February 24 Main results of the day

The Arbitration Court of the Kursk Region satisfied two applications to establish the claims of the creditor – the Principal of the Bureau of Lawyers “De Jure” in bankruptcy cases of debtors for a total amount of more than 71 million rubles. When considering the Principal’s claims, objections were received from the arbitration managers, the authorized body and other creditors, which expressed doubts about the actual performance of the contract. In addition, the objections contained statements on the application of Article 395 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation on the reduction of interest for the use of a commercial loan. Bureau employees presented additional evidence, gave convincing arguments with references to numerous judicial practice on the inconsistency of the arguments contained in the objections, as a result of which the court had no doubts about the validity of the claims stated by the Principal. The interests of the Principal were represented by Roman Volkomorov, lawyer of the Bureau of Lawyers “De Jure”, and Ksenia Stikhina, senior lawyer of the Bureau’s Tyumen branch.

The Moscow Arbitration Court refused to recover a debt in the amount of more than 3 million rubles from the Client of the Bureau of Lawyers “De Jure”. The legal position of the Bureau was that the Plaintiff did not provide proper evidence confirming the amount of the debt claimed by the Plaintiff. This argument was supported by the court, in connection with which the satisfaction of the claims was denied in full. The interests of the Client were represented by Semyon Garayan, lawyer of the Bureau of Lawyers “De Jure”.

The Moscow Arbitration Court of the City of Moscow satisfied the claims of the Principal of the Bureau and determined the boundaries of the land plot to be leased to the owners of the building with a plurality of persons on the tenant’s side. The essence of the dispute was that one of the co-owners of the building, located on a land plot to be leased to all owners of the building, refused to agree on the boundaries approved by the DGI of Moscow. He believed that since his lease agreement was concluded in the early 90s, he had a pre-emptive right to use the land plot, and, refusing to agree on the specified boundaries, he tried to prevent the conclusion of the lease agreement. However, these arguments were critically evaluated by the court and recognized as not worthy of attention. The legal position prepared by the staff of the Bureau was that none of the Defendant’s objections in any case can be an obstacle to the conclusion of a lease agreement with a plurality of persons on the tenant’s side; prescription of possession of the land plot in these relations has no legal significance. The interests of the Principal were represented by Konstantin Tkachenko, head of the practice of legal support of entrepreneurship of the Bureau of Lawyers “De Jure”.