Vladimir specializes in resolving civil and arbitration disputes related to breaches of contractual obligations, obligations from unjust enrichment and infliction of harm.

He has experience in representing clients in state and arbitration courts, including the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, as well as in arbitration courts, including the International Commercial Arbitration Court at the Chamber of Commerce and Industry of the Russian Federation

Kutafin Moscow State Law University, Master of Corporate Law.

Diploma with honors.

Ranked among the best lawyers in arbitration proceedings by RG.RU.

• Successful representation of a client who performed subcontracting works under a concession agreement for the construction of a federal facility (Bridge). The general contractor, which was part of the same group of companies as the concessionaire, refused to perform the contractor agreements with the client and, without accepting the work actually performed, demanded the return of the advance payment in the amount of more than RUB 500 million. In fact, the general contractor's debt to the client, taking into account the actual work performed, amounted to more than 85 million rubles, which the lawyers of Sudohod's dispute resolution practice managed to prove.
• Effective support of interrelated disputes in the Supreme Court in the interests of a major developer company on recovery of fire-related damages from the owner of a non-residential building, where the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation succeeded in dismissing the claims of insurance companies (The Judicial Chamber for Economic Disputes of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation granted 5 cassation appeals).
• Advising a Chinese company on the use of industrial designs and patents in the Russian Federation in the context of the client's IPO. The corporate law practice together with the intellectual property law practice provided comprehensive support in drafting a set of documents protecting the uniqueness of the Chinese company's developments.
• Representation of a minority shareholder in a dispute on joint recovery of over RUB 500 million in damages from the CEO and majority shareholder of a major Russian fishing company in connection with the siphoning off of the company's assets.
• Successful comprehensive support for more than 15 disputes over debt recovery totaling more than 300 million rubles from a large Russian state-owned company under construction contracts in pursuance of government defense orders. The adviser succeeded in proving that a suspensive condition on payment for work until the general contractor receives money from the customer, a state defense company, does not have the characteristics of enforceability. Upon the request of the bona fide party, the condition may be deemed as either having occurred or not occurred (Article 157 of the Russian Civil Code).
• Participation in a project to defend the client's interests in a dispute with Chinese companies - the bailor and owners of several thousand sea containers. A contract for storage of containers was made between a logistics complex and the bailor. As a result, the Moscow Arbitration Court considered a dispute between TLK on recovery of 300 million rubles and accepted a counterclaim from the bailor demanding the transfer of 3.5 thousand containers to the bailor. As a result of a number of negotiations we managed to agree on the positions of all parties to the dispute and terminate the case on terms satisfactory to the client.
• Successful representation of a client, a mineral fertilizer manufacturer, who suffered damage as a result of the lessee's violation of fire safety rules and regulations on the storage of hazardous chemicals. The client leased non-residential premises to a company selling chemicals (acids), which used the leased premises to store its products. As a result of a number of violations on the part of the lessee (using and leaving unattended heating devices, joint storage of fire-hazardous and self-flammable substances), a fire broke out in the rented premises. The expert examination conducted as part of the pre-investigation review did not establish the cause of the fire. Lawyers from the dispute resolution practice at Sudohod managed to prove the lessee’s fault in causing the fire under conditions of alternative causality and succeeded in recovering damages from the lessee in the amount of the cost of restorative repairs to the building.