https://intellectpro.ru/en/press/commenters/ en https://intellectpro.ru/DESIGN/SITE/img/logo_print_new.png https://intellectpro.ru/en/press/commenters/ 139 110 admin@intellectpro.ru intellectpro.ru https://intellectpro.ru/en/press/commenters/an_acquittal_for_the_deputy_minister/ August 8, 2024 | INTELLECT In July 2024, attorney Konstantin Akulich, Counsel at INTELLECT, successfully defended an acquittal verdict in the case of Vitaly Bezrukov, Deputy Minister of Ecology of the Chelyabinsk Region. The official was accused of exceeding his authority, but he did not admit guilt. Initially sentenced to three years in prison, it was only after Konstantin Akulich intervened at the appellate stage that the defendant was acquitted. The incident that led to the criminal case occurred in Chelyabinsk in early August 2020. Due to the lack of wind, industrial emissions settled over the city, with phenol levels in the air exceeding the permissible limit by 16.7 times. To address the environmental situation and highlight the regional government's efforts, Vitaly Bezrukov proposed combining an inspection of the Chelyabinsk Electrometallurgical Plant (ChEMP) to assess its emission reduction measures with a press tour. The governor approved the idea, and the deputy minister invited journalists to visit the plant. Following the visit, several media outlets reported that no environmental violations were found at the plant. Based on investigative materials from the Department of Economic Crimes and Anti-Corruption, the Investigative Committee of the Russian Federation for the Chelyabinsk Region initiated a criminal case in 2021 against the official for exceeding his authority by allegedly informing the plant's management about the upcoming inspection. The deputy minister was detained and brought to court with a request to impose pretrial detention. However, the court opted for a different preventive measure a prohibition on certain actions. A year later, the criminal case was sent to court for trial on the merits. The prosecution alleged that the official: Knew that the phenol emissions were caused by ChEMPbut took steps to create a positive media image of the enterprise because of his friendship with its owner; Did not have the authority to inspect ChEMP, as the plant falls under federal environmental oversight, yet exceeded his authority by conducting the inspection; Failed to document administrative violations, which allegedly led to severe consequences, including environmental pollution, violation of residents' rights to a favorable environment and access to information, absolution of the guilty party, and discrediting the Government of the Chelyabinsk Region. The defense attorneys representing Vitaly Bezrukov in the first-instance court focused on proving the following facts: ChEMP had no connection to the emissions, and all the information published in the media was accurate; There was no intent to exceed authority in the deputy minister's actions, as he was carrying out assignments from his superiors. The Government of the Chelyabinsk Region, listed as the victim in this case, supported the defense. Nevertheless, in July 2023, the Kalinin District Court of Chelyabinsk found Vitaly Bezrukov guilty of exceeding his authority. The qualifying factor of "causing severe consequences" was excluded due to lack of evidence, and the court sentenced him to three years in a general-regime penal colony. The official was taken into custody in the courtroom. *Chelyabinsk Electrometallurgical Plant (ChEMP). https://intellectpro.ru/en/press/commenters/an_acquittal_for_the_deputy_minister/ 2024-08-08 https://intellectpro.ru/en/press/commenters/intellect_s_partner_dmitry_zagainov/ A police search found unlicensed copies of the software installed on three computers of the OOO Inform which used to distribute the software for its developer, 1C. Besides the heavy punishment, an indictment like that would have left an indelible stain on the firm's reputation. The CEO retained INTELLECT to rescue both herself and the firm from prosecution. https://intellectpro.ru/en/press/commenters/intellect_s_partner_dmitry_zagainov/ 2022-01-27 https://intellectpro.ru/en/press/commenters/1559/ INTELLECT represented OOO Werkel in a suit brought by its German competitor Busch-Jaeger Elektro GmbH in 2018 over an alleged infringement of its design rights. The German firm alleges that Werkel has illegally replicated the patented designs of the cover plates (face-plates) of two of Busch-Jaeger's wall switch and outlet combos. The suit threatened a massive withdrawal from the market of Werkel's allegedly counterfeit products which would not have sold out by the end of the proceedings and which the client would have had to destroy at its cost, let alone cease and desist their manufacture, marketing, distribution and sale. INTELLECT's patent attorneys investigated Busch-Jaeger's design patents and found that they protected the designs of entire combos, i.e. the switch-and-outlet assemblies