Dmitry Kuptsov

Dmitry Kuptsov

Partner, Advocate, LL.M.
Dmitry Kuptsov

Chambers Europe

We would recommend Dmitry Kuptsov as being highly dedicated, competent and flexible in providing his excellent legal services.

Recent work
Publications and Insights
Rankings and awards

Dmitry Kuptsov is a Partner in the Dispute Resolution and Restructuring & Insolvency Practices, and Head of International arbitration Practice at ALRUD Law Firm.

Dmitry specializes in handling complex domestic and cross-border disputes, in various areas of law and business industries. He has extensive experience working on full-scale projects, in the fields of restructuring and bankruptcy. He also successfully represents clients in arbitrations and proceedings on enforcement of arbitral awards in Russia and abroad. Dmitry’s sphere of expertise additionally includes conducting internal investigations, compliance checks and asset tracing, in different jurisdictions.

Dmitry graduated from the Faculty of Law of the Higher School of Economics in 2012. In 2013, he received a Master's Degree in Law from Lund University (Sweden).

In 2017, Dmitry was on secondment in London at the law firm Slaughter and May, member of The Magic Circle. Dmitry is a member of the International Bar Association (IBA).

Includes advising and representing:

One of the founders of the Russia’s largest fishery holding, Norebo

on the issues of Russian law arising in a cross-border dispute, related to corporate control in the holding (the “Norebo case”), as well as in a number of related domestic litigations.

European branch of Russian Bank

in the matter of the foreclosure on mortgaged warehouses and valuable land plots, in the area of Moscow’s Sheremetyevo airport.

A well-known eastern-European businessman

in a legal action for compensation of harm on the basis of Russian tort law (including bankruptcy issues and art. 1064 CC RF), initiated by a Russian oil company pending in the High Court of Justice in England.

A well-known Swiss trading bank

in the matter on recovery of multi-million indebtedness from an individual trader due to his failure to comply with margin call requirements.

An American manufacturer of ceiling systems

in a series of full-scale administrative investigations, initiated by the Russian authorities, in the course of supervision over construction of 2018 FIFA World Cup infrastructure objects and sport facilities.

A well-known Russian-British investor

in a number of defamations matters against the leading Russian and foreign mass media.

A major vehicles manufacturer

in a series of interrelated bankruptcy cases of its Russian regional dealers, with the total amount of claims exceeding 20 billion Rubles. These included numerous disputes involving challenging transactions (claw back action), subsidiary liability, subordination of creditors’ claims and the dismissal of the bankruptcy receiver.

An international commodities trader

in the action for challenging of its transactions, initiated by the Deposit Insurance Agency in breach of the arbitration agreement.

The leading Russian private investment fund and its top-management

in a number of closely related bankruptcy proceedings and several side-disputes for holding its senior management subsidiary liable.

One of the largest creditors of refinery

on general aspects of Russian civil and commercial law and various related provisions of bankruptcy law, in the context of LCIA arbitration on recovery of multi-million indebtedness.

An international media corporation

in the International Commercial Arbitration Court at the Chamber of Commerce and Industry of the Russian Federation arbitration on the recovery of indebtedness from a Russian publishing house.

A large multinational advertising and public relations company

in an internal investigation in respect of a number of its Russian office’s employees, due to allegations of their conspiracy with the contractors.

The world’s largest manufacturer of agricultural equipment

in an investigation, conducted in the course of a global acquisition of the leading German producer of machine solutions, for road construction and road rehabilitation.

