GILS Dispute Resolution: Russia (2026)

CASE №1:

Igor Stepanov

Protection of an investment project in the bankruptcy case of a developer (case No. А53-16249-12/2021)

The client owned land plots that were transferred to an investor-developer for the implementation of a large-scale project to construct an apartment building. Within the framework of the project, a complex legal model was implemented:

• A land lease agreement was concluded with rent paid in the form of transferring real estate units;
• A shared construction participation agreement was signed;
• The parties' obligations were terminated by an agreement on set-off of mutual claims.

Upon the project's completion, the client received 3,500 sq. m of non-residential premises in the constructed building.

Less than a year after the transfer of the property, bankruptcy proceedings were initiated against the developer. The bankruptcy trustee filed a petition with the court to declare the transfer of real estate and the set-off agreement as suspect transactions.

For the client, this project was a key asset and the foundation of their business, valued at 210,000,000 rubles. Invalidating the transactions would have meant the actual loss of strategic property and significant financial losses.

Our team supported the project at all stages - from the initial structuring of the investment model to protecting the principal's interests in the commercial courts of three instances.

During the litigation, we carried out extensive work on evidence and procedure:

• Prepared expert critiques of the bankruptcy trustee's appraiser reports;
• Developed a comprehensive legal position and filed numerous procedural documents refuting the arguments of the trustee and competing creditors;
• Initiated a court-ordered valuation expert examination in the court of first instance, the conduct of which was assigned to an expert proposed by us;
• Proved the absence of indications of suspect transactions, including:
  
  • The absence of intent to harm creditors;
  • The absence of unequal consideration;
  • The absence of affiliation between the parties;
  • The absence of signs of the debtor's insolvency at the time of the transactions.

The court of first instance denied the bankruptcy trustee's claims. The appellate court overturned the ruling and declared the transactions invalid. The cassation court overturned the appellate ruling and upheld the judicial act of the first instance.

As a result, the client retained ownership of the 3,500 sq. m of non-residential premises and ensured the stability of their business.

CASE №2:

Vladislava Novokreshchenova

Protection of the client’s interests in a dispute with the Northwestern Main Directorate of the Bank of Russia.

The company operates in the financial services market and holds all necessary licenses required to carry out its activities.

The dispute arose from the client being brought to administrative liability under Part 1 of Article 19.7.3 of the Code of Administrative Offences of the Russian Federation (CAO RF) for the late submission of mandatory reporting. At the time the case was considered, the client had already committed prior violations under the same article and had two effective administrative rulings that had entered into legal force. The matter was critically important for the client, as it was necessary to avoid a substantial fine and to minimize financial and reputational risks. The complexity of the case was further compounded by the fact that, in similar cases, courts rarely recognize such violations as insignificant.

The legal team conducted a thorough review of the evidence and factual circumstances and developed a comprehensive legal strategy that enabled them to persuade the court to recognize the minor nature of the offence. The lawyers also provided evidence of the client’s consistent compliance with the regulator’s requirements and confirmation that the technical error which caused the delay in reporting had been fully remedied.

The key outcome was not only the revocation of the initial administrative decision, but also the preservation of the client’s business reputation and the effective protection of its interests in dealings with supervisory authorities. The implemented strategy also strengthened the client’s defense against potential future claims by the regulator.