The AGA Partners team successfully represented a leading Ukrainian soft commodities trader in the first instance and appeal London arbitration against a Turkish soft commodities trader in a dispute arising from a contract for the sale of wheat on a CIF Iskanderun/Mersin basis. 

The dispute concerned the buyer’s wrongful refusal to perform the contract on the grounds that it had allegedly not been concluded, and the subsequent premature declaration of the Client in default due to the alleged failure to ship the grain within the contractual shipment period. 

In the course of the arbitration, AGA Partners’ lawyers presented compelling arguments in favour of the view that the contract had been concluded and was being duly performed by the Client, and that the buyers put the Client in default prematurely. The 1st instance arbitral tribunal upheld the Client’s position, but refused to award damages, finding that the Client had allegedly mitigated them by reselling the goods. 

The AGA Partners team successfully challenged this decision in the appeal arbitration, proving that the Client’s supply of the goods to another buyer following the opponent’s premature default declaration was carried out under a contract concluded prior to the disputed contract and, consequently, did not constitute a mitigation resale. The appellate arbitration awarded the Client over USD 200,000 in damages and arbitration costs. 

Following this decision, AGA Partners’ lawyers conducted successful negotiations with the buyer, resulting in the conclusion of a settlement agreement on terms favourable to the Client and its full performance. 

Partner Ivan Kasinyuk, Senior Associate Yuriy Bedenko and Associate Viktor Pasichnyk contributed to the success of this case. 

AGA Partners is pleased to announce a successful outcome in a London-seated arbitration, where the firm represented one of Moldova’s leading agricultural trading companies (the Buyers) in a dispute against a Swiss agricultural trader (the Sellers). 

The dispute arose out of an FOB contract for the supply of Ukrainian corn. In accordance with the contract, the Buyers duly nominated a vessel within the contractual delivery period and tendered a valid Notice of Readiness. Despite this, the Sellers refused to load the cargo. 

In an attempt to justify their non-performance, the Sellers advanced several arguments, including that no binding contract had been concluded, that the vessel nomination was defective, and that their obligation to perform was conditional upon the Buyers settling alleged outstanding commitments under unrelated contracts. 

AGA Partners successfully demonstrated that a valid and binding contract had been concluded based on the parties’ correspondence, including email/messenger communications, reflecting an established course of dealings where formal signatures were not required. The firm further proved that the Buyers had properly nominated the vessel and that the Sellers had, in fact, accepted such nomination in the course of сommunication and the Tribunal found so.   

Importantly, the Tribunal rejected the Sellers’ argument that performance under the contract depended on payments under separate agreements, reaffirming the principle of English law that each contract is legally independent. There were exceptional circumstances showing the contracts to be interdependent. To this end, the Tribunal also upheld the Buyers’ claims in full, finding that the Sellers committed a repudiatory breach by refusing to load the cargo. The Buyers were awarded damages based on the difference between the contract and market price, along with compensation for demurrage and arbitration costs. 

This case underscores key aspects of commodities disputes, including the recognition of contracts concluded through messenger communications, the strict approach to unjustified non-performance under FOB contracts, and the limited scope of cross-contractual defences under English law. 

The AGA Partners team was led by Iryna Moroz, Partner, supported by Maksym Fesenko, Associate, and Dmytro Izotov, a former Senior Associate of the firm 

In any dispute arising from a commodities sale contract, the defendant always has the opportunity to avoid paying damages or to minimise the amount thereof. There is almost always the possibility of minimising damages by challenging the date of default and the correctness of the claim amounts calculated on the basis of market price statements of brokers.

A good example is a recent arbitration in which the AGA Partners team represented a leading Ukrainian agricultural company in the first instance and on appeal of the London arbitration in a dispute with a Swiss soft commodities trader arising from a contract for the sale of wheat on a CIF Vietnam basis. The dispute concerned the Client’s failure to deliver the goods within the time limit specified in the contract. 

