Service
When a counterparty fails to pay under a supply, work, services, lease or loan contract, claims for the debt, contractual penalty and interest for late payment are brought in court, including against sureties.
We are most often instructed by:
The information on this website is provided for information purposes only and does not constitute a public offer.
Timing and fees are indicative and are confirmed when the engagement is agreed.
Recovery of receivables begins with the documents: the contract, delivery notes and acceptance certificates, reconciliation statements and the parties' correspondence. They show what amount can be substantiated and what objections are possible.
The running of the limitation period is interrupted by an acknowledgement of the debt, such as a reconciliation statement signed by an authorized person or a request to defer payment or to pay by instalments.
If a contractual monetary obligation is supported by documents, the debtor acknowledges it but does not perform it, and the amount does not exceed the limit set by law, the claim is considered by the commercial (arbitrazh) court under the court order procedure. The applicable procedure – court order or ordinary claim – is determined by the requirements of the law, taking into account the documents and whether there is a dispute as to the right.
Obtaining a court ruling for recovery does not in itself mean that the money will be received. Information on assets and accounts is gathered before going to court: it is used to assess interim measures and the enforcement procedure.
The outcome of the service is the work performed within the scope agreed with the client.
The position is built on the documents and the circumstances of the case; the following points are relevant.
On the basis of the materials, the strengths and weaknesses of the position, the risks and the possible courses of action are identified.
For the chosen option, a plan is drawn up: the sequence of steps, timing and scope of work.
Appeals against court rulings
Challenge
The lower courts granted the claims of the insolvency administrator and the creditors to hold the director of a bankrupt company personally liable for its debts.
What was done
The case was taken to the Supreme Court. The good faith of each management decision was proved, and the Supreme Court set aside the rulings of the lower courts.
Challenging Transactions
Challenge
Shortly before its insolvency, the debtor diverted its assets through a chain of formally independent transactions, each of which looked like an ordinary business operation.
What was done
The full chain was reconstructed, and the interconnection of the transactions and the invalidity of each link were proved. The assets were returned to the bankruptcy estate in full.
Recovery of Damages
Challenge
The former director caused losses to the company, expecting that it would not be possible to gather evidence: numerous transactions, a branching structure and blurred chains of cause and effect.
What was done
A systematic analysis was carried out: the chronology of decisions was reconstructed, the link between the transactions and the damage was identified, and bad faith was proved. The damages were recovered in full; the court granted the claims without any reduction.
Defence against challenges
Challenge
There were attempts, by challenging transactions, to bring the client's property – acquired, paid for and in commercial use – into the bankruptcy estate of an insolvent counterparty.
What was done
The legal position was built on the independent nature of the client's ownership. The court dismissed all the claims challenging the transactions, and the assets were retained in full without concessions or settlement agreements.
Challenging resolutions
Challenge
The majority participant systematically blocked the distribution of profits by voting at the general meeting. The company was generating income, but the minority participant did not receive its share of the profits.
What was done
The general meeting resolutions were challenged. A mechanism compelling the distribution of profits was implemented through the courts.
The documents in which the acknowledgement is expressed are examined: reconciliation statements, letters and requests for deferral. It is checked whether the claim is to be considered under the court order procedure or the ordinary claim procedure, and whether an agreement on a repayment schedule with a contractual penalty for late payment is possible.
Information is gathered on the debtor's assets, counterparties and related transactions, and interim measures are assessed.
If the assets are insufficient, other ways of protecting the claim are discussed.
The order is cancelled if the debtor submits objections within the prescribed time limit; in that case, the claim may be brought under the ordinary claim procedure. A statement of claim with a calculation of the debt, contractual penalty or interest is prepared, and the objections the debtor raised against the order are examined.
The terms are weighed against the prospects of recovery and the counterparty's financial position. If the case is already in court, the terms may be set out in a settlement agreement approved by the court.
An hourly rate, a fixed fee or a combined model is used; in some cases part of the fee depends on the outcome achieved. The fee is determined by the time actually spent, the complexity of the matter and the overall timeframe of the project, and is agreed before work begins.
Describe your matter and the circumstances in which it arose. The consultation establishes the possible structure of the work and the scope of legal support required.