complete with the push-buttons and receptacles, rather than the designs of each of their several components, including the decorative cover or face plates (similar as these were to the defendant's in their elegant austerity, which made the defence substantially more difficult). Represented by INTELLECT and relying on a judicially commissioned expert evidence, Werkel compellingly demonstrated in court that the plates the client had designed, manufactured and marketed separately from other, unchallenged components which were essential, if not crucial, for registering the combo design rights as such were no intentional replicas, and that the similarity was a mere technologically-conditioned coincidence. The court ruled in favour of the defence. The decision was stood by the Court of Appeal and the Court of Cassation. https://intellectpro.ru/en/press/commenters/1559/ 2021-11-23 https://intellectpro.ru/en/press/commenters/the_significance_of_the_engagement/ INTELLECT advised Russian professional mountaineer Vitaly Lazo and drafted agreements for his personal project "Death Zone Freeride" which involves shooting a documentary on extreme mountain climbing during his ascent. Significantly, no supplemental oxygen was used during the ascent, while the descent was on skis down the slopes where no one skied before. The script of the full-length documentary was shown at an international film festival in Italy and, subsequently, in Russia. The film is about a unique expedition of two Russians and one Italian who climbed to the top of the treacherous Nanga Parbat (8125 meters) with no oxygen to descend from its top on skis.Documentary film about extreme ski descend from killer mountain. Nanga Parbat is one of the top three most dangerous for climbing eight-thousanders. The mortality rate of this peak is almost 23%. From among climbers who dared to challenge it, each fifth climber lost his life. The legendary Reinhold Messner lost his younger brother here he is going to talk about his attitude to this mountain in the film. https://intellectpro.ru/en/press/commenters/the_significance_of_the_engagement/ 2021-10-27 https://intellectpro.ru/en/press/commenters/the_significance_of_the_engagement_for_the_client/ The case arose from a long-standing conflict with HiTexLab's competitor, Hygiena, over similar trademarks they had shared since they were affiliated, until a corporate conflict split their owners and divided their businesses. In one instance, Hygiena accused HiTexLab of illegal acquisition of the rights to a verbal trademark and malicious imitation of its packaging. The administrative proceedings began in the Sverdlovsk Territorial Directorate of the Federal Antimonopoly Service early in 2018. Represented by INTELLECT, HiTexLab demonstrated that it had legally owned and used its registered trademark, pursuing no goals qualifiable as unfair competition, but, found guilty of alleged imitation, it was ordered to recall all products imitating Hygiena's from the market and pay an unprecedentedly large, rarely applied and obscurely regulated fine, RUB47 million (a half of HiTexLab's proceeds from the sales of allegedly imitated products). https://intellectpro.ru/en/press/commenters/the_significance_of_the_engagement_for_the_client/ 2020-02-28 https://intellectpro.ru/en/press/commenters/supreme_court_against_pension_fund/ INTELLECT successfully represented BauTex, a Russian-German venture one of Russia's biggest manufacturers of finished glass fibre products and a leading distributor of glass fibre textiles, roving fabrics and other feed materials for the fibreglass plastics industry in a succession of appeals over the decision of the Pension Fund of Russia to fine it for allegedly late monthly reporting in 2016. BauTex, which is a major local employer and the Pension Fund's contributor, filed its November 2016 monthly report with the Fund on the due date. Eleven days later the company filed an amended report correcting the Pension Fund's clerical error. The fund used the late submission of the amended report as a formal pretext for fining BauTex RUB294,500 an onerous amount for a company employing around 600 staff. Represented by INTELLECT, BauTex contested the fine in court which held that the company had not been in breach filing the amendment 11 days later, but missed the due date by two days filing the initial report on 12 December, while the due date was the tenth day of the month, and halved the fine, ignoring the fact that the tenth day of December 2016 was Saturday (which automatically extended the deadline to Monday 12 December). The judgement stood on appeal in the Ninth Appellate Court. BauTex, still represented by INTELLECT, appealed in cassation. The Moscow Federal District Arbitrazh Court sitting in cassation accepted that the deadline for reporting fell on 12 December (a retroactive legislative amendment in effect as of 1 January 2017 moved the statutory due date to the fifteen day of the month) and recognized the Pension Fund's fault, but