During the arbitration proceedings, AGA Partners’ lawyers convinced the arbitrators that the default date cited by the claimant was incorrect. As a result, damages were calculated based on lower market prices for the goods at other date. The AGA Partners team also succeeded in demonstrating that the amount of damages claimed by the opposing party was more than double the amount of damages actually incurred, by proving the irrelevance of the opposing party’s market price statements and presenting the arbitrators with a range of evidence of lower market prices for the goods as at the date of default. 

As a result, the amount of damages awarded to the opposing party amounted to approximately USD 1.7 million – less than half of their claimed damages of over USD 3.8 million. 

In the appeal arbitration, AGA Partners’ lawyers confirmed the correctness of this position, preventing an increase in the amount awarded to the opposing party by refuting the new evidence submitted by them. 

The team working on the project consisted of partners Ivan Kasinyuk and Iryna Moroz, former senior associate Dmitry Izotov, and associate Viktor Pasichnyk. 

AGA Partners successfully represented one of Ukraine’s largest importers of fertilisers in proceedings before the Commercial Court of the Odesa Region, obtaining a vessel arrest to secure their cargo claim. The claim arose due to the deterioration of the cargo – Nigerian granulated urea – during its carriage by sea. 

To safeguard the сlient’s right to compensation for the cargo damage, AGA Partners filed an application for the vessel’s arrest as security for the maritime claim against the carrier. After examining the evidence, the court concluded that the сlient had sufficiently substantiated the existence of a maritime claim and granted the arrest order. 

The vessel arrest subsequently became a decisive factor in AGA Partners’ legal strategy. Owing to the team’s effective actions, the dispute was successfully settled, and the client received compensation for the damaged cargo. 

Vessel arrest remains one of the most effective tools for securing maritime claims. It not only ensures the possibility of actual recovery but also strengthens the claimant’s negotiating position, often leading to amicable settlement. 

The matter was handled by Partner Pavlo Lebediev, together with Associates Vasyl Radetskyi, Viktor Pasichnyk, and Vadym Neskorod. 

The AGA Partners team secured another significant victory for its Client (Seller) in international commercial arbitration in London, arising from a series of contracts for the supply of approximately 25,000 MT of Ukrainian crude sunflower oil to a Turkish buyer.

Following the 2023 earthquake in Türkiye, the Buyer refused to perform four contracts, citing damage to its production facilities and inability to continue operations. The Seller rejected these arguments and treated the Buyer’s conduct as anticipatory breach, maintaining that such circumstances did not affect the Buyer’s obligation to pay under the contracts.

During the arbitration, AGA Partners’ team successfully demonstrated that events in the country of destination do not excuse non-performance under CIF contracts, reaffirming the principle of “payment against documents”. The Tribunal also clarified key aspects of anticipatory breach and mitigation and confirmed that contractual notices remain effective if properly sent, even if not actually read.

As a result, the Tribunal issued an award in favour of AGA Partners’ Client, ordering the Buyer to pay more than USD 7 million in damages, together with interest and recovery of arbitration and legal costs.

AGA Partners experts emphasize that this case not only reaffirms the strict nature of CIF obligations but also illustrates how decisive and timely action in response to anticipatory breach can be critical in protecting commercial interests in a volatile market.

This arbitration victory was achieved through the efforts of Partner AGA Partners  Iryna Moroz, Senior Associate AGA Partners  Ievgen Boiarskyi, and Associate AGA Partners Andrii Tantsiura.

AGA Partners team has secured another victory for its Client in international commercial arbitration in London involving five contracts for the supply of Ukrainian sunflower and soybean oil to a Polish buyer. 

After receiving the Goods, which were delivered by rail wagons to the Ukrainian-Polish border, the Buyer refused to pay the full price, citing allegedly poor quality and noncompliance with European food safety regulations.Polish border, the compliance with European food safety regulations. 

