Cases' examples 2
A Company applied to the Bar which has performed works under the construction contract, but slightly failing to meet the deadline. In course of arbitration proceeding the customer enforced the Company to compensate 1.3 bln rubles, which exceeded the contract value eight times. Thereafter the customer applied to the court to issue the writ of execution to enforce the said arbitration court decision. The Bar’s attorneys representing the Company's interests at this proceeding stage have convinced the arbitrazh court that the arbitration court decision violated primary principles of the Russian legal system, specifically, the penalty applied by the arbitration court shows evidence of clear disproportion of the liability violation consequences and is strictly punitive. Issue of the writ of execution was dismissed, and the Client was discharged of liability to pay the punitive damages.
This case is an example of a successful conduct of the proceeding against the State Corporation Deposit Insurance Agency. As the Grantor asserted claims against the bank in scope of Subordinated Loan Agreement and the bank asserted counter claim to the Grantor in scope of Loan Agreement, the Parties decided to offset the liabilities. However, as the bank had its license revoked, bankruptcy supervisor of SC Deposit Insurance Agency, despite the offset and the Client being free of debts towards the bank, applied to the court on enforcement under the Loan Agreement. In scope of dispute settlement the Bar’s attorneys have proved that all Client’s liabilities towards the bank were fulfilled with the offset prior to the license revocation and claims of the SC Deposit Insurance Agency on debt remittance are inconsistent. The dispute value amounted to 40 mln rubles.
The Bar’s attorneys have agreed to defend the head of the socially significant municipal enterprise of the major region of the Russian Federation to be charged of 11 criminal acts. According to the investigative authorities, the head of enterprise abused its power and inflicted damage to the enterprise exceeding 20 mln rubles. Prior to the attorneys’ intervention to the case the defendant was held in custody. As a result of qualified legal support the Bar managed to terminate of prosecution of the Client against 9 criminal acts. In this regard, the preventive punishment of the defendant was changed for travel restrictions. The successful work with the first-instance court resulted in discharge of the defendant for the remaining two acts. The Court of Appeal upheld the verdict of acquittal.
One of the high-profile businessmen to be charged of serious fraud has become the defendant of the Bar’s attorneys. According to the investigative authorities, as a result of asset dissipating of the bank where the Client previously acted as a beneficiary, the bank failed to perform towards the depositors. The whole asset dissipating scheme, as stated in the investigative authorities, was organized by the Client. Despite the economic character of the violation and the Client not attempting to escape, the Client was sentenced to be taken into custody. As a result of highly qualified advocateship, the preventive punishment of the defendant was changed for travel restrictions. Moreover, the elaborated legal proposition excludes any possibility of conviction during impartial trial.
As a result of several assigns in scope of an investment contract, the Grantor has obtained the right for premises which value exceeded 180 mln rubles through purchase. The court decision has acknowledged the Grantor’s property right for the indicated premises. However, after more than two years the Customer in scope of the chief investment contract applied to the court with the claim to dispute the property right of the Grantor for the premises in question and reclaim the objects from its property. As a result of a long dispute to be transferred for consideration on the merits to the judicial board of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation twice, the Bar’s attorneys managed to defend the Grantor’s rights: its property rights for the premises in question was validated and the redress on the property reclamation was dismissed.
The Company being on monitoring procedure and possessing the effective court decree to be included in the register of creditors with the liabilities exceeding 1.2 bln rubles, has applied to the Bar. Despite the fact that the Bar’s attorneys have intervened the court proceeding during cassation appeal when it is impossible to present the new evidence or make proceeding announcements, they have managed to convince the judicial board that the acts are illegal, the creditor’s demands are fictitious, moreover, the statute of limitation for enforcement by the creditor has passed. After a long discussion the judicial board agreed with the attorneys’ proposition and canceled the accomplished legal actions on entry of the demands to the register of creditors.
In course of the apartment sale, the Client decided to settle payments using the safe deposit box; together with the Buyer they have deposited 180 mln rubles. But the stolen money from the safe deposit box were stolen. The bank has refused to reimburse the stolen money, stating that the Client leased a “metal box”, but the bank did not assume liability for safety of its content. Despite that the courts pretty often support such position of the banks, the Bar’s attorneys managed to convince the court that based on the contract’s purport the bank was obliged to ensure the deposit box safety. Moreover, they have proved the monetary amount that was deposited with the safe deposit box. The Client’s claims under the lawsuit were satisfied to full extent.
The Grantor fell victim of fraud resulting in theft of major chemical company shares it owned, amounting to 3 bln rubles. During dispute resolution, the Bar’s attorneys managed to redress for violated rights of the Grantor. The court accepted the proposition introduced on violation of the transaction processing procedure by the issuer and enforced the value of lost shares for the benefit of the Grantor. In the course of enforcement proceeding we have received the funds to be reimbursed to the Grantor to full extent. This corporate dispute remains the major case in the Russian court practice where the shareholder was compensated for his losses incurred due to the issuer violating the transaction processing requirements.
The Client, a general contractor, had a contract concluded for performance of complex works for capital repair of the cultural heritage site and its preparation to be used as a 5-star hotel. Due to fraudulent actions of the contractors and their violation of the contract terms, the Client has inflicted material losses. In course of legal proceeding, thanks to integrated approach including elaborate proceeding actions, the Bar’s attorneys have successfully managed to protect interests of the grantor and enforce losses amounting to 6 bln rubles for its benefit.
In scope of the bankruptcy procedure the Client acting as a third party has satisfied all creditors’ claims exceeding 15 bln rubles. The indicated proceeding is significant as during the trial this bank was considered the first bank to fully satisfy the creditors’ claims within the bankruptcy procedure. The situation required amendment of the current legislation on bankruptcy as the law did not provide for consequences of such enforcement. The Bar’s attorneys negotiated with the State Corporation Deposit Insurance Agency, supported the whole procedure for crediting funds by the Client that resulted in successful transfer of all legal claims to it.