Maxim Arefiev x5 retail group. Antimonopoly Forum of the Association of Corporate Lawyers “Competition produces geniuses”

Retail. The stock market includes shares of three grocery chains: Seventh Continent, X5 retail group and Magnit, but over the course of the year the list of traded securities from the sector will increase.

Analysts are unanimous in their positive assessment of the investment attractiveness of the retail segment, calling it “the beneficiary of the Russian market.” There are several reasons for this, the most important of which is the growth in income and consumption of the population. “The share of consumption of a number of products per capita is significantly lower compared to similar indicators in Western and even Eastern European countries. This difference will decrease as GDP and the economy as a whole increase, which will ensure further rapid growth in this segment,” explains Mikhail Zak, head of the analytical department of Veles Capital Investment Company. According to calculations by Prospekt Investment Company, in 2006–2013 the average growth in gross retail turnover will be about 15%.

Another positive factor is the constant increase in the share of organized retail trade, primarily associated with the regional expansion of the largest chains. In addition, the industry is relatively little dependent on market conditions and external shocks. “This is a “defensive” sector, which is much less subject to fluctuations during sharp fluctuations in the market, for example, when oil falls,” says Troika Dialog analyst Mikhail Terentyev.

Expert at BrokerCreditService Investment Company Tatyana Bobrovskaya notes that there is still a relatively low level of competition in the industry, if you do not take into account Moscow and St. Petersburg. The combined share of the three largest chains in the food retail market is at the level of 5–6%, while in Eastern European countries this figure is 10–30%. The percentage of civilized retail trade is so small that companies in the next two to three years can easily develop and grow in any direction without colliding with each other.

Another distinctive feature of Russian food retail is the relatively weak presence of foreign players compared to the markets of other developing countries, which is also a favorable condition for the development of local retail chains.

Leading three. Seventh Continent became the first Russian retail chain to list its shares on the stock exchange in 2004. The company's capitalization, amounting to $620 million, initially seemed overpriced to market participants. “But after the IPO, Seventh Continent’s securities began to rise in price and grew by 160% over the year,” notes MDM Bank analyst Elena Afonina. And in the spring of 2006, the company conducted a secondary offering for $238 million.

While actively attracting funds, including through debt instruments, Seventh Continent was nevertheless unable to convince the market of the effectiveness of using the received investments. The retail chain was expected to have a high growth rate in the number of stores, but the company opened only about 10 supermarkets last year. According to Tatyana Bobrovskaya, this was the main reason why investors avoided the shares of the Seventh Continent: “The shares showed very poor growth - only 3% in 2006.” However, according to the analyst, in terms of operational efficiency and management, and fundamental profitability indicators, the company remains one of the most attractive grocery chains.

In May 2005, the second IPO of a food retail representative took place - the Pyaterochka chain placed 30% of its shares in the form of global depositary receipts (GDRs) on the London Stock Exchange. Investors valued the company at $1.99 billion. However, the retail IPO turned into a scandal - seven months later, Pyaterochka's stock quotes fell by about 36% after the company announced a reduction in revenue forecast by 16-19% for the year.

“Nevertheless, investors made the right decision by investing in the retail chain,” says Elena Afonina. “A year after the IPO, the shares grew by 50% of the offering price.” And over the past year, X5 retail group securities have risen in price by 85%; The main growth driver was the merger of Pyaterochka and Perekrestok.

According to Maxim Arefiev, director of investment banking at Troika Dialog Investment Bank, the labor-intensive process of integrating two networks can still put investors on guard. But Tatyana Bobrovskaya, an analyst at Brokercreditservice Investment Company, believes that all the risks associated with the merger are no longer relevant, and investors should rather pay attention to the high debt load of the X5 retail group. By the end of the year, the holding plans to place a bond loan of 25 billion rubles, unprecedented both for the debt market and for retail chains. This amount will be raised in three tranches - the first for 9 billion and two - for 8 billion rubles each, with repayment in seven years.

In April 2006, the third and so far last IPO of another grocery chain, Magnit, took place on the RTS and MICEX. The value of the company as a result of the placement amounted to $1.94 billion. Analysts call Magnit the favorite of the Russian retail sector. Despite the low profitability indicators, Maxim Arefiev believes that the main value of the company lies in creating a powerful retail platform: Magnit has a very strong management team and always has clear plans for implementing its strategy. In addition to the dynamic development of convenience stores, the chain actively entered the large format, operating in small Russian cities, thereby protecting itself from competition.”

