-
In the process of liquidation of a legal entity being a part of the group of companies of one of the largest developers in St. Petersburg Rightmark Group lawyers revealed outstanding accounts payable and decided on the need to liquidate the company in a manner laid down by the bankruptcy law. Rightmark Group lawyers acted in the best interests of both liquidated debtor and its creditors, facilitated significant acceleration of judicial and administrative procedures aimed at the debtor liquidation.
-
LENOBLIMUSHCHESTVO brought an action against LOGUP Krasny Pakhar, represented by Rightmark Group, for termination of a right to permanent (perpetual) use of a land plot with an area of over 20,000 ha in Boksitogorsky district of Leningrad Oblast. According to the Plaintiff, the Defendant was to have been deprived of this right, as the land plot was not used for more than three years, starting from 2007. In proceedings before the first instance arbitration court the lawyers proved the fact of partial use of the land plot as intended, which was also recorded in a certificate of audit of compliance with the land legislation.
However, the main reason for claim dismissal was a major violation by public law enforcement bodies of the procedure for forced deprivation of the defendant right to permanent (perpetual) use. In the case under consideration, a notice was issued prior to accumulation of facts, and a penalty was charged only a year after, in fact, as a sanction for another offence. Under such circumstances, the court had no reason to satisfy the asserted claims. The arbitration court of appeal upheld findings of the first instance court. The plaintiff filed a cassation appeal from the trial court and a court of appeal ruling, but the court of cassation upheld the ruling. -
Rightmark Group lawyers prevented asset stripping during fictitious debtor’s bankruptcy.
After receiving, by false pretences, a short term loan from the client amounting to several hundred million roubles through a dummy company, its owner attempted to declare fictitious bankruptcy of the company and strip the assets (real estate) in order not to return the received amount of money. The debtor bankruptcy proceedings lasted over three years due to lots of abuses on the part of the debtor representatives, sole member and a person acting as the sole executive body. However, Rightmark Group lawyers succeeded in preventing a number of attempts to include in the list of creditors’ claims fictitious claims of creditors affiliated with the debtor and the sole member of the debtor, as well as stripping of the debtor's assets, ensured lawful bidding for sale of the debtor property and satisfaction of claims of the debtor’s creditors.
-
Despite the small amount of claims of the client (engineering company) and rather hostile, formal position of an insolvency receiver, Rightmark Group lawyers ensured observance of the client rights in bankruptcy proceedings: the customer claims were included in the list of the debtor's creditors in full, despite many objections by the insolvency receiver. This allowed to protect the client interests in such a massive case, where top priority was given to interests of major market players.
-
During bankruptcy of a company, one of the major
-
Rightmark Group lawyers prevented an attempt of illegal takeover of the debtor property.
Administration of one of the municipalities misled management of Rightmark Group client, and forced the company management to approve the terms, knowingly unfavourable for the company, setting the amount of lease payment for the land designated for construction. After the new company management refused to pay the unreasonable land rent, the municipal administration initiated bankruptcy in order to seize the company property.The insolvency receiver appointed by the administration acted solely in its interests: failed to act, without attempting to appeal against an illegal judgment delivered in favour of the administration, and created unlawful conditions for unreasonable increase in the amount of current payments in favour of the administration.Thanks to efforts of our lawyers, the insolvency receiver was dismissed, the amount of losses incurred by the debtor’s creditors, except for the administration, was recovered from him. The new insolvency receiver redressed the balance of interests. Negotiations between our lawyers and the insolvency receiver resulted in conclusion of a settlement agreement which terms and conditions served the best interests of all the debtor’s creditors and the debtor itself. -
What is equally important for the owner is that the court found that the property rights to the building were transferred to the company during the privatization. It is a well-known fact that complexity of registration of title in real property in the process of corporate assets privatization in the 90s, is associated with a need to associate specific real property with the property rather poorly described in previously issued documents.In 1988, a contract was concluded for lease of production facilities with a purchase option. In 1992, the enterprise assets were purchased in the privatization process. Then in 2010, the City Property Management Committee stated that the disputed building was not purchased in the privatization process and was subject to privatization according to a special procedure. Since the special procedure was not complied with, the building remained the city property. The City Property Management Committee demanded to vacate the building, despite the fact that 18 years had passed and the building is located on the land leased by a commercial entity. Rightmark Group lawyers protected interests of the commercial entity, and the City Property Management Committee claim was dismissed.Despite the court ruling, the City Property Management Committee attempted illegal seizure of the disputed building, which was successfully prevented by Rightmark Group lawyers. Immediately after the end of the first trial, the Committee illegally registered a title to the disputed building on its favour. To protect the violated rights of the company lawyers filed a statement of claim for declaration of title to the disputed building. A detailed analysis of the legislation in the area of protection of monuments and the relevant judicial practice made it possible for Rightmark Group to defend the client interests in courts of three instances: the company title to the disputed building was recognized. -
Rightmark Group developed the cause of action and represented interests of LLC Fregat (developer of the first in St. Petersburg 140 m high skyscraper) before the court in a case order for invalidation of a decision of the St. Petersburg Committee for Architecture and Urban Development serving as a basis for cancellation of the development plan of the land for skyscraper construction earlier issued by the St. Petersburg Committee for Architecture and Urban Development. The aforesaid decision compromised implementation of the skyscraper construction investment project. Thus, the court recognized validity of the developer (LLC Fregat) position prepared by our company, and invalidated the order of the St. Petersburg Committee for Architecture and Urban Development.Original photo of Leader Tower BC http://leadertower.com/ -
Rightmark Group representing interests of LLC Leader Group provided support of conclusion of contract for lease of land plots with a right of subsequent purchase thereof. As a result of lengthy negotiations and agreement of terms and conditions our lawyers ensured conclusion of the contract. This contract enabled LLC Leader Group to become the first company in St. Petersburg to exercise the right to multi-storey housing construction in alluvial territory of Vasilievsky Island.
-
In 2008, LLC Chevakino represented by Rightmark Group purchased at the Property Fund auction 2.17 ha in Nevsky district for RUB 1.1 billion. Under the contract with the City Property Management Committee the developer was obliged to construct an apartment house in this land plot in 49 months. However, the developer abandoned the project, due to the fact that CHPP-2 ash disposal area was discovered in the territory, which failed to comply with sanitary regulations for housing construction. The City Property Management Committee brought a court action for recovery of a RUB 333 million debt and about RUB 1.2 million fine from LLC Chevakino.In early 2010, the committee decided to terminate the contract due to non-performance of investment terms. The developer filed a counterclaim with the court, also seeking termination of the contract and return of transferred funds, as an ash disposal area was discovered in the territory that was not mentioned in bid documentation. Thus, through the legal assistance of Rightmark Group, a dispute between the developer and the city was settled amicably, which prevented adverse financial and reputation consequences for both parties.