: Art Law, International Development, Asset Unfreezing, and GR. The total value of projects included in the ranking amounted to a staggering 513 trillion rubles, with 24,188 projects submitted for evaluation.

Advocates Bureau Yug has participated in every Pravo-300 s ranking since its inception. According to the ranking methodology, participants are divided into federal and regional categories based on their geographic location, and these are further subdivided into groups based on the law firms project experience, interviews with legal market representatives, and client feedback on service quality and the value for money of legal services.

Advocates Bureau Yug demonstrated exceptional results in the categories of Arbitration Proceedings (Large Disputes) and Dispute Resolution in Courts of General Jurisdiction, securing a place in Group 1 of the regional ranking and ranking third out of twenty in the regional "Top Firms by Revenue" category.

To see all the results of the ranking, please follow the link: https://300.pravo.ru

Unlike traditional legal rankings, this assessment is not limited by geographic location. Instead, it evaluates legal practitioners on a federal level, categorizing them by practice area and expertise level.

Advocates Bureau Yug is proud to have two representatives in the second edition of Rossiyskaya Gazeta s legal ranking: Yuri Pustovit, Managing Partner, in the field of Arbitration Proceedings (Group 2), and Sergey Radchenko, Partner, in the field of Dispute Resolution (General Jurisdiction) (Group 2).

According to the ranking s criteria, lawyers in Group 2 are considered exceptional legal minds, deserving of high commendation.

To view the complete ranking, please visit https://rg.ru/articles/reyting-juristov-2024/legal.

Traditionally, the ranking separates Moscow companies with branches and additional offices throughout Russia and regional companies. The geography of the regional litigators rating has expanded significantly. Last year, it only included legal teams from six constituent entities of the Russian Federation. Now, law firms from 20 Russian cities — from Kaliningrad to Vladivostok — are present.

Compared to 2022, the number of leading litigators in the regional market has almost halved. However, Advocates Bureau Yug entered Band 1 of the regional rating and showed one of the best results regarding the average amount of claims.

To see more information, please follow: https://research.pravo.ru/research/255259/

The second day of the forus business program opened with the first session "What Businesses Need Today." The moderator of the session, Yuri Pustovits , Managing partner of Advocates Bureau Yug, highlighted seven trends in the rapidly changing market dictating its rules of development: a complex economic situation, a high key rate making loans inaccessible, import substitution, the growth of online trade (delivery services and marketplaces), the state regulation, labor shortages, and the introduction of artificial intelligence into business processes. The speakers focused on these issues in more detail, using examples from their practical experience. The attendees discussed the relocation and re-domiciliation of businesses, the transformation of the payment industry in the context of sanctions and ways to establish correspondent relationships with banks from friendly countries, new mechanisms for protecting Russian businesses from unscrupulous foreign counterparties, and the prospects of disputes arising from foreign trade contracts, risk management, opportunities of mutual investment funds in modern times, temporary residence permits and citizenship for investment available to Russians in 2024, and several other issues. The speakers were representatives of the banking sector, investment, and legal companies.

The second session, "Judicial Bulletin: Key Positions of Courts," was moderated by Sergei Kovalev, Managing partner of "Kovalev, Tugushi and Partners." The speakers informed the forum participants about the specialities of judicial practice, in particular: the current practice of notifying foreign persons by Russian courts, determining the amount of court costs and their collection, and disputes related to claims of the Prosecutor Generals Office.Sergey Radchenko, a Partner at Advocates Bureau Yug, presented a report on the study of the calculation of the statute of limitations when challenging transactions in bankruptcy cases and presented to the audience an analysis of a practical case. In 2021, the financial manager, as part of the bankruptcy case, filed a lawsuit with a request to recognize the purchase and sale agreement of the apartment from the year 2001 as fictitious and concluded to conceal property from creditors, apply the consequences of invalidity, namely, recognize the right of ownership of the apartment for the debtor (a relative of the husband of the sole owner) and include the property in the bankruptcy estate. The speakers also mentioned the topic of challenging transactions harmful to creditors, the procedure for repaying claims secured by collateral in bankruptcy, liability for tax errors of the company, and the influence of arbitration court decisions on the criminal risks of top management of the company.

The third session was held in the roundtable format "Real Estate and Construction: Regions vs. Center" and moderated by Anna Zholobova, Managing partner of RegionService. It discussed issues of land expropriation and the peculiarities of calculating losses upon their expropriation, considered cases on land disputes in construction, and the legal status of real estate in bankruptcy.

The fourth session "Changing Business Ownership and Management Structures in 2024" presented to participants the main trends and opportunities in the Russian M&A market, counteracting sanctions and the impact of this counteraction on transactions, the problems of economically significant organizations and their exclusion from the ownership structure of foreign holdings. The speakers talked about forced "deoffshorization", as well as discussed tax compliance and some other corporate law issues.

The fifth session was conducted in the beloved aquarium format by Boris Boltyansky, Chief Editor of the legal portal Pravo.ru, and its commercial director Alexei Otradnov. It was entirely devoted to legal business management. How to maintain management standards and business building when foreign management leaves, where to find new partners and counterparties, why it is important to build a dialogue with the state, how to create internal relationships with partners and competitors, how to determine employee motivation in new conditions, and who the employer is looking for in the legal market today. The participants of the final session of the Southern Russia Legal Forum 2024 tried to find answers to these and other questions.

"Someone who works well rests well". Preferably, in active mode. This proverb always finds a response among the participants of the Southern Forum, as the regatta has become a traditional way to end the event and summarize its results in an informal setting. We hope the time spent together at the forum gave the participants the necessary charge and inspiration for work and development. Advocates Bureau Yug and Pravo.ru are happy to meet with all those present and new participants of this unforgettable legal event again next year.

The forum is designed for practicing lawyers, both in-house and external, as well as for marketing professionals in law firms and legal business managers. The forums topics cover such areas of law as family, civil, land, criminal, and tax law, as well as some issues related to marketing and law firm management.

Advocates Bureau Yug was represented at the Business Law Forum by its partner Sergey Radchenko. In his speech, he discussed the issue of unauthorized construction, a particularly acute problem for the Krasnodar Territory due to its geographical location, the presence of resorts, and strict construction restrictions. Sergey Radchenko presented the forum participants with several typical scenarios of circumstance development in cases of unauthorized construction and the factors influencing the decision to demolish an unauthorized structure.

Until recently, it was generally accepted in judicial practice that only those first-instance court orders that impede the progress of the case or do not impede it, but whose appeal is provided for by the CPC, could be appealed in appellate and then cassation proceedings. Certain first-instance court orders, in cases provided for by the CPC (e.g., part 11 of Article 153.10, part 5 of Article 422, and part 5 of Article 427), can only be appealed "over the top," i.e., directly to cassation, bypassing the appellate court.

If a party to the case files a private complaint against a first-instance court order that is not subject to appeal, the appellate court terminates proceedings on the complaint (paragraph 59 of the Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation of June 22, 2021 No. 16 "On the Application by Courts of the Norms of Civil Procedural Legislation Regulating Proceedings in the Appellate Court"). If a cassation complaint is filed against an order terminating proceedings on a private complaint, it upholds the appellate courts order.

With the adoption by the Supreme Court of the Decision of the Judicial Collegium for Civil Cases of April 9, 2024, in Case No. 5-KG24-7-K2, the situation has changed. The Supreme Court recognized the possibility of appealing in cassation a first-instance court order leaving a claim without consideration, which was previously unanimously recognized as not subject to appeal.

