Practices

Rightmark Group lawyers represented interests of BaltStroyServis LLC in courts of the first to third instances in a case based on a claim brought by LLC Yuridicheskaya Kompaniya under the construction contract. After completion of the case BaltStroyServis LLC submitted an application for compensation of incurred legal expenses. 
The first-instance court considerably reduced the amount demanded, while the court of appeal and court if cassation affirmed the first instance order. 
However, reasons produced by Rightmark Group lawyers in a supervisory appeal convinced the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation of the need to reconsider the judicial act which considerably reduced the amount of legal expenses under the new circumstances.
The judicial act considerably reducing the amount of legal expenses will be reconsidered under the new circumstances due to efforts of Rightmark Group lawyers.

Head of Khimki City District Administration (Moscow Oblast) issued permits for construction of the Mendeleev Residential Complex. However, afterwards the Administration arbitrarily cancelled the development plan and housing project construction permit. This resulted in violation of interests of both developer, Etalon LLC, and shared construction participants.
Rightmark Group representing the developer interests applied to the Moscow Oblast Arbitration Court for cancellation of the orders of the Khimki City District Administration. After months of legal controversy, Rightmark Group lawyers convinced the first instance and appeals courts to rule that the aforesaid orders were illegal and void (Khimki City District Administration did not appeal in cassation against court of appeal rulings). Thus, failure to meet deadlines for the house construction and transfer of apartments to citizens was prevented.

Within the scope of LLC DOK bankruptcy proceedings, a bankruptcy trustee appointed by court did not perform duties imposed thereon in good faith: failed to take measures aimed at decrease of current lease payments of the debtor, did not sign a settlement agreement approved by all bankruptcy creditors, except for the creditor to which a bankruptcy trustee was an interested party.
Due to inequitable conduct of the bankruptcy trustee and interest thereof with regard to one of the creditors, bankruptcy creditors applied to the court with a complaint against actions of the bankruptcy trustee and a motion to suspend the latter from duties imposed thereon. Interests of bankruptcy creditors were represented by Rightmark Group lawyers.
The first instance court dismissed both the complaint and the motion. Rightmark Group lawyers, however, convinced the court of appeal that the bankruptcy trustee acted in bad faith, and violations committed by him were material. The court of appeal cancelled the first instance court ruling and suspended the bankruptcy trustee from duties imposed thereon.

The Committee for Architecture and Urban Development approved the land plot development plan submitted by Kremlevskie Palaty LLC (InvestStroy) with material law violations. The company was entitled to develop only 10% of the purchased land plot area, instead of 90% thereof. Previous attempts of the Company, including its appeal to the court for invalidation of certain provisions of the land plot development plan were not successful. The first instance court dismissed the asserted claims, including due to partially incorrect wordings of the petition declaration.
Rightmark Group represented the company after the relevant decision was appealed. Experts of our company convinced the court of appeal that the claims asserted by the client were subject to satisfaction, while the first instance decision should be revoked, even despite the fact that the original claims and the appeal petition were incorrectly worded.
Rightmark Group lawyers convinced the court that notwithstanding the imperfect petition form, the claims were reasonable in matter, as violations committed by the Committee materially interfered with the right to develop the land owned by the company.  The court of appeal granted the appeal and satisfied the claims of the company, invalidating the land development plan insofar as the disputed elements are concerned, and compelling the committee to bring it in compliance with the current statutory requirements. Understanding the strength of the case prepared by Rightmark Group lawyers, the Committee for Architecture and Urban Development did not appeal in cassation against the court of appeal ruling issued in favour of our principal.

Rightmark Group client won the auction for the sale of a right to conclude a contract for lease of a land plot to site a multi-storey apartment house in Nakhabino settlement in Moscow Oblast. The bidding was challenged by a bankruptcy trustee of LLC Razvitie Krasnogorskogo Raiona-Group, who referred to the right of the aforesaid company to conclude a contract for lease of the same land plot without auctioning. In witness thereof the bankruptcy trustee made reference to the corresponding judgment (delivered after the bidding was held without participation of the winning bidder).
Hence, to protect the client rights interests we represented its interests in two trials:
 — with regard to challenge of bidding;
 — with regard to acknowledgement of LLC Razvitie Krasnogorskogo Raiona-Group right to conclude a contract for lease without auctioning (where a judiciary act was passed without involvement of the winning bidder, and inclusion in the judicial process was at the appeal stage).
In a case where the right of LLC Razvitie Krasnogorskogo Raiona-Group to conclude a contract for lease without bidding was acknowledged, Rightmark Group secured the client involvement in the case as the third party and the case consideration in accordance with the first instance rules. Activities of Rightmark Group lawyers during the case reconsideration resulted in cancellation of the first judgment by the court of appeal.
Hence, in a case challenging the bidding reasons for the auction invalidation became inapplicable, and LLC Razvitie Krasnogorskogo Raiona-Group abandoned the claim. Thus, rights of Rightmark Group client to conclude a contract for lease of a land plot to site a multi-storey apartment house were completely restored.

