June 23. MAIN RESULTS OF THE DAY

The Arbitration Court of the Moscow District upheld an earlier decision to recover more than 66 million rubles in damages from the Ministry of Construction of the Kaliningrad region and the state budget institution in favor of the client of MCBA “Bureau of Lawyers “De Jure”. The interests of the Principal were represented by Rashid Gitinov, lawyer of “De Jure”.

The Arbitration Court of the North Caucasus District upheld the decision according to which the Debtor is not exempted from its financial obligations despite the completion of the bankruptcy procedure.  The courts took into account the evidence presented by lawyers of “De jure” of the Debtor’s bad faith.

The meeting was held in a videoconference mode, thereby significantly saving the creditor’s expenses without losing the quality of the legal assistance provided – the case was won.  The interests of the creditor were represented by Vadim Makarichev, lawyer of “De Jure”.

By the ruling of the Moscow Arbitration Court, the Plaintiff was denied inclusion in the register of creditors’ claims.  The company tried to include in the register a debt of 724 million rubles on the basis of a contract of assignment of the right of claim. Due to the active position of the Bank’s Bankruptcy Trustee, ground documents were requested for all transactions, including the assignment agreement.  And due to the fact that they were not submitted, the court refused to satisfy the requirements.

 At the request of the Bank, it’s interests were represented by Andrei Khokhlov, lawyer of MCBA “Bureau of Lawyers “De Jure”.

The decision of the Presnensky district court of Moscow satisfied the Bank’s claim to recover debt under a loan agreement in the amount of more than 200 thousand US dollars, as well as foreclosure on the land plot. The Bank’s interests were represented by Konstantin Glushkov, lawyer of MCBA “Bureau of Lawyers “De Jure”.

The appeal ruling of the Moscow City Court upheld the complaint of the Bank-client of “De jure”.  The complaint stated that the court of the first instance violated the provisions of paragraph 6 of Article 395 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, which resulted in a reduction of penalties below the one-time key rate of the Bank of Russia. The Moscow City Court corrected the mistake and recovered more than 300 thousand rubles from the Defendant.

The Bank’s interests were represented by Semyon Garayan, lawyer of “De jure”.