Some advice from victims of voter fraud who won the day

June 11, 2020 By Bruce S. Marks and Mike Roman "El Nuevo Metodo de Votar."  The year was 1993.  Control of the Pennsylvania state Senate turned on a special election in Philadelphia.  Although the district was heavily Democratic, the...

1782 Discovery Blog: California Federal Court Upholds §1782 Discovery For Private Foreign Arbitration Impacting Silicon Valley

In HRC-Hainan Holding Co., LLC v. Yihan Hu, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 32125, at *11-12 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 25, 2020), the United States Court for the Northern District of California, which encompasses Silicon Valley, authorized  Chinese and Delaware registered companies...

1782 Discovery Blog: The Long Arm Of §1782 Discovery Is Used To Reach Documents Outside The U.S.

The Second Circuit in In re del Valle Ruiz, 939 F.3d 520 (2d Cir. 2019) and the  Eleventh Circuit in Sergeeva v. Tripleton Int'l Ltd., 834 F.3d 1194 (11th Cir. 2016) have held there is no per se bar to the extraterritorial application of 28 U.S.C. §1782 and that it...

COVID-19 Update: Russia Announces New Measure To Support Tenants (Federal law No. 166-FZ dated June 8, 2020)

It is expected that as a result of Russia’s many Covid-19 related restrictions on travel and economic activity, many commercial tenants will be unable to use leased properties to generate income to pay rent, while many landlords will continue to be obligated to make...

1782 Discovery Blog: The Second Circuit Affirms §1782 Discovery May Be Used To Obtain Documents From Outside The U.S.

In In re del Valle Ruiz, 939 F.3d 520 (2d Cir. 2019), the Second Circuit held there is no per se bar to the extraterritorial application of 28 U.S.C. §1782 and that it may be used to reach documents located outside of the United States. In the Southern District of New...

1782 Discovery Blog: The Eleventh Circuit Vacates A §1782 Discovery Order Because Foreign Proceedings Will Not Proceed

Under 28 U.S.C. §1782, the U.S. offers a very powerful litigation tool to parties to non-U.S. court proceedings allowing them to obtain bank records, documents and witness testimony from sources within the U.S., even if such evidence is unobtainable through the home...

Labeling antifa as a terrorist group will not have any legal consequences – RIA NEWS

June 1, 2020 Bruce Marks comments to RIA NEWS on D. Trump's statement that the United States will designate Antifa as a terrorist organization after a wave of riots and looting across US.He noted that it is now extremely important to establish whether protests were...

1782 Discovery Blog: The Sixth Circuit Upholds §1782 Discovery For International Arbitration

Under 28 U.S.C. §1782, the U.S. offers a very powerful litigation tool to parties to non-U.S. court proceedings allowing them to obtain bank records, documents and witness testimony from sources within the U.S., even if such evidence is unobtainable through the home...

The Impact Of Coronavirus (COVID-19) On Business: Non-Performance Of Contracts Based Upon Force Majeure, CISG Article 79 And UCC 2-615

The worldwide coronavirus outbreak, designated as COVID-19 by the World Health Organization, is having an immediate impact on businesses throughout the world.  Companies should proactively take steps to minimize the economic impact from COVID-19, including...

RUSSIA UPDATE: MOSCOW REMAINS ON LOCKDOWN

On March 30, 2020, Russia implemented a “non-working” period for Russia to slow the spread of COVID-19. On May 12, 2020, this was cancelled.  Restrictions are being gradually lifted and each region of Russia is setting its own rules for resuming normal...

How to dismiss head of representative office of a foreign company in Russia

by | Apr 7, 2015 | Blog, Publications

Marks & Sokolov attorneys obtained a civil judgment unveiling the grey area of Russian labor law in dispute between foreign company and the head of its Russian representative office
What the case involved: a foreign company having its representative office in Moscow, Russia, dismissed the head of its representative office under the rules stipulated by law for heads of companies. The head of representative office claimed such dismissal to be illegal.
Process and result: Marks & Sokolov attorneys represented the foreign company in court and successfully proved that Russian labor law rules for dismissing head of companies also apply to head of representative offices of foreign companies in Russia.
The judge of a district court of Moscow dismissed the claim in full. This judgment was upheld by Moscow city court.Юристы компании Marks&Sokolov добились в суде признания правомерным увольнения главы представительства по правилам, предусмотренным для увольнения руководителей компаний
Суть дела: Юристы компании Marks&Sokolov добились в суде признания правомерным увольнения главы представительства иностранной компании по правилам, предусмотренным п. 2 ст. 278 ТК РФ для увольнения руководителей компаний
Процесс и результат: В компанию Marks&Sokolov обратилась иностранная компания, имеющая представительство в Москве. Компании необходимо было уволить сотрудника, занимающего пост главы московского представительства. Поскольку сотрудник отказался от предложения расторгнуть трудовой договор по соглашению сторон, он был уволен по правилам, предусмотренным для руководителей организаций. Не согласившись с таким увольнением, Глава представительства обратился в суд, утверждая, что такие правила применимы лишь к руководителям российских юридических лиц и не могут применяться при увольнении глав представительств иностранных компаний.
Юристы Marks&Sokolov подготовили возражения на иск и приняли участие в судебном заседании по делу. Проанализировав материалы дела и оценив представленные юристами возражения, судья районного суда г. Москвы принял решение об отказе в иске, в котором пояснил, что правила, предусмотренные Трудовым кодексом РФ для увольнения руководителей организаций, применимы к главам представительств иностранных компаний. Глава представительства обжаловал решение суда первой инстанции в Московский городской суд. Судебная коллегия Московского городского суда оставила в силе решение суда первой инстанции.
Таким образом, суд апелляционной инстанции подтвердил, что глава представительства иностранной компании, так же как и руководитель российского юридического лица, может быть уволен на основании п. 2 ст. 278 ТК РФ с выплатой компенсации в размере трехкратного среднего месячного заработка.