November 14 Main results of the day

The Moscow Arbitration Court dismissed the claim against the Principal for debt collection in the amount of 1.9 million rubles under a construction contract for additional work. The peculiarity of the process was that, within the framework of this agreement, several other processes were carried out in parallel, similar in their subject matter. This circumstance caused difficulties in preparing legal positions and behavior within the framework of a specific process. Nevertheless, employees of the Bureau of Lawyers “De jure” managed to convince the court that the opponents’ demands were unfounded, pointing to another decision between the same parties, which had prejudicial significance. The interests of the Principal were represented by Dan Khorolets and Ilsur Zakirov, lawyers of the practice of resolving economic disputes of the Bureau of Lawyers “De jure”.

The Moscow City Court refused the Moscow City Property Department to satisfy the claim for the reclamation of the Principal’s apartment and the termination of ownership of it, as well as the recognition of the apartment purchase and sale agreement as invalid. In support of the claim, the state agency indicated that the disputed apartment was escheatable property, and the seller of the apartment did not have the right to alienate it, since he illegally received a certificate of inheritance by presenting a fake marriage registration certificate to the notary. The Moscow City Court also satisfied the Principal’s counterclaim to recognize him as a bona fide purchaser, despite the fact that not even a month had passed between the seller’s receipt of the certificate of inheritance and the conclusion of the purchase and sale agreement. The arguments of the lawyers of the Bureau of Lawyers “De jure” were also convincing that it is fair to shift the adverse consequences in the form of the loss of escheated property to the state agency, which for several years has not taken the measures required by law, including registration of ownership of the apartment. The latter is also a violation of the principle of good faith in connection with the failure to perform actions expected from any participant in civil circulation who assists in obtaining the necessary information (due to the lack of information in the Unified State Register of Real Estate about the right of municipal ownership of the disputed apartment). The interests of the Principal were represented by Rashid Gitinov, Head of the practice of resolving disputes with state authorities of the Bureau of Lawyers “De jure”.

The Arbitration Court of the Moscow District overturned the decision of the lower courts to bring to subsidiary liability in the amount of more than 500 million rubles the heirs of the beneficiary of the organization to which the debts of the bankrupt — a large telecommunications company – were transferred, and sent a separate dispute for a new consideration. The Court of Cassation agreed with the position of the heirs of the controlling person that the lower courts unreasonably ignored numerous procedural requests and, by refusing to satisfy them, did not investigate all the issues that were part of the subject of the proceedings in the case; including the period of occurrence of objective bankruptcy, the role of the defendants in bringing the debtor to an unsatisfactory financial condition, as well as whether there was unfair behavior of the debtor’s sole creditor, who was also the applicant in the dispute. The District Court pointed out the need to study these issues under new consideration. The interests of the heirs were represented by Alexandra Reznichenko, lawyer of the Bureau of Lawyers “De jure”, Viktor Pokormyak, lawyer of the Bureau, and senior lawyer Daria Ivanova also took part in the formation of the legal position.

The Ninth Arbitration Court of Appeal upheld the ruling of the Moscow Arbitration Court, which returned the claim of the procedural opponent to the Principal without consideration. The courts agreed with the arguments of the lawyers of the Bureau of Lawyers “De jure” about the Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the pre-trial procedure for resolving the dispute due to the fact that the Plaintiff’s claim addressed to the Principal was signed by a person without attaching a power of attorney (with the right to sign and present a pre-trial claim). In addition, the claim contained references to circumstances and documents as justification for the claim, but the documents themselves were also not attached to the claim. Meanwhile, acting reasonably and in good faith, the Principal sent a reply letter to the opponent’s “representative”, prepared by the lawyers of the Bureau, which noted the impossibility of identifying the opponent in the absence of a power of attorney for the signatory of the claim and verifying the validity of the disputed claim against the Principal. The interests of the Principal were represented by Nikita Filippov, Head of the Bureau of Lawyers “De jure”, and Rashid Gitinov, Head of the practice of resolving disputes with state authorities.

The Moscow Arbitration Court agreed with the arguments of the lawyers of the Bureau of Lawyers “De jure” and reduced the amount of the principal debt recovered from the Principal by more than 60%. The total amount of satisfied claims from the 45 million rubles claimed by the Plaintiff amounted to 19 million rubles, which corresponded to the amount of debt recognized by the Principal. During the dispute, lawyers of the Bureau of Lawyers “De jure” proved that the Plaintiff, who provided services to the Principal, grossly violated the terms of the contract regarding the registration of primary documentation for the services provided. The quality of the primary documentation had an important role for the Principal, since the services were provided with VAT; therefore, the correctness of the documentation directly affected the possibility of tax refund. The Bureau’s lawyers also managed to prove that it is primary documentation that confirms the volume and quality of services provided, and not general closing acts, from which it is impossible to differentiate services. In addition, the court agreed with the legal position of the Bureau that if the contract directly defines the requirements for the quality and content of the primary documentation and, at the same time, the completeness and sufficiency of the documentation is opposed to the right not to pay for services if the contractor violates these requirements, then the customer has the right on this basis to refuse to pay for services, regardless of the quality and volume of services provided. The interests of the Principal were represented by Konstantin Tkachenko, Head of the practice of legal support of entrepreneurship of the Bureau of Lawyers “De jure”.