The Supreme Courts position is as follows: the absence of the possibility to appeal a court order in appellate proceedings does not mean that the legality of this judicial decision cannot be reviewed in cassation proceedings. Unlike the appellate procedure for reviewing non-entered-into-force judicial decisions, the method for reviewing entered-into-force judicial decisions in cassation proceedings is regulated by other rules provided for in Chapter 41 of the CPC. Following part 1 of Article 376 of the CPC, entered-into-force judicial decisions specified in part 2 of Article 377 of the CPC can be appealed in the procedure established by paragraph 1 of Chapter 41 of the CPC, to the general jurisdiction cassation court. Under paragraph 1 of part 2 of Article 377 of the CPC, a cassation complaint is filed against entered-into-force decisions of district courts and world judges to the general jurisdiction cassation court. Thus, in cassation proceedings, entered-into-force judicial decisions adopted by courts of first and appellate instances can be appealed to determine the correctness of the application and interpretation of substantive and procedural law norms by the judicial instances in the course of the previous consideration of the case. At the same time, the CPC does not establish restrictions on the protection of rights in cassation proceedings and does not indicate the impossibility of cassation appeal of any decisions listed in part 2 of Article 377 of the CPC.

Thus, as follows from the judicial act of the Supreme Court, any entered-into-force first-instance court order can be appealed in cassation proceedings.

In my opinion, this position seems controversial. As indicated in part 1 of Article 331 of the CPC, first-instance court orders can be appealed to the appellate court separately from the courts decision by the parties and other persons participating in the case (private complaint), as well as the prosecutor can submit a representation, if:

 such a possibility is provided for by the Code;

 the courts decision precludes the possibility of further progress on the case.

This norm is included in Chapter 39 "On Proceedings in the Appellate Court" of the CPC, while it seems appropriate to place it in Chapter 20 "On Court Order" of the same Code, without indicating the appellate court. This is exactly how it is provided for in the APC, according to part 1 of Article 188 of which only those first-instance court orders that either impede the progress of the case or are directly indicated in the APC as subject to appeal are appealed in both appellate and any other instance. Along the line of general jurisdiction courts, part 1 of Article 331 of the CPC was thus interpreted, and such interpretation seems correct. However, in the commented decision, the Supreme Court interpreted part 1 of Article 331 of the CPC literally, thereby calling into question the established practice of appealing first-instance court orders.

The reason for the difference in approaches between the APC and the CPC, in my opinion, lies in the fact that the CPC norms are a historical tradition that originated at a time when the domestic judicial system provided for only one higher instance, where the case was transferred upon the complaint of a party participating in the case. These were regional, local, and other similar courts, which were called cassation in the Soviet Union, not appeal, as they are now.

The CPC of the RSFSR of 1964 contained Chapter 20 "On Court Orders," which, like the one in the current CPC, did not provide for rules on appealing court orders. However, there was Chapter 35 "On Appealing and Protesting Court Orders," Article 315 of which contained rules on appealing similar to the current part 1 of Article 331 of the CPC, namely: "First-instance court orders can be appealed separately from the courts decision by the parties and other persons participating in the case to the cassation instance (as the current appeal was called at that time): 1) in cases provided for by this Code; 2) in cases where the courts decision prevents further progress of the case. Private complaints are not filed against other first-instance court orders, but objections to these orders can be included in the cassation complaint."

The CPC of the Russian Federation of February 1, 2003, which replaced the CPC of the RSFSR, fully adopted this norm. At that time, the modern appellate and cassation courts did not yet exist in the system of general jurisdiction courts, so the application of this norm did not raise any questions.

Meanwhile, the system of arbitration courts functioned differently. In the Soviet Union, there was no Arbitration Procedural Code. Part 1 of Article 188 of the APC on the procedure for appealing court orders has been in force since the original version of the Code, which entered into force on September 1, 2002. At this time, the current system of arbitration courts was being developed, providing - unlike the general jurisdiction courts - two instances where the case is transferred upon the complaint of a party participating in the case: appeal (appellate courts) and cassation (arbitration courts of districts). This required a clear delineation of powers between these instances, and in part 1 of Article 188 of the APC, this delineation was correctly carried out.

A similar reform of the general jurisdiction court system was carried out only in 2019. The previously existing cassation was divided into appeal (regional and regional courts) and proper cassation (cassation courts of general jurisdiction). However, unlike the APC, in the CPC, the rule on appealing court orders applicable to the new court system remained unchanged It ultimately led to a conflict of norms that served as a reason for the appearance of the commented decision.

The conclusions outlined in the decision give rise to two problems: legal and practical.

The first lies in the fact that to appeal a first-instance court order in cassation proceedings, it is necessary to know exactly the date of its entry into force. One of the differences between appellate and cassation appeals of a first-instance court order is that the deadline for filing a private complaint is calculated from the date the order is issued (Article 332 of the CPC), while the deadline for filing a cassation complaint is from the date the order enters into force (part 1 of Article 376.1 of the CPC). However, the CPC does not provide for the procedure for entry into force of first-instance court orders. There is only one norm - part 3 of Article 33, which determines the date of entry into force of a first-instance court order on transferring the case to another court. There are no such provisions regarding other orders.

The practical problem lies in the fact that the possibility of appealing any first-instance court order allows a party participating in the case to "drag out" the case by cassation appeals of all first-instance court orders issued. Meanwhile, it should not be so. During a case under consideration in the first instance, the court issues many orders that do not impede the progress of the case and for which there is no indication in the CPC regarding the possibility of their appeal (for example, an order to initiate proceedings, to prepare the case for judicial proceedings, to summon witnesses, to include evidence in the case, to adjourn judicial proceedings, etc.). All these orders have two common features:

 they do not interfere with the achievements of civil proceedings: the issuance of a lawful and justified decision (Article 2 of the CPC);

 they are manifested as the courts discretionary powers, its freedom to act at its discretion.

These qualities render the appeal of such judicial acts pointless, as any verification of their legality by a cassation court would amount to merely confirming once again that the appealed action is provided for by the CPC, which grants the court the discretion to make decisions on this or that issue. For this reason, such orders should not be appealed. However, with the Supreme Courts issuance of the commented decision, such a possibility has emerged.

It should be noted that the position outlined in the decision has not yet been adopted by the courts. As of the date of publication of this note, I have not found any references to this decision in the judicial practice posted in the public domain, at least at the level of cassation courts of the districts. Nor have I been able to find examples of how cassation courts, based on the commented decision, consider on the merits cassation complaints against first-instance court orders that were previously considered not subject to appeal.

Nevertheless, if the position from the Supreme Courts decision becomes part of the practice, it seems necessary to establish rules for its application at the legislative or law enforcement level. For example, if the CPC provides for the possibility of appealing a first-instance court order, then such an order enters into force after 15 days, i.e., upon expiration of the appeal period. If the possibility of appeal is not provided for, the order enters into force immediately, and from the moment of its issuance, the three-month period for cassation appeal begins to be calculated. An appeal of an order in cassation proceedings should not be grounds for either suspending the proceedings or postponing the trial in the first-instance court. In the cassation court, complaints about such orders are considered only by a judge individually and always without holding a hearing (part 10 of Article 379.5 of the CPC). If the cassation court has considered a cassation complaint about an order after the decision was rendered by the first-instance court and found the order to be unlawful, then the position of the cassation court is taken into account by the appellate court when assessing the sufficiency of the procedural violations committed by the first instance for canceling the decision on the appellate complaint of a party participating in the case.

The above rules will make it possible to establish legal certainty while applying the commented position of the Supreme Court and prevent possible procedural abuses.

Alexander Fedorov: What is ABY? How did the name come about? Why is it in English? How old is the bureau, and what is YUG?

