The\nArbitration Court of the Tyumen Region, within the framework of the Bank’s\nbankruptcy case, invalidated the transaction made with preference and returned\nthe funds in the amount of 1.77 million rubles to the Bank’s bankruptcy\nestate. The interests of the bankruptcy\nadministrator of the Bank were represented by Ksenia Stikhina, lawyer from the\nTyumen branch of \u201cBureau of Lawyers \u201cDe Jure\u201d. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
Within the\nframework of a dispute on recovery of debt, Zhukovsky City Court of the Moscow\nRegion approved an amicable agreement between the bankruptcy Trustee of the Bank\nand the debtor for a total amount of 73 million rubles. Voluntary payments will allow faster\nreplenishment of the Bank’s bankruptcy estate. The interests of the bankruptcy\nTrustee were represented by Vladimir Leonov, lawyer of MCBA \u201cBureau of Lawyers\n\u201cDe Jure\u201d. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
The Second\nCassation Court of General Jurisdiction canceled the appeal ruling of the\nMoscow City Court on the refusal of the creditor to foreclose on the pledge. The case has been sent for a new\nconsideration to the court of appeal. \nThe interests of the creditor were represented by Vladimir Leonov,\nlawyer of MCBA \u201cBureau of Lawyers \u201cDe Jure\u201d. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
The Moscow\nArbitration Court considered the claim of the Moscow Government and the Moscow\nCity Property Department on the recognition of the building as an unauthorized\nconstruction and its demolition. During\nthe consideration, the Defendant and the Pledgee of the building, who was a\nthird party on the Defendant’s side, actively objected to the satisfaction of\nthe Plaintiffs’ claims, irrefutable evidence of the legality of the building\nwas presented to the court. As a result,\nthe court listened to their opinion and dismissed the claim. The interests of the Pledgee were represented\nby Rashid Gitinov, lawyer of MCBA \u201cBureau of Lawyers \u201cDe Jure\u201d. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
The Moscow\nCity Court considered the Plaintiff’s appeal against the earlier decision of\nDorogomilovsky District Court of Moscow to refuse to satisfy the claim of Homeowners\nAssociation against the Defendant. Within\nthe framework of a dispute, Homeowners Association filed a requirement to\nrecognize the Defendant’s property rights to the premises in the apartment\nbuilding as absent and to recognize them as common shared property of the\nresidents of the building. The claims of Homeowners Association were based on\nthe fact that the transferred premises belonged to public property and their\ntransfer to ownership infringes upon the rights of residents. The Defendant,\nopposing the satisfaction of the requirements, pointed out that the equipment\ninstalled in the disputed premises does not belong to common property, is not\nintended to serve the entire house, and the premises themselves were originally\nplanned by the developer as independent premises, in addition, they are located\nseparately from the residential building and are not connected by a common\nsystem of engineering communications. At the same time, Homeowners Association\ndid not provide technical documentation that would indicate that these premises\nwere classified as common property and that their financing was carried out,\namong other things, at the expense of the residents of the house. As a result, the court of appeal agreed with\nthe arguments of the Defendant and upheld the decision of the court of the first\ninstance. The Defendant’s interests were\ndefended by Elena Ivanova, lawyer of MCBA \u201cBureau of Lawyers \u201cDe Jure\u201d.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
The Arbitration Court of the Tyumen Region, within the framework of the Bank’s bankruptcy case, invalidated the transaction made with preference and returned the funds in the amount of 1.77 million rubles to the Bank’s bankruptcy estate. The interests of the bankruptcy administrator of the Bank were represented by Ksenia Stikhina, lawyer from the Tyumen…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[111],"tags":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/de-ure.ru\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/33337"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/de-ure.ru\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/de-ure.ru\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/de-ure.ru\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/de-ure.ru\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=33337"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/de-ure.ru\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/33337\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":33338,"href":"https:\/\/de-ure.ru\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/33337\/revisions\/33338"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/de-ure.ru\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=33337"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/de-ure.ru\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=33337"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/de-ure.ru\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=33337"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}