Production of consumer goods

We represented a Client in the Arbitration Institute of the Stockholm Chamber of Commerce in a dispute with a counterparty arising from a contract under Russian law for the supply of broiler hatching eggs. The dispute was over a debt of UDS 500,000, which our Client’s claim sought to recover. The counterparty issued a counterclaim seeking compensation of alleged losses of USD 10 million. The Client’s claim was upheld; the counterclaim was rejected. The direct involvement of Pepeliaev Group’s lawyers in the arbitration in Stockholm demonstrates our team’s wide capabilities. The project involved: drafting all the procedural documents, speaking English during the hearings, working with witnesses (preparing and interrogating the Client’s witnesses, cross-examining the counterparty’s witnesses), and working in close cooperation with our Client's Swedish lawyers engaged for the arbitral proceedings. The case was considered under Swedish arbitration legislation; aspects of English law were applied in the hearing to the concept of liquidated damages (i.e. those agreed in advance).

The practice’s lawyers provided legal support to a major global sportswear producer in a number of disputes in which it sought to recover debt from a distributor and regarding the termination of a distribution agreement. Within the framework of the project, our lawyers successfully defended the client in the court of first instance in a dispute initiated by a distributor which was seeking to invalidate a distribution agreement. In addition, Pepeliaev Group’s lawyers have completed a litigation initiated by the issuer of a USD 400,000 promissory note to secure the distributor's performance of its obligations. The issuer was seeking to have the security transaction invalidated. Our lawyers also defended the client in three court cases against a bank to receive USD 3 million secured by a bank guarantee. This project is important from the standpoint of forming judicial practice relating to the enforcement of security for obligations in situations where the issuer of the promissory note has no obvious economic interest in the secured obligation, and when bank guarantees contain incorrect wording relating to the secured obligations.