held instead that the amended report had been filed eight days past due. Represented by INTELLECT, BauTex appealed to the Russian Federation Supreme Court whose Commercial Chamber reviewed the case "in supervision" (on certiorari) and overturned the lower courts decisions, holding, firstly, that a PF contributor's independent correction of the Fund's error and updated reporting excluded liability, and ruling, secondly, that the Pension Fund had missed the statute of repose deadline, fining BauTex past the cut-off date prescribed in the Tax Code. https://intellectpro.ru/en/press/commenters/supreme_court_against_pension_fund/ 2020-01-06 https://intellectpro.ru/en/press/commenters/the_2018_2019_engagements_included_representations_in_six_court_cases/ INTELLECT-S represents on a regular basis Linde Gas Rus, the Russian operation of the German-based international group Linde, specialising in industrial and medical gases (such as nitrogen oxides and oxygen) and associated engineering, in contesting the enforcement of administrative closure of its industrial operation in Central European Russia. https://intellectpro.ru/en/press/commenters/the_2018_2019_engagements_included_representations_in_six_court_cases/ 2019-12-25 https://intellectpro.ru/en/press/commenters/case_find_a_solution/ INTELLECT Law Firm swung into action to resolve a conflict between a developer and a municipality at the "all is lost, boss" stage. And the path to find a way out of the situation at hand proved to be longer and more difficult than could be initially anticipated. But a virtually lost case was resplendently carried through till final victory thanks to the lawyers' ability to think outside the box. The story began with the acquisition by an entrepreneur of a 100% equity stake in the authorized capital of a developer, Strelets LLC. Strelets had on lease two land plots provided by a municipality for development based on the results of a public auction. The problems were with lease precisely, but at the time when he purchased the company, the businessman did not know about it because he did not consult with the lawyers and, correspondingly, conducted no due diligence. Thus, the entrepreneur became the owner of an organization that owed land rentals to the city authorities. It also came to light that the municipality had unilaterally repudiated the lease agreements with Strelets LLC out of court because of that debt. Moreover, an entry of terminated lease had already been made in the Unified State Register of Real Estate, and the municipality filed a lawsuit for recovering the debt under the lease agreements. As a result, Strelets not only forfeited the right to the land plots and their development, but was also forced to tackle the problem of paying off the debt to the municipality in the amount of 1.8 million rubles. The business turned to INTELLECT Law Firm for help. Strelets' rights to the land were restored by INTELLECT's Senior Partner Roman Rechkin and Inna Kumanyova, Head of Practice, "Real Estate: Execution, Registration of Rights, Representation With State and Municipal Bodies". The municipality's disposition was constructive because they were interested in Strelets' investments in construction. The city administration and Strelets LLC signed a settlement agreement prepared by the lawyers. The parties to the conflict agreed to consider the municipality's repudiation of the lease agreements as having become void and to reduce the amount of the rent arrears which the developer undertook to pay off. That would have been the end of it to the mutual satisfaction of the parties. But, as the phrase goes, the trouble came from where it couldn't be expected: the arbitration court had no desire to approve the settlement agreement. The court deemed the items of the document dealing with the restoration of the terminated lease agreements to be unacceptable. According to the court, the recognition of the municipality's repudiation of the lease agreements as having lost force was effectively the new provision of the land plots to Strelets, and that is only possible through holding a public auction. Correspondingly, the arbitration court determined that the conditions of the settlement agreement ran contrary to the law and violated the public interests; consequently, the court dismissed the settlement agreement. That clearly absurd determination of the court of first instance was upheld by the court of appeals and by the cassation court. Strelets LLC forfeited the rights to the land plots. And it seemed there was no chance to return them. However, INTELLECT's lawyers were able to restore the forfeited rights by coming up with an outside-the-box solution: a lawsuit was filed with court demanding that the municipality's repudiation of the lease agreements be held invalid as a unilateral transaction. The lawyers pointed out that, notwithstanding the existence of rent arrears, the municipality had no right to repudiate the agreements out of court. The lawyers emphasized that