Service
Disagreements with a counterparty over a debt, performance or contract terms can be resolved before any court proceedings by agreement between the parties. A letter of claim and the reply to it are prepared bearing in mind that they may be submitted to the court as evidence.
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.
The other party's willingness to settle depends on its assessment of the prospects of the dispute. A claim supported by a calculation and documents and a claim in general terms meet with different responses. Claims handling begins with an assessment of one's own position and that of the other party.
An agreement between the parties can cover more than a judgment on a claim: it can amend the terms of the contract, provide for payment by instalments, set off mutual claims of the same kind, allocate losses and preserve the relationship.
The settlement terms are weighed against the length of the proceedings, their cost, the cost of waiting and the likelihood that the judgment will be enforced. This comparison shows which concession is justified and when negotiations cease to serve a purpose.
The terms reached need to be documented: oral arrangements and correspondence without precise wording may lead to a new dispute over what exactly was agreed.
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.
Under the Arbitrazh Procedure Code, the pre-trial claim procedure is, as a general rule, mandatory in disputes over monetary claims arising from contracts, other transactions and unjust enrichment; in other civil disputes, it is mandatory if established by federal law or by contract. Under the Civil Procedure Code, it is mandatory if provided for by federal law for the category of dispute concerned.
If the mandatory procedure is not followed, the claim may be left without consideration. Whether the procedure applies is checked against the contract and the nature of the claim before the documents are prepared.
The claim is checked against the documents: which facts are supported, which can be disputed and which amounts match the calculation. The wording of the reply is chosen bearing in mind that a written acknowledgement of the debt may interrupt the running of the limitation period.
It is also considered whether to propose settlement terms in the reply itself.
A settlement agreement may be concluded at any stage of the proceedings and during enforcement of the court ruling; it is approved by the court. The agreement may provide, among other things, for performance in instalments, forgiveness of the debt or acknowledgement of the debt.
Deadlines, security and the consequences of breach are set out in the agreement itself. In the event of a breach, a notice is prepared and further steps, including going to court, are assessed.
A settlement agreement approved by the court and not performed voluntarily is subject to compulsory enforcement.
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.