LLC Prizma-Center brought an action against ZAO Bolshevichka represented by Rightmark Group for recovery of funds paid under an investment contract. The plaintiff demanded repayment of all monetary funds paid under the contract, referring to a cessation of interest in acceptance of performance due to lack of results of the investment activities within the period established by the contract. The plaintiff also claimed that the company withdrew from the contract by submitting a complaint to the defendant. During the judicial proceedings in the first instance arbitration court Rightmark Group lawyers proved that the complaint to which the plaintiff referred was not a statement of withdrawal from a contract, and that the parties extended the period of the investment project implementation. Thus, the plaintiff could not lose interest in the project implementation due to delay on the part of the defendant. Taking into account the arguments of Rightmark Group lawyers, the first instance court dismissed the claim of LLC Prizma-Center. The courts of appeal and cassation also confirmed absence of grounds for recovery of funds and upheld the first judgment.

LLC Special Construction Department 33 (LLC SMU-33) represented by Rightmark Group filed an action against JSC Elevator Repair and Maintenance Department No.3 (JSC RSU No.3) for recovery of debt for elevator dispatching services under several contracts of works and labour. In course of the proceedings JSC RSU No.3 filed a counterclaim for invalidation of the contracts of work and labour. As the first instance court rejected the counterclaim and upheld the principal claim, JSC RSU No.3 filed an appeal.
Rightmark Group was engaged to represent interests of LLC SMU-33 when the case was considered by the court of appeal, which considerably limited the procedural capacity to defend the plaintiff interests. The appeals instance allowed the counterclaim of JSC RSU No.3, and the court of appeal considered the case in accordance with first instance rules. During the case consideration the court of appeal performed two construction and technical expert examinations, including the supplementary one. It should be noted that JSC RSU No.3 interfered with the proceedings in every possible way through its actions, by making lots of various applications and untimely submission of documents to the court, thus trying to delay the proceedings. Nevertheless, Rightmark Group lawyers managed to prove the proper performance by LLC SMU-33 of its obligations under contracts of works and labour, and, correspondingly, obligation of JSC RSU No.3 for payment thereunder, as well as lack of reasonableness of the defendant arguments for invalidity of the aforesaid contracts.

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. 

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/

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.

A business centre under construction in the Constitution Square will have 40 floors and be 140 meters high. Proceedings regarding the skyscraper construction between the developer and the owner of the adjacent building (LLC Petroestate) lasted 2.5 years. LLC Petroestate attempted to judicially prohibit the skyscraper construction and recover the amount of over RUB 1 million from the developer for damages allegedly caused to the adjacent building by ongoing construction works. With legal assistance of Rightmark Group the developer secured that the Arbitration Courts of St. Petersburg and Moscow dismissed the plaintiff's claims. LLC Petroestate understanding lack of prospects of its actions abandoned the principal action.

During a scheduled inspection in one of the most popular restaurants downtown, the Federal Service on Customers' Rights Protection and Human Well-being Surveillance (Rospotrebnadzor) revealed a number of violations of disease control and prevention regulations, and issued to the company an instruction to eliminate them. Then Rospotrebnadzor brought an action before the Arbitration Court to prohibit the company activities, making reference to the fact that the remaining violations are irremediable due to the special nature of the historic building in which Schastye restaurant is located. Defending the restaurant interests before the court, the lawyers draw special attention to the fact that Rospotrebnadzor, in violation of the Civil Code provisions, failed to provide evidence that the revealed defects may inflict harm in the future. Rightmark Group lawyers have convinced the court that the existing standards for restaurants are designed for the newly constructed projects and do not apply to a building constructed in the early 20th century, located in the historic city. As a result, courts of all instances dismissed Rospotrebnadzor action, and the restaurant will continue operating and delighting its customers.

LLC MAK rented non-residential premises from the city of St. Petersburg. A legal entity established in the privatization process in the early '90s, believing that it is the owner of the premises, filed a claim for reclamation of the leased property from unlawful possession of LLC MAK. Through the legal aid of Rightmark Group, LLC MAK managed to successfully defend its rights in court, and the claim of the legal entity was dismissed.

A third instance court invalidated results of a tender held with violations. The tender subject was a right to conclude a contract for public transport services on city and suburban routes public in Vsevolozhsky district of Leningrad Oblast. Due to tender procedure violations St. Petersburg transport company Victoria was unable to take part in the tender, and with the help of Rightmark Group lawyers brought an action before the court. In course of the legal proceedings local government changed in Vsevolozhsky district, and the new administration admitted the claim in full. Following the court judgment, the Traffic and Transport Infrastructure Committee of Leningrad Oblast will hold a new tender for the disputed routes. 

