The Arbitration Court of the Tyumen Region, within the framework of the Bank’s bankruptcy case, invalidated the transaction made with preference and returned the funds in the amount of 1.77 million rubles to the Bank’s bankruptcy estate. The interests of the bankruptcy administrator of the Bank were represented by Ksenia Stikhina, lawyer from the Tyumen branch of “Bureau of Lawyers “De Jure”.
Within the framework of a dispute on recovery of debt, Zhukovsky City Court of the Moscow Region approved an amicable agreement between the bankruptcy Trustee of the Bank and the debtor for a total amount of 73 million rubles. Voluntary payments will allow faster replenishment of the Bank’s bankruptcy estate. The interests of the bankruptcy Trustee were represented by Vladimir Leonov, lawyer of MCBA “Bureau of Lawyers “De Jure”.
The Second Cassation Court of General Jurisdiction canceled the appeal ruling of the Moscow City Court on the refusal of the creditor to foreclose on the pledge. The case has been sent for a new consideration to the court of appeal. The interests of the creditor were represented by Vladimir Leonov, lawyer of MCBA “Bureau of Lawyers “De Jure”.
The Moscow Arbitration Court considered the claim of the Moscow Government and the Moscow City Property Department on the recognition of the building as an unauthorized construction and its demolition. During the consideration, the Defendant and the Pledgee of the building, who was a third party on the Defendant’s side, actively objected to the satisfaction of the Plaintiffs’ claims, irrefutable evidence of the legality of the building was presented to the court. As a result, the court listened to their opinion and dismissed the claim. The interests of the Pledgee were represented by Rashid Gitinov, lawyer of MCBA “Bureau of Lawyers “De Jure”.
The Moscow City Court considered the Plaintiff’s appeal against the earlier decision of Dorogomilovsky District Court of Moscow to refuse to satisfy the claim of Homeowners Association against the Defendant. Within the framework of a dispute, Homeowners Association filed a requirement to recognize the Defendant’s property rights to the premises in the apartment building as absent and to recognize them as common shared property of the residents of the building. The claims of Homeowners Association were based on the fact that the transferred premises belonged to public property and their transfer to ownership infringes upon the rights of residents. The Defendant, opposing the satisfaction of the requirements, pointed out that the equipment installed in the disputed premises does not belong to common property, is not intended to serve the entire house, and the premises themselves were originally planned by the developer as independent premises, in addition, they are located separately from the residential building and are not connected by a common system of engineering communications. At the same time, Homeowners Association did not provide technical documentation that would indicate that these premises were classified as common property and that their financing was carried out, among other things, at the expense of the residents of the house. As a result, the court of appeal agreed with the arguments of the Defendant and upheld the decision of the court of the first instance. The Defendant’s interests were defended by Elena Ivanova, lawyer of MCBA “Bureau of Lawyers “De Jure”.