Inspired by example. An IPO of the Kopeika chain was also planned for 2006, which was to follow the placement of Magnit. However, the company's shareholders chose to postpone the IPO, citing unfavorable market conditions. “It was already quite difficult to place a profit – pressure was exerted by two waves of correction, after which the market fell quite strongly. In addition, a lot of investor funds were diverted by the Rosneft IPO,” recalls Mikhail Terentyev, an analyst at Troika Dialog.

At the end of 2006, it became known that FC Uralsib, which owns 50% of Kopeyka shares, was purchasing the remaining shares from the top management of the retail chain. The deal is scheduled to be closed by the end of February 2007. The “new” owner has his own vision of the company’s development strategy. The MDM Bank report, issued following a meeting between the management of the financial corporation and analysts, reports that Uralsib FC does not intend to part with control over Kopeyka within three years and does not intend to hold an IPO of the network in the next two to three years. This information was confirmed by “F.” Executive Director for Public Relations of FC Uralsib Alexander Vikhrov: “Kopeyka is not going to go public in the near future.”

Another retail chain whose placement has long been expected by investors is St. Petersburg's Lenta. Analysts and market participants believed that by the end of 2006 the company would sell up to 30% of its shares on the London Stock Exchange. But so far the network has preferred to negotiate with the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD) on the sale of its own securities in the amount of $125 million. As reported by “F.” in the Lenta company, the transaction is almost completed. Everyone knows that financial institutions like the EBRD enter into the capital of companies in order to then sell the stake either to a strategic investor or portfolio investors during a public offering. But the top management of the retail chain still avoids answering the question about the IPO, declaring “choosing the best way to finance the business” and “flexibility in decision making.”

Another representative of food retail, the Dixie chain, was planning an IPO for the same 2006. The company postponed the placement to 2007, which analysts associated with disappointing financial statements under IFRS for 2005 (net loss amounted to $3.3 million). Representatives of Dixy declined to comment on plans to place shares.

The Victoria and Paterson group of companies may join the three listed “repeat” chains in 2007 in line for an IPO.

Moscow city.

Education

In 1993 he entered the Military University, the Faculty of Western Languages, from which he graduated in 1998.
In 2003, he graduated with honors from the Legal Academy of the Ministry of Justice with a degree in civil law.

Professional experience

Until 2001, he served as an officer in the ranks of the Russian Armed Forces and participated in several peacekeeping missions under the auspices of the UN and OSCE in Yugoslavia and Kosovo.
Since 2003, he worked as a lawyer, senior lawyer in large retail companies, in 2007 he was appointed head of the legal service of Real-Hypermarket, Metro Group. After closing the transaction for the sale of Real to the Auchan group of companies, from 2013 to 2015, he was director of the legal department of Auchan.
Since 2015 – Director of the Legal Support Department of the Directorate for Legal Support of Business at X5 Retail Group. The management includes key divisions of legal support for the operating activities of X5 Retail Group, legal support for the activities of stores and logistics of all formats (Pyaterochka, Perekrestok, Karusel), legal support for transactions and real estate transactions, as well as ensuring compliance with trade regulations and antimonopoly legislation in the activities of commercial services for interaction with the company’s suppliers.

Hobby

Legal Tech, travel, including by car, skiing.

20.02.2018 admin 0 Comments

Maxim Arefiev, Director of the Legal Support Department of the Directorate for Legal Support of Businesses of X5 RETAIL GROUP and speaker of the Twelfth Conference “Corporate Risk Management Systems”, told CFO Russia about the intricacies of managing antimonopoly risks in the retail chain.

What features of antimonopoly restrictions for Russian retail companies are risk factors?

Russian food retail is a highly competitive market in which there is no monopolist or dominant player. The largest company accounts for only a tenth of the country's food turnover. Almost half of the state’s territory is not provided with modern retail at all. Despite this, the regulator often looks at the market through the privileged position of retail chains. Therefore, I would say that one of the main features of antimonopoly restrictions for retail is their contradiction to the economic essence of relations between participants in this market, which regularly causes uncertainty in work.

