Projects

Lawyers from the Siberian Office have helped a client to preserve more than RUB 4 billion Lawyers from Pepeliaev Group’s Siberian Office have helped a developer to prepare a legal position to defend in court against a claim of the Federal Supervisory Natural Resources Management Service (abbreviated in Russian as ‘Rosprirodnadzor’) to collect more than RUB 4 billion as compensation for damage.

We protected the client’s interests before the Supreme Court in another dispute concerning mineral extraction tax on the extraction of gold concentrates A team from Pepeliaev Group’s tax practice successfully protected the interests of Kosvinsky Kamen CJSC before the Russian Supreme Court in a further dispute concerning the taxation of the extraction of concentrates and other intermediate materials containing gold, platinum and other precious metals.

Pepeliaev Group’s lawyers protected the interests of a company’s CEO in a dispute about secondary liability for RUB 2.3 billion

Successfully protected a transaction for nearly RUB 85 million in the bankruptcy of a contracting party In the bankruptcy case of a management company, the team of the Bankruptcy and Anti-Crisis Protection of Business Practice succeeded in having the ruling cancelled which had invalidated payments received by the client for services provided.

Successfully provided legal support to a client in obtaining official clarifications from the Russian Federal Customs Service A major Russian shipping company specialising in sea transportation of hydrocarbons instructed us to assist it in obtaining official clarifications of the Russian Ministry of Finance on whether it was required to obtain the customs authority’s permission and perform customs transactions in the situation as follows. 

Pepeliaev Group’s St Petersburg Office has helped its client to win a complicated corporate dispute Our lawyers from St Petersburg corporate practice have successfully defended interests of a public enterprise, a large regional producer of bread and pastries, in a dispute with its former shareholders who sought to challenge a resolution of the enterprise’s supervisory board regarding how the redemption price of shares had been established.