Litigation

• Representing insurance company Allianz in a dispute with a foreign reinsurer on a reinsurance recovery in the total amount of more than USD 35 million arising out of the accident at the Sayano-Shushenskaya hydropower plant (total damage over USD 200 million). The result – the client’s claim was satisfied in full, afterwards the decision was enforced in the territory of Switzerland.
• Representing of Irish Bank Resolution Corporation Limited in a series of disputes related to the bankruptcy of a major international financial group, including execution of judgments from the Republic of Belize and the Republic of Northern Ireland by RF SСC (amount at issue: 200+ mln euros).
• Representing Capital Insurance Company (part of ROSGOSSTRAH) in insurance dispute worth 32 mln US Dollars. The dispute arose in connection with the refusal by thirty foreign reinsurers, some of them members of Lloyd's, to pay out a reinsurance claim from the Russian insurance company Capital Insurance for the loss of the aircraft, the total amount of which originally was over 32 mln US dollars. 8th Arbitrazh Court of Appeal upheld a decision of the Arbitrazh Court of Khanty-Mansi Autonomous Okrug – Yugra, which fully granted the claim lodged by KIAP's Client, the Capital Insurance Russian insurance company, for the recovery of reinsurance proceeds for the loss of aircraft.  
• Representing of OAO OGK-2 (Russia's No 1 provider of cogeneration, Gazprom's energy asset) in litigation with the E4 company owned by Mr Abyzov, Russian cabinet minister, to recover an advance of 3.5 bln rbl (about 100 mln US dollars in 2014). Dispute over the termination of contract to supply a powerplant acquired for the Serov State District Power Station construction project. OGK-2's claim was granted: the supply contract was terminated and the advance refunded.    
• Representing one of the largest retail chains protecting its investments in a number of disputes in several regions of the Russian Federation totaling 5 billion roubles. As a result all disputes were resolved in our client’s favor. 
  
• Representing Rockwool in a dispute with the Treasury of the Russian Federation (RF Ministry of Finance of the Russian Federation and the Federal Bailiffs Service) for compensation for breach of a reasonable period for the execution of the court decision. The precedent put in place must one way or another prompt the Federal Bailiff Service to improve the enforceability of court rulings, which are currently abysmally underenforced, bringing the entire judiciary into disrepute as a result.
• Representing EuroChem in a dispute related to the issue of application of Articles 450 and 452 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation. The Supreme Commercial Court shared position of the client that transactions may imply conditions of unilateral termination thereof should one of the parties fail to comply with the undertaken obligations. This precedent case is important for businesses in terms of development and popularization of application of the Russian corporate law on the stage of acquisition or sale of the Russian assets.
• Representing heat generating organization in disputes with an unfair consumer – housing management company, including in the Presidium of the Supreme Commercial Court, which made precedent setting decision to prevent communal services providers’ release from liability for the quality of these services’ provision.
• Representing the MTS retail chain in a precedent-making dispute against one of the world-wide leading manufacturers of telecom equipment. Among the legal issues in the case was the right to equality in access to justice. This issue drew the attention of the worldwide legal community, since the issue of equality in access to the judicial system has never been examined from this angle before. The position of the Firm has been supported by the Presidium of the Supreme Commercial Court and has had a serious impact on the practice in other courts. Likewise, this has had an impact on the contractual clause which sets forth the terms of international arbitration, especially with foreign companies as participants in agreements with arbitration clauses.
  

• Best Lawyers
• Chambers Europe
• Chambers Global
• Kommersant
• Legal 500 EMEA
• Pravo.ru-300

Mock-trials (test or imitation trials)

Quite often, our grantors or colleague lawyers ask to give an independent and professional outside opinion on their position, a so-called "second opinion" on the case, to identify the strengths and weaknesses of their position and evidentiary base, to conduct a full "stress test" for the forthcoming trial prior to court hearings and to assess the oral presentation (speech) of a judicial representative. Additionally, it is sometimes necessary to form a psychological portrait of a judge and opponents in a potential dispute and to find an optimal balance of effective procedural and psychological tools for handling a case.

There are several reasons.

On the one hand, a grantor does not need a full-scale legal support for his interests in court, where either a nonpublic lawyer or an employee of another law firm acts. In this case, the KIAP experts are just a kind of "external helpers", looking at a situation with a fresh pair of eyes and at the same time enabling to save on legal costs for the project.

On the other hand, litigation lawyers want to overcome a possible bias (also called “confirmation bias”), when documents, witnesses and arguments are chosen solely for the position, and all complex, ambiguous and impairing circumstances are unconsciously ignored or not duly addressed, and it is this, at times, that can lead to catastrophic consequences in a dispute.

In complex cases, the parties' positions can be equal, and it is not always clear how the court will make its decision.

In such situations, it is extremely important to identify "blind" zones and the potential to strengthen a position. This can be solved in an imitation trial (mock trial), in which the judge, represented by an experienced court professional, hears the positions of both sides and then the improvised court makes its decision. It makes possible to obtain an independent expert advice at a relatively low cost, but with full confidentiality and in compliance with the policy of avoiding of the "conflict of interest" for any of the parties to the proceedings.

There are various possibilities of conducting a mock-trial. You can train with colleagues from your company. Let them read the documents of your case, discuss the position with them. This is useful, but colleagues are not always ready to criticize in full or to spend their time, being busy with their own projects. Our long-term judicial experience shows that it is more effective to carry out such proceedings with independent colleagues from other firms.

Depending on the purpose of the trial, the personality of the judge, your opponents and budget, you can choose a trial option:

Light mock-trial:

• preliminary analysis of key documents
• oral hearing
• preparation of a report with recommendations

Complex mock-trial:

• preliminary dispute analysis
• selection of an arbitrator (if arbitral proceedings)
• psychological aspects: a portrait of the judge and the opponents
• complete evaluation of the evidence base
• assessment of procedural documents of the case
• development of a "history" and a trial strategy
• training of technical specialists
• interrogation of witnesses
• oral hearings
• preparation of a comprehensive report with recommendations