For example, due to the lack of a dominant network in the retail sector, the legal institutions introduced from the rules for dominants, whether creating discriminatory conditions or imposing something, are difficult to correctly apply in our work. In essence, this influences the negotiation process of business entities without objective reasons. After all, each of the parties, due to the absence of a legally stronger provision, can declare the unfavorability of any condition without reaching a compromise.

Is it possible to counteract them? How does X5 Retail Group do this?

I would not talk about counteracting, but rather resolving the aforementioned uncertainty. This can be achieved through constant interaction with commercial services within the company, suppliers, as well as the regulator, in order to clarify legal uncertainties, as well as build a self-regulatory process. In addition, participation in associations and expert groups is a mandatory element of risk prevention and a correct understanding of the rules of industry regulation by all participants in the law enforcement process. Of course, sometimes you have to defend your interests in court.

What must be taken into account when dealing with antitrust risks?

When dealing with antitrust risks, it is important to take into account the economic nature of legislative prohibitions, that is, the meaning of the restrictions, and also closely monitor changes occurring in the market. Any law enforcement practice that distorts the meaning of any restriction can lead not only to direct losses for the business in the form of fines, but also directly affect the company’s profits and operating methods, its behavior in the market, and competitiveness. Therefore, every company action in the market and operating strategy is subject to careful assessment for compliance with current legislation and economic consequences for market participants.

Supported by

Location: Moscow, st. Ilyinka, 6, Congress Center of the Russian Chamber of Commerce and Industry

“We intervene in those areas where restoration of competitive relations is required. If you don’t do this, corruption and theft will flourish.”
Igor Artemyev,
Head of the Federal Antimonopoly Service

Program

9:00 - 9-30 Registration of participants. Welcome coffee

Opening of the conference: Alexandra Nesterenko, President, NP “Association of Corporate Lawyers”

Program:

SESSION I. UNIFORMITY OF ANTI-MONPOLY ENFORCEMENT

Session moderator - Andrey Tsyganov, Deputy Head, FAS Russia

9:35 - 9:55 “Antimonopoly appeal and first application experience”
Artem Molchanov, Head of the Legal Department of the Federal Antimonopoly Service of Russia

10:10 - 10:25 “Warnings and cautions as preventive measures: problematic issues of law enforcement”
Alexey Kostovarov, Head of Antitrust and Procurement Practice, Liniya Prava

10:35 - 10:55 “Draft Explanations of the Presidium of the FAS Russia on the application of Art. 10 of the Law on Protection of Competition. Discussion points"
Nikolay Voznesensky, partner, head of antitrust practice, Goltsblat BLP

11:00 - 11:25 Discussion. Questions from members of the Regional Committee for Legal Affairs on the topic of Explanations. Discussion of the project

• Artem Molchanov, Head of the Legal Department of the Federal Antimonopoly Service of Russia
• Tatyana Machkova, head of the administrative practice department,
• Yulia Gorbenkova, Antitrust Law Practice Advisor, MegaFon

11:30-11:50 Summing up the discussion on the Draft Clarifications
Andrey Tsyganov, Deputy Head of the Federal Antimonopoly Service of Russia

12:10 - 12:50 Lunch

SESSION II. PRACTICE AND CONSEQUENCES OF VIOLATION OF ANTI-MONOPOLY LEGISLATION

Session moderator - Sergey Puzyrevsky, Deputy Head of the FAS Russia

13:00 - 13:20 “Cartels: what and how is subject to proof in the process of considering an antimonopoly case”
Andrey Tenishev, Head of the Anti-Cartel Department, FAS Russia

13:20 - 13:50 Discussion

• Andrey Tenishev, Head of the Anti-Cartel Department of the Federal Antimonopoly Service of Russia
• Vitaly Dianov, Head of Antitrust Practice Group, Goltsblat BLP
• Tatyana Odabashyan, Director of Legal Affairs and Compliance, Heineken United Breweries

13:55 - 14:15 “Development of trading regulation and current law enforcement practice”
Denis Yurov, partner, Delcredere

