GILS Dispute Resolution: Kazakhstan
KAZAKHSTAN
CASE №1:
We have been advising and implementing the bankruptcy procedure of Adai Petroleum Company LLP (APC) in Kazakhstan. We acted on behalf of the shareholders of APC. Both companies invested significant amounts in APC with the aim of developing an oilfield in Kazakhstan. However, the development project had not yielded results and it was decided to close the project and liquidate APC. First, we represented the clients and APC in the court proceedings requesting declaration of APC’s bankruptcy. We faced a challenge from local tax authorities who opposed the bankruptcy of APC. However, we were able to obtain positive result and the judgment of APC’s bankruptcy entered into effect. The project which lasted almost two years, is now complete and the company has been discharged from the trade registry.
Askar Konysbayev, Zhandarbek Ramazan, Gani Sagimbekov, Sukhrob Issakhanov.
CASE №2:
We acted on behalf of LPG Storage Park LLP in a landmark antitrust dispute against Kazakh Competition Authority. The Park, which is located in Atyrau, has been subject to a major antitrust investigation after the January 2022 unrest in Kazakhstan over the gas prices. The Competition authority accused the Park of setting monopolistically high prices for gas storage. We have been able to cancel the order of the Competition Authority on the grounds of formal and substantive violations in the order. The Competition Authority, among other things, wrongly calculated the price which had not included the expenses. Also, the calculations had not taken into account that the Park was a monopoly only in the Atyrau region but not in the whole of Kazakhstan.
Askar Konysbayev, Zhandarbek Ramazan, Gani Sagimbekov, Sukhrob Issakhanov.
CASE №3:
We continue representing our long-term client, a construction company in the oil and gas sphere, KazStroyService (KSS) in an arbitration under CIETAC Rules in China. The dispute arose with the client’s contractor who alleged non-payment under the supply of the valves and brought a claim in arbitration. We filed a counterclaim contending that the valves had been defective. Our client was forced to buy the valves from a different supplier due to the defective valves from his contractor. The dispute was also old which is why there arose a question of the contractor’s claims being barred.
Askar Konysbayev, Zhandarbek Ramazan, Gani Sagimbekov, Sukhrob Issakhanov.
