May 5 Main results of the day

The Arbitration Court of the Moscow District left unchanged the judicial acts of the first and appellate instances, which satisfied the application of the Principal of the Bureau of Lawyers “De jure” on procedural succession. At the court session, the lawyers of the Bureau managed to convince the court that procedural succession is possible even after the termination of the bankruptcy case, which served as the basis for leaving the judicial acts of the first and appellate instances unchanged. The interests of the Principal were represented by Valentina Petrova, Head of the Bankruptcy Dispute Resolution Practice of the Bureau of Lawyers “De jure”.

The Ninth Arbitration Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal of the procedural opponents of the Principal of the Bureau of Lawyers “De jure” and left unchanged the decision of the court of first instance. Within the framework of this case, the Moscow Arbitration Court fully satisfied the Principal’s requirements for determining the boundaries of the land plot to be leased to the owners of the building with a plurality of persons on the tenant’s side. The essence of the dispute was that one of the co-owners of the building, located on a land plot to be leased to all owners of the building, refused to coordinate the boundaries approved by the Moscow City Property Department. He believed that since his lease agreement was concluded in the early 90s, he had a preferential right to use the land plot, and by refusing to agree on the specified boundaries, he tried to prevent the conclusion of the lease agreement. However, these arguments were critically evaluated by the court and recognized as not worthy of attention. The legal position prepared by the staff of the Bureau was that none of the Defendant’s objections in any case can be an obstacle to the conclusion of a lease agreement with a plurality of persons on the tenant’s side, the limitation of ownership of the land plot in these relations has no legal significance, the boundaries of the land plot are established in accordance with the requirements of the law. The interests of the Principal were represented by Konstantin Tkachenko, Head of the practice of legal support of entrepreneurship of the Bureau of Lawyers “De jure”.

The lender filed a lawsuit against the borrower, a citizen, and the guarantor, a legal entity (the Principal), to collect the debt under the loan agreement. During the consideration of the case, it was established that in 2009, a loan agreement was concluded between the persons in the amount of 2,000,000 Euros, with a repayment period until 2019, in 2019, by an additional agreement, the repayment period was extended until 2020. At the same time, the fulfillment of the debtor’s obligations began to be ensured by the Principal’s guarantee; during the same period, the right of claim against debtors passed from a citizen in favor of another legal entity on the basis of a cession agreement. During the implementation of the project, the Client was provided with full legal support for the legal dispute. As a result, the Lawyer was able to collect a sufficient amount of direct and indirect evidence that indicated that the surety agreement had not been concluded. A complicating factor was the fact that the legal relationship initially arose in 2009, and by the time the case was considered in court, the lender had died, and the other person involved in the case, being on the federal wanted list, had left the territory of the Russian Federation. In this regard, the actual will of the participants in legal relations could not be proven by the explanations of the parties to the dispute in the case, so a large amount of analytical work was required and the subsequent formulation of the conclusions into a coherent and understandable line of defense. During the implementation of the project, it was possible to achieve a complete refusal to satisfy the claims against the Principal, to prove the non-conclusion of the surety agreement and, at the same time, to prove the flaw of the cession agreement, which also allowed the citizen borrower to avoid debt collection. Taking into account the significant amount of claims, the refusal to satisfy them allowed the Client to maintain the financial stability of the business and, ultimately, the business as a whole.