March 7 Main results of the day

The Moscow City Arbitration Court, in the framework of the bankruptcy case of the debtor – company, refused to satisfy the creditor’s application for bringing the Principal to subsidiary liability in the amount of more than 26 billion rubles. As part of the bankruptcy case, the bank filed a claim to bring to subsidiary liability the founder of one of the largest jewelry companies in Russia, which is currently in the process of bankruptcy. The interests of the founder of the company were represented by lawyers of the Bureau of Lawyers “De jure”. During the proceedings, we managed to convince the court that during the disputed period the Principal was no longer a beneficiary, he sold the business and retired, only formally holding a position on the board of directors of the company, which was due to the need to establish reputational contacts with the Russian Olympic Committee on the eve of the 2014 Olympics. It was this jewelry company that was engaged in the manufacture of medals for the Olympics and other souvenir products. As a result, the court refused the bank to bring the Principal to subsidiary liability for a total amount of more than 26 billion rubles. The interests of the Principal in court were represented by Viktor Pokormyak, lawyer of the Bureau of Lawyers “De jure”, and Alexandra Reznichenko, trainee lawyer.

The Second Court of Cassation of General Jurisdiction refused to satisfy the complaint of the Department of City Property of the Moscow City (DCP) and left unchanged the decision of the court of appeal on the refusal to satisfy the claim for eviction. In 2021, the Principals living in a municipal apartment on the basis of an open-ended social tenancy agreement applied to the DCP with an application for registration of their minor family member in this apartment. However, instead of a positive decision of the state authority, after a while they received a lawsuit for eviction of the whole family from this apartment. According to the DCP, the Principals have lost the right to municipal housing on formal grounds. Lawyers of the Bureau of Lawyers “De jure” presented evidence of the groundlessness of the claim, and also announced that the Plaintiff had missed the statute of limitations. The court of first instance, having formally heard the case, satisfied the claim for eviction. The Court of Appeal, having carefully studied the case, took the side of the Principals, annulled the judicial act of the court of first instance and completely refused to satisfy the claim. The appeal ruling was appealed by the DCP, and also, to our surprise, by the prosecutor’s office. Lawyers of the Bureau of Lawyers “De jure” prepared exhaustive objections to the complaints received, after reviewing which, the prosecutor sided with the Principals! As a result, the Second Court of Cassation of General Jurisdiction refused to satisfy the complaint of the DCP and upheld the appeal ruling that was victorious for the Principals. The interests of the Principals were represented by Yakov Bulut, lawyer of the Bureau of Lawyers “De jure”.