Practice
We represent clients before commercial courts at every level – from shaping the legal position to enforcing the judgment.
The practice covers corporate conflicts, bankruptcy, subsidiary liability disputes, damages recovery, challenging transactions and interim relief.
We assess the prospects before starting work – openly and without inflated expectations. Strategy is built on a realistic view of what outcomes and timelines are achievable.
A result in court is not only a judgment in the client's favour. It is an enforceable judgment, secured against reversal.
The practice is led by Anna Tarlakovskaya and Andrey Nemov. Transactional advice and business structuring are covered on the transactions practice page.
Commercial court disputes of any complexity: corporate conflicts, bankruptcy, damages recovery, challenging transactions. Our focus is defined by the task at hand, not by formal classification.
At any stage – from an initial assessment of prospects through cassation and enforcement. We also join cases already handled by other counsel when the position needs reinforcing.
A fixed fee per instance, hourly rates or a success fee. The model is agreed before work begins.
Yes. ICC, ICAC, disputes with foreign counterparties, and recognition and enforcement of foreign awards in Russia.
A former executive caused damage to the company, relying on the difficulty of assembling the evidentiary record: a multitude of transactions, a convoluted structure, diffuse causation.
We conducted a systematic analysis: reconstructed the chronology of decisions, established the link between the transactions and the loss, and documented the breach of duty. Damages were recovered in full – the court accepted the position without reducing the award.
The insolvency administrator and the creditors sought to hold the executive of a bankrupt company personally liable for its debts. The first-instance and appellate courts granted the claim.
The case was taken to the Supreme Court. We proved the good faith of every management decision. The Supreme Court reversed the decisions below. The liability averted was comparable to the aggregate register of creditor claims.
The majority owner systematically blocked profit distributions through voting at the general meeting. The company was generating income – the minority participant was cut off from any economic return.
We challenged the general meeting resolutions. Through the courts we obtained a mechanism for compelling profit distribution – a precedent for corporate situations of this kind.
Assets owned by the client – acquired, paid for and in commercial use – were targeted for inclusion in the insolvent counterparty's estate through transaction-challenge proceedings.
We built a legal position establishing the independent character of title. Every challenge was dismissed by the court. The assets were preserved in full – without concessions and without settlement.
A group of companies, five parallel bankruptcy proceedings. The client was a creditor affiliated with the debtor. The courts applied subordination: the claims were ranked junior.
We developed a legal position demonstrating that there were no grounds for subordination. The judicial acts were reversed. The claims were admitted to the register in full – on equal footing with independent creditors across all five cases.
The debtor extracted assets through a chain of ostensibly independent transactions – each link presented as an ordinary business operation.
We reconstructed the full chain and proved the interconnectedness and invalidity of every link. The assets were returned to the insolvency estate in full – giving creditors a real source of recovery.