Lefortovsky District Court of Moscow (Troparevo Park Residential Complex; Developer: Samolet Group). We successfully recovered funds from the developer in favor of the shared-equity construction participant to cover future apartment defect rectification expenses, statutory penalties for failure to remedy defects, statutory penalties for delayed property handover, moral damages, and legal fees. The total compensation recovered amounted to 20% of the apartment's purchase price under the shared-equity construction (DDU) agreement.

Shcherbinsky District Court of Moscow (Alkhimovo Residential Complex; Developer: Samolet Group). We successfully recovered funds from the developer in favor of the shared-equity construction participant to cover future apartment defect rectification expenses, statutory penalties for failure to remedy defects, compensation for the delivery of an apartment with a deficiency in square footage compared to the agreement, a statutory consumer fine, moral damages, and legal fees. The total compensation recovered amounted to 22% of the apartment's purchase price under the shared-equity construction (DDU) agreement.

Vidnovsky City Court of the Moscow Region (Yuzhnaya Bitsat Residential Complex; Developer: DSK-1 / FSK Group). We successfully recovered funds from the developer in favor of the shared-equity construction participant to cover future apartment defect rectification expenses, statutory penalties for failure to remedy defects, a statutory consumer fine, moral damages, and legal fees. The total compensation recovered amounted to 22% of the apartment's purchase price under the shared-equity construction (DDU) agreement.

The Commercial (Arbitration) Court of Moscow. A lawsuit was filed against our client to recover 29,052,695 rubles in unjust enrichment. The plaintiff claimed that they had overpaid our client under a civil law contract for works performed.

Result: The lawsuit was completely dismissed.

The client is a cousin and the sole heir of —, who owned an apartment located at: —. The notary public refused to issue a certificate of inheritance right to the client, deeming the proof of kinship insufficient. Result: A court judgment was secured, successfully recognizing the client's ownership rights to the apartment.

A loan agreement in US dollars, verified by a borrower's promissory note, was executed between our client and —. Case Objective: To recover the principal loan amount, interest accrued on the loan, and statutory interest/penalties for non-performance of a monetary obligation. Result: The court of first instance issued a judgment fully granting all of the claims.

A dispute over the demolition of an unauthorized construction object — an apartment hotel building located at: —. The plaintiffs, owners of premises in an apartment building on the adjacent land plot, filed a lawsuit seeking the demolition of the apartment hotel building as an unauthorized construction, claiming the object encroached upon their land plot. By the Ruling of the Moscow City Court dated January 28, 2022, in Case No. 33-0360/2022, the plaintiffs' claims for demolition were dismissed. By the Ruling of the Second Cassation Court of General Jurisdiction dated July 5, 2022, in Case No. 8G-13392/2022, the Moscow City Court's ruling was overturned, and the case was remanded for retrial to the Moscow City Court.

By the Ruling of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated December 13, 2022, No. 5-KG22-112-K2, the ruling of the Second Cassation Court of General Jurisdiction dated July 5, 2022, was overturned, and the case was remanded for a new hearing to the Second Cassation Court of General Jurisdiction. By the Ruling of the Second Cassation Court of General Jurisdiction dated February 16, 2023, the Moscow City Court's ruling dated January 28, 2022, in Case No. 33-0360/2022 dismissing the claims was upheld. Result: The appellate court's ruling to completely dismiss the lawsuit remains in full force and effect.

The Commercial (Arbitration) Court of the City of Saint Petersburg and the Leningrad Region. A dispute over recovering 19,361,428 rubles in construction work arrears and 1,412,121.45 rubles in accrued interest from — in favor of our client. Result: The client’s lawsuit was fully granted.

The Ninth Commercial Appellate Court. An appeal against the ruling of the Commercial Court of Moscow to include a creditor’s claim of 12,985,205.47 rubles in the debtor’s register of claims (comprising 10,000,000 rubles in principal loan and 2,985,205.47 rubles in accrued interest). Result: The ruling of the Commercial Court of Moscow was overturned, and the unsubstantiated creditor claim was successfully removed from the register.

A dispute over recovering 4,907,234.55 rubles in unjust enrichment from our client for the alleged unlawful use of a portion (871 sq. m.) of a land plot with cadastral number 77:01:0001067:2146. Result: The opposing party’s lawsuit was completely dismissed.

A dispute with the Sheremetyevo Customs Authority to invalidate a decision on additional VAT assessment. It was critical for the client to prove the illegality of the additional VAT assessed on imported medical goods, as the customs authority's decision would significantly impact all future shipments.

Result: The decision of the customs authority was successfully declared unlawful and void.

A dispute over recovering 2,527,500.00 rubles in interest for delayed lease payments from the opposing party, as well as 819,638.81 rubles in electricity arrears and 409,819.00 rubles in interest for delayed electricity payments. Result: The client’s lawsuit was partially granted.