February 8 Main results of the day

The Moscow Arbitration Court refused to satisfy the claims for 1.2 million rubles.

A dispute arose between the customer (Principal) and the contractor (Opponent) regarding the contract for the provision of premises to employees.

The Principal concluded an agreement, paid for the services and signed an act of services rendered. The opponent claimed that he continued to provide services outside the framework of the already signed act of services rendered, referring to the fact that the Principal’s employees expressed their intention to extend the contract in WhatsApp correspondence. The Opponent considered that, since the services continued to be provided, the Principal had a debt for the new period of time of residence of the employees.

Ruslan Katan, lawyer of the practice of economic disputes, managed to convince the court that from the evidence presented, it did not follow that the Principal had the will to extend the contract, since no additional agreements or new contracts were signed directly by the Principal, and the persons indicated in the correspondence were not authorized to conclude new contracts on behalf of the Principal. Moreover, the Opponent did not provide evidence of the direct residence of these persons during the newly declared period of time and the correspondence of employees.

A triple victory in the appeal!

The Moscow Regional Court refused the opponent of the Bureau’s Principal to satisfy the appeal for the cancellation of the decision, as well as two petitions to conduct a repeat forensic examination and terminate the proceedings in the case.

The court found convincing the arguments of Rashid Gitinov, Head of the practice of resolving disputes with government bodies, about the priority of the special norms of the Federal Law “On Bankruptcy” over the general norms of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation in connection with the Defendant’s presence in bankruptcy proceedings.

It is noteworthy that the case of foreclosure on mortgaged property worth more than 25 million rubles on the Defendant’s appeal was reviewed again after it was sent for a new consideration by the cassation instance.

Meanwhile, despite the new arguments and petitions of the Defendant, Rashid Gitinov managed to convince the Court of Appeal that it was inadmissible to go beyond the instructions of the Court of Cassation.

The Moscow Regional Court left the opponent’s complaint against the Bureau’s Principal without consideration on the merits.

The court found convincing the arguments of Rashid Gitinov, Head of the practice of resolving disputes with government bodies that the appellant does not have the right to file a complaint due to the lack of proof of the status of the bankruptcy creditor and his affiliation with the Defendant who was in bankruptcy proceedings; their concerted actions are aimed solely at the abuse of procedural law in order to avoid foreclosure on the Defendant’s pledged property and the loss by the Bureau’s Principal of status of a collateral creditor in a bankruptcy case.

Natalya Safonova, senior lawyer of the Bureau, represented the interests of the Principal, a bankruptcy creditor, in the bankruptcy case of a citizen, in which a dispute was considered on the application of a financial manager for invalidation of a transaction for the sale of a share in a residential building. The transaction was made in bankruptcy proceedings and in violation of the requirements for the mandatory consent of the financial manager to carry out such transactions. The Bureau’s lawyer proved the validity and legality of the financial manager’s position. As a result, the Moscow Arbitration Court declared this transaction invalid; the property was returned to the debtor’s bankruptcy estate, which in turn will make it possible to satisfy the claims of creditors, including the claims of the Principal.

The Bureau’s lawyers substantiated the legality of the position on the inaction of the bailiff, expressed in the unreasonable delay in the procedure for lifting the arrest from the Principal’s property, due to the failure to notify the Rosreestr Department of the end of the enforcement proceedings, in connection with the introduction of the procedure used in the bankruptcy case of a citizen. This inaction of the bailiff created an obstacle for carrying out further measures in the bankruptcy case of the Principal, including the conclusion of a settlement agreement and its subsequent actual execution. The interests of the Principal were represented by Natalya Safonova and Alexandra Reznichenko, senior lawyers of the Bureau of Lawyers “De jure”.