THE COURT REQUIRES THE LAW FIRM TO RETURN 1.7 MILLION TO THE BANKRUPTCY ESTATE

The Arbitration Court of the West Siberian District (AS ZSO) considered the complaint of the bankruptcy trustee in the bankruptcy case of JSC "INGA" (No. A75-23174/2019). It was about payment by a firm that has professional lawyers in its staff, legal services of a third-party organization (LLC "Tenkon").

The company "INGA" (oil operator servicing Ruspetro) signed a contract with the firm "Tenkon" for legal services, the portal reports Право.ги . This was done after the firm informed about its intention to start bankruptcy. The consultations themselves, as experts note, were not complicated and dealt exclusively with general bankruptcy issues.

In the staff of the company "INGA" at the same time, two specialists worked on a salary. In parallel, the organization was advised by Tensor Legal. The persons controlling the company's activities received additional consultations from the bar association. The arbitration manager Konstantin Sichev considered such multiple consultations excessive and too expensive for a structure experiencing financial difficulties with the payment of debt obligations.

According to Sichevoy's calculations, the transaction did not meet the requirement of reasonableness. While the usual cost of such services was 73,000 rubles, the organization paid third-party lawyers an amount many times higher than the market average. Sichev filed a petition to arbitration, demanding that the money be returned to the bankruptcy estate. However, neither the court of first instance nor the appeal supported the bankruptcy trustee's request. The judges did not find any signs of dishonesty in the transaction between INGA and Tenkon.

AS ZSO did not agree with colleagues. The court found out that the company "Tenkon" advised the oil operator without taking into account specifics. The company's specialists did not analyze the documentation of the organization planning to start bankruptcy.

The counter representation from JSC "INGA" turned out to be unequal. Moreover, the contract for the provision of legal services itself assumed deeper and more thorough consultations. They were never implemented. As a result, the court issued a verdict on the return of 1.7 million rubles, which make up the difference between the real price and the payment made.

Photo: Wikipedia