Disputes in Russian Arbitrazh Courts and Courts of General Jurisdiction

Experience in commercial disputes:

• representing large energy company - the defendant - in the lawsuit in debts collection case for the delivery of goods in the amount of RUB 2 million. The Law Firm drafted and filed a counterclaim, claiming the replacement the delivered goods with the goods from the appropriate country of origin. The arbitrazh court refused to satisfy the initial claim and satisfied the counterclaim. The court mentioned the fact, that the delivery of equipment provided for by the contract was not proved by the claimant; the supply of goods from the country of origin as defined in the specification to the contract is an essential condition of the contract. The appellate court upheld the decision of the first instance court;
• representing large energy company – the defendant in debts collection case for rendered services for the disposition of low-mineralized wastewater in the amount of more than RUB 15 million. The project’s objective was to reduce the amount of satisfied claims. The low-mineralized waters disposition services are quite specific. Similar services under the same or analogous scheme, which was applied by the claimant in Russia, are not rendered in Russia. Comparative method chosen by the expert to determine the value was not applicable. The Law Firm participated in the negotiations with the claimant. As a result, the agreement was reached and performed, that the defendant will not file re-examination request and the claimant, in turn, will partially refuse from his claims;
• representing large energy company as a defendant in debts collection case for delivered goods plus interest in a total amount of RUB 3 million. The supplier submitted signed invoices and reconciliation deed in support of his claims. The Firm drafted and filed a counterclaim to terminate the contract in connection with the violation by the plaintiff of the essential terms of the supply contract, since the supplier delivered cheaper analogue of the declared products from another manufacturer. The arbitrazh court dismissed the initial claim and satisfied the counterclaim of our client. The court took into account the fact, that the delivery of equipment provided for by the contract was not proved by the claimant. The defendant confirmed the existence of significant violations of the contractual terms. The appellate upheld the decision of the first instance court;
• representing Mongolian construction company – the claimant in the case on termination of contract, recovery of unjust enrichment from the design organization in the amount of more than 4 million rubles, as well as penalties for violation of the deadlines in the amount of more than RUB 0.5 million. The Firm conducted pre-trial negotiations with the defendant, prepared a lawsuit, supplement to the lawsuit, appeal, cassation appeal, opinion on Mongolian law rules from Mongolian law company, received letters from another Mongolian construction company about the impossibility to prepare working documentation for construction on the basis of design documentation prepared by the defendant, conducted analysis of correspondence by email between the parties, organized documents translation from Mongolian language into Russian and their notarization;
• representing large energy company – the defendant in debts collection case for the delivered goods and rendered services. The Law Firm raised counter-arguments to object the plaintiff’s claims, that the contract between the parties was not concluded. The rules on unjust enrichment were not applicable to the parties’ relations, since the defendant was a natural monopoly subject. The defendant was obliged to purchase in accordance with the Law no. 223-FZ, since the contract between the parties was not concluded. The actual delivery of services and goods did not not entail counter-performance obligations on the defendant's side;
• representing the claimant in the arbitrazh court in the case of the recovery of unjust enrichment connected with the difference in the cost of actually delivered equipment and equipment, the supply of which was provided for by the contract, as well as penalties for late delivery of equipment. The arbitrazh court satisfied the claims in part regarding the recovery of the penalty. The first instance court acknowledged, that the defendant misinterpreted the terms of the contract, and therefore, the penalty must be recovered in full. The defendant filed a motion to leave the claim without consideration due to non-compliance with the pre-trial settlement procedure. The court dismissed the motion and upheld the plaintiff's objections;
• representing large energy company – the defendant in the case initiated by the claim to recover a penalty in the amount of 20% of the fee for the use of vehicles provided by the claimant to the defendant under a contract for the provision of vehicles with crew. The plaintiff claimed, that this penalty should have been recovered from the defendant for his refusal to use the vehicles provided for by the charter contract. The arbitrazh court rejected the claim in full. Thus, the claims against our client were found unreasonable. The appellate court upheld the decision of the first instance court;
• representing the interests of a Russian company in a dispute over the recovery damages in the supply of counterfeit goods (materials for the construction of a pipeline) in the arbitrazh courts of appeal and cassation. As a result of the appeal the court granted the client's requirements in full, the amount of damages recovered was increased 6 times;
• representing Russian company in a dispute concerning a contract of the supply of building materials worth around of RUB 75 million in the arbitrazh courts of appeal and cassation instances;
• representing film production company claiming a penalty for the delay in the performance of the contract, contract termination due to its material breach by the other party and damages resulting from the termination of the contract in the amount of approximately RUB 15 million from the film company in the arbitrazh courts of first and appellate instances;
• representing Swiss company in the debt recovery case from Russian contractor for design and reconstruction of a jewelry store services.