Yuri Pustovit: ABY is an abbreviation of the bureaus English name "Advocates Bureau Yug". The name appeared in 2002 during the reorganization of Legal Consultation No. 14 of the Krasnodar Regional Bar Association. So, the Advocates Bureau Yug was formed. The bureau was initially created on November 29, 1995 (in the form of a consultation). Next year we will celebrate ABYs 30th anniversary. It is quite an impressive date for Russian business, although it is incorrect to call the bar activity a business. There is an opinion that clients associate the age of a law firm with the age of the consultant. When the age of a company, say, 5-7 years, then the client perceives such a firm as not very mature, whose advice is not worth listening to. In my opinion, this thesis is doubtful, since I know many successful Russian teams that were formed no more than 10 years ago. The main clients of our bureau were international companies that actively entered the Russian market and the Krasnodar Region in the late 90s and early 2000s. Hence the English logo - to make it more understandable to our clients, easy to read and remember. The entire staff of our bureau has been English-speaking since its inception, including the administrative staff. In the early 2000s, the abbreviation "Yug" was actively used in the names of companies in the Krasnodar Region, and we followed the same path. In 2003, we signed a partnership agreement with a large international law firm Salans (now Dentons), and had many joint projects. Lawyers and attorneys of our bureau underwent internships at the Moscow office of Salans and there were prerequisites that in the foreseeable future we would also become part of Salans, so no one bothered too much with the name of the bureau. However, years passed, and the merger never happened, but Advocates Bureau Yug became a recognizable brand on the Russian legal market far beyond the south of Russia, and we did not change anything in the name.

Alexander Fedorov: Where did the focus on working with big business come from? Where did you receive additional training to achieve your current position?

Yuri Pustovit: After graduating from university, I did an internship in Denver, USA, at a small law firm that specialized in immigration law. There I saw many interesting things from the inside about how a law firm works, how they communicate with clients, the work of billing systems, project management systems, and much more. All this in those years in the Russian regions was not yet. As a rule, lawyers practiced individually, and where there were small teams, the organization of processes was at a rather primitive level. We learned a lot from our colleagues and partners from Salans. David Meisters books played an important role in our development.

Alexander Fedorov: You are over 45 years old, yet you started in the 2000s. Now you know the entire Russian market. Tell me, are there many regional boutiques left or have they grown? So that the firms do not grow to huge sizes, and the check was at the level of leading Moscow firms.

Yuri Pustovit: My longstanding friend and mentor, Alexander Khvoshchinsky, played an instrumental role in my understanding of the legal market beyond the Moscow Ring Road (MKAD). Colleagues over the age of 45 are well aware of his name. He was a pioneer and a prominent figure among legal firm consultants. Alexander made significant contributions to streamlining internal management within legal firms, implementing partnership programs, managing finances, and much more. He actively encouraged the merger of legal firms, recognizing it as a growth strategy and an opportunity to compete with international law firms (ILFs) and leading Russian law firms (RULF). Perhaps Khvoshchinskys most significant contribution to the Russian legal market lies in bringing us all together. In the early 2000s, the Russian legal services market was even more closed off. There were no Russian rankings, and international rating agencies, such as Chambers and Partners, Best Lawyers, and Legal 500, exclusively surveyed their Moscow-based counterparts, seemingly oblivious to the legal landscape beyond the MKAD. As a result, Moscow-based colleagues had some knowledge of each other, but everything happening outside of Moscow remained an enigma for the legal community. Even for the most insignificant work in the regions of Russia, lawyers and advocates were dispatched from Moscow, which was not always justified in terms of the clients budget. Therefore, around the mid-2000s, Alexander began actively traveling to the Russian regions, introducing himself to regional lawyers, and subsequently became the main ideological inspiration for organizing regional legal forums, where he brought a large number of Moscow-based colleagues. Boutique-sized firms with a small number of lawyers are characteristic of the Russian regions. Having a large number of lawyers on staff and a wide range of practices is more the exception than the rule. I can name many outstanding boutique regional law firms, probably a few dozen, that can compete not only in terms of rates but also in terms of expertise with leading Moscow firms. However, I will not list their names so as not to offend those I do not mention. I would even go so far as to say that if a client invites such successful regional colleagues to work on a project, their opponents - representatives of law firms from Moscow or other regions of Russia - often find it extremely difficult to work with them. There is an opinion that despite minor regional or local differences in legislation where it falls under the purview of joint jurisdiction, we are all under Russian jurisdiction, which means equal effectiveness of colleagues, regardless of where they come from to work in the region. In practice, things are often different; there is always regional specificity, internal rules, politics, protectionism of local businesses, and the presence of political heavyweights who are sometimes the de facto beneficiaries of the business, which lawyers from other regions typically are unaware of.

Alexander Fedorov: For how long have you been participating in Russian and international ratings, and which ones? Have there been any special achievements or mentions? Why did you immediately believe in the need to apply for the RG (Rossiyskaya Gazeta) rating?

Yuri Pustovit: We have been participating in the Pravo.ru-300 rating since its inception in 2010, Chambers and Partners since 2014, when they first began researching Russian regions, Best Lawyers also around the same time, since 2014, Kommersant - since around 2019. For any firm, getting into such ratings is an achievement, let alone being included in the 1st group - which is our case - or the personal ratings of our lawyers.

It was not difficult to believe in the rating from Rossiyskaya Gazeta for two reasons. Firstly, it is a very serious publication, and secondly (not in terms of importance), the research was personally conducted by Alexander Moskovkin, a very profound professional and a veteran of the Russian legal market. Looking at what they did, I can say that they did a great job and most of their colleagues have quite deservedly taken their place in this rating.

Alexander Fedorov: A question about the team. How many employees are there now, how many were there at most, and how did you manage to make it so that key employees work for more than 10 years, which is a rarity for the regional market? A lawyer works, gains experience and clients, and creates his own practice. That is how it usually happens, right?!

Yuri Pustovit: There are four lawyers working in our bureau now. At most there were 12 in 2009, after which we reduced our subsidized practices and several colleagues went on their own. The main backbone of the firm has indeed been working for more than 12 years, which is a great rarity for the Russian market as a whole. I believe that interesting projects, high-profile cases, media coverage, comfortable working conditions, a good reputation of the bureau as an employer, high fees, and a common vision of the development and culture of the bureau can be the factors that keep colleagues in our team. Of course, opening an independent practice is the most common way for colleagues to leave law firms. Having gained some experience, having gained direct access to clients, and realizing that in order to become a partner in a firm, they will have to go a rather long way or they do not have partner qualities, colleagues create their own practices. Some of them are successful, while others we stop hearing about in the professional environment after such exits. Since the entry into the legal business is quite low, and in many practices legal education is not required, the appearance of such independent players will remain one of the trends of lawyers leaving law firms, although now there is an obvious opposite trend, the trend towards consolidation of firms, since large businesses make high demands on the qualifications and numbers of legal consultants. Therefore, I believe that now there may be a new wave of consolidation of firms and mergers in the legal market.

Alexander Fedorov: How often do you interact with other law firms? What works well, what dont you like about your colleagues, and how often are you approached by colleagues considering ABYs regional location?

Yuri Pustovit: We interact very frequently with our Moscow colleagues, as well as colleagues from other regions of Russia. Such contacts occur several times a week. Over a certain period of time, colleagues have become one of our key clients, referring clients to us both directly and on a subcontracting basis. These are mainly litigation projects, as well as legal expertise of real estate objects, where there is its own regulation and specifics, and some municipal regulatory acts are extremely difficult to find in the public domain. As you understand, we only say good things about our colleagues or nothing at all. But from what we dont like, often our Moscow colleagues come to our region with the idea that the cost of work will be low here, and they are disappointed when they realize that this is not the case, that the salaries of colleagues in the Krasnodar Region are often not inferior to those in Moscow.

Alexander Fedorov: You have extensive experience attending conferences. Tell us where you go yourself now, what cool events you remember from those that are no longer held, and about the role of the IBA in the development of the Russian legal market.

Yuri Pustovit: I really like what Pravo.ru is doing now, especially their conferences outside of Moscow. I am still under the impression of their forum in Tashkent. Denis Puchkov from LOYS, with his Kovalev Readings, is a must-attend event. It will be interesting even for those who do not practice criminal law. ANP Zenith together with Pravo.ru have made a wonderful platform in Kazan for two years in a row - Kazan Legal Week.

