Our client, a major fertilizer manufacturer had a long-standing business relationship with a monopoly supplier of potassium chloride. However, upon the expiration of the term of the contract, the supplier refused to enter into a new contract with his long-term buyer, citing its technical inability to produce the volume of potassium chloride requested by the fertilizer manufacturer. The contract was crucially important for our client, since without source of potassium chloride, the company would have been forced to shut down several facilities located in mono-towns. The case was further complicated by the position of the Federal Anti-Monopoly Service of the Russian Federation, which had changed its views on the lawfulness of the supplier’s refusal to extend its contract with the client. We were faced by the difficult task to force the supplier to enter into the contract by proving in court that the supplier had sufficient capacity to supply its produce.
We retained the best potassium chloride market experts and analysts. We worked in a close contact with the client’s technical and financial divisions on processing a vast amount of financial and technical information to be presented to the court in comprehensible tables and charts. We had to apply similar scrupulousness to formulating our legal position in this case - we presented to the court the results of a systematic analysis of the supplier’s actions from the viewpoint of antimonopoly laws and substantiated unlawfulness of its activities.
We won the case in the first instance. Our arguments and evidence presented to the court forced the supplier to enter into negotiations with our client. In the end, the client was able to enter into the required contract on favorable conditions.