The decision of the Arbitration Court of the Moscow District in favor of our client has put an end to a four-year dispute between the parties to the preliminary lease agreement for non-residential premises.
- We successfully defended the ex-wife of the bank’s head from attempts to take her property away from her through the courts. The financial manager of the bank’s bankruptcy proceedings has filed an application with the arbitration court. He wanted to challenge the fact that the debtor (the ex-husband) voluntarily acknowledged his wife’s demands for division of property, as a result of which almost all of the jointly acquired property (a house, two plots of land, an apartment and a car) remained with the ex-wife.
The manager insisted that the debtor had to repay the debt to the bank (for which he was later held vicariously liable in the bankruptcy case of the bank), and not give everything to his wife.
We managed to convince the court of three key points:
— The spouses acted in good faith, there were no abuses on their part.
— The court decision on the division of property has already entered into legal force, and its cancellation would violate the wife’s rights.
— The financial manager missed the limitation period for filing such an application.
As a result, the court sided with us, and it took just two hearings to protect the client’s interests.
The client’s interests were represented by lawyer Roman Volkomorov and senior associate Grigory Mirovsky.
- The Moscow Arbitration Court supported our client in a dispute over an assignment agreement.
The litigation involving our client lasted for more than a year and a half. His counterparty demanded collection of the debt under the assignment agreement, because he believed that the client’s company had agreed to pay the debt under the supply agreement for another company. At the first hearing of the case, the courts of first and appellate instance supported the assignor and collected the debt. The situation was reversed only in cassation, where the court agreed with our arguments regarding the fictitious nature of the relationship under the supply agreement and the lack of sufficient evidence in the case regarding the existence of the assigned right. Thus, the case was sent for a new hearing to the court of first instance, where today, taking into account the explanations provided by the parties, the court supported our client and rejected the claim of the procedural opponents completely.
The client’s interests were represented by Yakov Maksimovich Prisyazhnyuk, Head of the Economic Dispute Resolution Practice.
- The Arbitration Court of the Novosibirsk Region has defended the interests of a Chinese company in a dispute with an unscrupulous contractor.
Our client from China has asked us to protect his interests in a dispute with a supplier of modular buildings from Novosibirsk. The client has signed a contract for the design, manufacture and supply of modular buildings to regions in the Far North. Contract execution was divided into several stages with strict deadlines, as some sites could only be reached via the “winter road”—a road across frozen water. The Chinese side fulfilled its obligations in good faith and transferred an advance payment of 129 million rubles for the final stage of work. However, as often happens after receiving large advances, the contractor began to miss deadlines. The months allotted for delivery turned into years. Despite repeated warnings from the Chinese partner and meeting minutes signed by the contractor himself, which acknowledged the disruption of schedules, the situation has not changed. By the spring of 2025, it turned out that the goods under the third stage had not been manufactured, the work had not been completed, and the obligations were overdue by 9 months. In this regard, the Chinese client decided to terminate the contract unilaterally and demanded the return of the unprocessed advances. In response, the contractor from Novosibirsk refused to return the money, saying that the termination of the contract was allegedly illegal. The initial claim for the recovery of 138 million rubles was filed in September 2025. The Defendant delayed the process in every possible way: he submitted reviews at the last moment, and 4 months later, immediately before the third court session, he unexpectedly filed a counterclaim. In it, the contractor demanded to recognize the notice of termination of the contract as illegal, although in fact it was the same argument that they had repeated from the very beginning. The representative of the Chinese Plaintiff, lawyer Konstantin Evgenievich Tkachenko (Head of the Krasnodar branch of the Moscow City Bar Association “Bureau of Lawyers “De jure”), prepared written objections. They proved that the Defendant’s behavior was a classic abuse of law in order to delay the process and not return the money. The lawyers pointed out that the counterclaim was filed intentionally late. The requirement to “declare the notification illegal” is not an appropriate way of protection under the law. The contractor itself had previously acknowledged a violation of deadlines, and reconciliation reports confirm his debt.
Case Outcome: The Arbitration Court of the Novosibirsk Region agreed with our team’s arguments and sided with our Chinese partner. The claims of SNFS (ELOS) LLC were upheld in full. The entire amount of unprocessed advances has been recovered from the unscrupulous contractor, as well as interest at the key rate of the Central Bank of the Russian Federation, accrued until the actual repayment of the debt.
Еще события