May 30 Main results of the day

In the appellate instance, Sergey Egorov, lawyer of the Bureau of Lawyers “De jure”, managed to cancel the judicial act of the Moscow Arbitration Court and bring the participant of the bankrupt debtor to subsidiary liability in the amount of 35 million rubles for the obligations of the bankrupt debtor, despite the fact that the participant did not sign documents on the operational management of the debtor. As a result, the prospects for satisfying creditors’ claims are significantly increased, since now the beneficiary of the debtor will be directly responsible to the creditors.

The Ninth Arbitration Court of Appeal upheld the decision of the first instance, by which the court refused to satisfy the claims of the counterparty of the Principal of the Bureau of Lawyers “De jure” for the recovery of losses under bank guarantees.

During the consideration of the dispute, the lawyers of the Bureau of Lawyers “De jure” managed to prove that despite the Principal sending a notice of suspension of work under the contract, this requirement was not fulfilled by the counterparty, and the work was continued.

At the same time, in violation of the terms of the contracts, no guarantees were provided to ensure the fulfillment of obligations for the period of work (bank guarantees for the period after notification of suspension). Due to the terms of the contracts, bank guarantees ensured the fulfillment of all obligations under the contracts, including the obligation to extend guarantees for the period of work, and not providing guarantees entailed liability in the form of a fine.

Thus, lawyers of the Bureau of Lawyers “De jure” managed to prove the legality of writing off guarantees as a fine.

The interests of the principal were represented by Ilsur Zakirov, senior lawyer of the dispute resolution practice with state bodies.

The Second Cassation Court of General Jurisdiction upheld the appeal ruling of the Moscow City Court on the refusal of the Moscow City Department of State Property to reclaim the Principal’s apartment and terminate the ownership of it, as well as on invalidating the purchase and sale agreement for the apartment. In support of the claim, the state agency indicated that the disputed apartment was an escheated property, and the seller of the apartment did not have the right to alienate it, since he had criminally obtained 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 receiving 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 loss of escheated property to a state agency, which for several years has not taken measures required by law, including registration of ownership of an 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 transactions and assist in obtaining the necessary information (due to the lack of information about the ownership of DGI in the Unified State Register of Real Estate).

The interests of the Principal were represented by Rashid Gitinov, Head of the dispute resolution practice with state bodies.

By the decision of the Moscow Arbitration Court, the opponent of the Principal of the Bureau of Lawyers “De jure” was denied satisfaction of claims for debt collection under contract agreements.

The court agreed with the position of the lawyers of the Bureau of Lawyers “De jure” that the Opponent, filing a lawsuit, abused his rights, which served as the basis for the refusal to satisfy. The abuse was expressed in the fact that earlier the Opponent recognized the absence of debt and signed Acts on completion of work. However, two years after the work was completed and after the facility was put into operation, he appealed to the court with claims for debt collection. The amount of the claim was more than 55 million rubles.

The interests of the Principal were represented by Ilsur Zakirov, senior lawyer of the dispute resolution practice with state bodies.