Experience in corporate disputes:

• representing the interests of the claimant – the former owner of a 100% share in the charter capital of a mining company with a market value of more than 100 million rubles in the appellate court. The appellate court upheld the decision of the first instance court to terminate the share sale agreement in the charter capital and to recognize the Client's right to a share of 100% of the authorized capital of the company. The appellate court returned the appeal of the person who was not involved in the case, on the basis that the appellant registered the right to share after the court made a decision in the case, as well as in connection with the passage of time for appeal of the judicial act. Thus, the appellate court and first instance court found the claims of our Client reasonable and satisfied them in full.

Experience in tax disputes:

• representing a large energy company – the claimant in the case on the return of the overpayment of the corporate profit tax in the appellate court. In this case the law firm challenged the refusal to refund the overpayment of income tax, which, according to the claimant, was illegal, violated his rights and legitimate interests.
  
• representing a Russian company in a dispute with tax authorities regarding the collection of VAT in the amount of 80 million rubles;

Experience in the energy sector disputes:

• representing the educational institution – the claimant in the case on recovery of losses, connected with action/inaction of the Contractor repairing the building of the Institution in the amount of more than 2.5 million rubles in the arbitrazh courts of three instances. The incurred losses were caused during the repair period by the acts of the energy supply company issued to the Institution concerning unaccounted consumption of electric energy and connected with non-compliance by the Contractor with the procedure for replacing metering devices, the lack of advance notification of the energy sales company about the replacement of meters. The first instance court satisfied the claims. The appellate court decided the case under the rules of the first instance due to procedural violations of the previous instance. Deciding the case “under the rules of the first instance”, the appellate court reversed the decision of the first instance court and satisfied the claims in part in connection with the partial voluntary repayment of the debt by the defendant. The cassational court upheld the decision of the appellate court;
• representing large energy company – the claimant in the case on unjust enrichment recovery connected with overpayment under energy supply contract due to incorrect determination of the tariff voltage level by the energy supply company in the amount exceeding 2.5 million rubles. The arbitrazh court found, that the claimant had proved the unjust enrichment fact and the level of applicable tariff voltage and rejected the arguments of the energy supply company, that there were no grounds for calculating the cost of consumed electric energy using voltage levels other than those specified in the contract;
• representing large energy company – the claimant in the case of collecting unjust enrichment related to the payment of water disposal services in the amount exceeding 20 million rubles. The arbitrazh court found, that the claimant had proved the unjust enrichment fact, connected with the change in contractual relations scheme. Thus, the arbitrazh court satisfied the claims of our client in full. The appeal and cassation courts upheld the decision of the court of first instance;
• representing the marble industry company – the defendant in the debts collection case for payment of unaccounted consumption of electric energy, which was a result of preparation of the act of unaccounted electricity consumption by the Company. The total amount of claims exceeded 25 million rubles;
• representing large energy company – the claimant in the case for unjust enrichment collection related to payment of services for transporting water through the claimant’s water supply networks in the amount of more than 3 million rubles. The arbitrazh court of the first instance found, that the claimant proved the unjust enrichment fact, as well as inaccuracy of the defendant’s arguments, that the water supply network had belonged to the claimant about the need to calculate the transported volumes of water at one point of connection instead of two, about mistaken determination the period, for which the transported water is calculated. The appellate and cassational courts upheld the decision of the first instance court;
• representing large energy company – the claimant in the case for unjust enrichment collection related to overpayment for water services in the amount exceeding 3.5 million rubles. The first instance court acknowledged, that the plaintiff had proved the unjust enrichment fact, as well as the erroneousness of the defendant's arguments about the inclusion of wastewater services in the calculation. Thus, the arbitrazh court satisfied the claims in full. The appellate and cassational courts upheld the decision of the first instance court;
• representing large energy company – the defendant in the case of collecting more than 10 million rubles debt for electric energy supplied in order to compensate for losses in electric networks, and 2.8 million rubles penalty. The claimant pointed to the calculation of the amount of electricity by the settlement method in accordance with paragraph 183 of the Basic Provisions no. 442, due to crash of the meter and failure to eliminate malfunction in a timely manner. The Firm put forward the following counter-arguments: the parties agreed on a temporary electricity metering scheme until the defect was eliminated (by correspondence via email), temporary scheme was carried out by metering device, that met all the control criteria, the defendant was not properly notified about the application of the settlement method electricity metering, the corresponding calculation was not sent to the respondent, the real amount of electricity losses did not changed. The defendant also argued, that the claimant had failed to determine jurisdiction correctly;
• representing large energy company – the defendant in the case, where the plaintiff claimed for the acts’ corrections and invoices reissue in respect of transfer of electric energy services in the amount of approximately 10 million rubles. The arbitrazh court satisfied our client’s claims and terminated the proceedings;
• representing energy company claiming debt recovery for consumed thermal energy in the amount of about 3 million rubles. The arbitrazh courts of the first and appellate instances found, that the claimant had proved the difference in the economically reasonable costs of thermal energy, which formed the basis of the tariff for thermal energy set for the claimant. Thus, the arbitrazh courts of the first and appellate instances satisfied the plaintiff's claims in full, recovering the debt in the amount of about 3 million rubles;
• representing energy company – the claimant in the debt collection case for the transfer of electric energy in the amount exceeding 7 million rubles. The courts of the first and appeal instances satisfied the claims of our client in full, having recognized the lawfulness of applying the two-part electricity tariff, and collected the debt from the defendant, a large energy company in full. Thus, the courts recognized lawfulness of our client’s claims regarding the application of a two-part tariff and debt collection.

