Judgment of the Presidium of the Supreme Commercial Court of 26 March 2013 № 14828/12 in the case Condominium "Skakovaya 5" vs The company "Arteks Corporation"
- Court:
- Supreme Commercial Court
- Points of law: 1) whether findings having pre-judicial significance should be set out in reasoned part of court decision or only in the resolutive one? 2) how the burden of proof should be apportioned by a court if there are reasons to believe that a party to the dispute, an offshore company, abuses the law – namely, it hides its affiliation with a party to an earlier dispute having pre-judicial significance, with the purpose of overcoming pre-judicial effect of the previous decision by appearing as a new party in the later dispute on the same issues.
Subject areas:
Judgment of the Presidium of the Supreme Commercial Court of 20 March 2012 № 14989/11 in the case The company “IunitPrestizh” vs The company “Uiut-Stroi” et al.
- Court:
- Supreme Commercial Court
- Point of law: if in the course of judicial proceedings it has been found that the defendant behaved in an unscrupulous manner, in particular, if he refused to disclose the necessary information, whether the plaintiff should then prove the facts he stated to be true, or the burden of proving or, rather, refuting them should be shifted upon the defendant?
Subject areas:
Judgment of the Presidium of the Supreme Commercial Court of 15 March 2012 № 16067/11 in the case Corporation “Aelita Software Corporation” (USA) vs The Interdistrict Inspection of Federal Tax Service № 47 for the City of Moscow
- Court:
- Supreme Commercial Court
- Point of law: who must prove the reasonability of expenses incurred by the winning party for court representation when this party demands their reimbursement?
Subject areas:
Judgment of the Presidium of the Supreme Commercial Court of 6 March 2012 № 12505/11 in the case The company “Doroga” vs G.P.Semenenko
- Court:
- Supreme Commercial Court
- Point of law: what are the standards of reasonable and in good faith behaviour of the chief manager of the company and how the burden of proof should be distributed if the plaintiff (shareholder of the company) submits weighty arguments of the disputed transactions being interrelated and of the chief manager of the company being in the situation of a conflict of interests?
- Dissenting opinion:
- Dedov Dmitriy
Subject areas:
Have you spotted a typo?
Highlight it, click Ctrl+Enter and send us a message. Thank you for your help!
To be used only for spelling or punctuation mistakes.