Grebelsky&Partners
Grebelsky&Partners
  • Areas of practice
  • Insight
  • About
  • Contacts
+7 495 215-15-94

Bolshaya Polyanka Str., 7/10, Bldg. 1, 119180, Moscow, Russia

RU
  • RU
  • EN
Domestic and International Litigation

The principal strength of the firm is our lawyers – experienced and pragmatic problem-solvers, who regularly handling complex and multi-jurisdictional disputes. Our expertise spans a wide range of areas, from antitrust and tax disputes, through to insurance and IP cases.

Areas of practice
Choose a section
About practice
Experience

Grebelsky & Partners represents its clients in commercial courts and courts of general jurisdiction on a wide range of issues arising from commercial relations. Our lawyers are involved in complex disputes in almost all commercial judicial districts in Russia, as well as cross-border litigations, which take place simultaneously in several jurisdictions. For this, we use our own network of international contacts, which has been formed over the years of practice.

We intensively participate in proceedings in the court of first instance, and in the appealing of judicial acts – In the appeal and cassation courts. Several times lawyers of the firm successfully represented clients in the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation. The decisions on some disputes in which we participated became case-law and formed the basis for the practice of resolving disputes in similar cases.

In addition, we represent clients in quasi-judicial bodies such as the Patent Disputes Chamber, tax authorities, and the Federal Antimonopoly Service.

We are specializing in different litigation areas and represent clients in all types of disputes. Among them:

  • Bank disputes;
  • Bankruptcy and insolvency;
  • Real estate disputes;
  • Construction disputes;
  • Corporate disputes;
  • Disputes with public authorities;
  • IP disputes;
  • Oil & Gas and Energy disputes;
  • Insurance dispute;
  • Customs disputes;
  • Tax disputes;
  • Antitrust disputes;
  • Disputes from public procurement:
  • As well as many others.

Clients of the firm note that our lawyers have special strategic litigation techniques and skills, especially those related to the evidence production.

We adhere to a flexible fee approach and use different forms of payment. At the same time, in the course of proceedings, we create all the prerequisites so that legal costs can be recovered from opponents.

The following are examples of commercial litigations from our recent practice:

  • Protection of assets of an international trade holding as part of several interconnected cases based on the claims of the Russian representative office of a leading European financial institution. Our lawyers were able to prove in court the termination of surety agreements between the bank and the three companies included in the holding, as well as the invalidity of pledge agreements for storage facilities in the Moscow Region;
  • Invalidation of a bank guarantee issued to ensure the fulfillment of the obligation of the majority shareholder of a large energy company to acquire shares of the company through a mandatory offer;
  • Recovery  of more than 4 million US dollars from the Government of the Leningrad region in connection with the bankruptcy of a state unitary enterprise providing consumer services in the territory of the region. Our lawyers managed to prove that it was the seizure of property from the economic management of the unitary enterprise that caused the insolvency of the debtor;
  • Conducting the advocacy of a large engineering company which claimed that the actions of the Department of Architecture and Urban Planning of the Administration of Nizhny Novgorod to refuse the approvement of draft boundaries of the land located under the office building owned by the client should be declared unlawful. The proceedings took place in the Commercial Court of the Nizhny Novgorod Region and Higher Instances;
  • Conducting the advocacy of shareholders in a limited liability company in the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation in the case of invalidating the shareholders meeting decision. The dispute involved a question of the application of Joint Decree of the Plenum of the Supreme Arbitration Court and the Supreme Court of December 9, 1999 No. 90/14 (Paragraph 24), according to which, in cases where the parties invoke in support of their claims or objections to the decision of the company’s shareholders general meeting, and the court has established that this decision was made with significant violations of the law (in violation of the competence of this body, in the absence of a quorum, etc.), the court must proceed from the fact that such a decision does not have legal power, regardless of whether it has been challenged by any of the members of the company or not, and to resolve a dispute, guided by the rule of law. As a result, the Supreme Court declared this provision not applicable in the case at hand;
  • Representing an average Russian company in proceedings regarding declaring of a lease agreement as non-concluded, during which our lawyers managed to prove that the object to be leased was not agreed, and therefore the specified agreement cannot be recognized as concluded;
  • Effective advocacy in more than twenty litigations with the Moscow City Property Department on the price of redemption of state premises from the city treasury on the basis of Federal Law of July 22, 2008 No. 159-FZ;
  • Conducting the advocacy of the largest enterprise in the Vladimir region, engaged in the production of components for the automotive industry, against the claim of the leading Russian auto concern. In the framework of this dispute, the lawyers of the firm defended a patent for a production used in most automobiles manufactured in Russia;
  • Representing a large metallurgical enterprise in the Sverdlovsk region in the proceedings to recover damages caused by an illegal interruption in the supply of electric energy. The respondent in this case was the largest electricity supplier in the Urals Federal District;
  • Recovery from the largest insurance company in Russia of the insurance amount payable to the insured (the leading supplier of Chinese sports shoes). During the case hearings, our lawyers proved that there was no intent or gross negligence in the actions of the Client and the supplier, and the cargo was lost due to the fault of the carrier;
  • Contesting the customs value of toys imported into Russia from China for the leading supplier of these products in the Southern Federal District. The Krasnodar Customs acted as the defendant in this case, considered that the customs value of the goods was greatly underestimated.
Share
Share on Facebook
Tweet about this on Twitter
Share on VK
Share on Google+
Share on LinkedIn
KEY CONTACT
Alexander Grebelsky
Alexander Grebelsky
Managing partner
+7 (495) 580–50–94
A.Grebelsky@gplaw.ru

Bolshaya Polyanka Str., 7/10, Bldg. 1, 119180, Moscow, Russia

Grebelsky&Partners
About the firm
  • About the firm
  • Legal notices
Practice Areas
  • International Commercial Arbitration
  • (Русский) Международные контракты
  • All Areas
Insight
  • News
  • Research Papers
  • Press
Contacts
+7 495 215-15-94

Bolshaya Polyanka Str., 7/10, Bldg. 1, 119180, Moscow, Russia

© Grebelsky and Partners Law Firm, 2008—2023
Legal notices