18 05 / 18

Dispute in four jurisdictions and deception of Kehman. The event organised by " Actual litigation - 2017-2018 " within the frameworks of the St. Petersburg International Legal Forum (SPBILF).

On 17 May at the business event that was held during SPBILF devoted to the current legal disputes Marat Khasanov, partner of the legal group PARADIGMA told about how the group PARADIGMA lead an international dispute in four jurisdictions.

The essence of the case is that business partners had Russian citizenship and they had a company registered in the British Virgin Islands (BVI). The company had shareholding in the Kazakh enterprise and then sold the shareholding to a public German company in installments for five years under a contract that was governed by the Kazakh law.

In the middle of the term the balance of the payment amounted to dozen of millions dollars, however one of the Russian partners unlawfully terminated the contract provided that his company paid a personal termination fee for a significant amount," - Marat Khasanov said.  According to Mr.Khasanov, "the cross-border nature of the case" was here: the power of attorney for the transaction was drawn up in Russia, while the termination agreement was subject to the German law.

Of course, it did not suit other shareholders. They filed a lawsuit in the European arbitration on compelling to pay the balance "- continued the lawyer. "One of their arguments was that power of attorney was false. The defendant’s position was based on the doctrine of implied authorities (legislation of Germany and BVI): if the company carelessly stores forms and seals, it is their responsibility if someone accidently uses it. "

According to Marat Khasanov, "the dispute in the European arbitration lasted more than five years, we had to take into account the regulation of all four jurisdictions. The claimant was insisting, in particular, that the doctrine of implied authorities was inapplicable, because it did not exist in Russian and Kazakh law. There must be a clear and unambiguous expression of will”, - the lawyer told. “The apparent authorities is applicable to staff such as cashiers and not to a difficult and controversial case. As a result, the court rendered the decision in favor of the plaintiff. "