{"id":33654,"date":"2021-08-04T16:43:18","date_gmt":"2021-08-04T13:43:18","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/de-ure.ru\/en\/?p=33654"},"modified":"2021-08-12T16:46:35","modified_gmt":"2021-08-12T13:46:35","slug":"august-4-main-results-of-the-day","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/de-ure.ru\/en\/2021\/08\/04\/august-4-main-results-of-the-day\/","title":{"rendered":"August 4    Main results of the day"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>The First General Jurisdiction Court of Appeal dismissed the Moscow Government&#8217;s complaint against the Moscow City Court&#8217;s ruling on the recovery of court costs. Earlier, the court ruled in favor of the Principal of MCBA \u201cBureau of Lawyers \u201cDe jure\u201d and collected more than 60 thousand rubles from the Moscow Government. The interests of the Principal were represented by Polina Arkannikova, senior lawyer of MCBA \u201cBureau of Lawyers \u201cDe jure\u201d.<br \/>\nThe Tenth Arbitration Court of Appeal in the framework of the bankruptcy case agreed with the position of MCBA \u201cBureau of Lawyers \u201cDe jure\u201d and left the judicial act of the Arbitration Court of the Moscow Region unchanged. Earlier, the court of first instance refused to recognize as invalid transaction a payment in the amount of more than 200 million rubles made by a debtor in favor of a Client of MCBA \u201cBureau of Lawyers \u201cDe jure\u201d less than a month before the bankruptcy application was accepted for court proceedings. The Bureau proved that the payment is not a preference transaction, since the debtor, after receiving the medicines from the Client of the Bureau, delivered them under a state contract. When the funds under the state contract were credited to the debtor&#8217;s account, they were immediately transferred to the Client for the goods delivered earlier. Thus, the funds at the expense of which the payments were made were not originally an asset of the debtor. The Client was represented by Taisiya Radchenko, senior lawyer of MCBA \u201cBureau of Lawyers \u201cDe jure\u201d.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>The First General Jurisdiction Court of Appeal dismissed the Moscow Government&#8217;s complaint against the Moscow City Court&#8217;s ruling on the recovery of court costs. Earlier, the court ruled in favor of the Principal of MCBA \u201cBureau of Lawyers \u201cDe jure\u201d and collected more than 60 thousand rubles from the Moscow Government. The interests of the&hellip;<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[111],"tags":[157],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/de-ure.ru\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/33654"}],"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=33654"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/de-ure.ru\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/33654\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":33655,"href":"https:\/\/de-ure.ru\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/33654\/revisions\/33655"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/de-ure.ru\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=33654"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/de-ure.ru\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=33654"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/de-ure.ru\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=33654"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}