the matter could only be handled by the court. The claim was upheld entailing the restoration of the lease agreements for the land plots, with the rights to develop them returned to Strelets. https://intellectpro.ru/en/press/commenters/case_find_a_solution/ 2019-10-09 https://intellectpro.ru/en/press/commenters/bad_faith_competition_case/ Azbuka, one of the publishing houses owned by firm's client, Azbuka Atticus, is publishing 'World Classics', a good selling series of the 19th and 20th centuries' literature consisting of more than 160 titles. Azbuka Atticus, holding the 5th place in the number of titles printed in 2016, sued its competitor AST, a still bigger publishing group, when the latter launched a series of its own, 'All-World Literature' in the fall of 2016, in a form closely resembling Azbuka's: almost identical format, get-up, theme, typography, covers, and even prices, to say nothing of the titles, displayed on the same shelves in the same bookstores. Sensing illegal knowing bad-faith competition, Azbuka retained INTELLECT-S to represent it before the Federal Antimonopoly Service, seeking a cease and desist order. AST, the defendant in the proceedings, argued that the similarity was not obvious, and, if at all, was a mere coincidence resulting from the same subject (classic literature of the past), but failed, however, to demonstrate any other publishers' products as similar in get-up to the client's. https://intellectpro.ru/en/press/commenters/bad_faith_competition_case/ 2018-04-12 https://intellectpro.ru/en/press/commenters/5_million_award_in_domain_name_dispute/ INTELLECT represented Eastern Europe's biggest manufacturer of flexible heat-insulated plastic pipes for central heating and hot-water supply distribution networks, PolymerTeplo, in a domain name dispute compounded by a flagrant trademark infringement and unfair competition. In 2015 PolymerTeplo found, to its dismay, a website with the domain name www.polimerteplo.ru (differing only by one letter from the client's national domain name www.polymerteplo.ru), whose owner not only advertised and promoted directly competing products on the site, but also claimed they were PolymerTeplo products' counterparts. https://intellectpro.ru/en/press/commenters/5_million_award_in_domain_name_dispute/ 2018-01-16 https://intellectpro.ru/en/press/commenters/lawsuit_against_company_s_cfo_and_vice_ceo/ INTELLECT-S has successfully represented OOO RusElProm Engineering ("REP Engineering"), a bankrupt subsidiary of a big Russian electric engineering concern, RusElProm, in parallel civil and criminal proceedings against its former CFO and Vice CEO who had converted over RUB4,250,000 in undue self-awarded cash bonuses in 2009/11. REP Engineering's receiver discovered the conversions in 2013, after the bankruptcy proceedings were initiated, and filed first a civil suit seeking to hold them both subsidiarily liable, and then had them criminally indicted under Article 159(3) of the Penal Code ("conversion of the property of other persons by breach of trust or abuse of office"). The civil court, however, found for the defence on grounds that the defendants, acting as CFO and a Vice CEO, had had the legitimate authority to award cash bonuses to REP Engineering's staff, including themselves as members of the staff. The civil judgment became a res judicata which precluded REP Engineering as the aggrieved party from pursuing charges in the subsequent criminal trial. As a result, the court had acquitted both defendants by the time INTELLECT-S stepped in, retained by the REP Engineering to review the validity of the grounds and legality of the acquittal, and appeal it. A thorough review of the 40 volumes of the criminal case showed that the civil court's judgment and the acquittal based on it were groundless. The civil court had disregarded that REP Engineering's CFO and Vice CEO were not the company's employees, but, in fact, full-time employees of the parent company (i.e. RusElProm) under their respective employment agreements with RusElProm. They acted as REP Engineering's CFO and Vice CEO under their respective powers of attorney issued by RusElProm, and were not, therefore, members of REP Engineering's staff entitled to bonuses payable on behalf of REP Engineering; their PoAs did not authorise them that entitlement, either expressly or implicitly. https://intellectpro.ru/en/press/commenters/lawsuit_against_company_s_cfo_and_vice_ceo/ 2017-11-22 https://intellectpro.ru/en/press/commenters/saving_the_restaurant_business/ INTELLECT-S successfully represented a Novosibirsk restaurateur in a suit filed by the Novosibirsk regional procurator (state attorney) for the avoidance of the purchase of property housing its restaurant. The attorney contested the restaurateur's purchase of the property two days before the expiration of the statutory three years' period of limitation on grounds that RUB13.5 million the restaurateur had duly paid under the purchase agreement with the municipality for the