Of the forums that are no longer held, in my opinion, the brightest was the forum of the CIS countries, which was organized by Irina Paliashvili. It was a wandering forum that was held every year in a new CIS country. There was a special atmosphere and a rich business and cultural program.

There is also a lack of a conference on law firm management, which was held under the auspices of the IBA in Moscow. Undoubtedly, the IBA has played a significant role in improving international legislation, shaping the future of the legal profession in Russia, involving the Russian legal community in this work, and introducing international working standards in Russia. At almost any IBA conference in any country in the world, you can see bright representatives of the Russian legal community among the speakers and participants.

Alexander Fedorov: So, weve smoothly transitioned to the topic of the Southern Russia Legal Forum, which will be held in Sochi once again in early September. Who attends this forum, why do they attend, and are new participants needed?

Yuri Pustovit: The annual Southern Russia Legal Forum, now in its 16th year, will take place in Sochi from September 5-7, 2024. We are immensely pleased to organize this forum in collaboration with our partners from Pravo.ru. The forum has taken on new significance and attracted new participants. The forums primary audience consists of managing partners and partners of leading Russian and international law firms, as well as legal department directors and vice presidents of legal affairs from major Russian and international companies in the real sector of the economy. Every year, we witness a growing interest from in-house counsel in the Southern Russia Legal Forum. At the same time, our colleagues from the real sector come not only to listen but also to actively participate in our forum, engaging in discussions and polemics, raising pressing legal issues and the nuances of relationships with consultants.

The forum traditionally features a packed business and cultural program. The sailing regatta, with its genuine judging and medal presentations, has become a tradition and a favorite among all our participants. The Southern Russia Legal Forum always fosters an open and friendly atmosphere where you can approach renowned participants, ask questions, and expect candid answers. Its a place to build long-lasting business relationships and friendships, an opportunity to unwind and recharge with like-minded individuals. The forum already has its established veterans who have never missed a single one of the forums held over the years. At the same time, new faces appear every year, having heard rave reviews from its participants for years but previously unable to fit it into their work schedules. We have noticed in recent years that many participants, upon leaving Sochi after the forum, have already booked their participation for the following year, and this inspires us to continue this tradition and come up with new activities for its participants.

Alexander Fedorov: You have been actively involved in the Krasnodar Regional Bar Association for over 10 years. What does this give you? What other public responsibilities do you have?

Yuri Pustovit: Indeed, for many years I have been a member of the Qualification Commission and the Council of the Krasnodar Regional Bar Association. Working in the corporate governance bodies allows me to better understand the problems that exist in the professional environment and to take direct part in their resolution. This is a great public duty, responsibility, and trust of colleagues who have cast their votes for you to do this work with dignity and in the interests of each member of the corporation. In addition to this work, I am a member of the State Examination Commission of the Department of Civil Law at the Kuban State University, a member of the Advisory Council on Foreign Investment under the Head of Administration (Governor) of the Krasnodar Region, Deputy Chairman of the Southern Committee of the Association of European Business in Russia, and a member of the editorial board of the business weekly YugTimes.

Alexander Fedorov: And Im going to conclude the interview with a traditional question - who is your hero?

Yuri Pustovit: My hero is a judge or law enforcement official who, despite unprecedented pressure on him, makes an exclusively lawful decision and takes lawful actions; these are lawyers and advocates who, having received an unfair decision, do not give up, do not leave the profession, but continue to protect their clients and achieve legality and justice for them; these are those who do business in our country, despite all these countless sanctions and difficulties within the country, all these people are my heroes and inspire me to new professional achievements.

Alexander Fedorov: Thank you for the interview.

The forums official commencement was marked by a warm and welcoming evening reception, carefully orchestrated to foster camaraderie and networking among the esteemed participants. The captivating performance of renowned singer Avraham Russo infused the air with an infectious energy, setting the tone for an unforgettable event.

The following day, May 23, marked the official start of the forum. Serving as the captivating backdrop for Kazan Legal Week 2024, the Tasigo Kazan Palace seamlessly intertwines the grandeur of a bygone era with the sophistication of modern hospitality.

The plenary session titled "Trends in Corporate and Business Communications in 2024" brought together a panel of highly respected legal experts from leading companies such as SIBUR, C5 retail Group, Avito, and others. Under the astute guidance of Dmitry Shchugorev, Editor-in-Chief of the TV channel "Moscow 24," the session offered a thought-provoking exploration of the ever-evolving landscape of corporate communications and leadership practices. Esteemed panelists shared their insights on crafting effective communication strategies, navigating the information deluge, addressing employee burnout, and fostering harmonious leader-team relationships.

Following a refreshing coffee break, the Kazan Legal Week 2024 program expanded into a series of parallel sessions and roundtables. Among these, the roundtables organized by the Russian State University of Justice (RSUJ) held particular significance, delving into the intricacies of "Trends in Judicial Practice in the Sphere of Public and Private Legal Relations."

Session 1 titled "Business Development Prospects in 2024" brought together a distinguished panel of legal experts (Kesarev, S&K Vertical, Seven Hills Legal) and business leaders (Aeroflot, ALROSA, Russian Agricultural Bank). Moderated by Fedor Belykh, Partner at Elwi, the session provided a comprehensive discussion of the business landscape and economic outlook for Russia in 2024, amidst the backdrop of external pressures and sanctions. Panelists delved into strategies for circumventing sanctions while adhering to compliance requirements. A particular focus was placed on safeguarding bank transfers in the face of asset freezes stemming from sanctions. Additionally, the session highlighted the emerging trend of cross-border bankruptcies.

Parallel Session 1.1, titled "Private Equity Risks: Inheritance, Divorce, Bankruptcy, Corporate, and Sanctions," brought together a panel of legal experts from law firms together with a judge from the Chelyabinsk Region Commercial Court and the Director of Personal Funds Sales at Alfa Capital. The session was moderated by Viktoria Dergunova of the Monastyrsky, Zyuba, Stepanov & Partners Bar Association.

The panelists delved into a comprehensive discussion, encompassing blocked assets, jurisdiction selection for structuring, the growing appeal of personal funds for private equity structuring, the interpretation of prenuptial agreements in court, corporate disputes initiated by ex-spouses, and strategies for minimizing risks associated with subsidiary liability.

Session 2 "Topical Issues in Legal Regulation" brought together a panel of legal experts under the moderation of Damir Nizamov, a representative of the forums organizers, ANP Zenith. The panelists engaged in a stimulating discussion encompassing a wide range of legal issues, including:

• The recent surge in IPOs and M&A activity
• Successful cases before the Government Commission
• Alternative methods for cross-border settlements
• Exclusion of Russian and foreign participants from LLCs
• Risk assessment systems to minimize negative consequences for management
• Class action lawsuits for asset recovery and damages caused by criminals in unfriendly jurisdictions.

Concurrent to the other sessions, Parallel Session 2.1, titled "Legal Issues in the Energy Sector in 2024," convened under the moderation of Yuri Pustovit, Managing Partner of Advocates Bureau Yug. The session brought together representatives from law firms and the energy industry, including Ugol-Trans JSC.

Sergey Radchenko, Partner at Advocates Bureau Yug, shared insights with the participants on the latest trends in tariff disputes involving electricity grid companies. He explained that a tariff dispute is an administrative claim filed by a grid company against the tariff service to invalidate a decision by the service that sets the necessary gross revenue, boiler, and individual tariffs for the grid company for the next year or even a five-year period within the framework of the period.

In addition to the standard tariff disputes, there exists a specific type of case where a grid company files a claim against the tariff service to recover losses caused by a regulatory act that has been declared invalid or by the failure to adopt a replacement act, resulting in a loss of tariff revenue. However, these cases are relatively rare.

