Sergey
Kosorukov

Partner

Academic degree

PhD in Jurisprudence

Awards and Recognition

Certificate of Merit from the Ministry of Justice of the Russian Federation

Rankings

Professional communities

Arbitrator of the Russian Arbitration Centre (RAC)

Participation in law-making

Federal Law No. 382-FZ of 29 December 2015 «On the Arbitration (Arbitration Proceedings) in the Russian Federation»

Experience

Since 2003

Languages

English (fluently)

Education

Kutafin Moscow State Law University (MSAL)

Expertise

Civil law Сivil proceedings Corporate law Securities Bankruptcy Investment projects Currency regulation Land law Taxation Issues at the confluence of private and public law Private International Law International arbitration

Key cases

  • Representing one of Russia's largest iron and steel companies (the buyer) in a dispute over invalidation of the share purchase agreement for the holding company, in which the courts, while invalidating the said agreement, gave a precedential interpretation of the seller's representations and warranties provisions for all companies of the holding company, on which counsel insisted.
  • Representing shareholders of a major Russian coal holding company, resulting in a mutually acceptable settlement following a precedent-setting ruling of the Presidium of the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation, which shared the counsel's position on the possibility and conditions of invalidating contractual performance separately from the contract itself on general civil and corporate grounds.
  • Representing Russia's largest warehouse real estate operator in a major dispute with a key counterparty, in which, annulling acts in favour of the counterparty were quashed, an amicable settlement was reached following a series of unprecedented court and out-of-court agreements drafted with the lawyer's participation.
  • Representing a leading Russian steel pipe supplier in a dispute to bring it to subsidiary liability at the request of the tax authority, in which the courts dismissed the claims based on the lawyer's position that no dangerous precedent should be set for bringing a second and subsequent level of subsidiary liability against the debtor's counterparties.