14.20 – 14.25 Practice of implementation of concession agreements and PPP agreements: - requirements for the qualifications of bidders - restriction of competition or effective competition? - qualification of investment transactions in the practice of the FAS Russia
Elena Bardasheva, Managing Director of the PPP Center,

14:25 - 14:40 “Collection of losses incurred in connection with violation of competition law: standards of evidence and application practice”
Natalya Afinogenova, Senior Associate, Dentons

SESSION III. ISSUES OF ANTI-MONOPOLY ENFORCEMENT WHEN SALES OF PRODUCTS

Session moderator - Andrey Kashevarov, Deputy Head, FAS Russia

• Ekaterina Uryukina, Deputy Head of the Department for Control of the Social Sphere and Trade, FAS Russia

14:55-15:10 “Ways to develop the law on trade. The practice of applying discounts, calculating and paying for services, issues of discrimination"
Valeria Ponomareva, senior associate, Dentons

15:15 - 15:40 Discussion on the practice of applying trade law

• Pavel Gromov, Director of the Legal Department,
• Maxim Arefiev, Director of the Legal Support Department, X5 Retail Group

15:50 - 16:00 Summing up the Forum

OKUR Antimonopoly Forum - the main event of the antimonopoly spring

On March 24, 2017, the annual Antimonopoly Forum entitled “Competition Produces Geniuses” was held, organized by the Association of Corporate Lawyers together with the FAS Russia. For several years now, this event has become one of the key events of spring.

A distinctive feature of this year’s Antimonopoly Forum was not just the consideration of antimonopoly issues, but also the summing up of the results of the joint work of the OKUR and the FAS Russia in 2016.

At the forum there was a public discussion of the draft clarifications of the Presidium of the FAS Russia on the procedure for applying the provisions of Article 10 of the Federal Law “On the Protection of Competition” prepared by the joint working group of the OKUR and the FAS Russia. We would like to remind you that at the Antimonopoly Forum 2016, on the initiative of the Head of the FAS Russia, Igor Artemyev, and the President of the OKYUR, Alexandra Nesterenko, a working group was created to prepare clarifications, which now functions on an ongoing basis.

The creation of such a working group - a unique opportunity for the business community and members of the OKUR to participate in antimonopoly regulation in Russia - is an excellent example of effective cooperation with a government agency.

In the welcoming speech Alexandra Nesterenko, President of OKUR, noted the fruitful work of the Association and the FAS Russia, and, in particular, the joint working group. She thanked the Head of the Federal Antimonopoly Service of Russia I.Yu. Artemyev for the willingness of his department to cooperate with the business community, his colleagues and proactive members of the OKUR - Tatyana Machkova, head of the administrative practice department of Sberbank, Yulia Gorbenkova, adviser to the antimonopoly law practice of MegaFon, and others for their active position .

Andrey Tsyganov, Deputy Head of the Federal Antimonopoly Service of Russia, moderator of the first session, opened a discussion dedicated to the issues of uniformity of antimonopoly enforcement and the draft clarifications of the Presidium of the FAS Russia on Article 10 of the Law on Protection of Competition.

A. Tsyganov said that the joint working group has done a lot of work; the resulting draft clarification contains many provisions on controversial issues, which was also noted by members of the Methodological Council of the FAS Russia, of which he is the chairman. According to A. Tsyganov, public discussion of this project at the Antimonopoly Forum is an important element in the preparation of such a document, since it allows us to assess how well it meets practical needs.

Report Head of the Legal Department of the Federal Antimonopoly Service of Russia Artyom Molchanov was dedicated to the first experience of the internal appeal of the FAS Russia as an integral element of ensuring uniformity of antimonopoly enforcement.

A. Molchanov raised the issue of the procedure for reviewing decisions and orders of territorial antimonopoly authorities, gave statistics on the consideration of cases by the appeal board and examples of specific cases considered. He noted that achieving uniformity in antimonopoly enforcement is a priority goal towards which the FAS Russia is moving, including jointly with the OKUR in preparing clarifications from the Presidium of the FAS Russia.

Alexey Kostovarov, Head of Antitrust and Procurement Practice at Lines of Law, highlighted problematic issues of application of the provisions of the Law on Protection of Competition on warnings and cautions as preventive measures, namely, the provisions of the draft clarifications devoted to various aspects of issuing, executing and appealing warnings.

