Legal Support and Dispute Resolution. Representation of the company's interests in court

A company, which is one of the largest agricultural producers in Ukraine, turned to us for protection of its interests in GAFTA commercial arbitration (London). The buyer, a Turkish company, failed to fulfil its obligations to pay for the goods, questioning the quality of the delivered goods.

Our actions: we initiated the arbitration proceedings, prepared and filed the relevant complaint with GAFTA, and supported the arbitration process. We succeeded in refuting the opponent’s allegations of poor product quality, as the opponent had violated the quality inspection procedure. Upon receipt of the arbitral award, we obtained a permit for its enforcement in Turkey and supported the actual enforcement.

Result: The debt for the goods in the amount of more than USD 1,200,000 was recovered from the debtor in favour of our client in full.

We were contacted by a company whose production facilities are located in the temporarily occupied territory. The client had entered into a contract under which it purchased equipment worth more than $6,000,000 from a UK supplier. For our client, the purpose of entering into the contract was no longer necessary due to the loss of control over the assets due to the occupation. However, the supplier applied to the LCIA (London Court of International Arbitration) to oblige our client to accept the equipment, pay its price and additionally pay costs due to the change of logistics routes in the amount of more than $400,000.

Our actions: We prepared a legal position applying the doctrine of frustration of purpose and reflected it in the statement of defence. We proved that the goods purchased under the contract were aimed at strengthening the production capacity of the property complex, which, for reasons beyond our client’s control, had fallen out of effective control. And without control over this complex, our client could not achieve the contractual goal.

Result: The contract was cancelled without penalties, the client was able to avoid paying $6,000,000 for equipment that it did not need at the time and avoided paying unnecessary logistics costs.

One of the largest national distributors of alcoholic beverages contacted us to resolve a dispute with a shipping line. The line was transporting goods ordered by our client to the port of Odesa, but due to the shipper’s inclusion in the sanctions lists during the transportation, the sea carrier did not complete the transportation and returned the goods to the port of departure. Due to the delay in arranging the road transport, the line accrued more than $500,000 in demurrage, and they demanded payment of this amount from our client.

Our actions: We analysed the dispute and the position of the shipping line, as well as the current practice and the average cost of similar disputes in the LMAA (London Maritime Arbitrators Association). We formed our position and organised negotiations with the shipping line’s representatives. We convinced the line’s representatives that the client’s fault in the delay was quite disputable, so there was a high probability that the arbitration would take our side.

Result: the client and the line reached an agreement under which the amount of property claims against the client was reduced by 95%. The client saved more than $450,000, did not incur the costs of supporting the arbitration process in London and maintained excellent relations with an important partner.

One of the national market leaders in the distribution of fertilisers and agrochemicals sought our assistance in recovering receivables worth over $360,000. The debtor, citing force majeure circumstances related to martial law, refused to repay the debt until the end of the war.

Our actions: We prepared and filed a lawsuit in the commercial court. We managed to persuade the court that the circumstances mentioned by the debtor were not force majeure under the agreement and did not prevent the debtor from making the payment.

Result: the court recovered the debt from the debtor in full. As a result of the proceedings, the client received $360,000 and an additional $108,000 in penalties, interest per annum and inflationary interest.

Situation: The director of “AFRICA STUDIO” LLC, the owner of the largest commercial portfolio in the world, contacted us for copyright protection. Her opponent, who was trying to misappropriate the rights to this portfolio, filed a lawsuit with the Commercial Court of Kyiv City and even received a positive decision in the first instance.

Our actions: We prepared an appeal, in which we found the necessary arguments regarding the illegality of the court decision. After we won the appeal, the opponent filed a cassation appeal. However, we successfully defended our client’s rights in the Supreme Court.

Result: As a result of the case No. 910/7281/20, the Supreme Court made a final decision in favour of our client.

Situation: “KATERINOPILSKYI ELEVATOR” LLC turned to us to challenge the decision of the State Service of Geology and Mineral Resources of Ukraine, which deprived the company of the right to use water wells, which threatened the possibility of continuing the company’s activities at all.

Our actions: We prepared and filed an administrative claim. In the claim, we described in detail all the violations committed by the supervisory authority during the inspection and decision to deprive the company of the right to use subsoil.

Result: Following the consideration of case No. 580/3104/20, the court cancelled the unlawful order and decision of the State Service of Geology and Mineral Resources of Ukraine to terminate our client’s subsoil use rights. The Court of Appeals confirmed the legality of this decision.

Background: The founder of “Shafran Spice” LLC contacted us to recover a debt under a lease agreement. Due to the war, the renter, a large construction company that had been renting the office premises owned by him, refused to pay the rent for more than a year, citing force majeure, non-use of the premises and suspension of the company’s activities.

Our actions: We prepared and filed a lawsuit. Having researched public sources, we provided the court with evidence that the renter company continues to conduct business and is a developer of several projects, and therefore continues to carry on its activities. In addition, we refuted the defendant’s reference to force majeure.

Result: As a result of the proceedings in case No. 910/1901/23, the court ruled in favour of our client, recovering UAH 8,791,274 of the rent arrears, as well as UAH 1,568,341 of penalties and other additional costs.