April 24 Main results of the day

The Arbitration Court of the Moscow District on the second round of the dispute upheld the judicial acts on the refusal to recover lost profits in the amount of more than 15 million rubles from the Principal. The essence of the dispute was that in the framework of the bankruptcy case of the Principal, the bankruptcy Trustee leased the debtor’s real estate at a price 10 times lower than the market value! This price did not even cover the cost of its maintenance. After the termination of the bankruptcy proceedings, the Principal terminated the lease agreement that was enslaving for him unilaterally, which did not please the Tenant, who planned to cash in on the Principal’s property. The Tenant filed claims on the grounds that he suffered losses in the form of lost profits under sublease agreements in the amount claimed.

At the first round of consideration of the dispute, the courts of first and appeal instances satisfied the requirements of the opponent. However, the cassation appeal prepared by the lawyers of the Bureau changed the course of events radically. The attention of the Court of Cassation was drawn to the fact that the bankruptcy Trustee and the Plaintiff, when concluding a lease agreement at such a low price, acted in bad faith, to the detriment of the interests of the owner of the property (the Principal). In addition, after analyzing the sublease agreements, the Bureau of Lawyers “De jure” drew attention to the fact that they were not actually concluded, which excluded the damages for the Plaintiff, as a result of which the dispute was sent for a new consideration to the court of first instance. Under a new consideration, the developed legal position of the Bureau made it possible to protect the Principal from unreasonable claims and protect the Principal in the appellate and cassation instances.

It is important that it was possible to convince the court not to apply the prejudice of earlier decisions in relation to the assessment given by the courts of the disputed contract and the actions of the parties. The position of the Bureau of Lawyers “De jure” was that only circumstances can be prejudicial (and these circumstances were identically established in this and previous disputes), but their assessment can be diametrically different. Taking into account this argument, the cassation instance agreed with the conclusions of the lower courts on the invalidity of the lease agreement by virtue of Article 10, 168 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, despite the fact that in previous cases the courts had assessed it as valid. The Principal’s interests were represented by Nikita Filippov, Head of the Bureau of Lawyers “De jure”.

The Moscow Arbitration Court satisfied the claim of the Principal and recovered from the Defendant the debt in the amount of more than 400 thousand rubles under the delivery contract. During the consideration of the dispute in court, it was proved that the Defendant did not deliver the goods in full, and also did not return the amount of the advance payment, and therefore there are legal grounds for satisfying the claims. The Defendant’s arguments about non-compliance with the pre-trial procedure and missing the limitation period, taking into account the explanations of the Bureau of Lawyers “De jure”, were found unfounded. The Principal’s interests were represented by Irina Novikova, senior lawyer of the Bureau of Lawyers “De jure”.

The Arbitration Court of the Moscow District fully supported our position and refused to satisfy the cassation appeal of opponents who asked to cancel the judicial acts of lower courts and recover more than 12 million rubles of losses and debts from our client, that they believe are available. The history of this case began more than three years ago and has now been finally resolved by the courts. It is noteworthy that the dispute was largely fueled by the parties’ different interpretation of the rule of law on unjustified enrichment. The courts also ambiguously applied the rules of law regarding the possibility of recovering damages based on unjustified enrichment. However, we managed to prove the correctness of our point of view, despite the fact that in the Moscow region similar decisions were made by the courts more than 15 years ago. As a result of well-planned tactics in the case, the Principal was completely released from the recovery of losses and debts claimed by his counterparty. The interests of the Principal were represented by Yakov Bulut, lawyer of the Bureau of Lawyers “De jure”.