Counsel of Spenser & Kauffmann Law Firm shares his insight into the pros and cons of recent changes in the registration of legal entities and real estate

The Law of Ukraine “On Amendments to Certain Legislative Acts of Ukraine Regarding Improvement of State Registration of Rights to Real Estate and Protection of Ownership Rights,” which was adopted on the basis of Draft Law No. 5067 dated September 5, 2016 and which was intended to counter the raiding of companies and their assets was discussed by the Agricultural Law Committee of the Ukrainian Bar Association at its thematic meeting.

The practical aspects of protection of agricultural companies against raids were covered in the speech of Maksim Maksimenko, Counsel and Co-Head of Real Estate and Land at Spenser & Kauffmann Law Firm.

In his opinion, the most positive amendments are those made to the Law of Ukraine “On State Registration of Rights to Real Estate and Their Encumbrances”. “The amendments so made actually preclude the possibilities for taking illegal possession of immovable property – make it difficult to use fraudulent court judgments for this purpose; implement the system of notification of the immovable property owners of the filed applications for taking registration actions with such property, provided that the relevant procedure is approved; provide the property owners with a possibility to prohibit registrars from taking registration actions with their property, based on the applications filed by the property owners, etc.,” he said.

The expert, however, believes that not all novelties of the Law adopted yesterday can be viewed as positive. Amendments to the Law of Ukraine “On State Registration of Legal Entities, Individual Entrepreneurs and Public Organizations” are a matter of some concern. “Undoubtedly, the stipulated restrictions on the principle of extraterritoriality of registration actions and a binding nature of notarization of signatures contained on decisions of competent bodies of legal entities and charters will make it difficult to illegally change control of companies – he noted. – At the same time, striking off court judgments regarding the prohibition to take registration actions and regarding the attachment of corporate rights from the Unified State Register is viewed as being contrary to the objective of the enacted Law”.