One of the most common expenses that triggers disputes regarding its inclusion in the necessary gross revenue is interest on bank loans. Recent court practice has adopted a very strict approach to including such expenses in the necessary gross revenue (NGR). The court requires the grid company to prove that it has incurred losses, a cash deficit, and cash gaps, primarily due to non-payment by consumers.

In court, the tariff service defends its position by arguing that including the claimed expense in the NGR would lead to tariff increases and potentially collapse the regional economy. They further argue that the grid company should collect debts from non-paying consumers rather than taking out loans. The grid companys objections, which emphasize that focusing solely on consumer interests could lead to the companys demise, thus ultimately harming consumers, and that the company is willing to collect debts but only if consumers can tolerate 1-1.5 years without electricity until the debt is recovered, are typically disregarded by the court, both during hearings and in judicial acts.

In the realm of tariff disputes involving grid companies, an alternative to pursuing litigation in court is to seek resolution through the Federal Antimonopoly Service of the Russian Federation. This mechanism allows grid companies to present their grievances and seek a fair resolution before resorting to court proceedings.

The session on energy law delved into additional critical issues facing the industry beyond tariff disputes. These included:

• Tax aspects in the oil and gas industry in 2024;
• Responsibility for unauthorized electricity consumption;
• Force majeure in the energy sector;
• Asset freeze due to foreign counterparty defaults;
• Reactivating abandoned assets.

Following a brief coffee break, forum participants reconvened for the third session, ironically titled "Hit Parade of Court Positions 2023-2024." Moderated by Sergey Kovalev, Managing Partner of Kovalev, Tugushi, and Partners, the session encompassed a wide range of legal topics, delving into a surge in cross-border disputes arising from the application of articles within the Arbitration Procedure Code of the Russian Federation (APC RF) regarding the exclusive jurisdiction of Russian courts in cases involving foreign parties. Panelists explored new developments in the realm of foreign company bankruptcy and the recognition of Russian court judgments abroad in the post-2022 landscape. Furthermore, the session addressed the evolving landscape of customs disputes in 2023-2024, including an evaluation of the effectiveness of astreint as a judicial tool. Discussions also encompassed the recovery of lost profits, the complexities of class action lawsuits within the securities market, and the pressing issues surrounding subsidiary liability in bankruptcy proceedings during 2024.

As the world embraces the transformative power of digitalization and information technology, the need for effective legal and regulatory frameworks becomes increasingly crucial. In this regard, Parallel Session 3.1, aptly titled "Digital Reality: The Truth," moderated by Ramis Abyanov, Partner at ANP Zenith, provided a thought-provoking exploration of the legal and regulatory challenges and opportunities arising in the digital realm. Panelists delved into the complex landscape of cryptocurrency regulation and e-commerce and addressed the intricacies of software disputes and the IT tax benefits. They explored strategies for effectively managing intangible assets in the digital environment and discussed the potential for digitalizing the legal function within companies.

As the formal business program drew to a close, the forums participants were treated to a delightful fusion of culinary delights and musical entertainment at the closing banquet.

The final day of the forum bore a special title that perfectly captured its essence: Kazan Legal Week Golf Day. This unique event transformed the picturesque grounds of the Sviyazhskie Holmy Golf Club into a hub for sporting camaraderie and networking opportunities. The golf tournament was designed to be inclusive and welcoming, catering to players of all skill levels. The emphasis was not on fierce competition but rather on savoring the beauty of the surroundings, the warmth of the sun, the lush greenery, and the lively music, all while engaging in stimulating conversations and forging new connections. However, the competitive spirit was not entirely absent, and an award ceremony was held to recognize and celebrate the winners in various categories.

The forums participants departed not only enriched with new insights and friendships but also carrying the lingering warmth of a truly enriching experience.

Advocates Bureau Yug: A Leader Among Litigators in Russias Regions According to Pravo.rus Eighth Litigation Study

As noted by Pravo.ru, the number of leaders among regional teams has nearly halved compared to 2022. Only five law firms made it into the first group: Krasnodar-based Advocates Bureau Yug, ANP ZENIT from Kazan, Novosibirsks AB Grebneva and Partners, YUKEY (Perm), and St. Petersburg-based RAUD.

Pravo.ru analysts examined approximately 10,000 court decisions issued by arbitration courts in 2023. The study results were traditionally divided into federal and regional ratings and presented in tables consisting of four groups. The selection process took into account several criteria:

• the total amount of claims without considering the cases outcome and regardless of the amount awarded after the dispute resolution;
• the number of cases in progress with companies in 2023;
• the number of final instance decisions in courts in 2023;
• the score for the outcome in courts: Each positive decision for the company was awarded one point, partial satisfaction of the claim was awarded 0.5 points, and a loss was awarded 0.1 points. If the claim was left without consideration, the case ended in a settlement agreement, or the dispute was sent for review in cassation, then such an outcome was evaluated individually depending on the materials of the case;
• the average amount of claims except claims with non-monetary requirements;
• the win rate reflects the overall success rate of the firms in courts, calculated as the ratio of favorable decisions to the total number of cases handled.

The study results highlight a trend of increased interest in participating in the ratings among federal companies and an expansion of the geography of regional litigators. Last year, it included legal teams from six constituent entities of the Russian Federation. Now, law firms from 20 Russian cities, from Kaliningrad to Vladivostok, are present.

To view the full study results, please follow the link: https://pravo.ru/news/253385/

One of the main trends was not only stability but also the growth of a large number of practices. Corporate practice became one of the most sought-after in 2023, while litigation, bankruptcy, sanctions, and criminal and economic practices maintained their high positions. In general, all respondents interviewed within the framework of the ranking noted an increase in financial indicators and appeals.

Summing up the year, Kommersant asked lawyers about the impending changes in Russian legislation, including the amendments to the law on the bar. They are currently being considered by the State Duma.

According to the ranking results, Advocates Bureau Yug topped the following regional legal practices: arbitration proceedings: High-End Commercial Dispute Resolution (Band 1), and Dispute Resolution in Courts of General Jurisdiction (Band 1).

Individual rankings were also conducted, with Managing Partner Yuri Pustovit taking place in Commercial Dispute Resolution (Band 1) practice. Meanwhile, ABYs Partner Sergey Radchenko took place in a practice "Dispute Resolution in Courts of General Jurisdiction" (Band 1).

To get more information on the Kommersants Ranking, please follow the link https://www.kommersant.ru/doc/6634816

The debtor company and the client objected to including this debt in the list of creditors claims, arguing that the former beneficiarys actions constituted an abuse of legal process. They claimed that the former beneficiary had no valid claim against the debtor company at the time of filing, as the debt had been duly discharged through the offset of mutual claims. Additionally, they pointed to the specific nature of the loan obligations and the complex structure of relationships within the group of companies and their beneficiaries.

The commercial court of first instance upheld the clients arguments. It ruled against the former beneficiarys inclusion in the list of creditors claims, finding that his actions constituted an abuse of rights.

ABYs lawyer Ekaterina Fedenko represented interest of the clients interests in this case.

The enforcement officer lodged a formal motion to terminate the enforcement proceedings due to impracticability, which stemmed from the Clients inability to relocate the electrical grid facilities as it contravened urban planning regulations and regulations governing the operation of electrical installations. Moreover, It was impossible to establish new land plots for the placement of the support towers in accordance with land management and urban planning regulations.

The courts previously rejected the termination motion filed by the enforcement officer.

During this appeal, Advocates Bureau Yug meticulously argued the presence of exceptional circumstances within the case materials that demonstrably impeded the Clients ability to comply with the initial court decision. ABYs legal team demonstrated that the designated relocation route traversed a densely populated area with a residential sector and a complex network of existing subterranean and above-ground utilities. Any attempt to reconstruct the overhead line in this location would inevitably lead to violating relevant regulatory statutes.