Experience in insurance disputes:

• the Law Firm represented medical organization - the claimant in the debt collection case under medical assistance and payment agreement within compulsory health insurance;
  
• the Law Firm represents large energy company - the claimant in the insurance compensation recovery case. Two accidents occurred at the insured’s facilities. As a result, expenses for restoring repair were incurred in the amount exceeding 27 million rubles. The insurance company paid the insurance indemnity in part. As a result, the claimant filed a lawsuit claiming for recovery of unpaid insurance indemnity in the amount of 18 million rubles. While preparing documents to the court, the Firm conducted examination of the cost of restoring repair, which supported the claims.

Experience in administrative disputes:

• successful appeal in an arbitrazh court of a tax authority’s decision on bringing LLC to administrative liability under Art. 15.25 of the Code of Administrative Offences of the Russian Federation for violation of the time limits for submitting to authorized bank currency control documents to amend transaction passports. Having accepted our objections and arguments as well-founded, the arbitrazh court declared illegal and completely canceled the decisions of the tax authority on bringing the Company to administrative responsibility.
  
• representing chairman of the board of commercial bank before the Central Bank of the Russian Federation in the case of bringing an official to administrative liability under Art. 15.27 of the Code of Administrative Offences of the Russian Federation for non-compliance with the legislation of the Russian Federation in the field of counteracting the legalization (laundering) of proceeds from crime and financing of terrorism when organizing internal control. While considering the issue of bringing an official to administrative liability, in view of our comprehensive arguments in support of the legal position, the Central Bank of the Russian Federation terminated administrative proceedings having applied the provisions of Article 2.9 Code of Administrative Offences of the Russian Federation due to insignificance of administrative offense.
• representing large energy company - the applicant contesting the decision of the antimonopoly body on bringing to administrative liability under Part 1 of Art. 9.21 of the Code of Administrative Offences of the Russian Federation for violating the Rules of connection (technological connection) to heat supply system.
• representing electricity company - the applicant challenging the decision of the Department of Prices and Tariffs of the subject of the Russian Federation on bringing to administrative liability under Part 2 of Art. 14.6 of the Code of Administrative Offences of the Russian Federation and imposing administrative fine. The Moscow City Arbitrazh Court upheld the application of our client, found the decision illegal on bringing our client to administrative liability and imposing administrative fine and completely canceled it.
• challenging the decision of the tariff service on bringing to administrative liability in accordance with Part 2 of Art. 14.6 the Code of Administrative Offences of the Russian Federation in connection with the violation of the pricing procedure provided for by the Federal Law of December 7, 2011 No. 416-ФЗ “On Water Supply and Sanitation”.

