January 19 Main results of the day

The Khamovnichesky District Court of Moscow recovered the debt under the loan agreement, protecting the Principal from an unacceptable interpretation of the terms of the agreement. The Bureau represented the interests of a commercial organization that had issued a loan to one of the employees in the amount of almost 1.5 million rubles, but had not received a repayment of the loan amount within the time period set by the contract. The opponent referred to the condition of the agreement on extending the repayment period of the loan for the period of disability or job loss by the borrower, as well as the fact that the loan amount is actually a salary payment. During the trial, it was proved that such a condition goes beyond the scope of the contract and contradicts the economic nature of the loan agreement, the loan amount is not a salary, and the Defendant carries out contradictory procedural behavior. The client’s interests were represented by Anastasia Desyatkova, a lawyer specializing in economic dispute resolution at the Bureau of Lawyers “De jure”.

Our client’s unusual claim for invalidation of the purchase of a share in a limited liability company has been fully satisfied. As part of the investigation of the criminal case and during the investigative experiment, our client concluded a deal to acquire a share in the LLC, without having a real interest in buying it.  For the investigation, the very fact of transferring funds to the accounts of fraudsters was important. As a result of the investigative actions carried out, the client managed to return all the money transferred. However, after the investigation was completed, he formally remained a co-owner of the company. After some time, it became clear that the general director and the second member of the company, the person who had previously created the conditions for the commission of the crime, had stopped dealing with the company’s affairs and at the same time prevented our Principal from exercising his rights as a participant. Subsequently, a record indicating the company’s address was invalid appeared in the Unified State Register of Legal Entities. This placed the client among those falling under subparagraph “f” of paragraph 1 of Article 23 of Federal Law No. 129-FZ  “On State Registration of Legal Entities and Individual Entrepreneurs.” This meant that when attempting to become a participant in another company or take up the position of general director, the registration authority could refuse to carry out registration actions. The case was complicated by the fact that the lawsuit was filed five years after the transaction had been completed. The Defendant vigorously objected to its satisfaction, apparently motivated by a false sense of grievance over the failure to fully implement the intended fraudulent act. During the trial, the Defendant failed to explain what his interest was in preserving the disputed transaction. Following the consideration of the case, the arbitration court recognized the client’s position as justified. The transaction was declared invalid, and the Federal Tax Service is obliged to cancel all entries in the register of legal entities confirming our client’s participation in the disputed company. The client’s interests were represented by Elena Vladimirovna Timoshenko, Head of the Contractual and Legislative Practice at the Bureau of Lawyers “De jure”.