Highlights

Jus Aureum acted as Russian legal counsel for Dixy Group of Companies in a transaction for acquisition from LLC Mcapital of 12 real property assets in Kaliningrad with total area of about 30 000 sq. m.

Advising and legal support of a group holding company of one of the leading FMCG distributors in the CIS in a transaction on sale and purchase of shares in the holding company.

In December 2015, lawyers from Jus Aureum were successful in achieving the abandonment by the Arbitrazh Court of the city of Moscow of a statement of claim by UK Sodruzhestvo LLC in case No. А40-139187/2015 for the recovery of unjust enrichment from Giproplast Engineering JSC by proving that this case was identical to case No. А40-29304/2015, which had been considered earlier.

Now, however, the Russian Supreme Court concluded in Case No. А40-87775/2015 that as interest is paid to a Russian recipient, the Russian borrower should not be expected to pay dividends as a tax agent (Article 269.4 of the Tax Code). The interest in such cases is not to be treated as dividends.

The Arbitrazh Court of the city of Moscow granted in full the stated claims of Beckhoff Automation LLC – a subsidiary company of the German group of companies Beckhoff Automation GmbH – against Ekonomicheskiye Programmy LLC of debt denominated in euro, which had accrued in connection with the failure to pay for products (case No. А40-205973/2015).

In court, the lawyers of Jus Aureum managed to prove the absence of grounds for bringing the general director to administrative liability for the alleged violation, as the list and the deadline for presenting the documents requested had been set by the tax authority itself, rather than by the legislation on taxes and duties.

In case No. А40-139187/2015, lawyers from Jus Aureum achieved the dismissal of the statement of claim of MK Sodruzhestvo LLC for recovery of unjust enrichment from Giproplast Engineering CJSC.

Upon the application of lawyers from Jus Aureum, the Arbitrazh Court of the City of Moscow levied a judicial penalty on a company that had not returned debt to the plaintiff in the course of the year after it was sentenced to do so by a decision of the court which entered into legal force in case No. А40-119766/2014.

On November 10, 2015, by decision of the Arbitrazh Court of the City of Moscow in case No. А40-128776/2015, the decision of the IFNS of Russia No. 21 for the city of Moscow, issued in regard to the company Alkomir, which was engaged in wholesale trade in alcoholic products, was declared invalid.