September 12 Main results of the day

The Moscow City Court left the decision of the court of first instance unchanged, and the appeal of the procedural opponents of the Bureau of Lawyers “De jure” without satisfaction. Earlier, within the framework of this dispute, the Nikulinsky District Court of Moscow refused to satisfy the initial claim for the division of the spouses’ property and satisfied the counterclaim of the Principal of the Bureau of Lawyers “De Jure”. The total amount of claims for the claim amounted to 2.5 billion rubles. The property to be transferred included several real estate objects, including a house in Spain and 60 percent of the company’s share, several cars. Lawyers of the Bureau proved to the court the position on the need to divide real estate and cars according to the established procedure for use, leaving a share in the company in favor of the Principal, who is directly engaged in business and has an interest in it. In addition, the Lawyers of the Bureau presented evidence that made it possible to reduce the amount of recovery from the Principal, taking into account the offset of the value of all property transferred to the parties, to a little over 7 million rubles that were in bank accounts on the date of termination of the common household. The interests of the Principal were represented by Nikita Filippov, lawyer, Head of the Bureau of Lawyers “De jure”, and lawyer Tatyana Bogomolova.

The Mytishchi City Court approved the amicable agreement in the case on the recovery of more than 500 thousand rubles from the Principal of the Bureau of Lawyers “De jure”. In the course of the dispute, the Bureau of Lawyers “De jure” managed to convince the Plaintiff to resolve the dispute by peaceful settlement. As a result, the Principal of the Bureau reduced the amount of debt almost twice, and the creditor is guaranteed to receive funds without unnecessary legal costs. The interests of the Principal were represented by Irina Novikova, senior lawyer of the Bureau of Lawyers “De jure”.

The Savelovsky District Court of Moscow satisfied the claims of the Bank, represented by the Bureau of Lawyers “De jure”, for the recovery of debt from the borrower and his guarantors under two loan agreements in the amount of more than 200 million rubles. The court also levied execution on goods in circulation provided by pledgers under four pledge agreements concluded to secure credit obligations. The court refused to satisfy the counterclaims of the guarantors to terminate the surety agreements. During the trial, which lasted about two years, the debtors disputed the bank statements provided by the Plaintiff. As the borrower pointed out to the court, the credit lines in the Bank’s documents are technical records, and the amounts transferred by it were made by mistake to repay old loan agreements. In the absence of primary documentation, which was not preserved by the Bank, the lawyers of the Bureau managed to prove the existence of credit relations between the parties based on the practice and behavior of the borrower in interacting with the Bank. The lawyers presented the borrower’s accounting statements, documents of the debtors’ credit dossier, extracts from counterparty banks confirming the repayment of the loan debt by the borrower, correspondence established between the parties, calculations of credit debt made by debtors. Taken together, these proofs confirmed that the borrower did not have its own funds to settle with his counterparties, the bank’s credit facilities were selected by the borrower in full, taking into account the terms of the loan agreements. According to the counterclaims of the guarantors for the termination of the security agreements concluded with them, the court found contradictory and inconsistent behavior of the parties. Taking into account the ongoing corporate conflict between the parties, the court agreed that the bad faith behavior of the borrower’s director could not affect the conclusion of suretyship agreements to such an extent that if the parties could have foreseen these circumstances, they would not have issued guarantees for significant amounts at all. The requirements of the guarantors to terminate the agreements concluded with them, based on the fact that the guarantee agreements did not arise at all, did not find a reasonable logical explanation in court. The Bank’s interests in this case were represented by Sergey Bibikov, senior lawyer of the Bureau of Lawyers “De jure”.