March 22 Main results of the day

The Second Court of Cassation of General Jurisdiction dismissed the complaint of the Moscow Government and the Department of Economic Policy and Development of the city of Moscow, and previously issued judicial acts on the satisfaction of the Principal’s claims remained unchanged. Within the framework of this dispute, the Bureau of Lawyers “De jure” managed to refute the arguments of state bodies on the need to determine the tax base in respect of the building owned by the Principal, at its cadastral value. The incorrectness of the calculation made by the Moscow Government was also proved, and the conclusions of the act on the actual use of a non-residential building for tax purposes were refuted. The Principal’s interests were represented by Irina Novikova, senior lawyer of the Bureau of Lawyers “De jure”.

The Arbitration Court of the Moscow District upheld the judicial act of the appellate instance, which restored the debtor’s bankruptcy procedure. This will allow the Principal to carry out the necessary measures to verify the debtor’s solvency in order to replenish the bankruptcy estate. During the consideration of the cassation complaint, it was possible to prove that the court of appeal came to the correct conclusion on a number of key circumstances: in the bankruptcy procedure, all the possibilities of replenishing the bankruptcy estate have not been fully exhausted, the funds have not been distributed to creditors, there are no grounds for terminating the procedure. The interests of the majority creditor – the appellant were represented by Valentina Petrova, the First Deputy Head of the Bureau of Lawyers “De jure”.

The Moscow City Court overturned the illegal decision of the court of first instance and made a new decision to satisfy in full the claims of the Principal, whose interests were represented by Yuliy Darinsky, lawyer of the Bureau of Lawyers “De jure”. The essence of the matter was as follows. The Principal was the heir of a citizen declared deceased. The inheritance included funds placed by the testator on bank accounts opened with Sberbank PJSC. But these funds were stolen from the accounts by a bank employee. Sberbank PJSC voluntarily refused to compensate for losses in the amount of stolen funds. The court of First instance also refused to satisfy the claim for recovery of losses from Sberbank PJSC. But in the court of appeal, it was possible to prove that the fact of theft does not affect the bank’s obligation to return the funds to the client. As a result, the requirements of the Principal were satisfied in full, more than 1.8 million rubles were recovered from Sberbank PJSC, and the decision entered into force.