October 17 Main results of the day

The Tenth Arbitration Court of Appeal upheld the judicial act on invalidation of a number of transactions concluded between the debtor and his ex-wife, to whom the property was withdrawn as a result, and who appealed the decision of the court of first instance. During the dispute, lawyers of the Bureau of Lawyers “De jure” proved that the transactions had all the signs of being contestable and refuted the appellant’s arguments through a detailed analysis of the evidence in the case. As a result of protecting the interests of the Principal, the latter has the right to count on the satisfaction of his claims at the expense of the returned property, the value of which is more than 5 million rubles. The interests of the Principal were represented by Ksenia Stikhina, senior lawyer of the Bureau of Lawyers “De jure”.

The Moscow Arbitration Court accepted the refusal of the bank’s shareholders to file a complaint against the inaction of the bankruptcy trustee, whose interests are represented by the Bureau of Lawyers “De jure”. During the long negotiation process, the Bureau’s lawyers managed to prove the groundlessness of the complaint filed and convince the shareholders to abandon it. As a result, the representative of the shareholders at the court session declared the rejection of the complaint, which was accepted by the court. The interests of the Principal were represented by Nikita Filippov, Head of the Bureau of Lawyers “De jure”, and Ekaterina Bulygina, Senior lawyer.

The Moscow Arbitration Court refused to satisfy the requirements to the Principal on the extension of the lease agreement. The tenants appealed to the court with demands to our Principal to extend the lease agreement for premises concluded back in 1993. They motivated their demands by the fact that this agreement was not officially terminated. However, lawyers lawyer of the Bureau of Lawyers “De jure” were able to prove that the disputed lease agreement was not executed by the parties, and therefore cannot have legally significant consequences and, as a result, is not subject to any extension or change. The court also took into account the contradictory behavior of the Plaintiff, who had been in a short-term contractual relationship with the Principal for 10 years and had never referred to the 1993 agreement during this time, which indicates the actual mutual refusal of the parties to fulfill it. The interests of the Principal were represented by Yakov Prisyazhnyuk, Head of the practice of resolving economic disputes of the Bureau of Lawyers “De jure”.