“Mikhail Vishnyakov is an experienced dispute resolution lawyer and a Fellow of the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators. Mikhail’s clients include high-net-worth individuals and major corporates. He is experienced in designing and implementing a litigation strategy tailored to each dispute”
Mikhail’s practice focuses on international arbitration and litigation. Mikhail also advises on financial sanctions and compliance issues.
He has particular expertise in disputes arising out of M&A transactions and complex shareholder conflicts. He regularly acts in claims concerning assets in the emerging markets and the CIS. Mikhail has experience of arbitrations conducted under the major arbitral institutions and rules, including LCIA, ICC, SCC and UNCITRAL.
His sector experience includes manufacturing, metals and mining, oil and gas, retail, FinTech, media and financial services.
Mikhail joined Cooke, Young & Keidan LLP from the dispute resolution department of Linklaters LLP, where he practicised for over 7 years and was recognised by the Legal 500 as a key lawyer in the arbitration team.
Mikhail trained and qualified as a solicitor at SJ Berwin LLP. Mikhail read Law at the University of Bristol. He also holds a Diploma in International Arbitration from the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators.
Mikhail is a Solicitor Advocate and is also registered as an Advocate with the Cyprus Bar Association.
He is fluent in English and Russian and moderate in Greek.
Mikhail is a member of the following: CIARB; ICC YAF; LCIA Young International Arbitration Group; Ukrainian Arbitration Association; RAA40; Hungarian Arbitration Association; Young ISTAC; Young ICCA; and Cyprus Bar Association.
What the legal directories say
The testimonial in the Legal 500 describes Mikhail as:
“…a tenacious litigator. He relishes the fight, and presses for every legitimate advantage for his client. He works hard to ensure that all the angles have been considered and covered. It is great to have him in your corner.”
Enforcement post-Brexit: big win for arbitration?
Financial Institutions Litigation
Russia Sanctions: key restrictions and potential claims
Is a parent company bound by an arbitration clause entered into by its subsidiary?
Warranty claims: to what extent are post-transaction events relevant?
Financial sanctions and English law contracts – what’s the potential impact for business?
Cases of Note
BPY v MXV  EWHC 82 (Comm): Successfully defending a challenge brought under Section 68 of the Arbitration Act 1996 to an arbitral award. This case is significant because of the numerous and notable grounds for the challenge, which included: rules applicable to cross examinations in London-seated arbitrations; alleged bias; and treatment of allegedly unlawfully obtained documents.
Defending two high-net-worth individuals in claims arising out of the sale of their majority shareholding in an Eastern European steel enterprise to a financial-institution-buyer.
Defending a high-net-worth individual from a US$1 billion claim arising out of the disposal of an online gaming platform.
Representing the purchasers of a recycling business in a claim under the warranty and indemnity insurance policy, arising out of fraud.
Representing Ukrainian sellers of a manufacturing business in breach of contract and fraud claims.
Bringing breach of contract and fraudulent misrepresentation claims against the sellers of a coffee house chain, arising out of surreptitious payments made to local officials.
Pursued a breach of contract claim against the sellers of a telecommunications company.
Applying for and obtaining authorisations from the UK and EU competent authorities required under the EU and under the UK sanctions regimes.
Advised a central bank of an Eastern European country on potential civil fraud and asset recovery proceedings against the former owners of a major bank following its nationalisation.
Challenging a fine imposed by OFSI for breach of financial sanctions.
Advising a sovereign state resisting the enforcement of an arbitration award
Acting for the liquidators of several companies within the SAAD group in the claims brought by AHAB.