Case for recovery of costs under an investment contract

Case for recovery of costs under an investment contract
Over the period from 2011 to 2013, about 600 investment contracts were terminated by the Moscow City Government. The Moscow City Government terminated about 600 investment contracts, which resulted in almost the same number of claims from investors for reimbursement of costs. The Moscow City Arbitrazh Court has satisfied only 14 claims for compensation of expenses incurred during two years (2012-2013). One of these claims was filed by LLC A represented by the Firm's attorneys-at-law.
On January 31, 2012, the Firm's attorneys filed a lawsuit against the Moscow City Government. Moscow City Government, seeking recovery as unjust enrichment of direct costs, interest on the use of non-expenditure, and examination expenses to recover not only direct construction costs, but also the costs of design work, examinations, and surveys.
Moscow City Property Department, Moscow Central Administrative District Prefecture, Moscow Department of Cultural Heritage, and State Unitary Enterprise Directorate for Reconstruction and Development of Unique Facilities participated in the case as third parties at the defendant's request.
The Firm's attorneys have proved that the investment contract contains elements of a simple partnership agreement, since it provides for parties to combine their efforts to achieve results and contains provisions on the obligations of both parties. At the same time, the subject matter restrictions stipulated by Art. 1041 (2) of the Civil Code are not applicable to it. At the same time, the contract does not contain subject matter restrictions as stipulated by para. 2 Art. 1041 of the RF Civil Code, since the purpose of the Moscow Government's participation in investment activities is, in particular, the improvement of the territory of the Moscow Hermitage Garden, including the construction of public toilets and the reconstruction of engineering services and the erection of a historical fence on the side of Uspensky pereulok, which is not aimed at deriving profit and is subject to transfer to the ownership of the city.
The contract also contains elements of a contract for work, since the obligation to finance the work and construction is assigned to the company. Based on the evidence presented in the case, the judges of the first, appellate and cassation instances considered established the fact of the Plaintiff's performance of work in the amount of 70% of the work under the investment contract, due to the terms of the contract as the share of the city of Moscow, and the defendant is not disputed.
Judges of the appellate and cassation instances came to the rightful conclusion about absence of the bases for satisfaction of claims of the Respondent as all factual circumstances, the arguments of the latter connected with legal nature of the investment contract concluded by the parties, termination of the investment contract, time and actual circumstances of flow of limitation period, the actual bases of occurrence of unjust enrichment and occurrence of duties on payment to the Claimant provided by civil law.
On the basis of the judgment of the Arbitration Court of Moscow which came into legal force on March 14, 2014 in favor of the investor - LLC "A" was collected 12 556 028 rubles. 56 kopecks, and interest of 8.25% per annum, accrued on the amount of RUB 57,795,298. 32 kop.

Other interesting cases

A case for protection of ownership rights
In 2002, N LLC (the plaintiff) took legal action against the Moscow Registration Office to invalidate the act of state registration of title to non-residential premises performed by the Moscow Committee for Registration of Rights to Immovable Property and Transactions with It to the subject of the Russian Federation - the city of Moscow.
A case to protect a company from hostile takeover
During the case, the Law Firm proved that Logovaz (President and Owner - Boris Berezovsky) had purchased 12% of Transaero shares in violation of antimonopoly laws.
Tenant protection case
In 2001, the Moscow City Property Department filed a claim against Tenant "S" (the Respondent) for termination of the lease agreement, recovery of rent payments at the rates specified in the agreement and interest.