Warnings are one of the main antimonopoly tools, the use of which, as antimonopoly statistics show, leads to a significant reduction in the number of cases filed for violation of antimonopoly legislation. A. Kostovarov named the issuance of obviously unenforceable warnings as one of the key problems being solved in the project. Particular attention in the report was devoted to the issue of analyzing the product market and providing an analytical report, which is resolved positively for business in the draft clarifications. At the end of his speech, Alexey invited all forum participants to express their wishes and comments on the project.

Nikolay Voznesensky, partner, head of antitrust law practice at Goltsblat BLP, and one of the curators of the working group, spoke about such provisions of the draft clarifications as general provisions for abuse of a dominant position, abuse of a dominant position in adjacent markets and the consequences of abuse of a dominant position in the context of Part 1 of Article 10 of the Law on Protection of Competition.

Nikolay noted the progressiveness of the explanations prepared by the working group on many issues important for practical application. A change in the approach to proving the consequences of abuse of a dominant position, which introduces mandatory proof of restriction (or the possibility of restriction) of competition when qualifying violations even on special grounds, Part 1 of Article 10 of the Law on Protection of Competition, and thereby significantly develops the positions of the Plenum of the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation, according to it opinion, is absolutely key. A great achievement of the project is the proposed procedure for analyzing restrictions on competition in adjacent markets if negative consequences of abuse of a dominant position occur in such markets. Summing up, N. Voznesensky noted that in many aspects the FAS Russia has met the business community halfway, but some issues still remain beyond the scope of clarification and will be developed based on practice.

During further discussion Yulia Gorbenkova, Antitrust Law Advisor at MegaFon, noted that the clarifications establish the position according to which the antimonopoly authority must establish an objective relationship between the actions of a dominant player in one market and the consequences of such actions in an adjacent market. She indicated that when establishing such a relationship, it is important to take into account the need for the antimonopoly authority to determine the presence in the adjacent market of goods that can replace the goods of the person occupying a dominant position. Significant, in her opinion, is the clarification that abuse of a dominant position is excluded only if we are talking about the actions of the dominant in accordance with the imperative norm of the law, and the dispositive norm does not exclude abuse.

Tatyana Machkova, Head of Administrative Practice Department, Sberbank, supported the position on the importance of studying the relationship between the actions of the dominant and their consequences in the related market. However, in practice, questions remain at what stage the antimonopoly authority will conduct such a study and in what document/documents its results should be reflected.

One of the main issues is the need to analyze the related product market. According to T. Machkova, all these factors should be established as part of an analysis of the state of competition, and such an analysis should be formalized in a single analytical report. Her position was supported by A. Molchanov.

At the end of the first session, the speakers - members of the working group invited participants to discuss the provisions of the draft clarifications and provide their comments. All members of the working group received a large number of questions. So, Ekaterina Gorshkova, head of the antimonopoly department of Sibur, addressed her questions to all three speakers at once, asking them to clarify the provisions of their reports.

After the question about the internal appeal and its functions, a lively discussion broke out between A. Tsyganov and A. Kostovarov about whether the internal appeal should consider complaints if there is no violation of uniformity and no position on a controversial issue. As a result, A. Tsyganov agreed with the prospects of proposals to empower the internal appeal with the functions of forming new positions in resolving antimonopoly cases.

A. Tsyganov summed up the discussion on the draft clarifications, noting its approval by the business community and its readiness for approval by the Presidium of the FAS Russia.

Moderator of the second session dedicated to cartels Sergey Puzyrevsky, Deputy Head of the Federal Antimonopoly Service of Russia, focused on the particular relevance of this topic in light of the last few high-profile cases.

Andrey Tenishev, Head of the Anti-Cartel Department of the Federal Antimonopoly Service of Russia, opened the second session with a speech “Cartels: what and how is subject to proof in the process of considering an antimonopoly case.” A. Tenishev provided statistics on cases initiated for the period 2015–2016. cases and examined the areas of economic activity with the largest number of violations of Articles 11 and 16 of the Law on Protection of Competition. The issue of proof was examined in more detail, namely: standards of proof, the principle of evaluating evidence, modern trends in proving cartels and cartel identification systems using examples from the practice of the FAS Russia. In conclusion, A. Tenishev noted that the department’s management has 49 criteria that make it possible to identify and prove a cartel in electronic trading without leaving the premises of the FAS of Russia, as demonstrated by a training session held in Kazan recently.

