Rely on the most comprehensive, up-to-date legal content designed and curated by lawyers for lawyers
Work faster and smarter to improve your drafting productivity without increasing risk
Accelerate the creation and use of high quality and trusted legal documents and forms
Streamline how you manage your legal business with proven tools and processes
Manage risk and compliance in your organisation to reduce your risk profile
Stay up to date and informed with insights from our trusted experts, news and information sources
Access the best content in the industry, effortlessly — confident that your news is trustworthy and up to date.
With over 30 practice areas, we have all bases covered. Find out how we can help
Our trusted tax intelligence solutions, highly-regarded exam training and education materials help guide and tutor Tax professionals
Regulatory, business information and analytics solutions that help professionals make better decisions
A leading provider of software platforms for professional services firms
In-depth analysis, commentary and practical information to help you protect your business
Printer Friendly Version
Sanctions: an instrument of a political
pressure for decades, but attracting little or no attention in Russia. Until now.
Tatiana Minaeva, Of Counsel in Jones Day’s London office, discusses the impact of economic sanctions against Russia, arising out of its actions in Ukraine, on
the global arbitration market for the resolution of Russian commercial disputes.
The range of sanctions against Russian individuals and businesses arising out of the situation in Ukraine has suddenly became the most widely discussed topic in Moscow, and prompted the Kremlin to introduce counter measures, the first being the ban on
the import of food products from the EU. Just a few days ago, it was announced that oil giant Rosneft offered Russian President Vladimir Putin an entire series of new measures to support the economy during the sanctions, in the event of a financial
Among other suggested measures, such as the ban on the final storage of nuclear waste from the US and EU and the possible seizure of these countries’ and their citizens’ property on Russian territory as interim measure for unfulfilled contracts,
Rosneft was said to suggest to ban Russian companies from entering into arbitration clauses providing for the arbitration in countries which imposed sanctions against Russia. If Rosneft’s proposal comes to life, Russian companies are expected
to cease using many popular arbitration venues such as London, Paris, Stockholm, Geneva, Zurich and New York, which will doubtless affect the global disputes market: it is estimated that Russian disputes now make up as many as three quarters of the
world’s commercial disputes.
It would be unsurprising if the Russian judiciary were the main source of concern for foreign counter-parties; however, it would be fair to say that Russian courts do not enjoy trust among Russian parties either. In the last decade, Russians moved
their business abroad with the main objective to secure it from so called ‘raiderstvo’ (forceful takeover by competitors) which turned into a real cancer for the business environment in Russia in end of last century.The Russian judiciary
was often used by the raiders, which encouraged the outflow of Russian cases abroad. With the aid of Anglo-Saxon lawyers, with which Moscow was overflowing in the end of last century, Russian businessmen started to rely on the complicated offshore
shareholdings structures almost always involving Cypriot companies as the first layer in a complicated ownership pyramid. It did not take long before they started to feel confident in the turquoise waters of offshore jurisdictions to the great
benefit of their services providers and the banks. English law became a natural governing law for the complicated relationships, along with an LCIA arbitration clause which was copied as a ‘midnight clause’ from contract to contract.
No surprise that London became the favourite forum for disputes, to the great joy of English lawyers, who have enjoyed the luxury of lucrative Russian disputes for at least 15 years, with no sign of an early end to this prosperity.
However, the situation might change drastically now if Rosneft’s initiative takes on. Sanctions have turned into a serious factor to consider in the business strategies of the Russian companies. There is an increased concern among the Russians
that arbitrations seated in Western countries, such as England, France and Switzerland, is no longer fair. Arbitrators, who hear disputes, are mainly foreign nationals, and even if awards are taken in favour of a Russian party, they may be set
aside by the court of the arbitration seat or denied enforcement through a sanctions mechanism. The recent Permanent Court of Arbitration award against Russia in the Yukos case, which unluckily coincided with the time of Ukrainian sanctions,
added to the increasing distrust among Russians in the idea of a fair resolution of their disputes in the west. In addition to lack of trust in their own judiciary, Russians are now becoming increasingly disappointed in the impartiality of what
they had assumed to be the traditional places for resolution of their disputes.
It may be expected that Russians will now reconsider their approach, aiming at withdrawing their rows from unfriendly jurisdictions. One of the choices they may consider is to refer disputes to Russian arbitration institutions, such as RAA or ICAC.
However, this option could represent a challenge in negotiations with their foreign counterparties. Also it is fair to say that the recent judicial reforms, which have been subject to trenchant criticism, mainly due to its unpredictability for
the future development of the court practice, have not enhanced confidence among Russian businesses in their home jurisdiction. Another option is to turn their heads towards Asian venues, such as Hong Kong, Dubai and Singapore, which since recently
and increasingly accelerate the pace in providing formidable competition to the Western centres of international disputes resolution. No doubt such arbitration centres as SIAC in Singapore, CIETAC in China, HKIAC in Hong Kong and DIAC in Dubai,
will now be more seriously considered by Russian companies when negotiating their contracts with foreign parties. If Russians indeed turn towards these centres, western countries will experience significant outflow of disputes from their arbitration
centres, to the benefit of lawyers practising on the other side of the world.
However, because the contracts being now in place contain traditional dispute resolution clauses it would take at least five years for this outflow to take place. It seems that LCIA, being the favourite arbitration venue for the Russian business disputes,
will continue enjoying preferential position, because the majority of cases, which are referred to this forum, although relating to Russian assets, concern contracts concluded between offshore parties. It seems that as long as LCIA and English
courts maintain its reputation of a fair and independent judiciary, Rosneft’s initiative, even if implemented in Russia, will unlikely effect the choice of this forum in contracts between offshore parents of Russian entities. On the other
hand, foreign counter-parties of such entities, registered in Russia, will most likely face new arbitration centres or, if less lucky, would need to refer their disputes to Russia. This would mainly be the case with the state-owned companies,
which already now, are forced to insist on Russian dispute resolution venues and Russian law to govern their contracts.
Time will tell how sanctions will affect the evolution of the Russian disputes market. But it is clear now that we are experiencing the turning point for business relationships between Russian companies and their western partners. Sanctions imposed
on Russia have already pushed Russian business towards Asia. There is little cause to doubt that Asian countries would miss this opportunity, which puts us on the cusp of a new era of allocation of Russian business interests and capital flows.
This is an amended version of a longer article published on LexisPSL Arbitration on 6 November 2014. For a free trial of LexisPSL Arbitration, please click here.
0330 161 1234