February 7 Main results of the day

The Twelfth Arbitration Court of Appeal left unchanged the judicial act of the first instance on the refusal to satisfy the complaint of the representative of the debtor’s participants against the actions of the bankruptcy trustee, as well as to recover losses from him in the bankruptcy procedure initiated by the Principal. Thus, attempts by the debtor to exert pressure on the arbitration manager and remove him from his duties were suppressed, which would allow the trustee to achieve the goals of bankruptcy proceedings and repay the debt to the Principal in full. The interests of the Principal were represented by Roman Volkomorov, lawyer of the Tyumen branch of the Bureau of Lawyers “De jure”.

The Ninth Arbitration Court of Appeal considered a case involving the Principal on the recovery from him of more than 10.5 million rubles of losses and 1.4 million rubles allegedly having a debt for the goods received. The dispute between the counterparties consisted in the fact that the Plaintiff handed over more than 600 tons of road bitumen to the Principal, but requested a cost much higher than the market one. In this regard, the lawyers of the Bureau of Lawyers “De jure” recommended the Principal to order an assessment of the value of the accepted goods at the Moscow Chamber of Commerce and Industry and make payment according to the result obtained. The opponent, having received a fair payment, submitted to the court a deliberately false report, according to which the cost of the goods was higher, and the losses of the counterparty were estimated even more than the payment he received. But the lawyers of the Bureau proved both in the court of first instance and in the court of appeal that the Plaintiff did not actually suffer any losses, the presented report is clearly unreliable, and the claim itself is aimed at abuse of rights, as a result of which the Principal did not overpay a ruble for the goods he received. The interests of the Principal were represented by Yakov Bulut, lawyer of the Bureau of Lawyers “De jure”.

The Ninth Arbitration Court of Appeal upheld the court’s decision to recover from the Moscow Government in favor of the Principal the amount of unjustified enrichment and losses in the amount of more than 40 million rubles. The lawyers of the Bureau of Lawyers “De jure” managed to convince the Court of Appeal that unjustified enrichment had occurred on the side of the Moscow Government and the Moscow City Property Department, and the Principal had suffered losses due to the actions of state bodies. The arguments of the Defendant about the abuse by the Principal of the right granted to him did not find understanding in the court. The interests of the Principal were represented by Semyon Garayan, lawyer of the Bureau of Lawyers “De jure”.

Solntsevsky District Court of Moscow satisfied the Principal’s application for the issuance of duplicates writ of execution and for the restoration of the deadline for their presentation. Lawyers of the Bureau of Lawyers “De jure” managed to convince the court that the writ of execution was lost by the bailiff service and for a long time information about his location was not provided to the claimant, which indicates the validity of the reasons for missing the deadline for presenting the writ of execution. The interests of the Principal were represented by Ekaterina Bulygina, senior lawyer of the Bureau of Lawyers “De jure”.