Finally, the Fourth Cassation Court of General Jurisdiction issued a ruling on January 19, 2024, which overturned the previous appellate court decision and remanded the case for a fresh appellate review.

Given the prevalence of similar legal disputes, the establishment of favorable case law on this matter holds significant economic importance for the Client.

The Clients legal interests were ably represented by attorney Alexander I. Demikhin throughout these proceedings.

The ranking is divided into federal and regional categories for a more detailed evaluation. It also considers lawyers practice areas and their positions within their firms. To be included, lawyers submitted information about their accomplishments, which included details of significant projects they worked on during the evaluation period, descriptions of their achievements and legal experience, and any professional awards they received.

The Pravo-300 individual ranking is growing in popularity, attracting more nominees each year. In 2023, 1,812 lawyers were selected from 5,204 applicants. This year, 2,640 lawyers were chosen from a pool of 6,443. This increase shows the rankings importance, especially since other directories are unavailable due to the current political situation.

The Advocates Bureau Yug (ABY) is proud to be recognized in the 2024 ranking in two categories: Arbitration Litigation -Large Disputes (High Market) and Dispute Resolution in Courts of General Jurisdiction. ABYs two lawyers were also ranked this year: Yuri Pustovit, its Managing Partner, and Sergey Radchenko, its Partner and Head of Litigation and Arbitration Practice.

Link to the ranking

The conference was established in honor of the illustrious Mitrofan Ivanovich Kovalev (1922-2002), a veteran of the Great Patriotic War. For several decades, he presided over the Department of Criminal Law at SLU, where he sowed the seeds of the Ural Criminal Law School. He was also bestowed with the title of Honored Scientist of the RSFSR and served as a revered mentor to generations of SLU&USLA students. His profound contributions to the field of law were recognized with the conferment of a Doctor of Law degree and the title of professor.

As part of the conferences comprehensive program, the Youth Forum "Criminal Law and Criminological Means of National Security" was convened on February 15, 2024. This forum provided a platform for the exploration of intricate issues about criminal law and criminological support for national security in the contemporary landscape. The Sverdlovsk State Childrens Philharmonic extended an invitation to the conference participants to attend a captivating performance entitled "The Fate of a Man in the Fate of the Country," a fitting tribute to the 100th anniversary of M.I. Kovalev.

The principal working day of the forum was held on February 16, 2024, at the Cultural and Exhibition Complex "Sinara Center." This year, the conference program on the general theme was meticulously divided into several sessions: the plenary session "Legal Horizons of Security: Integration of Scientific and Criminal Law Aspects" and the parallel sessions "Criminal Law Policy in the Sphere of Security," "Informatization in the Modern World in Criminal Law and Criminological Aspects," "Criminal Law Protection of the Military Security of the State," "Legal Security of the Economy under Sanctions Pressure," and "The Role of M.I. Kovalevs Works in the Development of Criminal Law and Criminology."

Yuri Pustovit graced the session "Economic Security of the State: Criminal Law Aspect" as a speaker. This session, expertly moderated by Z.A. Neznamova, Doctor of Law, Professor, and Head of the Department of Criminal Law at USLU named after V.F. Yakovlev, and A.V. Ivanchin, Doctor of Law, Professor of the Department of Criminal Law and Criminology, and Rector of Yaroslavl State University named after P.G. Demidov, delved into the timely topic of safeguarding relationships arising from government contracts. State control over defense orders is assuming increasing significance in this regard, which has prompted the criminalization of certain actions. Furthermore, the Prosecutor Generals Office of the Russian Federation has been actively exercising its powers within the framework of civil legislation related to the transfer of property complexes in the form of enterprises to state ownership. These property complexes may have been acquired through corrupt means or in violation of privatization rules, which exemplifies the application of confiscation, a concept inherent in criminal law. The participants engaged in a thorough examination of the elements of newly introduced offenses, the challenges associated with their qualification, and the actions undertaken by the state concerning the confiscation of property.

Upon the conclusion of the intellectual endeavors within the framework of the conference, the participants embarked on a guided tour of the art gallery of the cultural and exhibition complex "Sinara Center". After that, they enjoyed the celebratory standing buffet in honor of the centenary of M.I. Kovalev.

The "Kovalev Readings" are renowned for their captivating musical program. This year, the participants were enthralled by a performance by Megi Gogitidze, a Georgian vocalist and songwriter of unparalleled talent. She has crafted a distinctive style that seamlessly blends Georgian ethnic music with contemporary undertones. Megi collaborates with Cuban musicians, creating an electrifying energy at her concerts.

The AEBs presence in Russia encompasses two regional committees: one in St. Petersburg and the other in Krasnodar, known as the Southern Regional Committee.

On February 15, 2024, the Southern Regional Committee of the AEB convened its annual general meeting at the office of the Southern Sales Directorate, a branch of KNAUF GIPS LLC.

During the meeting, the Committees Coordination Group underwent a democratic renewal, with its members being elected for the ensuing two-year term. At their inaugural gathering, the newly elected members unanimously bestowed the Chairmanship of the Southern Regional Committee of the AEB upon Oleg Zharko of H&N. Lyubov Popova of Vegas LEX was appointed as First Deputy Chair, while Diana Lipinskaya of Center-Invest Bank and Yuri Pustovit of Advocates Bureau Yug were elected as Deputy Chairpersons.

Held from February 8th to 10th at the Radisson Hotel Rosa Khutor in Krasnaya Polyana, the event encompassed not only a professional agenda but also educational and athletic elements. Lawyers from across Russia and even abroad converged to participate.

To facilitate informal networking, attendees were invited to "Les," a glamorous camping site where they engaged in an intellectually stimulating quiz game. Teams were formed spontaneously, fostering rapid camaraderie among participants. The game, as evidenced by feedback, proved both engaging and refreshing their knowledge of cinema and music.

The following day was dedicated to the forum's professional agenda. The opening session, moderated by Yury Pustovit , Managing partner of Advocates Burea Yug, took the form of a discussion centered on "Restructuring Businesses During Global Challenges."

Yury Pustovit emphasized that the evolving business landscape necessitates innovative legal solutions, which are fortunately facilitated by legislative changes and their practical application. One of the currently sought-after mechanisms for regulating business processes is re-domiciliation, a legal method that enables companies to shift from one jurisdiction to another. While re-domiciliation is typically employed to seek jurisdictions with less burdensome tax or corporate laws, in Russia, it serves as a protective mechanism to safeguard assets and transfer them out of unfriendly countries. The number of Russian companies utilizing this method has increased tenfold since its inception.

What, then, should be done with "abandoned" companies? They can be nationalized. In Russia today, a milder approach is being taken in the form of external management, as exemplified by Danone and Baltika. It is a crucial discussion topic for the legal community, as it will facilitate striking a balance between the interests of the state and shareholders affected by government measures.

Participants in the first session also examined the challenges of opening accounts with foreign banks and the complexities involved. Certain countries require European residency or citizenship to open an account. Additionally, foreign jurisdictions subject clients to banking compliance, an internal vetting process conducted by the financial institution. Legal experts advise opening multiple accounts in different countries and banks, as financial institutions may abruptly decide to close accounts held by Russian citizens.

Amidst business turbulence, the government is extending support not only at the federal level but also regionally. Thanks to amendments in the regulatory framework, the Republic of Bashkortostan managed to implement an investment project and construct a plant for the production of post-harvest grain processing equipment in just nine months. The Russian Association of Lawyers stands ready to facilitate legislative changes and enable the government to be more responsive to business needs. The association formulates proposals received from the business community and submits them to the government commission on legislative activities. It also actively participates in the State Council's commission on small and medium-sized businesses.

