Monday, May 14
INSURANCE
Rosno vs Infrassure Ltd
Moscow District Federal Commercial Court
Swiss-based Infrassure challenged lower -court judgments awarding ROSNO insurance company 684.13 million rubles ($23.5 million) in reinsurance recovery, expenses and interest.
ROSNO insured JSC RusHydro’s property in 2008, including the Sayano-Shushenskaya hydropower plant. The insurer then reinsured its own risks with foreign companies. It entered into a reinsurance contract with Infrassure in January 2009.
The hydropower plant collapsed in 2009. ROSNO acknowledged its liability for the accident in February 2010, and paid $199.95 million in compensation. In turn, ROSNO appealed to Infrassure for indemnification through its reinsurance policy.
However, the reinsurer paid only $11.4 million out of the $34 million to be paid under the reinsurance contract.
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW
Domodedovo Airport Aviation Security et al. vs Transport watchdog
Tenth Commercial Court of Appeals
A terrorist bomb went off in Domodedovo airport in Moscow in January 2011 killing 37. Serious breaches to the airport security system were revealed in the aftermath. The transport watchdog (Rostransnadzor) obliged the airport to enhance security. Domodedovo was ordered to inspect all people entering the airport, assess the vulnerability level of the airport facilities and transport means as well as to develop a transport security plan.
The court later reversed the watchdog’s order upon request filed by several Domodedovo companies.
The watchdog appealed against the decision revoking its order.
CIVIL LAW
NLMK vs IDGC of Center
The Novolipetsk Iron & Steel Corporation (NLMK), leading Russian steel company, seeks to recover $301.3 million in unjustified enrichment from the IDGC of Center grid company.
The parties said earlier they were negotiating the amicable settlement of the dispute.
The IDGC of Center is engaged in electric energy transmission and connection to power lines.
Tuesday, May 15
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY
B.O.R.K. Elektronik GmbH vs ServiceTrade
B.O.R.K. Elektronik GmbH seeks to recover five million rubles ($168.710) from ServiceTrade, Tehnosila's operating company. The plaintiff believes that the HANSA air fresheners distributed by ServiceTrade are confusingly similar with Bork's products. In its lawsuit the company requests to prohibit the use of the air fresheners' trademark, remove fresheners from sale and destroy as well as compensate for the inflicted damage.
Wednesday, May 16
DEFAMATION
Auchan retail group vs News Media
The lawsuit centers upon the article about the tragedy in a Moscow family where two girls - four and seven years old - reportedly died after the entire family got poisoned with food bought at the Auchan store. The lawsuit was filed against News Media, the founder of the popular website which published the article.
PROPRIETARY RIGHTS
Moscow business center vs Department for Georgian Interests in Russia
Ostozhenka business center in Moscow seeks to recover a $806,451 debt from the Department for Georgian Interests which perform consular functions in Russia, claiming that it failed to pay rent and utility bills.
The claimant earlier maintained that the department must be evicted from the building it occupies.
The Department for Georgian Interests in Russia performs.
DEBT RECOVERY
Bank of Moscow vs Premier Estate, TD Ramenskaya
Ninth Commercial Court of Appeals
The Bank of Moscow filed a lawsuit against TD Ramenskaya, a company owned by former Moscow mayor's wife Yelena Baturina, and Premier Estate for a total of $446.8 million.
The bank demands debt recovery. A loan was issued by the bank to the Premier Estate company in 2009, while TD Ramenskaya acted as a guarantor.
In February the claim was fully satisfied and Premier Estate lodged an appeal against the judgment.
The Bank of Moscow is one of Russia's leading universal commercial banks in terms of assets, capital and amount of funds drawn from the population, the bank's website reads.
Thursday, May 17
COMPETITION
Gazprom vs Antimonopoly watchdog
Ninth Commercial Court of Appeals
The Federal Antimonopoly Service declared in September 2011 that Gazprom violated competition law during an open bidding for contracts on its bonds placement.
Gazprom summed up the bidding results in April 2010. Renaissance Capital and Gazprombank were granted the mandate to place its bonds worth 300 billion rubles ($9.6 billion), which at the time was the largest borrowing program on the Russian market.
The antitrust authority has established that Gazprom unlawfully overstated the importance of an aspect of the bids appraisal, thus giving preference to an inferior bid.
The court held for Gazprom in January and reversed the watchdog's decision. The watchdog challenged the judgment.
Friday, May18
DEVELOPMENT
Development company vs Finance Ministry
Sredniye Torgovye Ryady (The Middle Shopping Mall) company seeks to fully recover the expenses for the renovation project on Moscow's Red Square.
The renovation project was designed in 2000. However, the building, which was subject to renovation, was granted to the Federal Protective Service in 2010. The previous owner of the building considered the contract to be terminated as it was no longer able to fulfill the project.
The development company initially claimed 3.6 billion rubles ($114.9 million) in damages.