property according to an independent valuation, was allegedly 20 percent below its fair market price. The attorney sought to have the transaction reversed, the property returned and the price the restaurateur had paid, credited as rent. https://intellectpro.ru/en/press/commenters/saving_the_restaurant_business/ 2017-09-04 https://intellectpro.ru/en/press/commenters/recovering_hopeless_debt/ INTELLECT-S successfully represented a Moscow-based liquor wholesaler in insolvency proceedings against its customers co-owning once the biggest retail liquor chain in Sverdlovsk Region. The chain, consisting of some 150 outlets and owned by an array of affiliated entities, defaulted on payments to suppliers, including INTELLECT-S's client, early in 2016 and went into liquidation. Debts owed to our client were hopeless; the liquidated corporate owners had no assets to recover from. However, the client had a personal guarantee that retail liquor chain beneficial owner (a private individual) had given the our client for the obligations of an outlet in her chain earlier. It appeared that a substantial part of the private beneficial owner's assets (realty and vehicles) had been assigned to third parties in anticipation of recovery under the guarantee. https://intellectpro.ru/en/press/commenters/recovering_hopeless_debt/ 2017-05-22 https://intellectpro.ru/en/press/commenters/763/ INTELLECT-S successfully represented a limited liability company in a suit filed by its dead CEO's personal creditor for the enforcement of an unauthorised guarantee given by the CEO on behalf of the company and equally unauthorised mortgage on the company's all real estate. The majority shareholder who owned 50% of the company, OOO SuperTorg, and was its CEO at the same time, borrowed personal loans on the security of all of the company's real property and a guarantee he issued on behalf of SuperTorg without the knowledge of the other two members, who owned the other 50% of the company between themselves, in breach of the bylaws and his own fiduciary duties as both CEO and member. Neither the guarantee nor the mortgage had due statutory corporate approvals. After the majority member/CEO's sudden death, his lender sued the unsuspecting company for the enforcement of the guarantee and mortgage to a total of RUB17 million. The death of the CEO as the majority shareholder left the two minority holders in a legal trap, technically inquorate to do anything; they could neither appoint a new CEO, nor take any other lawful corporate action, nor even admit the dead shareholder's successors as new members. https://intellectpro.ru/en/press/commenters/763/ 2017-04-11 https://intellectpro.ru/en/press/commenters/752/ INTELLECT-S is representing the Kopernik Group of Companies a large supplier and servicer of machinery and equipment for construction of foundations and basements in a pending suit over alleged illegal use of a manufacturer's trademark. Kopernik offered its customer to buy a DELMAG diesel pile hammer while it had no pile hammer to sell. The hammer manufacturer and owner of the DELMAG trademark, the German company DELMAG GmbH und Co. KG, represented by Beiten Burkhardt, sued Kopernik for what it alleged was illegal use of the trademark, claiming USD1,360,400 in damages double Kopernik's quote. https://intellectpro.ru/en/press/commenters/752/ 2017-03-15 https://intellectpro.ru/en/press/commenters/738/ INTELLECT-S is representing a US-incorporated company out of Nevada (controlled by a Russian-based sole trader) owning 50 per cent in a Russian LLC engaged in the import and supply of electric equipment, in which the other half belongs to a Russian private individual, in a series of consecutive vexatious legal actions filed by the latter in an attempt to harass the "US" member out of the business. The Russian sole trader controlling the Nevadan member company also happens to be the Russian LLC's CEO. The once friendly partnership between the two equity members soured and finally ended in 2015 when the Russian individual offered to buy out his partner's Nevadan company. Refused, the Russian individual started harassing his CEO partner by requesting unnecessary documents, contesting his transactions entered into in his capacity as CEO, and finally filing a series of meritless suits in order to compromise his management. https://intellectpro.ru/en/press/commenters/738/ 2017-02-07 https://intellectpro.ru/en/press/commenters/737/ INTELLECT-S represented the founding member of a research-intensive LLC (in which he was a driving force) in a conflict with the other equity member who was also the company's CEO. INTELLECT-S's client sued his partner in 2015 after the CEO refused to disclose the company's records and accounts for 2013 and 2014. The researching member obtained the records for 2013 after his INTELLECT-S counsel filed for the enforcement of the judgment entered in his favour, and the 2014 records, in the courtroom even before the judgment was pronounced. Dmitry Zagainov, INTELLECT-S