 | |
|
 |
 |
 |
| Doing Business |
Ukraine: Forms |
Ukraine: Digest |
| |
 |
 | |
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
| World Link for Law spring 2009 |
Bulletin #6 2008 |
#2 2006 |
#1 2004 |
| |
|
|
 | |
|  20 october 2009
|
|
|
|
Hereby we inform you about a Second Circuit case decided on October 16, 2009, The Shipping Corporation of India Ltd. v. Jaldhi Overseas Pte Ltd., which severely limits the scope of the type of property that may be attached pursuant to Rule B. The Court, in sum and substance, held that “electronic fund transfers (“EFTs”) being processed by an intermediary bank are not property subject to attachment under Rule B.” Since EFTs are no longer considered property of either the originator or the beneficiary, it cannot be “defendant’s property” subject to Rule B attachment.
The decision suggests that the attachment of EFTs has “threatened the usefulness of the dollar in international transactions.” In attempting to avoid Rule B attachments, many potential Rule B defendants conduct their cross-border transactions in a currency other than U.S. Dollars, causing a reduction in the use of the dollar as the preferred currency of international commerce. The large volume of maritime cases was filed between October 1, 2008 and January 31, 2009 and the resulting burden has been placed on the banks and the District Court Judges. The Court’s focus on the aforementioned reasoning and its weak legal rationale for reaching its conclusion lead us to believe that this was a result-driven decision and that the Court has succumbed to intense pressure from the garnishee banks to put an end to Rule B attachments of EFT transfers transiting through New York.
|  |
| | |
 | |
| 25 january 2010 Who is Who legal researching project indicated the individual private practice professionals and leading law firms 2010.
Partner of International Law Offices (Interlegal) Mykola Melnykov became one of three legal advisers from Ukraine listed in the 2010 edition devoted to the CIS countries law firms. Mykola Melnikov is the leading expert in sphere of shipping and maritime law in Ukraine.
more details… | |
| | |
|  | |
| 11 december 2009 The lawyers of International Law Offices, Vyacheslav Lebedev and Nadezhda Malanchiy, took part in theoretical and practical conference held on 10 December 2009 in Odessa National Maritime Academy (ONMA) named “Adaptation Problems of the National Legislation of Ukraine to International Seafarers’ Labour Standards”. There were analyzed the provisions of ILO Maritime Labour Convention dated 23 February 2006 and national legislation of Ukraine. The participants of the conference with a keen interest received reports of the lecturers and postgraduates of the Maritime Law and Management Department (ONMA). The discussions were dedicated to the rules fixed by the abovementioned Convention and their correlation with the rules stipulated by the labour laws of Ukraine.
| |
| | |
| | |
| 11 november 2009 Partner Olena Losevska joined the team working over the TRACECA TEN-T Project in Ukraine. She was involved into the project as legal assistant. Mrs. Losevska provided the EU Commission with the issues on private investments in Ukrainian ports and PPP viability as well as the prohibitions and difficulties connected with the procedure of implementation of investment. (The details on how to invest in Ukraine ports see in publications directory on the web-site). The contributed investigation is to assist how to establish appropriate funding mechanisms.
more details… | |
| | |
| | |
| 21 october 2009 A new article of Arthur Nitsevych was published on 10.20.09 in dehnenblog.com. 'Milestones of Corporate Governance in Ukraine'
The Global Corporate Governance News a new international platform for sharing knowledge in the corporate governance community.
Yours,
Peter H. Dehnen
www.dehnen.com
| |
| | |
| | |
| 20 october 2009 Hereby we inform you about a Second Circuit case decided on October 16, 2009, The Shipping Corporation of India Ltd. v. Jaldhi Overseas Pte Ltd., which severely limits the scope of the type of property that may be attached pursuant to Rule B. The Court, in sum and substance, held that “electronic fund transfers (“EFTs”) being processed by an intermediary bank are not property subject to attachment under Rule B.” Since EFTs are no longer considered property of either the originator or the beneficiary, it cannot be “defendant’s property” subject to Rule B attachment.
more details… | |
| | |
| | |
| News library | | |
|
