April 10 Main results of the day

By the efforts of the lawyers of the Bureau of Lawyers “De jure” it was possible to defend the interests of the Principal; he was brought to subsidiary liability in the amount of more than 3 billion rubles!

The Principal’s procedural opponent, using the materials of the criminal case, appealed to the arbitration court with an application to bring the Principals to subsidiary liability in the framework of the bank’s bankruptcy case. The court refused to satisfy the stated claims, and agreed with the position of the lawyers that the circumstances related to the appearance of signs of the bank’s insolvency had already been investigated in the framework of its bankruptcy case, and the circumstances established by the investigative authorities cannot serve as a basis for revising the conclusions already made by the arbitration court.

The client’s interests were represented in court by lawyer Viktor Pokormyak and lawyer Nikita Kryazhkov.

Another victory in a construction dispute!

In a contract dispute, the Bureau’s lawyers represented the interests of a subcontractor, against whom the contractor filed a claim for the recovery of penalties in the amount of more than 20 million rubles for delay in performing work under the contract. The subcontractor also had counterclaims for debt collection for work and compensation for construction materials costs in a total amount of over 11 million rubles.

In order to protect the Principal from the unreasonable demand of the counterparty, Maria, in her response to the claim, formed a position on the untimely fulfillment of counter-obligations by the contractor himself, including the transfer of the construction site, design and working documentation, possible delays in payment for work, which was the basis for shifting the deadlines for completing the work under the contract and the absence of grounds for charging penalties for their delay.

In the counterclaim, Maria substantiated the demands both for the collection of debt for the work and for compensation for the costs of fittings used for the production of monolithic work.

During the trial, all the arguments of the initial claim were refuted with reference to the creditor’s guilt and abuse of right by him, as well as the contractor’s arguments about the unreasonable collection of expenses for fittings from him.

Based on the results of the consideration of the dispute, a complete victory – the Moscow Arbitration Court completely rejected the contractor’s initial claim to collect a penalty for late work in the amount of more than 20 million rubles and fully satisfied the counterclaim of our Principal, collecting the debt for work, compensation for expenses and interest in the amount of over 12 million rubles.

The client’s interests in court were represented by Maria Ovchinnikova, Head of the Department of Legal Support for Contractual and Judicial Work.

The Moscow Arbitration Court resolved the dispute in favor of the Principal of the Bureau of Lawyers “De jure” within the framework of a dispute over a bank guarantee.

A contract for the provision of special equipment has been concluded between the Principal and the contractor. In fulfillment of the contract, the contractor received a bank guarantee. The dispute arose due to the fact that, in the opinion of the contractor, the Principal improperly used the requirement to pay money under a bank guarantee as a beneficiary. The executors filed a non-property claim for recognition of the beneficiary’s claims to receive funds as illegal.

However, Katana Ruslan, a lawyer from the practice of economic disputes, managed to convince the court of first instance that the Plaintiff had chosen the wrong way to protect his rights, since satisfying such a claim would not lead to the restoration of the violated rights of the Principal.

As a result, the Moscow Arbitration Court refused to satisfy the claims.

The Butyrsky District Court rejected the claim against the construction holding company for recovery of losses caused by the flooding of the premises. In support of the claims, the Plaintiff pointed out that the Principal, during the construction of an apartment building, violated construction rules and installed low-quality equipment to ensure water supply. The Bureau’s lawyers managed to convince the court that the Principal was not at fault, proving the expiration of the warranty period for the quality of construction and installation work and the impossibility of determining the exact cause of the accident. The interests of the Principal were represented by Dan Khorolets, lawyer of the practice of resolving economic disputes.