March 15 Seven wins in one day

The Eighteenth Arbitration Court of Appeal upheld the decision rendered in favor of the Supplier – Principal of the Bureau on the refusal to recover a penalty in the amount of more than 440 million rubles under the supply contract. The case was considered for a long time in the first instance, during which the lawyers of the Bureau managed to convince the court of the inadmissibility of holding the Supplier liable under the contract, despite the fact that the Plaintiff had formal documents fixing the violations. When considering the case in the court of appeal, the Plaintiff again referred to formal evidence, which is usually recognized by judicial practice as sufficient to bring the Supplier to justice. But thanks to the active procedural position, the lawyers of the Bureau managed to defend the conclusions recorded in the court of first instance, based on the actual behavior of the parties of the supply contract, from which it follows that the fault for the Supplier’s violation of contractual obligations actually lies with the Plaintiff himself, and other violations imputed to the Principal were absent at all. The interests of the Principal were represented by Nikita Filippov, Head of MCBA “Bureau of Lawyers “De jure”.

The Kolomna City Court of the Moscow Region refused to satisfy the application of the procedural opponent of MCBA “Bureau of Lawyers “De jure” to review, due to newly discovered circumstances, the court decision on the recovery of more than 8 million US dollars, rendered in favor of the Principal of the Bureau. The court recognized the reasoned Bureau’s arguments that there were no grounds for reviewing the decision and presenting, in fact, new evidence by the Defendant. The interests of the Principal were defended by Rashid Gitinov, head of the practice of resolving disputes with state bodies of the Bureau of Lawyers “De Jure”.

The Ninth Arbitration Court of Appeal satisfied the request of the Bank – Client of the Bureau of Lawyers “De jure” and approved the settlement agreement on a separate dispute on challenging a dubious transaction in the amount of 195 million rubles in the framework of the bankruptcy case. The Bank’s interests were represented by Ekaterina Bulygina, senior lawyer of MCBA “Bureau of Lawyers “De jure”.

The Arbitration Court of the Moscow Region satisfied the application of the Principal of the Bureau of Lawyers “De jure” on the exclusion from the bankruptcy estate of real estate objects that were transferred to the Principal by the bailiff service. The basis for satisfying the application was a preliminary judicial act on the recognition of the refusal of the Rosreestr Office for the Moscow Region in the state registration of real estate objects as illegal. Lawyers of the Bureau of Lawyers “De jure” managed to convince the court that the actions of the Debtor and the Office of Rosreestr for the Moscow Region were aimed at delaying the procedure of leaving the subject of pledge for the Principal of the Bureau, which is illegal. The interests of the Principal were represented by Andrey Khokhlov, senior lawyer of the Bankruptcy Dispute Resolution Practice of MCBA “Bureau of Lawyers “De jure”.

The Khoroshevsky District Court of Moscow refused to satisfy the claims of the procedural opponents of the Bureau of Advocates “De Jure” for the recognition of the contract on the subsequent mortgage as not concluded and the annulment of the mortgage record. The lawyers of MCBA “Bureau of Lawyers “De jure” managed to convince the court that the Plaintiff, by filing a similar claim, is abusing his procedural rights and trying to delay the procedure for the sale of property within the framework of enforcement proceedings. The Client’s interests were represented by Ekaterina Bulygina, senior lawyer of MCBA “Bureau of Lawyers “De jure”.

The Fourth Court of Cassation of General Jurisdiction refused to satisfy the procedural opponents of the Bureau of Lawyers “De jure” in satisfaction of their cassation complaints and left unchanged the judicial acts of lower instances, which refused to satisfy the claims of a number of citizens against the Principal of the Bureau.

These citizens were not included in the register of creditors’ claims of the developer, within the framework of the bankruptcy of which the Trustee of the Bureau acquired an unfinished residential building and rights before equity holders, whose claims were included in the register of claims on the transfer of residential premises. The Court of Cassation instance confirmed the position of the Bureau of Lawyers “De jure” and lower courts that a person who is not included in the register is deprived of the right to transfer residential premises upon completion of construction, even though there are records in the EGRN on the pledge of the rights of claims under previously concluded equity participation agreements. The interests of the Principal were represented by Ilsur Zakirov, senior lawyer of MCBA “Bureau of Lawyers “De jure”.

The Moscow Arbitration Court approved a settlement agreement between the parties, one of which is the Principal of MCBA “Bureau of Lawyers “De jure”. In the case under consideration, the parties managed to reach an amicable settlement of the dispute, the results of which suited all the participants. In addition, the Bureau was able to prove the groundlessness of the third party’s objections to the approval of the settlement agreement. The interests of the Principal were represented by Marina Nikolaenko, Head of the Family and Inheritance Dispute Resolution Practice of MCBA “Bureau of Lawyers “De jure”.