In the course the arbitration proceedings, AGA Partners’ specialists presented compelling arguments that the Buyers’ claims regarding alleged nonconformity of the Goods were unfounded and inconsistent with the terms of the contracts and the EUestablished food safety regulations. Besides, AGA Partners applied the time bar argument against the Buyers’ quality counterclaim. 

As a result, the arbitrators issued an award in favour of AGA Partners’ Client, ordering the Buyers to pay the full value of the Goods as well as compound interest for late payment under the contracts. 

AGA Partners experts emphasize that the procedure for resolving quality disputes is subject to a special regime under the relevant arbitration rules. The limitation period for claims related to quality claims is shorter compared to other types of disputes. Therefore, delaying the initiation of arbitration and filing a claim may result in the dismissal of quality relateddemands.related demands. 

Thus, the limitation period for filing a quality claim may be short. It is therefore necessary to always check the applicable version of the arbitration rules to understand what limitation periods apply to the relevant quality claim. 

This arbitration victory was achieved through the efforts of partner Iryna Moroz and associate Vasyl Radetskyi. 

AGA Partners is pleased to announce a successful outcome in arbitration proceedings before the International Commercial Arbitration Court at the Ukrainian Chamber of Commerce and Industry (ICAC at the UCCI), where the firm represented a Swiss agritrading company. 

The arbitration was initiated by a Ukrainian agricultural producer, who filed a claim against our Client seeking recovery of outstanding payments for delivered goods, as well as contractual penalties. The overall claim amount exposed the Client to substantial commercial risk. 

During the proceedings, the legal team of AGA Partners implemented a comprehensive defence strategy and demonstrated that a significant part of the claim lacked proper legal and factual grounds. In particular, AGA Partners succeeded in proving the groundlessness of excessive penalties. 

The arbitral tribunal accepted the core defence arguments and concluded that the asserted claims required differentiation. As a result, the tribunal partially upheld the claim, reducing the total amount sought by the claimant by USD 100,000.00. 

Following the issuance of the arbitral award, the parties commenced settlement negotiations and ultimately reached an amicable settlement on commercially acceptable terms.  

The case was handled by partner Iryna Moroz and Associate Maksym Fesenko. 

AGA Partners successfully represented its Client - the Chinese state-owned corporation specialising in the production of a wide range of construction materials in proceedings concerning the recognition and enforcement in Ukraine of an International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) arbitration award rendered in Hong Kong.

Following the successful outcome at first instance, the debtor challenged the decision before the appellate court. 

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal in full and upheld the first-instance ruling, thereby confirming the recognition and granting permission for enforcement of the arbitration award in Ukraine.

This case is of particular significance for several reasons:

1. Ukrainian courts at both first-instance and appellate instances confirmed the enforceability of a foreign arbitration award against a debtor bank undergoing liquidation proceedings.
2. The amounts awarded under the arbitration award exceed EUR 100,000,000.00.
3. The appellate decision strengthens Ukrainian enforcement practice and sets an important precedent for future cases involving the recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitration awards in the context of bank liquidation.
4. It is important to emphasise that this decision is final and not subject to further challenge.

The Supreme Court's decision can be found at the link.

The AGA Partners team was represented by partner Iryna Moroz, associate Maksym Fesenko, and associate Tetiana Osypenko.

AGA Partners successfully represented a Swiss trader in the London arbitration against the Ukrainian shipowner in a dispute arising from the detection of hazardous admixtures, including glass, in the cargo at discharge.

The buyer claimed damages, caused by the spoilage of the cargo, in the amount of around USD 180,000 from the shipowner. The shipowner, admitting the buyer’s claim in part, claimed the reimbursement of the sum paid to the buyer and commenced LMAA arbitration against the Client to collect it.

During the subsequent negotiation, AGA Partners’ lawyers proved that the shipowner’s claim had not been supported by proper evidence that the contamination of the cargo with hazardous admixtures occurred due to the Client’s fault, since there was evidence that the Client had loaded the vessel with cargo of contractual quality. As a result, a settlement agreement was reached, under the terms of which the Client paid an amount that was 10 times lower than the shipowner’s claim.

