- Represented the company in an antitrust case. Employees of A.T.Legal provided legal services to represent TGC-2 PJSC in the FAS of Russia during the consideration of the case on violation of antitrust law: we studied the problematic situation and the bidding practice of TGC-2 PJSC for 2017-2020, built a position on the case, carried out search and presentation of evidence to the FAS of Russia, conducted an analysis of the coal market, participated in meetings of the FAS of Russia Commission during the consideration of the case, drafted all necessary documents. Currently, the Arbitration Court for the City of Moscow has ruled that the decision of the FAS of Russia is illegal and subject to reversal.
- At the moment A.T.Legal also represents interests of TGC-2 in the FAS of Russia within the framework of an administrative case. After the Federal Antimonopoly Service of Russia ruled that TGC-2 violated the Law on Protection of Competition, our lawyers prepared and filed an application to challenge the decision of the antimonopoly authority, prepared all necessary documents, and represented TGC-2 in the Moscow Arbitration Court.
- Hospitals contacted A.T.Legal regarding manipulation and obstruction of bidding by third parties in state procurement of X-ray contrast agents for intravenous and intra-arterial injection for computed tomography; these are vital means, especially in the period of the COVID-19 pandemic. A.T. Legal managed to defend the hospitals' rights before antitrust authorities, and the complaints of RUSSPROF LLC were found groundless. A.T.Legal proved the necessity of the drugs purchased. Hospitals purchased the drugs they needed to treat COVID-19, and the suspensions in the timing of tenders due to complaints were minimal.
- We drew attention to the problem and, together with Kommersant, we provoked a broad discussion involving representatives of the professional community to analyze the situation and develop effective legal and organizational measures to prevent or significantly impede the activity of professional complainants.
- Representation of company's interests in the Intellectual Rights Court in a dispute with Rospatent. It is important for Pharm-Sintez JSC to protect exclusive rights with patents for invented new methods of drug production. This project is unique because for its successful implementation we had to understand details of drug production, principles of medication action in order to convincingly prove in court independence of the invented composition, differentiate the formula from other medications with the same active ingredient.
- Pharm-Sintez JSC approached us with a case of cancelling a tender and calling a new one with a correct and up-to-date price justification. The essence of our project was a reasoned justification of the contract price and elimination of errors made by the customer. Based on the tasks set by Pharm-Sintez JSC, we were able to promptly resolve the difficulties arising from the recognition of tenders as unlawful. We were able to cancel more than 20 tenders in a period not exceeding two months. What is important, the Customers took into account the mistakes on the basis of our explanations and in the shortest possible time re-published the order on the trading platform. Thus, we were able to optimize client's financial costs for legal support, and to reduce the time to achieve results, which is a direct indicator of the effectiveness of our work.
- At the beginning of October 2020, Pharm-Sintez JSC encountered significant difficulties in selling one of its drugs under the state procurement. The reason for the problem was that the government had forcibly changed the maximum prices for the medicines, significantly lowering them in the state register of prices for vital and essential medicines. These changes were adopted in late September - early October 2020, but did not take effect until the end of the first quarter of 2021. However, state customers - hospitals across Russia - decided not to take into account that the price set in 2020 will only become relevant in 2021. On the basis of which the justification of the initial maximum prices of tenders was inconsistent with the current cost of medicines. The essence of our project was to prove out-of-court and justify mistakes made by the Client, using tools provided by Federal Law No. 44. Our goal was to cancel tenders and reopen them with correct and relevant justification of the initial price, without spending time to contest tenders in antitrust authorities or the court, via competent requests without violating the law. On the basis of questions from Pharm-Sintez JSC we were able to promptly resolve difficulties. A.T.Legal were able to cancel more than 20 illegal tenders for not more than two months.
- Resolution of issues related to participation in state tenders of a distributor/supplier.
- Representation before the Federal Antimonopoly Service and territorial authorities.
- Representation of interests in the Arbitration Court concerning participation in state tenders, invalidation of tenders, contestation of decisions of the Federal Antimonopoly Service.
Defending the position of the Moscow Department of the Federal Antimonopoly Service in the Arbitration Court. An auction for the sale of land plots of 10200 sq.m. was conducted as part of the enforcement proceedings. The auction was conducted with violations, and was contested in the interests of our client, a private investor and bidder, before the Moscow Department of the Federal Antimonopoly Service. The FAS of Moscow found the complaint substantiated and issued an order to review the auction results. As a result, the Client was declared the winner. The legality of the decision and instruction of the Antimonopoly Service was contested by another bidder in the Moscow Arbitration Court. In order to conclude an agreement with our Client, it was necessary to keep the decision and instruction of the Moscow FAS in force, and not to find it unlawful. The case after the first hearing was sent for the second round on formal grounds. After the second round of consideration in three instances, the decision and instructions of the Moscow FAS were recognized as lawful and justified.
- Sberbank PJSC, TRUST BANK PJSC vs. TETIS Capital LLC - contestation of transactions in bankruptcy proceedings.
- Efficient bankruptcy proceedings against two companies - a borrower and a guarantor of a group of companies.
- A. T. Legal developed an out-of-court scenario for debt settlement, which was derailed by a premeditated bankruptcy due to a corporate war of debtor's beneficiaries.
- Effective four bankruptcy proceedings in favor of the bank.
- Preparation and execution of the sale transaction by the bank of its claims to 4 debtor companies included in the list of creditors.
Transcapitalbank's precedent case on the issue of independent (bank) guarantee, and included in the Kommersant's ranking of the best court disputes 2020 on the recovery from the guarantor TCB Bank PJSC on the disputed guarantee and interest.
Case on recovery in favor of the company of the bank guarantee and interest for the use of the third-party funds.
Support of legal proceedings with the participation of companies constituting the Development Division of the Fund in terms of judicial protection of the Fund's assets from third-party claims.
Case on the claim of a bankruptcy receiver of a large plant against SOVKOMBANK PJSC for recovery of interest for refusal of the guarantor bank to pay to the beneficiary under an independent guarantee. A.T.Legal was involved by the Client in connection with losing the case in appeal, in order to ensure a suspension of the execution of the appeal for recovery of the funds from the Client until the resolution of the cassation court, and to cancel the decision of appeal court by the cassation court, leaving in force the decision of the first instance court rendered in favor of the Client. The legal position and arguments prepared by A.T.Legal for the Client's appeal ensured that the cassation court issued a judicial act in favor of the Client: the ruling of appeal on recovery of the sum of money from the Client was cancelled, the decision of the first instance court in favor of the Client remained in force.