Saved the client 870 million Roubles
A client — the owner of a major construction company — faced a claim for secondary liability exceeding ₽800 million, brought outside the scope of bankruptcy proceedings.
The court sided with the client and denied the claim. We proved that the statute of limitations had expired and prevented the attempt to impose the company’s debts on the client We argued that the Bankruptcy Law, as amended by Federal Law No. 134-FZ and in force at the time of the transactions, applies to the case. This allowed us to invoke the one-year statute of limitations and obtain a complete dismissal of the ₽800 million claim for secondary liability.
A client — the owner of a major construction company — faced a claim for secondary liability exceeding ₽800 million, brought outside the scope of bankruptcy proceedings. Preserved a 1 billion ROubleS asset for the client
The investor – one of the largest gas companies in Russia — filed a lawsuit seeking ownership of an unfinished residential building and the associated land plot, relying on a terminated investment agreement. The municipality supported the claim, contending that the agreement was in fact a construction contract.
The court agreed with our position and dismissed the claim. The real estate remained the client’s property — we successfully protected an asset valued at ₽1 billion by defending ownership of the unfinished building and land plot. We presented a different legal classification of the relationship, pointing to features of a sale agreement for a future asset. We demonstrated that the building and the associated land plot could not be transferred under construction contract rules.
The investor – one of the largest gas companies in Russia — filed a lawsuit seeking ownership of an unfinished residential building and the associated land plot, relying on a terminated investment agreement. The municipality supported the claim, contending that the agreement was in fact a construction contract. Recovered 205.8 million ROUBLES in damages
We represented the interests of a leading developer operating in an oil- and gas-rich region of Russia in a series of disputes against the company’s former CEO. Total claims exceeded ₽200 million.
The court upheld our claims and awarded ₽205.8 million in damages from the former CEO. We proved that the ex-CEO transferred company funds to his personal accounts and orchestrated a scheme to profit from leasing a land plot to the company through an entity he controlled. We substantiated the damages and established the causal link.
We represented the interests of a leading developer operating in an oil- and gas-rich region of Russia in a series of disputes against the company’s former CEO. Total claims exceeded ₽200 million. Protected 35 million roubles for the client
A company filed a claim to recover ₽35 million from our client, alleging unjust enrichment. It argued that our client had received payments from the company without legal grounds, allegedly disguised as dividends distributions
Faced with our arguments, the plaintiff entered into negotiations and eventually withdrew the claim. We proved that the payments were lawful dividends approved by the sole shareholder. We also pointed out that the statute of limitations had expired, as the company — through its most recent CEO — had known or should have known about the payments since 2019.
A company filed a claim to recover ₽35 million from our client, alleging unjust enrichment. It argued that our client had received payments from the company without legal grounds, allegedly disguised as dividends distributions Preserved control over the business
A bankruptcy trustee brought a lawsuit against our client — a hospitality company — seeking to invalidate a shareholder’s exit from the company and recognize the debtor’s right to a 75% stake in the company’s charter capital.
The appellate court ruled in our client’s favor and denied the trustee’s claim The trial court had previously decided for the trustee. On appeal, we pointed out misapplications of substantive law and the lack of legal grounds for the lower court’s conclusions. The appellate court found merit in our arguments, overturned the decision, and dismissed the claim in full.
A bankruptcy trustee brought a lawsuit against our client — a hospitality company — seeking to invalidate a shareholder’s exit from the company and recognize the debtor’s right to a 75% stake in the company’s charter capital.