Vitaly Dianov, Head of the Antitrust Practice Group at Goltsblat BLP, devoted his speech to the consideration of the most significant court cases under Article 11 of the Law on the Protection of Competition (cartels, vertical and other agreements), considered by the courts in the “post-VAS period.”

These cases show how painstakingly antitrust officials are in investigating cartel cases, and how difficult it is for courts to consider cartel cases unless they are tender cases. In conclusion, Vitaly pointed out that the complexity of cartel cases is confirmed by the fact that the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation in a number of cases (so-called “fish” cases) did not support the antimonopoly authority, despite the large volume of evidence collected by the FAS of Russia.

Tatyana Odabashyan, Director of Legal Affairs and Compliance United Heineken Breweries, described the exemplary, as recognized by many forum participants, antitrust compliance system operating in the company. During her speech, Tatyana showed a film that clearly showed the need to comply with antitrust laws by employees of business entities, even if violations could lead to the company receiving large profits. In conclusion, Tatyana noted that her company pays close attention to compliance with antitrust laws. T. Odabashyan’s speech and the antitrust compliance system demonstrated in it received approval from S. Puzyrevsky and A. Tenishev.

Next, the forum participants asked to name information programs that would help identify cartels, but A. Tenishev asked to be allowed to keep the specifics secret, explaining that this is the only way these tools will be effective.

Performance Delcredere's senior partner Denis Yurov was devoted to the legal regulation of trading and law enforcement practice in this area. First of all, Denis focused on the main changes in the legal regulation of tenders in 2017, noting that with regard to procurement under Law No. 223-FZ, priority has now been established for Russian goods, works and services. In law enforcement practice, he drew attention to the generalization of the RF Armed Forces practice on conflicts of interest between a procurement participant and the customer, in particular, to expanding the circle of persons in relation to whom a conflict of interest may occur. In his speech, D. Yurov also focused on the consideration of the moments of detection of a conflict of interest, concluding that it is necessary to check the presence of a conflict of interest at each stage. In conclusion, he highlighted the issue of bringing to administrative responsibility under Article 7.32.4 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation, emphasizing that refusal to bring to responsibility due to the insignificance of the violation is possible, despite the fact that the offense is formal.

Elena Bardasheva, Managing Director of the Gazprombank PPP Center, introduced the forum participants to the features of public-private partnership projects, the features of competitive procedures for the right to conclude concession agreements and PPP agreements, and the requirements for the experience of participants in PPP competitions in Russian and international practice. In conclusion, Elena outlined current trends in antimonopoly and arbitration practice in relation to PPP competitions and made a proposal to form a uniform approach of antimonopoly and judicial authorities to qualification requirements in concession and PPP competitions with the participation of the expert community. E. Bardasheva’s speech resonated with S. Puzyrevsky, who stated that the selection criteria for the competition should be economically justified and should not limit competition by groundlessly excluding all interested persons from the competition.

Natalya Afinogenova, senior associate at Dentons, concluded the second session of the forum with a speech on the topic: “Collection of losses incurred in connection with violations of competition law: standards of evidence and application practice.” Natalya spoke about the importance of the institution of recovery of losses and pointed out the difficulties that arise in Russia in connection with such recovery.

N. Afinogenova shared with the participants a list of steps already taken in resolving this issue and unresolved problems, noting a positive trend in the emergence of a larger number of cases of recovery of damages in connection with violation of antimonopoly legislation. In response, S. Puzyrevsky asked her to provide data on the number of such cases, since, he pointed out, only administrative liability for antimonopoly violations really works, and criminal and civil liability are not effectively applied. In his opinion, the introduction of a simplified procedure for collecting losses would help correct the situation, but at one time the proposals of the FAS Russia on this issue were not supported by the business community.

The final session of the Antimonopoly Forum was moderated by Andrey Kashevarov, Deputy Head of the FAS Russia, and with the participation of Ekaterina Uryukina, Deputy Head of Control of the Social Sphere and Trade of the FAS Russia, and was devoted to the application of the Trade Law.