In recent years, the government has emerged as a driving force in the urban development sector, embarking on a transformative journey to enhance the well-being of its citizens. In 2022, a comprehensive strategy was meticulously crafted to foster a thriving urban environment, elevate the quality of life, unlock the potential of land plots, streamline investment and construction processes, and embrace the transformative power of digitalization. This commitment was further solidified in 2023 with the enactment of several groundbreaking laws. The legislative landscape was reshaped to clearly define the scope and characteristics of auxiliary facilities, paving the way for more efficient and harmonious urban planning. The possibility of construction within protective zones of power lines was judiciously established, striking a delicate balance between development and environmental preservation. Additionally, a novel procedure was introduced to safeguard the interests of participants in shared construction projects, ensuring transparency and fairness throughout the process.

The second session of the forum, aptly named "Around the Campfire" for its profoundly resonant subject matter, ignited disputes with a foreign element, the nuances of representing foreign companies in Russian courts, and the disputes involving sanctions, specifics of issuing permits for transactions between residents and foreign companies from unfriendly countries, forecasting group lawsuits, and the liability of persons providing legal services to debtors in bankruptcy cases.

Sergey Radchenko , Partner at the Advocates Bureau Yug, shared examples of Kuban cases to illustrate how the Russian Prosecutor General's Office is filing numerous lawsuits to return assets to state ownership that were previously state-owned in the 1990s and 2000s but were later privatized and subsequently acquired by private individuals.

Radchenko's compelling examples laid bare the stark contrast between the Prosecutor General's arguments and established legal doctrine and judicial practice. The arguments in these lawsuits radically contradict both legal doctrine and judicial practice over the past 25 years, yet the courts are ruling in favor of the lawsuits. One reason for this is the initial lawsuits filed by the Prosecutor General's Office in 2018, which were aimed at combating corruption and returning criminal assets to the state treasury. Today, thanks to the accumulated case law, similar approaches are being applied not to criminal cases, but to civil law cases. This is despite the existence of civilized mechanisms and the fact that the Constitution of the Russian Federation prohibits the seizure of private property without prior market compensation.

The third session, the "Non-conference", divided into three roundtables, provided an opportunity for lawyers to share their perspectives on the development of the legal market. Many companies operating in Russia are being forced to seek other jurisdictions to grow their businesses, which means they will have to address issues related to the specific features of foreign legislation. With the departure of foreign companies, corporate lawyers must devise ways to buy out assets from foreign participants, resolve corporate conflicts, and establish new companies on the "ruins" of previous ones. As foreign companies leave, they are taking with them unique developments, software, and exclusive technologies, which has led to a redistribution of the Russian market in these areas and, consequently, created a need for state involvement in these processes through regulatory mechanisms.

The third day of the forum, dedicated to relaxation from intellectual work, was no less active. Lawyers took part in a winter slalom, divided into skiers and snowboarders. The organizers awarded prizes and gifts to the winners, and those who took third place received certificates for participation in another legal event scheduled for May 2024.

Lawyers who did not participate in the competition could spend time on the mountain slope with a glass of mulled wine while listening to a DJ set and discussing the past forum with colleagues.

Lawyers, attorneys, and in-house counsels from every corner of Russia gathered in Sochi to take part in the Winter Legal Week 2024. There, they discussed new legal trends of the year and long-term troubles in the business sector. As usual, Yug Times was a media partner for the event. Todays interviewee shared his view on the Russian legal community - its development, priorities, and expected changes.

Yuri Pustovit , Managing Partner of the Advocates Bureau Yug.

- Mr. Pustovit, what does the Winter Legal Week Forum look like today?

- Its one of the most significant events in the legal community. And, to my great satisfaction, ABY hosts it together with our partner Pravo.ru. As usual, the Forum is the first legal event of the year 2024, and it gathers high-skilled practicing lawyers and attorneys in Krasnaya Polyana during the ski season. Among the guests, you also can find colleagues from the sector of the real economy, who enjoy the Forum. It has a packed and dynamic official program alongside informal communication and ends with a full-fledged ski race accompanied by professional judges and an awarding ceremony.

Law and the market

- Lets start discussing current legal issues with this years sensational events. After the marketplaces large warehouse burnt down, the issue of compensating suppliers losses arose. Im sure, it also affected suppliers from Kuban. What do the legal mechanisms advise you to do in such a situation?

- Yes, the whole country heard about the situation, however, we still dont know about all the consequences. According to public sources, the warehouse was operated without compliance with the procedures provided for by current legislation. It means that the main question is how the retailer has carried out its business activities in the warehouse. Moreover, the retailer cannot indemnify this asset, if it wasnt commissioned and lawfully registered. The retailer could take out insurance for the asset under construction against any related incidents, but theres no insurance against incidents related to commercial exploitation of the asset. I dont know if the mass media tells us all the truth about the case, but it still raises questions. Regarding damage to suppliers goods, the supply contracts usually define such risks of accidental loss of goods as obligations that pass from the supplier to the marketplace and then - to the final buyer. You also can take out insurance against these risks. Its an effective tool. Therefore, suppliers ought to submit a claim to the marketplace and then file it to the court if the marketplace refuses to settle it amicably. If suppliers have insurance, they should submit an application on loss occurrence and meticulously work together with the insurance company using legal assistance.

Another trend impacting businesses obligations, particularly towards banks, is the rise in the key interest rate. This trend is likely to continue as a measure to combat inflation. How should businesses navigate this challenge to ensure their survival?

Indeed, the increase in the key interest rate poses a significant obstacle for businesses, rendering credit virtually inaccessible and setting the stage for higher interest rates on existing loans. In this scenario, businesses must manage their credit portfolio effectively and avoid becoming over-leveraged and unable to service their debt. Seeking the assistance of financial advisors and engaging in refinancing or restructuring negotiations with banks are prudent steps to take. The threat of bankruptcy can sometimes serve as a wake-up call for banks, but this mechanism should be employed cautiously. A thorough assessment of the risks - both civil and criminal - is necessary, along with identifying individuals who may be held vicariously liable and scrutinizing transactions that could potentially be challenged as void.

Fate of Assets

In light of recent events such as foreign companies leaving Russia and accidents occurring on public utilities networks leading to discussions about nationalization of assets in Russia and the absence of a specific law on nationalization in the country despite the apparent course towards it raises questions about the necessity of such a law and what it should delineate and define if enacted? Your opinion on the issue?

The issue you raise is indeed pressing as nationalization may replenish the state treasury in the short term but can lead to significant losses in the medium and long term. Nationalization disrupts the stability of civil circulation, undermines Russias investment attractiveness, violates the constitutional principle of the inviolability of private property without prior and equivalent compensation, damages trust in state institutions, results in court decisions that lack a legal basis, and contradicts established judicial practice of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation. In the media landscape, there are frequent exhortations to invest in Russia, yet not ,,in the salary of Ursula von der Leyen.,, Narratives are disseminated suggesting that in the West, our monetary resources and property may be subject to confiscation. Concurrently, within Russia, a pernicious practice of asset de-privatization is taking shape. Despite the challenges Russia faces such as the ongoing special military operation and unprecedented sanctions disrupting economic and logistical chains it is essential to demonstrate to businesses and citizens that Russia is a territory of law where investments are protected and property rights are inviolable. While the state may have certain tasks to accomplish there are legal mechanisms within the current legislation that have proven its effectiveness making the adoption of a separate law unnecessary. The focus should be on the application of existing laws and practices based on them as depriving private property without prior and equivalent compensation is unacceptable and cannot be justified by any lofty goal.

Is the Sanctity of Private Property a Principle in Law? In recent times, there has been a notable surge in lawsuits filed by prosecutorial authorities challenging the ownership of substantial assets. A prominent example of this trend is the case of the former Sedins Factory in Krasnodar, where the authorities have contested the ownership of certain assets. As a rule, such lawsuits are decided in favor of the authorities. What does the legal community think about this trend?

