Projects

Pepeliaev Group's specialists successfully challenged a fiscal authority's assessment that the interest under credit agreements entered into with borrowers constituted additional income of the client bank when bankruptcy proceedings were under way involving such borrowers, over the period between the supervision procedure being initiated and the receivership proceedings being initiated. Moreover, our lawyers managed to prove that: there were no grounds for the tax authority to deny the bank a set-off of the profit tax withheld when the income was paid that had been received abroad; and there were no grounds to assess VAT on the value of the sold vehicles the bank received by foreclosing on the pledged property of borrowers who were individuals.

The lawyers from Pepeliaev Group’s bankruptcy practice have prepared an opinion for the subsidiary of a major national oil and gas corporation with an assessment of the risks relating to the set off of the counter claims of the potentially bankrupt company. The legal analysis of the situation, as well as of legislation and case law, has revealed significant risks that the assets will be lost even if the debt of the insolvent contractor is settled by way of set off. Based on the recommendations prepared by our specialists the client took a business decision that ruled out financial losses. 

As part of a bankruptcy case, Pepeliaev Group's lawyers represented major telecommunications company Sitronics as a creditor, a former shareholder and a counterparty of the debtor, as well as acted for other companies within the group. Our lawyers successfully defended the client in nine proceedings in which transactions were contested. This made it possible to retain the group's assets worth RUB 2 billion. Moreover, our specialists managed to have a claim denied for secondary liability to be imposed on the client and on the debtor's director. The project is interesting because it involves multiple aspects and it forms case law relating to the regulations on secondary liability being applied over time. 

Pepeliaev Group’s lawyers advised an international manufacturer of automotive vehicles on an export model for the distribution of goods in the context of the antitrust legislation of Russia and the Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU).

Pepeliaev Group’s experts represented a Russian airline when it challenged the results of a tender and an agreement the vendor was forced to enter into with the airline. Despite there being no existing case law in this area, Pepeliaev Group’s lawyers managed to have the claim denied by the court of first instance and court of appeal, thus creating a legal precedent.

The Practice’s lawyers represented a large transport operator who, together with ten other companies, was accused of having entered into a cartel agreement and an anticompetitive agreement with a state authority.