Experience in real estate disputes:

• representing Mongolian construction company – the claimant in the case on termination of contract, recovery of unjust enrichment from the design organization in the amount of more than 4 million rubles, as well as penalties for violation of the deadlines in the amount of more than RUB 0.5 million. The Firm conducted pre-trial negotiations with the defendant, prepared a lawsuit, supplement to the lawsuit, appeal, cassation appeal, opinion on Mongolian law rules from Mongolian law company, received letters from another Mongolian construction company about the impossibility to prepare working documentation for construction on the basis of design documentation prepared by the defendant, conducted analysis of correspondence by email between the parties, organized documents translation from Mongolian language into Russian and their notarization.
  
• participating in the penalty recovery case arising from the delay in transfer of shared construction unit and fine for failure to satisfy claims voluntary. The arbitrazh court satisfied claims in part. The court imposed a penalty and fine on the developer, having reduced their amount in accordance with Art. 333 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation. The appellate court upheld the decision of the first instance court.
• representing assignee (company) under the assignment of rights of claim agreement in a dispute concerning penalty recovery arising from the delay in transfer of shared construction unit and a fine for failure to satisfy claims voluntary. The arbitrazh court satisfied claims in part. The court imposed a penalty on the developer for the delay to transfer shared construction unit and refused to impose a fine.
• representing assignee (company) under the assignment of rights of claim agreement in a dispute concerning penalty recovery arising from the delay in transfer of shared construction unit and fine for failure to satisfy claims voluntary. The arbitrazh court satisfied claims in part. The court imposed a penalty and fine on the developer, having reduced their amount in accordance with Art. 333 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation. 
• representing the developer in the case on the facade repair of a residential complex. The plaintiffs claimed, that the facade of the house was defective and required repair. The management company was also involved in the case as a co-defendant. The Firm’s lawyers successfully proved to the court, that old technical study on which the plaintiffs based their position, was no longer relevant due to repair carried out by the developer, the warranty period expired, and the residents conducted illegal redevelopment in violation of the project.
• representing the client in the case on recognizing real estate ownership.

Experience in labor disputes:

• representing state institution - the defendant in a labor dispute regarding the reinstatement of the employee at work in the district court and in the court of appeal. The employee filed a lawsuit claiming for reinstatement, recognition of orders imposing disciplinary sanctions illegal, recovery of average earnings during a forced absence, recovery of non-pecuniary damage and compensation for transportation costs. The court completely refused to satisfy the plaintiff's claims. The appellate court upheld the decision of the first instance court.
  
• representing large energy company – the defendant in the case concerning cancellation of the dismissal order, job reinstatement, recovery of average earnings, compensation of non-pecuniary damage.
• representing the employer – the defendant in a labor dispute with a total amount of claims RUB 15 million, examined by the district court of general jurisdiction of Moscow. The plaintiff – a former top manager of the respondent company, referring to the delay to return him the work book, filed a lawsuit asking to invalidate the entries in the work book, to oblige the defendant to provide documents confirming the reason for dismissal, and to amend the workbook, as well as to recover earnings not received due to the delay to return the work book in the period from 2005 to 2015, to compensate for the delay in the payment of wage, unpaid wage, compensation for unused vacation, non-pecuniary damages. The district court of general jurisdiction of Moscow dismissed the plaintiff’s lawsuit in full.
• representing the employee, manager of a civil construction company, on collecting wage arrears. As a result, the court of general jurisdiction of one of the districts of the Moscow Region decided to satisfy the claims in full, including wage arrears and interest for the delay in payment of wage in the case.
• representing the employer - the defendant in the case of recovering monetary compensation for unused vacation. As a result, the court of general jurisdiction decided in the case not to satisfy the claims referring to the expiry of the statute of limitations provided for by ILO Convention no. 132 on Holidays with Pay.
• representing the employer - the defendant in a labor dispute with the employee, claiming for payment of wage, severance pay, compensation for unused vacation, reimbursement of expenses, recovery of wage for working on weekends, for compensation for non-pecuniary damages in the district court of general jurisdiction of Moscow.