Supreme Court Allows Bankruptcy of Foreign Companies with "Close Connection" to Russia
The Supreme Court has considered the Westwalk case and ruled that foreign companies can be legally recognized as bankrupt if there is a "close connection" with Russia. Bankruptcy of foreigners was first commenced in 2016, but for a long was applied only to individuals1. The Arbitrazh Court of the Chelyabinsk Region opened Pandora's box in 2022 with respect to a company from the island of Nevis, which was only formally registered there. This approach was actively adopted by other courts, and in 2023 we saw an increase in such cases2. The court's ruling in the Westwalk case summarised the practice of the lower courts and resolved important practical issues. Who can be declared bankrupt? Foreign companies that have a close connection with Russia in the following cases: {{(A)}} The management body, branch or representative office of the foreign company is located on Russian territory {{(B)}} The entity has permanent economic activities in Russia that are oriented towards Russian individuals, including owning property and concluding transactions in Russia {{(С)}} The centre of the main interests of the controlling entities is located on Russian territory What assets are covered by bankruptcy? {{(A)}} If the centre of the debtor's main interests is located in Russia, the foreigner may be subject to main proceedings with respect to all its assets abroad {{(B)}} If the centre of the debtor's main interests is located abroad, but there is a close connection with Russia, bankruptcy proceedings may only be initiated with respect to its Russian assets It is now safe to say that both Russian and foreign creditors can commence bankruptcy proceedings with respect to both offshore companies and legal entities that are registered and act abroad and have a close connection with Russia. For example, see Case No. А41-72478/2019, А28-8319/2016 and А40-248865/2016, among others. Courts have actively started bankruptcy proceedings against foreign companies, for example, Delvenisto Investments LTD (Case No. А40-5658/2023), Garant Bauinvestition GmbH (Case No. А40-9555/2023), Retail Chain Properties (Case No. А40-112325/2023), GEMONT ENDUSTRI (Case No. А65-23218/2023) and others.
14 February 2024
Reverse Piercing of the Corporate Veil – Russian Courts Tend To Shift Liability from Foreign Companies to Their Russian Subsidiaries
Dear Ladies and Gentlemen, We would like to update you on recent precedent-setting judgements by Russian courts in matters involving foreign businesses that decided to leave Russia. On 17 October 2023, the Arbitrazh court of Moscow city sustained the claim by Russian bank PJSC Sovkombank against Citibank N.A. (a US company) and its Russian subsidiary JSC KB Citibank concerning the joint recovery of US$24m in losses1. On 21 December 2023, an appeals court upheld the judgement. As follows from the judgement, in 2017, Sovkombank and Citibank N.A. concluded a general agreement that served as the basis for further transactions between the parties. Following several transactions and mutual offsetting, Citibank N.A. incurred debt to Sovkombank. Citibank N.A. acknowledged the debt and informed Sovkombank that the money would be credited to an account that had been blocked based on sanctions. In these circumstances, Sovkombank never received the money. Sovkombank, being governed by Russian anti-sanctions procedural rules2, filed a claim in Russian court stating that Citibank N.A. had failed to perform its obligation and also held Citibank’s Russian subsidiary liable as a co-defendant, citing the fact that it belongs to CITIBANK Group, even though the Russian subsidiary never had any agreements with Sovkombank. The Russian court acknowledged its jurisdiction despite the arbitration clause and refused to apply English law. After considering the case, the court ruled that Citibank N.A. had violated its obligation and abused its right since it had transferred money to a frozen account without trying to perform the obligation alternatively, i.e. it should be held liable for tort rather than for breach of contract. The court also ruled that Citibank N.A. and JSC KB Citibank should be held jointly liable as their joint actions caused damages to Sovkombank. The judgement states that both Citibank N.A. and JSC KB Citibank aimed to embezzle the money despite attempting to restructure relations with Sovkombank and ensure the performance of the obligation (e.g., to change the debtor from Citibank N.A. to the Russian subsidiary). The Russian court ruled that even though the only party to the contract was Citibank N.A. and that Citibank N.A. and JSC KB Citibank are different legal entities, they should be jointly liable since they constitute an economic group, which acts as a single enterprise. The same approach was taken in the recent cases of Russian Railways v. Siemens3 and another (confidential) сase based on a claim by a Russian bank against another foreign bank and its 100% Russian subsidiary. This shows that Russian courts not only acknowledge that complying with anti-Russian sanctions should be considered as an abuse of rights and violation of the Russian public order per se, but also tend to hold Russian subsidiaries liable for the debts of their parent companies even though they are not parties to the disputed relations. Case No. А40-167352/23 You can read more on this regulation in our previous newsletters here and here. Case No. А40-195006/22
29 December 2023
Guide “The (non-)Myths of Management and Beneficiaries Responsibility”
Various types of management responsibility are not myths any longer, they have become a reality. We are glad to introduce our new guide devoted to current trends analysis – “The (non-)Myths of Management and Beneficiaries Responsibility”. We have prepared practical answers to the most frequently asked questions: “what one can be held liable for” and “what shall be done to avoid it”. We hope you find the material useful.
11 October 2023
A word spoken is past recalling: Russian Supreme Court explained the regulations on liability for breach of representations
