Dispute Resolution

Dispute Resolution services form one of the principal activities of Attorneys at Law “Jus Aureum”. The range of its cases encompasses private law (business to business) and public law (business to state) disputes, arising out of numerous branches of legislation, including from specialized legislation governing separate types of activity.

The dispute resolution team includes practicing lawyers with a civil law specialization and multi-year experience systematically handling cases in state courts of different levels and territorial competence.

The lawyers and attorneys at Jus Aureum render legal assistance to their clients at all stages of dispute resolution without exception – from the pre-trial stage until the implementation of the judicial acts entering into force.

For international projects, the Attorneys at Law “Jus Aureum” offer assistance from our partner legal firms located in different foreign jurisdictions.

Jus Aureum provides a full spectrum of services, including the following:

  • Assistance in pretrial settlement of a conflict, working out the conditions for settlement and representing the interests of clients in the course of negotiations;
  • Analysis of the prospects of a court dispute, drafting of a written conclusions on matters relating to the preparation and conduct of the case, forming systems of arguments and evidence;
  • Compiling of procedural documents of any degree of complexity;
  • Assistance in carrying out due diligence, preparing matters for expert consideration;
  • Defending the interests of clients in the course of carrying out inspections and administrative proceedings, challenging the decisions of administrative authorities;
  • Supporting clients in matters related to actual enforcement of court decisions. Rendering multilateral assistance in the course of conducting the enforcement proceeding by the court bailiffs.
  • Representing the interests of companies and private individuals in court cases held in arbitrazh courts and courts of general jurisdiction on disputes in the categories listed below and others:
    • Disputes on the conclusion of contracts, invalidating contracts, and terminating contracts;
    • Disputes on non-fulfillment or inadequate fulfillment of obligations, recovery of debts;
    • Disputes on protecting the ownership rights to real estate;
    • Disputes on compensation for damage, disputes arising from extra-contractual obligations, disputes on unjustified enrichment;
    • Disputes associated with leasing;
    • Disputes associated with the enforcement of judicial acts;
    • Disputes about state registration;
    • Tax disputes;
    • Insurance disputes;
    • Customs disputes;
    • Administrative disputes;
    • Labor disputes;
    • Disputes with consumers;
    • Corporate disputes;
    • Disputes on protection of intellectual property.

Recent Highlights include:

