RECOVERY OF A PENALTY AND AN UNPROCESSED ADVANCE
As part of the case under the construction contract agreement in the arbitration court - the International Commercial Arbitration Court at the Chamber of Commerce and Industry of the Russian Federation, we managed to recover from the general contractor the amount of the unprocessed advance in the amount of 6,717,780 EUR and 2,960,399 EUR as penalty under the contract for late delivery of the completed construction object on time. The Court sided with the Client and recovered the claimed amount of the unprocessed advance and the penalty penalty in full. More than 9,500,000 EUR were recovered from the contractors.
The actions taken by the lawyers of the board made it possible to recover the declared amounts in favor of the Client.
Here we would like to tell you more about some of our most significant projects.
DEBT COLLECTION UNDER A CROSS-BORDER LOAN AGREEMENT
In the interests of Shelmer Holding Ltd to V.M.H.Y.Holdings Limited filed a claim for the recovery of funds in the amount of USD 34,250,000 under the loan agreement, interest for late repayment of the loan in the amount of USD 5,375,367, interest for late repayment of the loan (contractual penalty) in the amount of USD 3,836,000, compensatory interest for the retention of funds in the amount of 59,473,815 Rubles.
The actions taken by our lawyers made it possible to change the jurisdiction of the dispute from the LCIA (London) to the Commercial Court of Moscow, which significantly reduced the court costs and the time of consideration of the case, as well as made it possible to recover the declared amounts in favor of the Client. In addition, the review of judicial acts on the complaints of a third person, who actively interfered in the consideration of the case, were rejected.
RECOVERY FROM UNSCRUPULOUS CONTRACTORS
During the execution of construction contracts, a dispute arose about the amount of work performed. We managed to appoint the construction and technical expertise, which confirmed that the contractors did not perform the declared complex of works in the amount indicated by them. The courts sided with the Client and recovered the claimed amounts of the unprocessed advance in the majority, the cost of materials released on a tolling basis, and the penalty in full. More than 194,500,000 Rubles were recovered from the contractors, as well as counterclaims in the amount of more than 8,500,000 Rubles were denied.
The actions taken by our lawyers made it possible to recover the declared amounts in favor of the Client, as well as to avoid collecting funds from the Client.
SUPPORT OF A TRANSACTION FOR THE ACQUISITION OF A LARGE LAND PLOT
The international Public Organization of Writers "International Literary Fund" had the right to purchase a number of land plots in the Moscow region (New Moscow – Peredelkino) with an area of 45 hectares.at a price significantly lower than the market. However, the local administration refused to provide land plots (including by ignoring official requests).
The attorneys developed and implemented a plan, according to which the refusal to provide land plots was appealed. During the trial, the land plots were removed from the cadastral register, which caused the need to re-register them and prove the identity of the plots with new cadastral numbers to the old plots. In addition, the part of the Moscow Region where the requested land plots were located was annexed to Moscow, which caused the need to substantiate the procedural succession of the city of Moscow on the defendant's side.
As a result of the court proceedings, Moscow was obliged to sell land plots for 3% of their cadastral value at the time of applying to the court (and not for 100% of the market value at the time of the purchase and sale transaction, as prescribed by the regulatory legal acts of Moscow). This gave the client a 50-fold benefit tin relation to the price of the object.
PROTECTION OF THE INTERESTS OF AN OIL PRODUCING COMPANY IN A DIPUTE WITH A CONTRACTOR
The oil-producing company "Reimpex" faced an unreliable counterparty who improperly performed drilling operations under a contract. As a result of his actions, an accident occurred, and the oil well turned out to be unsuitable for further operation. At the same time, the contractor not only refused to eliminate the defect, but also unilaterally refused to fulfill the contract and demanded payment from the Client for the work carried out before the accident.
Our lawyers filed a counterclaim with a demand for the return by the contractor of everything received under the contract, as well as for the recovery of losses - future expenses for drilling the well. During the consideration of the case, three forensic expertises were conducted, one of which confirmed the correctness of the contractor. However, based on the data collected in social networks and at the place of work of the contractor's representative, we managed to prove the interest of the expert and achieve his recusal.
Despite the fact that the case was considered for more than five years, and the cassation instance twice canceled the decision made in favor of the client, the court sided with the Client and ruled on the complete refusal to satisfy the contractor's claims (for 34 million rubles), as well as almost complete satisfaction of the Client`s claims in the amount of more than 79 million Rubles, including claims for damages from the contractor, on the recovery of penalties for violation of the terms of work, and the Client's expenses for eliminating deficiencies in the work.
The actions taken by the lawyers of the board made it possible to achieve a refusal to satisfy the requirements of the contractor, as well as to satisfy the legitimate requirements of the Client.
DISPUTE WITH AN UNSCRUPULOUS CEO
The American corporation was the founder and the only participant of the Russian LLC.
From 2016 to 2019, the functions of the company's general director (plaintiff) were performed by a US citizen who in 2018 created a company (defendant), where he was the only participant and CEO. During the exercise of his powers, he concluded a number of contracts (sale of vehicles, loans, agency agreements) on obviously unfavorable terms for the company.
The party to the contracts was his own company – in conditions of obvious interest, which confirmed the director's dishonesty in the implementation of his functions.
In addition, the general director seized all the documentation in the company, which actually blocked the normal activities of the company.
During the consideration of several cases, the unfair behavior of the former CEO and the company created by him, which caused significant damage to the company, as well as his personal interest in making transactions, which implied obtaining personal benefits by the company's director, who was the actual beneficiary of the transactions, was proved.
The court declared the disputed agency agreements invalid and applied the consequences of the invalidity of the transactions, collecting 124,900,000 rubles from the defendant in favor of the plaintiff.
In addition, several transactions were invalidated - sale contracts of three premium cars having a par value of about 10,000,000 rubles. The requirements were satisfied by the court in full. The court agreed with the arguments about the lack of economic expediency of making transactions on obviously unfavorable terms for the company and decided to recognize the disputed contracts as invalid, applying the consequences of the invalidity of the transactions, and return the vehicles to the client.
MAJOR LABOR DISPUTE WITH THE DISMISSED DIRECTOR
The general director, who was dismissed from the company, filed two lawsuits against the company in the Presnensky District Court of Moscow: for the recovery of unpaid wages in the amount of 3,000,000 rubles in his opinion and for the recovery of compensation for the termination of an employment contract in the amount of more than 12,000,000 rubles.
Our attorney proved to the court that the director not only denied to ceas fulfilling his labor duties, but also caused significant material damage to the company by his actions of abuse of the right, which interfered with the implementation of the company's right to judicial protection.
In fact, it was not possible to dismiss the director for a long time due to the illegal seizure of the company's documentation by the director himself.
As for the payment of compensation for the termination of the employment contract, the lawyer of the board proved that there was no agreement on the payment of compensation in the correspondence between the participant and the CEO, and the compensation provided for in Article 279 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation is not due to the CEO. Having proved that the CEO committed a number of guilty actions (inactions) during the management of the company, as well as the existence of numerous facts of abuse of his powers for personal enrichment, the attorney convinced the court to reject the suit of the former CEO.