Registration of LLP with foreign participation

First step is signing of the foundation agreement and, final step is the state registration of the company. If LLP has a sole founder, the first step will be the founder’s resolution.

The foundation agreement of small or medium-sized enterprises is not notarized. However, we recommend notarizing the foundation agreement and charter. This can be a protective argument in the future in case of disputes. Also, when opening a bank account, some second-tier banks ask to present the notarized charter.

Before registration, it is important to determine what kind of business entity the LLP will be.

The state registration of a small business is varies from others. To register a small business, it is enough to send to the registering authority a notification about starting a business in the form established by the Ministry of Justice of the Republic of Kazakhstan. The notification can be sent through e-gov portal (https://egov.kz/cms/ru/online-services/for_busunesses/reg_ip).

For registering a medium-sized or large company, the founders or an authorized person should file an application to the registering authority.

Constituent documents are not submitted for state registration.

In our case, when the founder or one of the founders is a foreigner or a foreign legal entity, we advise to bring additionally a notarized charter to the registering authority.

When registering LLP with foreign participation the following shall be provided:

– copy of a legalized extract from the Trade Register or other legalized document certifying that the founder is a foreign legal entity under the laws of a foreign country, with notarized translation into Kazakh and Russian;

– copy of a passport or other document certifying the foreign founder’s identity, with notarized translation into Kazakh and Russian.

If you have any additional questions, please email advocat@lga.kz

Protection of business reputation

Problem: Client has engaged a broker to sell goods on a commodity exchange. Client applied to the broker to participate in tender with commodity it had in stock. Client did not win the tender because the broker had violated his contractual obligations. Client informed the commodity exchange and the purchasing customer about the broker’s violation, proposing to change the procedure for purchase, because in the current situation the client could not offer the goods and the customer could not buy them at a better price. Broker went to court to protect his business reputation, demanding the letters be withdrawn.

Actions in court: The barrister proved the broker’s violations. It was proven in court that the broker illegally limited the time for accepting new quotations before tender, did not ensure the client’s participation in tender, and only submitted the quotation of the supplier who had offered the lowest price among others before tender started.

Result: The court rejected the broker, by refusing to obligate the client to withdraw the letters on the broker’s violation. The broker’s violation of contractual obligations was recognized, client was entitled to demand change in brokers’ practices on commodity exchange.