Challenging an illegal corporate restructuring following a triumph in a replevin case
The Moscow City Arbitrazh Court has granted claims filed by Gidroplast-Engineering Closed Joint Stock Company in Case No. А40-122315/2014 to invalidate a certain decision by the Federal Tax Service’s Inter-District Inspectorate No. 46 in Moscow, which served as the basis for an entry made in the Consolidated State Register of Legal Entities on that company going through restructuring by being consolidated with another legal entity.
Jus Aureum’s lawyers upheld the property interests of the client by preventing its takeover by a front party posing as a shareholder in the company, whereby an entry on the termination of Gidroplast-Engineering CJSC could have appeared in that register and the malefactors could have illegally obtained control over its assets.
In Case No. А40-134925/2014 heard by the Moscow City Arbitrazh Court earlier, the law firm’s attorney proved that the corporate resolution by the sole shareholder in Gidroplast-Engineering CJSC to proceed with the company’s restructuring had never been passed validly and had been actually made instead by an offshore venture unknown to the claimant.
The two cases went ahead after the entry into force resolution by the 9th Arbitrazh Appellate Court in Case No. А40-105571/12 to recover an office building owned by Gidroplast-Engineering CJSC in Moscow, which had been misappropriated by a bad-faith purchaser came into effect.
Cases No. А40-134925/2014 and No. А40-122315/2014 thus represented a successful court battle by Jus Aureum’s lawyers to thwart an attempt to have their client’s building illegally transferred by succession in favor of a wrongful party. It was proven that the attempted restructuring of Gidroplast-Engineering CJSC was done with the goal of unlawfully taking away the Company's particularly valuable assets, andto makeit impossible for the Company to conduct its regular business activities.
The client's interests were represented before the Moscow City Arbitrazh Court in Cases А40-105571/12, No. А40-134925/2014, and No. А40-122315/2014 by senior partner Vadim Maklakov with the support of senior lawyer Nikita Shcherbakov and lawyer Sergei Kartoshkin.