The Sanctity of private property is a fundamental constitutional guarantee enshrined in the Constitution of the Russian Federation. The issue you have raised is a serious one, and it is systemic in nature. Similar lawsuits have flooded courts throughout Russia, and the Krasnodar Region is no exception, unfortunately. Initially, this wave of lawsuits by the Prosecutor Generals Office came as a result of sentencing in corruption-related criminal cases, and it was aimed at returning the assets of corrupt officials to the state treasury. However, a practice has since emerged in which there are no criminal cases whatsoever, yet the Prosecutor Generals Office, in such lawsuits, describes past events using language that clearly implies criminal wrongdoing. From our experience in participating in such cases, we have observed that they are often processed with astonishing speed. The defendants are not given sufficient time to present evidence in their defense, and the courts routinely reject motions to admit such evidence, without giving due consideration to the arguments presented. The courts appear to be guided solely by the position of the Prosecutor Generals Office, which naturally objects to any actions by the defendants. Moreover, the courts routinely grant all of the requests made by the Prosecutor Generals Office in these lawsuits. In effect, the defendants in such cases are deprived of their constitutional right to a fair trial. They are barely allowed to submit written objections to the claims against them. This practice has caused serious concern within the legal community, but prominent lawyers and attorneys are very cautious and reluctant to speak out publicly about it. As I mentioned earlier, the impact on the business environment is devastating. It disrupts the stability of civil transactions, destroys Russias investment climate, and undermines the faith of citizens and businesses in state institutions. Successful outcomes in these types of cases are extremely rare nationwide. It is reasonable to assume that they involve high-level agreements and compromises. In all other cases, the Prosecutor Generals Office gives the defendants absolutely no chance to defend themselves.

Current mechanisms

Is re-domiciliation a growing trend among Businesses? Is legal assistance a crucial factor? What does the judicial practice say?

Re-domiciliation is the process of changing a companys place of registration and jurisdiction. In 2018, Russia introduced legislation that created two special administrative regions (SARs) with conditions similar to those found in offshore jurisdictions. These SARs are located on Russky Island in Primorsky Region and Oktyabrsky Island in Kaliningrad Region. Since then, several companies from unfriendly countries have successfully relocated to Russia while maintaining their international status and benefits. While re-domiciliation is not yet a mass phenomenon, there has been a noticeable increase in interest in this option. However, it is a complex process that should not be undertaken without qualified legal assistance. For example, it is essential that the laws of the country where the offshore company is registered permit re-domiciliation. If the law does not allow it, it is impossible to relocate the company using a genuine re-domiciliation procedure.

Option agreements appeared in Russia in 2015, now they seem to be on the rise. What are your thoughts about this mechanism and its disadvantages?

Option agreements have been a part of the Russian business landscape for quite some time, particularly in companies with international structures and governed by English law. However, it was only after the 2015 reform of Russian civil legislation that the possibility of concluding option agreements emerged in domestic law. Initially, the uptake was slow, but recent events, such as the imposition of sanctions on Russia and the subsequent departure of several foreign companies from the country, have sparked a renewed wave of interest in these agreements. Bussines sector is used to pragmatic approach. Recognizing the significance of the Russian market, many businesses are reluctant to abandon it entirely. As a result, option agreements are being utilized to secure the possibility of reacquiring companies after a specified period. However, it is important to note that the Government Commission has imposed certain restrictions on these agreements. For instance, the maximum repurchase period is limited to two years. As with any agreement, it is crucial to carefully consider the terms and conditions, including the purchase price, under which the companies will be subject to repurchase. It is equally important to be aware of all the limitations imposed by the government on such agreements.

Global competition

What are the most in-demand legal services nowadays amidst changing economic relations?

Amidst the ebb and flow of events, certain legal services remain consistently in demand, such as litigation and bankruptcy proceedings. In the wake of recent developments, the early days following the commencement of the special military operation and the imposition of sanctions witnessed a surge in activities such as registering companies in friendly jurisdictions, opening bank accounts, and acquiring real estate and other assets. Russian lawyers, in response to their clients needs, ventured into these friendly jurisdictions, establishing offices in countries like Turkey, Armenia, Uzbekistan, the UAE, and China. Time will reveal the extent of their success in competing with local legal professionals and profiting from these endeavors. However, I posit that the exportation of Russian lawyers without the concomitant exportation of Russian law and Russian courts is an exercise in futility. It is not uncommon for Russian companies to have intricate holding structures, often headquartered in jurisdictions such as the Netherlands or Cyprus. In such instances, when engaging in substantial transactions, they typically resort to Dutch or English law, demonstrating a preference for English lawyers even over their Russian counterparts. Therefore, our primary focus should be on crafting effective national legislation, an area where notable progress has been made in recent years. Subsequently, we must enhance the practical application of these laws, an aspect that still requires considerable attention. Once we have achieved these milestones, we can then embark on exporting our legal framework, along with Russian lawyers, to the international stage. There is no need to reinvent the wheel. We can draw inspiration from the exemplary model established by English lawyers, who meticulously crafted effective English law and independent English courts, ultimately propelling their legal system to global prominence.

Russian lawyers have historically been an integral part of the global legal community. Have the mechanisms become more intricate in the current climate?

The world has undergone a profound transformation over the past two years. Colleagues from unfriendly countries, with whom we regularly convened in Moscow and various Western European venues, have virtually ceased communication and collaboration. Many are reluctant to assist Russian clients, even those not subject to sanctions. Nevertheless, some English and American law firms have obtained licenses to work with Russian clients who are not on the sanctions list, and they are profiting handsomely from this. There are now challenges in recognizing and enforcing Russian court decisions in unfriendly countries, and vice versa. Additionally, there are difficulties in serving notices to parties located in unfriendly countries due to the absence of postal communication. While we continue to find solutions to these obstacles, it is undeniable that the processes have become significantly more complex and time-consuming.

You and Advocate Bureau Yug have received numerous awards for your rankings in various assessments. The research is also published quite frequently. Today, the legal services market is being evaluated by domestic analysts, as foreign ones have departed. Why are company victories in legal rankings important? Have analytical approaches changed?

Yes, we actively participate and occupy leading positions in international and Russian legal rankings. Taking part in a ranking is primarily significant for self-evaluation. It helps us understand where we stand with our peers and what we need to strive for. Moreover, when using procurement procedures, large Russian and international businesses include a requirement in their qualification criteria for lawyers and attorneys to be present in specific rankings. This does not imply that clients will automatically choose you when you appear in a ranking simply because you are listed there. However, it is a necessary set of credentials for a reputable law firm that aspires to work with prominent Russian and international businesses. Chambers & Partners and Best Lawyers, two of the most prominent international rankings, have withdrawn from Russia, effectively abandoning us in the middle of the 2022 research. We had already submitted questionnaires with projects and conducted interviews with interviewers from Russian rating agencies. Subsequently, we received notifications that there would be no rankings for our country in 2021 or subsequent years. The ranking pages, which previously displayed the top Russian lawyers and attorneys, are no longer accessible on the websites of international rating agencies. The diplomas and statuettes in our office and those of our colleagues serve as reminders of a time when this was a part of our reality. In my opinion, Pravo-300 is currently the oldest and most prestigious national ranking of Russian lawyers. Over its 15-year history, its methodology for selecting companies has been substantially refined, the criteria for inclusion in the ranking have been raised, it has gained popularity among international law firms, and the rankings prestige has increased manifold. The award ceremony for the leaders of the Pravo-300 ranking is traditionally held in December at the Carlton Hotel and resembles the Oscar award ceremony, subsequently flooding social media feeds with photos and videos of delighted nominees. Among the reputable Russian lawyer rankings, I can also mention the ranking of the Kommersant publishing house. Last year Rossiyskaya Gazeta published its first ranking of lawyers. Regarding new companies participating in the rankings, they certainly emerge, and competition intensifies each year, making it increasingly challenging for leaders to maintain their positions.