The following are examples of commercial litigations from our recent practice:

• Protection of assets of an international trade holding as part of several interconnected cases based on the claims of the Russian representative office of a leading European financial institution. Our lawyers were able to prove in court the termination of surety agreements between the bank and the three companies included in the holding, as well as the invalidity of pledge agreements for storage facilities in the Moscow Region;
• Invalidation of a bank guarantee issued to ensure the fulfillment of the obligation of the majority shareholder of a large energy company to acquire shares of the company through a mandatory offer;
• Recovery  of more than 4 million US dollars from the Government of the Leningrad region in connection with the bankruptcy of a state unitary enterprise providing consumer services in the territory of the region. Our lawyers managed to prove that it was the seizure of property from the economic management of the unitary enterprise that caused the insolvency of the debtor;
• Conducting the advocacy of a large engineering company which claimed that the actions of the Department of Architecture and Urban Planning of the Administration of Nizhny Novgorod to refuse the approvement of draft boundaries of the land located under the office building owned by the client should be declared unlawful. The proceedings took place in the Commercial Court of the Nizhny Novgorod Region and Higher Instances;
• Conducting the advocacy of shareholders in a limited liability company in the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation in the case of invalidating the shareholders meeting decision. The dispute involved a question of the application of Joint Decree of the Plenum of the Supreme Arbitration Court and the Supreme Court of December 9, 1999 No. 90/14 (Paragraph 24), according to which, in cases where the parties invoke in support of their claims or objections to the decision of the company’s shareholders general meeting, and the court has established that this decision was made with significant violations of the law (in violation of the competence of this body, in the absence of a quorum, etc.), the court must proceed from the fact that such a decision does not have legal power, regardless of whether it has been challenged by any of the members of the company or not, and to resolve a dispute, guided by the rule of law. As a result, the Supreme Court declared this provision not applicable in the case at hand;
• Representing an average Russian company in proceedings regarding declaring of a lease agreement as non-concluded, during which our lawyers managed to prove that the object to be leased was not agreed, and therefore the specified agreement cannot be recognized as concluded;
• Effective advocacy in more than twenty litigations with the Moscow City Property Department on the price of redemption of state premises from the city treasury on the basis of Federal Law of July 22, 2008 No. 159-FZ;
• Conducting the advocacy of the largest enterprise in the Vladimir region, engaged in the production of components for the automotive industry, against the claim of the leading Russian auto concern. In the framework of this dispute, the lawyers of the firm defended a patent for a production used in most automobiles manufactured in Russia;
• Representing a large metallurgical enterprise in the Sverdlovsk region in the proceedings to recover damages caused by an illegal interruption in the supply of electric energy. The respondent in this case was the largest electricity supplier in the Urals Federal District;
• Recovery from the largest insurance company in Russia of the insurance amount payable to the insured (the leading supplier of Chinese sports shoes). During the case hearings, our lawyers proved that there was no intent or gross negligence in the actions of the Client and the supplier, and the cargo was lost due to the fault of the carrier;
• Contesting the customs value of toys imported into Russia from China for the leading supplier of these products in the Southern Federal District. The Krasnodar Customs acted as the defendant in this case, considered that the customs value of the goods was greatly underestimated.