  • Successful resolution at the Judicial Panel for Economic Disputes of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation of a high-profile tax dispute on a matter related to the application of “thin capitalization” rules; as a result of this, the RF Supreme Court amended the practice, which had a negative impact on taxpayers, of applying Article 269.4 of the RF Tax Code (the case of Novaya Tabachnaya Kompaniya LLC). 
  • Defending the interests of a range of companies belonging to the Megapolis Group of Companies, the largest tobacco distributor in Russia, in tax disputes on a taxpayer's right to return of overpayment on tax which arose as a result of the actions of its tax agent. As a result of the representation of the interests of the companies by lawyers from the Office, the Supreme Arbitration (Commercial) Court of the Russian Federation formulated a new law enforcement practice for lower-ranking courts, under which a taxpayer to select the means for restoring its infringed right: to submit the appropriate declaration for return of access paid tax to the tax authorities, or submit a demand to the tax agent or debtor in a civil-law obligation.
  • Representing the interests of the automobile transport company JSC SovInterAutoService in a number of public law disputes with the Federal Agency for Management of State Property and other offices relating to removing a large land plot from the state cadastral register which belonged to the company by right of ownership, as well as recognizing the ownership right of the RF to that land plot. As a result of consideration of the cases, the claims brought by the state executive bodies against the company were refused in full by the courts.
  • Taking part in the bankruptcy case involving NOVAYA GOLLANDIYA, LLC, which carried out a reconstruction of the eponymous architectural park in St. Petersburg, with a total amount of creditors' claims presented of more than $85 million.
  • Representing the interests of NOVAYA GOLLANDIYA, LLC in a dispute with the French company Soletanche Bachy at arbitrazh courts of the Northwestern Circuit, with stated claims in an amount greater than $2.7 million.
  • Defending in arbitration courts the rights of JSC “Angarskaya neftekhimicheskaya kompania” (Angarsk petrochemical company), including the Presidium of the Supreme Arbitration (Commercial) Court of the Russian Federation, in a dispute involving the performance of an obligation from a bill, connected with a hostile attempt to gain control over the company, with an amount of stated claims exceeding $300 million.
  • Consulting the group of transportation and shipping companies Delovye Linii and successfully defending their interests in arbitration courts in 22 interrelated corporate disputes. The conflict was brought to a close by a settlement on the client's conditions.
  • Representing the interests of the American company Globalstar Inc., operator of the global communications satellite system GLOBALSTAR, in a case concerning premature termination of legal protection for the trademark "Globalstar" inside Russia. Consideration of the case led to the right to the trademark being maintained for the company. Later, the Office was involved in establishing the rights of the company Globalstar Inc. to use the rebranded trademark "Globalstar" inside Russia.
  • Successful defense of the interests of MEGAPOLIS Trading Company CJSC, in the courts of the Central Arbitration District (the cities of Bryansk, Tula and Kaluga) in the course of a lengthy dispute for recovery from the company of 29 million rubles in damages caused by a fire.
  • Representing the interests of the Mercury Group of Companies at the High Court of the British Virgin Islands (BVI) in a case for return of more than US$13 million illegally appropriated by the company Featherwood Trading, and belonging to the previous principal owner and chairman of the board of directors of the Kin Moscow Wine And Cognac Plant Open Joint-Stock Company, Mr. A.G. Yeganyan. The court granted the claim in full, and recovered from Featherwood Trading an amount paid for an empty transaction for purchase of shares in a factory, interest and expenses. The money on the respondent's account was seized by the High Court of the British Virgin Islands for the time of the court proceedings as a measure to secure the stated claims.
  • Involvement in the Moscow Regional Court’s resolution of an administrative case in favor of SovInterAvtoServis PAO, about a challenge to the results of determining the cadastral value of a land plot. The cadastral value of the land plot belonging to the company was established at an amount equal to its market value.
  • Successful representation of the interests of Beckhoff Avtomatizatsiya LLC – a subsidiary of the German group of companies Beckhoff Automation GmbH — as part of a claim against the Russian company for recovery of debt denominated in Euro. 
  • Judicial representation of the Mercury Group of Companies (the retail chains DIXY and VICTORIA) in a dispute with the principal owner and chairman of the Board of Directors of Kin Moscow Wine And Cognac Plant Open Joint-Stock Company, Mr. A.G. Yeganyan, upon the results of which the client was awarded more than $1 million in damages caused by crime, and interest for use of somebody else's monetary funds.
  • Successful representation of the interests of the Megapolis Group of Companies in a series of disputes with OSAO Ingosstrakh for recovery of insurance compensation in a subrogation procedure.  
  • Successfully defending the interests of shareholders in the largest project organization in the former USSR dealing with construction of enterprises for the production of polymer materials (Giproplast) in a multi-year dispute on the reclaiming of a building of an institute located in Moscow from unlawful ownership. Upon the results of the dispute, real estate with a value of approximately $9 million was returned to the ownership of the company. Subsequent participation in a chain of disputes pertaining to the restoration of corporate control over the company and protection from restitution claims and claims for recovery of unjust enrichment.
  • Representing the interests of the leading automobile transport company JSC SovInterAutoService in a dispute with a contractor relating to the construction of a dealer center of the IVECO group of companies. In the company's favor, $2 million in unjust enrichment was awarded, while the contractor was denied a counterclaim for an amount greater than $3 million.
  • Successful pretrial settlement of a dispute between a top manager of the Russian stevedore company PJSC Novorossiysk Commercial Sea Port and the port itself on a matter pertaining to the application of tax and labor legislation. As a result of negotiations, an agreement was concluded in the interests of the client (the president of the company) with payment on the part of PJSC NCSP of an amount equivalent to compensation.
  • Leading negotiations on behalf of the international satellite and cable TV channel, World Fashion Channel, with a party that was illegally administrating the domain name on the Internet which contained the trademark of the channel (cybersquatting). As a result of the negotiations, the right to administer the domain name was transferred to the company.
  • Successfully defending the business reputation of the president and owner of the group of companies Crocus Group (one of the leading development companies in Russia) in a dispute with the Internet resource Compromat.ru.