The Judicial Chamber on Economic Disputes of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation has considered TrustForex LLC case (No. A40-167835/2021) concerning the essential issue of recovery of penalty for providing false representations while selling assets. We believe this case to be very important both for the court practice and for the business. Starting from the moment the institution of representations was introduced into the Russian law, Russian courts often assessed the representations from the viewpoint of their accuracy before or at the time the relevant representations were given, and extended their effect only to the parties to the contract. This approach has sometimes made it difficult to protect the interests of buyers of assets in case of breach of representations. Besides, it was not always in line with requirements of business needs, as representations on the lack of potential future claims from the authorities became a common practice in the sale of shares, stakes, and other assets. On 22 March 2023, the full text of the Supreme Court Ruling in the case of TrustForex LLC (the 'Ruling') was published. It contains a number of important conclusions aimed at unifying court practice in cases of liability for making false representations. Below we provide a brief overview of this case and the key findings of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation. 1. TrustForex Case. Background In August 2018, a certain person entered into an agreement for the sale of shares in the charter capital of TrustForex LLC (the 'Agreement' and the 'Company'), which contained representations that no claims would be made against the Company on any grounds arising before the conclusion of the Agreement, and the Company itself by the time the Agreement would be certified would have a valid forex dealer license , under which the Company would operate its key business. However, a few months later the forex dealer license of TrustForex LLC was revoked by the Russian Central Bank due to violations committed during 2018, after which the buyer filed a claim with the court to recover a penalty in the amount of the price paid for the shares. The lower courts dismissed the buyer’s claim on the following grounds: Representations may only be provided with respect to specific facts that have taken place and for which a party to the SPA is responsible. At the time of the transaction the license was not revoked, and no claims were filed against the Company by the Central Bank of Russia. The sellers of shares are not liable for the consequences of the results of the company's business activities. The sellers of shares are not liable for claims by the Central Bank of Russia as these claims arise from actions of persons not being parties to the SPA. 2. Key points of the TrustForex Case The Supreme Court of the Russian Federation overturned the decisions of the lower courts and remitted the case for reconsideration, giving some fundamental interpretations regarding representations in the sale of a business. Please find below the key points of the Supreme Court's ruling. {{(A)}} The circumstances having possible future consequences relating to monetary loss for the party relying on it may be the subject of representations. {{(B)}} The seller of a company share that has given a representation as to the absence of company’s violations is generally liable to the buyer for all losses and other negative consequences of claims of third parties, including the authorities, filed due to such violations revealed. {{(C)}} Cancellation of a forex dealer license due to violations committed before entering into the SPA is a ground for claiming penalties (if an obligation to pay such penalties was expressly provided for in the agreement, as provided in Article 431.2 of the Civil Code as a consequence of false representations). This Ruling is an important precedent, as the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation supported the buyer in the absence of uniform court practice on this issue. We believe that further court practice will be based on these findings, making disputes over representations more predictable and the inclusion of such representations in contracts more secure.
29 March 2023
ALRUD experts prepared an article for IBA
Dmitry Kuptsov, Partner of the Dispute Resolution practice, and Yuri Knyazev, Dispute Resolution practice Senior Attorney, published an article “English anti-suit injunctions in Russian bankruptcy – evolution or revolution?” in The International Bar Association. The authors comment upon several milestone decisions related to English courts granting anti-suit injunctions in disputes with a Russian element. Special attention in the article is focused on the evolution of the approach the Russian courts take to anti-suit injunctions. Using a recent major Russian bank bankruptcy case as an example, ALRUD experts assessed the impact of anti-suit injunctions in current case law. You may view the article here.
29 October 2021
Russian Chapter in the The Legal 500 Force Majeure Country Comparative Guide by ALRUD experts
Our firm's Partner Sergey Petrachkov, Senior Associates Dmitry Kuptsov and Ksenia Erokhina prepared the chapter about the situation in Russia for the The Legal 500 Force Majeure Country Comparative Guide. Each chapter of this guide provides information and analysis about the current issues affecting force majeure in a particular states and addresses topics such as legislation, commercial contracts, courts approaches, COVID-19 pandemic, obligations, requirements, contractual remedies, consumer contracts, insurance policy and state measures to support citizens and legal entities. Chapter about Russia of the Legal 500 Force Majeure Country Comparative Guide can be reached here.
06 July 2021
Dispute Resolution practice Partners wrote an article for IBA
Sergey Petrachkov and Dmitry Kuptsov, Partners of the Dispute Resolution practice, wrote an article “Delayed-action bankruptcy in Russia” for The International Bar Association. ALRUD experts explored practical consequences of the moratorium on bankruptcy introduced in Russia in April 2020 as an emergency measure aimed at protecting businesses from Covid-19 pandemic impact. Authors considered several key issues related to legal aspects of the moratorium as applied both to the debtors and the creditors. You may view the article here.
28 September 2020
Pravo-300, 2023 recommends Dmitry Kuptsov for Arbitrazh proceedings (сommercial disputes: High Market; corporate disputes), Bankruptcy (Litigation High Market), International litigation, International Arbitration.
Best Lawyers, 2022 recommends Dmitry Kuptsov for Arbitration and Mediation, and International Arbitration.
The Legal 500, 2021 recommends Dmitry Kuptsov for Dispute Resolution.
Best Lawyers, 2021 recommends Dmitry Kuptsov for Arbitration and Mediation.
We use cookies to offer better performance of the website and fulfill some other purposes specified in the Privacy Policy. By way of ticking the box you provide your consent to use of cookies. Otherwise, we will only use technical cookies, which are necessary for proper functioning of the website.