March 22 Main results of the day

The Ninth Arbitration Court of Appeal defended the interests of the Principal and upheld the appeal prepared by the lawyers of the MCBA “Bureau of Lawyers “De jure”. Previously, the Moscow Arbitration Court established an affiliated creditor with the Principal’s debtor in the register of his claims in the amount of over 197 million rubles. At the same time, the Bureau drew attention to the fact that the funds were provided in a situation of a property crisis, which is why such a creditor cannot be placed in the same priority as independent creditors. The lawyers convinced the court of appeal that there were significant violations committed by the court of first instance, as a result of which the determination on the establishment of claims was changed and the priority of such an affiliated creditor was lowered. Thanks to the successful representation of the interests of the Principal, it was possible to exclude a significant decrease in the percentage of satisfaction of the latter’s requirements when distributing the bankruptcy estate.

The interests of the Principal were represented by Ksenia Stikhina and Ilsur Zakirov, senior lawyers of the Bureau of Lawyers “De jure”.

Victory in the design dispute!

Maria Ovchinnikova, Head of the Department of Legal Support for Contractual and Judicial Work, represented the interests of the customer in a contract dispute, to whom the contractor filed a claim for debt collection in a total amount of over 3 million rubles for engineering and geological surveys, return of a deposit (security payment) and interest for late fulfillment of obligations.

Having studied in detail the circumstances of the dispute, analyzing the evidence presented by the Plaintiff in the case file, Maria managed to find flaws in the Plaintiff’s proof of his arguments and weaknesses in his legal position. The emphasis in the judicial protection of the Principal was placed on this; including the argument about the completion of the work and its delivery has been disputed.

As a result of the consideration of the dispute, a complete victory was won – the Moscow Arbitration Court completely rejected the contractor’s claim to collect debt for work, return the deposit and interest for late payment.