She reported on the ways of development of the Law on Trade and clarifications prepared by the FAS of Russia in 2016 on the application of the provisions of this law Valeria Ponomareva, senior associate at Dentons. Valeria began her speech with an analysis of the provisions of the Trade Law and clarifications indicating the applicability of the ban on discrimination to the activities of suppliers and retail chains, regardless of their share in the product market.

Further, she raised the question of the advisability of removing distributors from the scope of the Law. At the end of her report, V. Ponomareva focused on issues of access to information and the relationship between the concepts of “group of persons” and “foreign trade activity”.

Valeria Ponomareva’s speech did not go unnoticed by A. Kashevarov, who indicated that some of the issues that Valeria drew attention to were developed by practice and do not require proof, in particular, the issue of the ban on discrimination by retail chains, regardless of their market power. He was supported by E. Uryukina.

Pavel Gromov, director of the legal department of Auchan, focused on controversial issues of application of the Trade Law. He thanked the FAS of Russia - early inspections allow retail chains to receive the necessary guidelines for further activities. The first inspections required a 180-degree revision of many issues, but at the same time provided new opportunities, in particular in terms of self-regulation. In his opinion, a new practice has emerged of suppliers violating the procedure and deadlines for providing documents and unreasonably increasing prices.

Maxim Arefiev, Director of the Legal Support Department of X5 Retail Group, continued the topic. In his opinion, the number of inspections by the Federal Antimonopoly Service of Russia and the number of requested documents are so large that retail chains are working to the limit. Retail chains, according to M. Arefyev, are ready for dialogue and cooperation with the FAS of Russia, but it is necessary to give them some time to get used to the changes in the Trade Law. In conclusion, he drew attention to the fact that suppliers sometimes also discriminate against retail chains, to which the FAS Russia must also respond.

After the speeches of all the speakers, an active discussion ensued. A. Kashevarov responded to representatives of retail chains that the FAS Russia stands for self-regulation of retail chains and fairness in their relationships with suppliers. He said that discrimination on the part of suppliers does occur, but it is so small compared to discrimination on the part of retail chains that it is not worth talking about.

In support of these words, E. Uryukina cited statistics of antimonopoly cases brought against retail chains. M. Arefyev and P. Gromov responded by citing foreign experience and pointing to the rare cases of violations by federal networks, which are presented by the FAS Russia.

Concluding the Antimonopoly Forum of the OKUR, A. Nesterenko noted the constructive work of all its participants, and also expressed gratitude to the leadership of the FAS Russia for their active participation in the forum, for their joint work within the working group to prepare clarifications, openness and readiness for dialogue and interaction with the OKUR.

https://www.site/2018-02-26/eks_press_sekretar_merii_ekaterinburga_denis_suhorukov_uhodit_v_x5_retail_group

Former press secretary of the Yekaterinburg mayor's office Denis Sukhorukov leaves for X5 Retail Group

Jaromir Romanov

Denis Sukhorukov, a specialist in relations with local government bodies at the Yekaterinburg mayor's office, and ex-press secretary of the city administration, is leaving the bureaucratic service to work in a business structure. As a source in the administration of the Ural capital told the site, Sukhorukov will work for the X5 Retail Group company from March. “He will hold almost the same position in X5 as in the mayor’s office: head of the department for work with government agencies of the Pyaterochka chain of stores in the Urals Federal District,” the source added.

According to him, in his new job Sukhorukov will establish interaction between Pyaterochka and regional government bodies in order to promote the company’s interests when discussing various legislative acts and save the network money when investing in regional projects through connections with local officials. “Sukhorukov will promote X5 employees in various election campaigns to the Legislative Assemblies of the Urals Federal District, thus improving the company’s image. Well, the functions of the press secretary remain: working with the media, answering inquiries,” added a source in the administration.

He also clarified that they are now looking for another candidate to replace Sukhorukov.

Another source from among the leaders of the mayor's office said that on February 28 it would become known about some personnel changes in the city administration, but did not announce them in advance even in an informal conversation.

. “I’m really moving to work for a commercial company because I have a desire to work in the non-state sector of the economy. I think that my understanding of the principles of work of state and municipal authorities will help me use my experience in my new job,” Sukhorukov noted. The official also added that he does not know who will take his place after his dismissal.