Senior associate Ievhen Boiarskyi and associate Viktor Pasichnyk worked on this project.

The company was acknowledged in 5️⃣ key practices:

▫ Agribusiness

▫ International Arbitration

▫ International Trade

▫ Litigation: Domestic and Cross-Border

▫ Transport: Aviation, Maritime & Shipping

Key individual recognitions include:

• Managing Partner Aminat Suleymanova – recognized in International Arbitration
• Partner Iryna Moroz – recognized in Agribusiness, International Arbitration, International Trade, Litigation, Transport: Aviation, Maritime & Shipping
• Partner Ivan Kasynyuk – recognized in Agribusiness, International Arbitration, International Trade, Transport: Aviation, Maritime & Shipping
• Counsel Pavlo Lebediev – recognized in International Arbitration, International Trade, Transport: Aviation, Maritime & Shipping
• Senior Associate Dariia Zyma – recognized in International Arbitration, International Trade, Litigation
• Senior Associate Ievgen Boiarskyi – recognized in International Arbitration, International Trade
• Senior Associate Yurii Bedenko – recognized in International Arbitration, International Trade
• Senior Associate Dmytro Izotov – recognized in International Arbitration, International Trade
• Associate Maksym Fesenko was endorsed by market insiders for his efficient performance in Agribusiness.
• Associate Vasyl Radetskyi contributed key input in Litigation.

Congratulations to the whole team on these well-deserved achievements!

AGA Partners is pleased to announce a successful outcome in a London arbitration, where our firm represented a Cypriot agricultural trading company (the Buyers) in a contractual dispute with a major Polish agricultural supplier (the Sellers).

The dispute arose from the Sellers’ unjustified refusal to deliver the contracted goods, despite the existence of a binding agreement. In an attempt to avoid liability, the Sellers argued that no valid contract had been concluded, claiming that the agreement had not been properly signed by the Buyers’ company and that negotiations on behalf of the Sellers were conducted by an unauthorised representative.

However, these arguments were without merit. AGA Partners successfully demonstrated that during the negotiation stage, the Buyers had clearly and consistently expressed their agreement to the contract terms and confirmed their intention to be bound. Moreover, they recognised and dealt with the Sellers’ representative as duly authorised to conclude the agreement on behalf of the Sellers. Thus, AGA Partners insisted that the Buyers had to compensate the Sellers for the refusal to deliver the goods.

The Tribunal agreed with our position, upheld all of our Client’s claims in full, and awarded damages reflecting the difference between the contract price and the market price as of the date of default. This result reinforces a fundamental principle of English contract law: once parties provide their acceptance to be bound by the contractual provisions, they cannot rely on formalistic excuses, like a lack of signatures, to sabotage the performance. The case was handled by partner Ivan Kasynyuk, Senior Associate Dmytro Izotov, and Associate Maksym Fesenko.

In June 2024, a Ukrainian court recognised and granted leave for the enforcement of an arbitral award in favour of a French international trading company. The arbitration arose from the Ukrainian seller’s failure to supply the goods under the contract.   

During the recognition proceedings, the respondent attempted to resist enforcement by raising several objections, including:   

• the absence of a valid arbitration agreement between the parties;  

• improper notification of the arbitration proceedings; and  

• the alleged non-existence of the award creditor due to corporate restructuring.  

The Ukrainian court dismissed all objections, finding that the award fully met the formal and substantive requirements of the 1958 New York Convention. The court also confirmed that enforcement would not contradict Ukraine’s public policy.   

This decision reaffirms the pro-enforcement and arbitration-friendly stance of Ukrainian courts. 

The matter was handled by Partners Iryna Moroz, Ivan Kasynyuk and Counsel Pavlo Lebediev. 

