On 20 June 2025, the Thirteenth Arbitrazh Court of Appeal (Russia) considered the claim of OOO Stimul against OOO Songer for the recovery of approximately 61 million Roubles (about 800,000 US dollars) in debt for the provision of services of the Container xChange electronic platform.
Case history:
The German company xChange Solutions GmbH is responsible for the operation of the Container xChange platform. xChange Solutions GmbH and Songer entered into an agreement on the interchange of containers for the BCG xChange platform (hereinafter referred to as the Agreement).
On 9 September 2024, xChange Solutions GmbH assigned the rights to claim the debt from Songer under the Agreement and transferred them to Stimul.
In Clause 18 of the Agreement, the parties to the Agreement agreed to an arbitration (arbitration in London in accordance with the London Maritime Arbitrators Association (LMAA) Terms; arbitration in New York in accordance with the Society of Maritime Arbitrators (SMA) Rules; arbitration in Singapore in accordance with the Arbitration Rules of the Singapore Chamber of Maritime Arbitration (SCMA); arbitration in Hong Kong in accordance with the Hong Kong International Arbitration Centre (HKIAC) Rules).
Songer filed a motion to dismiss the claim, citing the arbitration agreement and their choice of arbitration in London.
Stimul claimed that the arbitration clause was invalid and unenforceable.
The Court of First Instance stayed the proceedings, rejected Stimul's arguments and referred the parties to London arbitration.
Stimul filed an appeal. The Court of Appeal upheld the judgement of the Court of First Instance.
Judgements reasoning:
This category of disputes may be referred to arbitration.
The requirement for the status of a permanent arbitration institution does not apply to cases where the parties have agreed to resolve disputes in arbitration with a seat outside the Russian Federation.
In a dispute between two Russian companies, the initial arbitration clause may be enforced. The Russian law does not prohibit the conclusion of an arbitration agreement between Russian persons, including the transfer of a dispute to a foreign arbitration.
Changing the jurisdiction of a dispute by concluding an assignment agreement is not allowed.
No obstacles to access to justice have been proven, since the parties to the dispute are not under sanctions.
Source: Case No. A56-111059/2024
Case history:
The German company xChange Solutions GmbH is responsible for the operation of the Container xChange platform. xChange Solutions GmbH and Songer entered into an agreement on the interchange of containers for the BCG xChange platform (hereinafter referred to as the Agreement).
On 9 September 2024, xChange Solutions GmbH assigned the rights to claim the debt from Songer under the Agreement and transferred them to Stimul.
In Clause 18 of the Agreement, the parties to the Agreement agreed to an arbitration (arbitration in London in accordance with the London Maritime Arbitrators Association (LMAA) Terms; arbitration in New York in accordance with the Society of Maritime Arbitrators (SMA) Rules; arbitration in Singapore in accordance with the Arbitration Rules of the Singapore Chamber of Maritime Arbitration (SCMA); arbitration in Hong Kong in accordance with the Hong Kong International Arbitration Centre (HKIAC) Rules).
Songer filed a motion to dismiss the claim, citing the arbitration agreement and their choice of arbitration in London.
Stimul claimed that the arbitration clause was invalid and unenforceable.
The Court of First Instance stayed the proceedings, rejected Stimul's arguments and referred the parties to London arbitration.
Stimul filed an appeal. The Court of Appeal upheld the judgement of the Court of First Instance.
Judgements reasoning:
This category of disputes may be referred to arbitration.
The requirement for the status of a permanent arbitration institution does not apply to cases where the parties have agreed to resolve disputes in arbitration with a seat outside the Russian Federation.
In a dispute between two Russian companies, the initial arbitration clause may be enforced. The Russian law does not prohibit the conclusion of an arbitration agreement between Russian persons, including the transfer of a dispute to a foreign arbitration.
Changing the jurisdiction of a dispute by concluding an assignment agreement is not allowed.
No obstacles to access to justice have been proven, since the parties to the dispute are not under sanctions.
Source: Case No. A56-111059/2024