Tenant protection case

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.
The case had already been pending before the Moscow City Arbitrazh Court for six months when EPA&P lawyers undertook to represent Tenant "S" in 2002.
The Firm's attorneys, having carefully analysed the documents available on file and the legislation in force at the time of the lease agreement, concluded that the lease was not concluded. This conclusion was based on the factual circumstances of the case, according to which at the conclusion of the lease contract the parties had not determined the value of the property being leased (the contract offered documents containing information only on the value of the entire building occupied by several tenants).
In accordance with the Fundamentals of Legislation of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and Union republics on lease, the absence of the value of the property transferred into lease was an absolute basis for recognizing the contract unconcluded.
Having studied the materials of the case and the norms of current law, the Firm's attorneys filed a counterclaim with the Moscow City Arbitration Court to recognize the lease agreement as invalid.
The Moscow City Arbitration Court dismissed the initial claim, charging the Respondent with the minimum lease payments for the actual use of the property. The Moscow City Property Department filed an appeal with the Appellate Instance of the Arbitration Court against the decision of the Moscow City Arbitration Court, which, upon review, overturned the decision of the first instance court.
However, on behalf of the Principal, EPA&P filed a cassation appeal against the appellate arbitration court's ruling with the Federal Arbitrazh Court for the Moscow District.
The Firm's attorneys-at-law succeeded in having the appellate arbitration court's ruling set aside and the Moscow City Arbitrazh Court's ruling entered into force. The ruling of the Federal Arbitrazh Court for the Moscow Circuit reversed the ruling of the Arbitrazh Court of Appeal, as a result of which the tenant's rights were restored to the maximum extent possible.

Other interesting cases

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.
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.