partner, andAnatoly Zazulin, INTELLECT-S associate, reviewed the records and found that the CEO had awarded himself RUB2,040,000 in unauthorised bonuses. Represented by INTELLECT-S, the researching member sued his managing partner again for the recovery of damages the CEO had caused to the company paying himself unwarranted bonuses. https://intellectpro.ru/en/press/commenters/737/ 2017-01-17 https://intellectpro.ru/en/press/commenters/the_method_of_effective_debt_recovery/ INTELLECT-S represented the Gradostroitelnaya Kompania NN ("GKNN") in bankruptcy proceedings against its two joint and several debtors. GKNN is an active investor in the residential and commercial construction industry in Nizhny Novgorod. The two debtors were GKNN's large investment targets.The case was one of the biggest that our Nizhny Novgorod office has ever handled. It was remarkable both for the large principal amount and interest we helped the client to recover in full, and for two jointly and severally liable co-debtors under four loan agreements, Nizhegordkapstroi, one of Nizhny Novgorod biggest developers ("Nizhegorodkapstroi"), and SU155, a construction company. The recovery of the debt was unusual from the technical point of view. To ensure effective recovery of the overdue debt, our client initiated bankruptcy proceedings against both debtors. As a joint and several co-debtor, SU155 performed the obligations for the other, Nizhegorodkapstroi, after the initiation of the proceedings, when the case was already scheduled for hearing. We convinced the court that the funds paid by SU155 had to be applied in the order of priority set out in the Civil Code, that is, first towards the payment of legal costs, then towards the payment of interest accrued on the principal amounts of the loans in the chronological order (both before and, importantly, after the judgments for the collection of the debts had been entered), and only then, towards the payment of the principal amounts. https://intellectpro.ru/en/press/commenters/the_method_of_effective_debt_recovery/ 2016-12-15 https://intellectpro.ru/en/press/commenters/the_trademark_has_been_effectively_protected/ Our client, a Moscow area based engineering company named Zevs Technologies, a leading supplier of a broad range of its own manufactured and imported technology for welding, installing, diagnosing and cleaning pipes and pipelines, and high-pressure apparatus, and distributing related products manufactured by leading US, Canadian, UK, French, Belgian, German, Swedish and other producers, filed an action against its former distributor which unlawfully continued using Zevs' trademark and website domain name to market competing products. Before we filed the suit on Zevs' behalf, we contacted the host of its ex-distributor's website asking to shut down the breaching site featuring our client's trademark. The hoster refused, so we joined him as a co-defendant in a suit filed with the nearest court, in St.Petersburg, instead of the Altai Territory (3,500 kilometers from Moscow), where the first defendant is based. In preparing the action, we looked to the recent case law of the Intellectual Property Court and formulated our claims so that our client had the preemptive right to have the defendant's domain name registered in its name.On our motion, the court put an injunction on the transfer of the domain name registration to any third person (as is frequently done by domain name squatters). We sought RUB1,100,000 in damages from the breaching ex-distributor and its owner as the registrant of the breaching domain name. Seeking joint and several relief against the owner was to ensure early and effective enforcement. We also sought relief against the website hoster who refused to cooperate. This move may create a precedent in Internet case law governing websites and domain names. https://intellectpro.ru/en/press/commenters/the_trademark_has_been_effectively_protected/ 2016-11-23 https://intellectpro.ru/en/press/commenters/the_bank_was_right_accruing_the_interest/ One of the Bank's borrowers prepaid his mortgage loan and sued the lender for the alleged "extra" interest the bank had charged on the outstanding remainder of the principal for the entire original loan period. Despite the fixed annuity repayment plan under the loan agreement, the borrower had been repaying the loan in much larger installments, which the borrower alleged had included the interest accrued for the period when he was not already using the prepaid loan, and supported his case with an expert accountant's opinion. The borrower also cited to a 2012 holding of the Presidium of the Russian Federation Commercial Court, which entitles prepaying borrowers to the refund of unearned interest, if annuities have been overpaid. The holding and the subsequent professional commentary generated a tidal wave of actions in which courts sided with the borrowers. https://intellectpro.ru/en/press/commenters/the_bank_was_right_accruing_the_interest/ 2016-11-10