Resolution of disputes on challenging non-normative legal acts, decisions, actions (inaction) of state bodies, municipal authorities:

• challenging the decision of the antimonopoly authority on violation of part 1 of article 10 of the Law on Protection of Competition regarding the abuse by an economic entity of a dominant position in the market for the provision of services for technological connection of consumers to distribution electric networks within the balance sheet of electric networks
  
• representing large energy company in the arbitrazh court in the case on invalidating the order of the municipal administration and the order of the head of the municipal administration to start the heating season
• representing large electric power company in the arbitrazh court claiming, that the decision of antimonopoly authority is illegal and asking to cancel it. The antimonopoly authority found the actions of the client to be an abuse of a dominant position, that was expressed in reluctance to conclude the agreement on the technological connection of power receiving devices, and issued the order. The arbitrazh court did not agree with the conclusions of the antimonopoly authority. It found the challenged decision and order illegal.

Resolution of disputes on contesting regulatory legal acts:

• representing large energy company - an interested party - in the case on challenging the tariff for the transmission of electric energy established in respect of the client. In support of the administrative claim, the claimant pointed at the inconsistency of the challenged normative legal act with the current legislation rules, inclusion of unreasonable expenses in the tariff, failure of the energy company to meet the criteria of the territorial network organization, and the violation of the principles of the Basic Principles of Pricing in the field of prices’ (tariffs’) regulation in the electric power industry. The claimant also submitted an examination, which was reviewed by the Law Firm. The Supreme Court agreed with the objections to the arguments of the administrative claim and refused to satisfy the claims of the plaintiff. The Supreme Court found, that the challenged normative legal act fully complied with the rules of federal law, was issued by the competent authority within its terms of reference in compliance with the established procedure.
  
• contesting the information letter of the Regional Energy Commission on the procedure for applying the unified (boiler) tariffs and individual tariffs for electric power transmission services as not corresponding to the current legislation and violating the applicant’s rights and legitimate interests

Resolution of disputes in the financial sector and securities market:

• representing foreign investment company in a corporate dispute initiated by a lawsuit filed by a former head and top manager of chemical holding claiming shares and dividends from foreign investor company in the securities market – investor in the securities market. The rights of foreign investor were protected in the case. Several grounds for refusing to claim shares and dividends in a total amount exceeding 350 million rubles were found, including: - making transactions with shares at open bid, which excludes the possibility of claiming them under part 1 Art. 149.3 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation; - the lack of proof of the identity of retirement of the holding’s shares from a former leader and owned by foreign company; - the acquisition by participants of the holding shares transactions of a larger number of shares, than was claimed by the former head; - acquisition of shares in a holding by foreign company in good faith; - receipt of the legal position of Moscow Exchange and the Bank of Russia in the case materials regarding the bidding regime and applicable law; - assessment of the circumstances of the sentence in a criminal case, delivered in a special order; - the former head’s of the holding refusal from the claim in the dispute on damages and cancellation of interim measures in the district court of Limassol city, Republic of Cyprus
  

Conducting cases on recognition and enforcement of decisions of foreign courts and decisions of international arbitration tribunals:

• Representing Russian pipe-rolling company in the process of recognition and enforcement of the ICAC at the RF CCI decision in the amount exceeding US$61 million in arbitrazh courts of the first and cassation instances. While deciding on the issuance of enforcement order for the enforcement of the decision of the ICAC at the RF CCI, the court of first instance terminated the proceedings, since the application was not subject to consideration in the arbitrazh court. The appellate court cancelled the decision of the first instance court and sent the case for a new consideration. Upon reconsideration of the case, the arbitrazh court satisfied the claims the company and issued enforcement order in respect of the decision of the ICAC at the RF CCI. The case was decided in favor of the client.

Moreover, the Firm has experience in other types of disputes:

• resolution of intellectual property disputes;
  
• representing on issues of security measures and interim measures;
• pre-trial dispute settlement (mediation).