In course of refurbishment of a building in the city centre the developer enticed investors which were to obtain ownership of several high end apartments in this facility after the project completion. Rightmark Group represented interests of these investors. The developer missed the facility completion deadline, and thus had to pay to investors significant penalties under the relevant contracts. Investors set the penalties off against the last payments under investment contracts. As a result, the developer, in order to cause harm to the investors, registered a title to the disputed facilities in its favour. Investors filed a court action for cancellation of the developer’s title and declaration of their title to the apartments. Courts of three instances satisfied their claims, thus protecting the violated right of our client.
Later on, the developer filed several claims for recovery of costs for maintenance of the disputed facilities (utilities, security, etc.). The asserted claims applied to exactly those periods during which the developer unlawfully owned the apartments and had to bear the relevant maintenance and operation costs. Courts of first instance satisfied the developer claims in three different cases in full. However, higher courts revoked three unlawful court decisions, stating that the developer had violated the contract terms. First judgments in all three cases were overturned, and unlawful claims of the developer were dismissed entirely.

In course of refurbishment of a building in the city centre the developer enticed an investor which was to obtain ownership of several high end apartments in this facility after the project completion. The developer missed the facility completion deadline, and thus had to pay to the investor a significant penalty under the relevant contract. The investor set the penalty off against the last payments under investment contracts. Dissatisfied with this, the developer registered a title to the whole facility in its favour. The investor resorted to Rightmark Group lawyers on time, and filed a court action for cancellation of the developer’s title and declaration of their title to the apartments. Courts of three instances satisfied the claims, thus protecting the violated right of the investor.

A construction company planned to conclude an investment contract for residential land development in accordance with the urban development plan under the appropriate procedure. Prior to bidding for the right to lease land, a legal entity laid claims to the territory attempting to judicially prove its title to waterworks located in the land plot. Under the law, proof of the title would automatically give the owner of the waterworks the right to purchase this land. The construction company resorted to Rightmark Group lawyers. As a result, absence of grounds for registration of a title to the hydraulic structures was established to satisfaction of court, since the title thereto had passed to the company by universal succession, prior to entry into force of the law on state registration of title to real property and transactions therewith, and the existing documentation did not allow to match the facility, the title to which was claimed by the plaintiff, to the facilities specified in the documents of title. Thus, an investment contract was concluded with regard to this land plot according to the established procedure was signed an investment agreement, and the housing construction is in progress thereon.

Rightmark Group lawyers suppressed activities of bad faith investors which attempted to seize land plots in Priozersky district of Leningrad Oblast owned by citizens on the basis of shared ownership. A legal due diligence was conducted, and lawyers together with investigators found out and established to satisfaction of court that investors used forged documents. The court declared the actions of the investors illegal.

LLC Industria-Plus is a St. Petersburg multifamily housing developer. Rightmark Group lawyers protected interests of a natural person, a former member of LLC Industria-Plus in a case on recovery of 100% of the company ownership due to failure of the purchaser to perform obligations under the share purchase agreement. Thanks to efforts of our lawyers, corporate control of the development company was regained by the previous owner.

A land plot owner filed a claim for termination of a general investment contract in order to seize an apartment building constructed by an investor company. The first instance court satisfied this claim. Rightmark Group lawyers convinced higher courts in absence of grounds for termination of the general investment contract and protected investments of our client and its co-investors.

Rightmark Group lawyers facilitated enforcement of several judgments for recovery of RUB 50 million from a natural person. United actions of lawyers and bailiffs resulted in identification and return of the property sold by an individual after creditors filed claims for debt recovery. Subsequent sale of the property that was earlier illegally disposed of led to satisfaction of creditors' claims. 

Rightmark Group lawyers stood at the origins of the practice of compulsion of the state to sell real estate wrongly excluded from the group of privatization property. Thus, back in 2005, Rightmark Group lawyers represented interests of a major company intending to purchase a 9,000 sq. m building which was erroneously excluded from the list of privatization objects. The building in this case was located in the territory of this company.
According to the government position at that time, these facilities could be sold only at the initiative of the Government, and not at the purchaser option. However, with the legal assistance of Rightmark Group, the purchaser won the case in courts of all three instances. Only in 2008 the Presidium of the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation expressed support for the position advocated by Rightmark Group lawyers back in the day.

Our company helped the factory shareholders to protect the company property from illegal takeover. Perpetrators of the illegal takeover used unlawful methods to purchase the company shares, convened fictitious meetings of shareholders, where they made decisions on change of the company management such that they would gain control of the company and possession of the most valuable assets. We managed to establish to satisfaction of court the illegality of share acquisition, fictitious nature of the meeting and abuse of rights by raiders, thus protecting the factory property.