According to the results of the annual study “Market Leaders. Rating of Law Firms — 2025” conducted by Yuridichna Gazeta, AGA Partners received the status of “Leader in Practice” in eight key areas: 

• Agribusiness / Land Law 

• Family Law 

• War Damage Practice 

• Maritime Law 

• International Arbitration / International Litigation 

• International Trade 

• Private clients 

• Sports law 

Special mention was made of the personal contribution of managing partner Aminat Suleymanova, who was included in the top 20 most effective female partners of law firms in Ukraine.  

The ranking is based on three components: the quality of cases and projects, recommendations from colleagues, and international recognition. This allows for an objective assessment of law firms' positions in the market. 

For us, this recognition is an indicator of our systematic work, which is confirmed every day by both the results we deliver to our clients and our professional reputation. 

AGA Partners’ team provided comprehensive legal support to a Ukrainian company in implementing a contractual mechanism for trading agricultural machinery, fertilisers and fuel with farmers. The proposed solution involved the use of crop receipts as a tool to secure the fulfilment of farmers' obligations. 

As part of the project, AGA Partners also provided detailed advice on the legal regime for the circulation of crop receipts in Ukraine, including risk analysis, opportunities for protecting the rights of the creditor, and practical aspects of working with this instrument. 

Counsel Pavlo Lebediev and associate Viktor Pasichnyk worked on the project. 

AGA Partners is pleased to announce a successful outcome in a case before the Commercial Court of Sumy Region, where we represented the Swiss branch of a major Chinese agribusiness corporation. The case was part of broader proceedings to recognise and enforce a London-seated arbitration award in Ukraine against a Ukrainian debtor reported in our previous publications.

In a strategic attempt to evade enforcement of an arbitral award, the Debtor filed a lawsuit seeking to invalidate the underlying sales contract that served as the basis for the arbitration. The Debtor primarily argued that the parties never exchanged the original version of the contract.

AGA Partners challenged the jurisdiction of the commercial court, arguing that the arbitration agreement had been duly confirmed by both Ukrainian courts and the arbitral tribunal, and the contract itself had been repeatedly acknowledged as valid.

The court rejected the Debtor’s claims as unfounded, citing several key points: (1) the issue of the contract’s validity had already been addressed during the arbitration; (2) the contract contained a valid arbitration clause mandating resolution of disputes (including the ones on validity of the contract) only through arbitration; and (3) the presumption of the arbitration agreement’s validity had not been rebutted.

Accordingly, the court dismissed the case without consideration, reaffirming the binding nature of the arbitration clause between the parties.

The case was handled by Partner Iryna Moroz, Senior Associate Dmytro Izotov, and Associate Maksym Fesenko.

The case involved a $9 million corn shipment under the CIF contract, under which the Client acted as the Seller.

All goods were delivered on time and with full documentation. Yet the Buyer delayed payment for the cargo - first citing “banking issues”, then blaming a default by their sub-buyers. Under the contract terms and applicable INCASSO payment terms, our Client was legally entitled not to discharge the cargo without payment, however, he was unable to redirect the goods to another buyer (after sending this one to the default) due to the Buyer’s bank holding the irrevocable original documents.

During this time, the Buyer was declared in default, only to later attempt to “cure” it with further promices which turned out to be baseless. The situation spiraled as our Client had to navigate mounting losses, broken promises, shifting excuses, and simultaneous pressure from the vessel Owner threatening to withdraw the ship.

After failed promises and last-minute manoeuvres, the Buyer finally settled the payment for the goods. The Client then gave green light for discharge, however, the vessel had lost its berthing turn, triggering another month of delay. And yet, after accepting the goods, the Buyer refused to pay a single dollar in demurrage.

The arbitration that followed was no less dramatic. The Buyer launched a full obstruction campaign: challenging the arbitrator’s impartiality, disputing jurisdiction, and filing a mirror-image counterclaim clearly designed to stall proceedings.

Represented by Ivan Kasynyuk, Dariia Zyma, and Viktor Romaniv, the AGA Partners team systematically dismantled every claim, rebutted all procedural challenges, and won a full award of over $700,000 in favor of our Client.